D&D 5E Could SCAG be power creep?

[Sword of Spirit]

I think the problem is that attacks scale in power differently for different classes. One good illustration is the fighter and the rogue. The fighter, largely, scales up its attack with more attacks. The rogue, on the other hand, keeps its one attack but it becomes more and more lethal over time. These new melee cantrips don't deal with those kinds of scaling in the same way.

Even at the cost of a feat in lieu of +2 to a stat, a rogue gains so much and sacrifices so little by taking one of those cantrips.

Sure, it's pretty good for a rogue. Probably pushing into the exploit territory. Also good for a cleric with Divine Strike.

Personally, if someone were going to take it with rogue for a mechanical super-damage concept, I would strongly discourage it, but they likely wouldn't be playing in my game anyway because my players prefer not to optimize significantly above the level of the rest of the party.

But anyone who wants to play a 3e-style lightly armored rapier bard can now take Lore bard and use Additional Magical Secrets to pick up greenflame blade or booming blade and actually be primarily melee. Before they came out they were truly stuck with a design that wouldn't allow a primary melee build. Unfortunately, the one other subclass that had the exact same problem (Land Druid) doesn't derive as much benefit from it, because they need a feat to get it, and I really think that is asking too much to allow a druid to choose a combat style other than poor ranged attack cantrips or turning into a bear.

 

[Flamestrike]

Sure, it's pretty good for a rogue. Probably pushing into the exploit territory. Also good for a cleric with Divine Strike.

Personally, if someone were going to take it with rogue for a mechanical super-damage concept, I would strongly discourage it, but they likely wouldn't be playing in my game anyway because my players prefer not to optimize significantly above the level of the rest of the party.

Its actualy weaker than TWF. Its certainly not an' expolit'.

Assume target AC of 16. Attack bonus of +5. Sneak attack +3d6. Cantrip damage +1d8. Rough maths:

• Rogue with cantrip has a 50 percent chance to hit, dealing (1d8+dex) + (3d6) + (1d8) damage. 50 percent of around 35 damage = around 12.5 DPR
• Rogue with TWF has a 75 percent chance to hit dealing (ignoring off hand damage) (1d6+dex) + (3d6) damag or around 20 damage or around 15 DPR.

The TWF rogue comes out ahead in DPR.

Assume target AC of 21. Attack bonus +11, Sneak attack +10d6. Cantrip damage +3d8.

• Rogue with cantrip = (50/4d8+5+10d6) around 30 DPR.
• Rogue with TWF = (75/11d6+5) or around 33 DPR.

TWF rogue wins out again.

For the cost of a bonus action to TWF (and saving yourself a feat in the process) your DPR with TWF on a rogue is equal or often better than it is with GFB or BB. The advantage of the cantrips on a rogue is not an increase in damage (it actually tends to go down); it lies in saving you the bonus action that TWF'ing costs you to use cunning action, or the extra damage dealt to a secondary target with GFB or the move + attack + cunning action withdraw extra damage with BB (which is situational).

It aint broken, nor is it optimisation. Our swashbuckler looked at it and ignored it. He preferred to raise his Dex by +2 (for +1 to hit and damage and AC and initiative and his skils) instead. The increase in his to hit by +1 alone gave him a much bigger boost than the cantrip would have done (particularly with TWF). He can already TWF and disengage in the same round anyway.

Seriously - look at the maths.

 

[AtomicPope]

SCAG added what was needed to help the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight - weapon cantrips. Not to mention, it adds some variety to the PHB classes but doesn't surpass them. In order to weigh their power we must consider multiclassing. From the looks of it, these new subclasses still cannot surpass the strong multiclassing benefits of the PHB subclasses or some of their game-changing abilities (Divination. Spell Shaping, Bonus Action Shadow Teleportation, etc). Starting as a Fighter than MC into Wizard gives you a better array of saves, better hit points, better AC, and self healing. A single level and you're passing up Bladesinger. That's really where we should be looking and most of the PHB subclasses fare better when MCing.

 

[Flamestrike]

SCAG added what was needed to help the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight - weapon cantrips. Not to mention, it adds some variety to the PHB classes but doesn't surpass them. In order to weigh their power we must consider multiclassing. From the looks of it, these new subclasses still cannot surpass the strong multiclassing benefits of the PHB subclasses or some of their game-changing abilities (Divination. Spell Shaping, Bonus Action Shadow Teleportation, etc). Starting as a Fighter than MC into Wizard gives you a better array of saves, better hit points, better AC, and self healing. A single level and you're passing up Bladesinger. That's really where we should be looking and most of the PHB subclasses fare better when MCing.

OTOH you give up so much for MCing in 5E.

You need the stats (spreading your stats out among possible dump stats and often increasing MAD) and you delay class features and ASI increases and feats. This is a huge deal in play.

5th, 11th and 17th level class features are pretty huge leaps in power for the classes also. 5th level in particular.

 

[Ganymede81]

For the cost of a bonus action to TWF (and saving yourself a feat in the process) your DPR with TWF on a rogue is equal or often better than it is with GFB or BB. The advantage of the cantrips on a rogue is not an increase in damage (it actually tends to go down); it lies in saving you the bonus action that TWF'ing costs you to use cunning action, or the extra damage dealt to a secondary target with GFB or the move + attack + cunning action withdraw extra damage with BB (which is situational).

When I see a rogue use a cantrip to do nearly as much damage as a TWF rogue, and save the use of his bonus action in the process, I'd say that rogue gained so much for so little.

 

[mellored]

When I see a rogue use a cantrip to do nearly as much damage as a TWF rogue, and save the use of his bonus action in the process, I'd say that rogue gained so much for so little.

No more then the mobility feat would gain him.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As was said by others, it's more of a series of hotfixes than legit power creep. Out of all of the classes that received new options, only one subclass was virtually rendered obsolete: the Bladelock. Everyone else either got a small boost or stayed relatively the same.

Bladelocks are still awesome in the warbearian variant: Barbarian 3/Bladelock 5+ with Polearm Master and GWM. That out-damages SCAG cantrips by a mile, in addition to all the fun you have with Armor of Agathys + Bear Totem Resistance. Very MAD though.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Whoever said this was deceiving someone--possibly themselves--or trying to sell you something (which, I suppose, could amount to the same thing). There is absolutely still a power gradient in 5e--just like there was in 4e, despite it being known as excellently balanced (or excessively balanced, depending on your point of view). Paladins, for example, are among the most baseline-powerful classes in the game, being just shy of a Fighter's damage while having much of the flexibility provided to casters, while Rangers, especially Beastmasters, are...not nearly so well-off.

Hunter Rangers are awesome. Awesome spell list, awesome archery. At 8th level the ranger at my table was dominating spellcasters.

 

[Ganymede81]

No more then the mobility feat would gain him.

As nice as that feat is, I wouldn't put it at the same level as Cunning Action.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

At 8th level the ranger at my table was dominating spellcasters.

That reminded me of Squirrel Girl defeating Doctor Doom with her legions of squirrel companions during her first featured appearance.