D&D 5E Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade Nerfed in TCoE

[Leatherhead]

Components: V, M (a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp)
And
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you.

I just realized that this also makes it so you can't use Shadow Blade, Flame Blade, or some weapons that come from class features with the Blade cantrips.

 

[Charlaquin]

Quite frankly, I think this new wording is just the “correct” way to word what the spells were trying to do. For all the talk of “natural language,” in 5e, if you read carefully it is clear that the game has very precise and technical logic to the way it words things. The blade cantrips, along with a number of other things in SCAG, didn’t properly follow this internal logic, which is part of why I think WotC dislikes the book so much. Its actual use of natural language leads to a lot of weird rules interactions with the rest of the game (like the old Twin Spell Booming Blade problem.)

This new wording makes the spells work the way the old wording seemed to be trying to work, but in a way that doesn’t cause these rules interaction amiguities. I am very strongly in favor of such a change.

The one thing I would critique about this revised wording is the parenthetical 5-foot radius. It is unnecessary to specify, given that the text of the spells says you make an attack against a target within 5 feet, and neither spell actually affects a 5-foot radius area. This was probably meant to emphasize that you can’t affect a creature 10 feet away with the spells if you use them with a reach weapon, but I think it could cause more confusion than it clears up.

The 5-foot range limitation seems to me to be emulating the 5-foot range of the spells under their original wording, and personally, I don’t think that’s a worthwhile limitation to preserve if the spells are getting errata’d anyway. I will probably be house ruling it to say you attack a creature within the reach of the weapon used to make the attack.

The only side-effect of this errata I don’t care for is the fact that it prevents these spells from being used as reactions with War Caster. That’s pretty annoying, as I don’t think there’s really anything about them that would make them overpowered to use that way. I suspect this is not an intentional nerf, but an unfortunate side-effect of clarifying the wording. I will seriously consider house-rule these spells to be eligible for War Caster despite the range of Self.

 

[Charlaquin]

Booming Blade, in the new format, can still be used with Warcaster.
A range of Self is not synonymous with a Target of self.

As has been pointed out on many different sites, the Lightning Bolt spell has a range of self, yet, you do not target yourself with the Lightning Bolt spell.

Oh, good catch! You’re absolutely right, Booming Blade does explicitly target one creature within the spell’s radius (and no other creatures), so it should still qualify for War Caster with no issue. Green Flame Blade of course affects multiple targets and has never worked with War Caster (though the wording only explicitly says it “targets” one of the creatures, so there is an argument to be made that it would actually work). Thank you for pointing this out.

 

[Gadget]

Personally, I agree with @Charlaquin & @Thunderous Mojo, it does seem that the new spells can be used with Warcaster, & the new wording does seem to be more straightforward and in line with the intent of the spell (other than the baffling 5' radius line). These spell were only 'nerfed' for some out there combinations that were rather niche, with the possible exception of a reach weapon.

 

[Krachek]

I like it,
usually we read all details to find some optimization,
here more you read details, more you find restriction.

 

[Ashrym]

I find the bladesinger option to replace an attack with a cantrip more interesting. Booming blade and greenflame blade have some slightly different interactions but bladesingers are casting cantrips as part of the attack action instead of the casting a spell action with the errata.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The first sign something isn't working as intended, or broken, is when everyone and their grandma's dog thinks it's awesome and uses it exponentially more than every other power, and optimizers have it in every build.

I don't like the term nerf because it has a negative connotation. I prefer the term "fixed". Because that's what it did.

 

[Al2O3]

Personally, I agree with @Charlaquin & @Thunderous Mojo, it does seem that the new spells can be used with Warcaster, & the new wording does seem to be more straightforward and in line with the intent of the spell (other than the baffling 5' radius line). These spell were only 'nerfed' for some out there combinations that were rather niche, with the possible exception of a reach weapon.

Both GFB and BB work with warcaster. However, for GFB it only works if the optional damage to a second target is not used.

 

[cbwjm]

Eh, I'd still allow GFB to chain to a second creature if it's in range. All I care about is the initial target, if the spell later chains (such as with chain lightning) then I say go for it, warcast that spell.

 

[tetrasodium]

Eh, I'd still allow GFB to chain to a second creature if it's in range. All I care about is the initial target, if the spell later chains (such as with chain lightning) then I say go for it, warcast that spell.

I would too, doing otherwise is one of the problems with 5e has when it comes to magic where too often anyplace it could really shine needs to be walled off or designed against.