D&D 5E D&D Sage Advice 2.6 Update

WotC has released the latest update to its Sage Advice document. "This update aligns these books with content appearing in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, arriving November 17, 2020 in North America and December 1 in EU and APAC."

It also includes errata for Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, and Eberron: Rising from the Last War. "Some of the changes in these errata files bring elements of those two books in line with content in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything".

Sage Advice Compendium | Dungeons & Dragons

dnd.wizards.com

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So wait, there are folks keen on the original (5th ed) version of the Bladesinger?
Does the Tasha revision somehow make it worse?

It depends what you do with it. If your game has frequent short rests/infrequent long rests you will notice the fewer uses of bladesong, and if you play the bladesinger as a back row caster rather than a front row gish you won't get as much mileage out of the buff (although I don't think there is anything stopping you using a bow, e.g. firebolt+crossbow).

 

[nexalis]

The scag cantrips (booming blade/gfb) are still really quite bad once you crunch the numbers.

You can't make a blanket statement like this. Booming Blade in particular is excellent for rogues who don't get Extra Attack and who can Disengage from their targets using a bonus action. Not sure what you mean about the ability mods. Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade allow you to make a normal melee attack, applying Strength or Dex to the attack roll as well as the damage roll. None of that changes with the errata.

 

[Al2O3]

The scag cantrips (booming blade/gfb) are still really quite bad once you crunch the numbers. Yes they can be used with strength or dex rather than int/wis/cha, but a character with the strength/dex to effectively use them likely has at least two attacks & can use one of the many d8 or better weapons. Unlike booing blade & gfb though, using a weapon as a weapon will give +ability mod to each attack in addition to any weapon mods. Lets be honest & admit we are probably talking about an EK who gets a full 2/3/4 weapon attacks so even a +nothing 1d8 weapon with 20 strength or 20 dex is going to be 1d8+5 1x 2x 3x or 4x/round for an average of 9.5/19/28.5/38 vrs booming blade's 14/23.5/33/42.5 if there is a 100% hit chance. As soon as the hit chance drops below 100% the scag cantrip user uses 100% of their damage that round each miss while the attack chain user level 5 & up loses 1/2 1/3 & 1/4 respectively. A magic weapon with +1or anything else multiplies that by the number of attacks yet only ever works once for the scag cantrip user. Then to make an already questionable miniscule white room edge the rest of 5e makes sure to be sure of it with

Spoiler: ridiculous overuse of this

View attachment 128365

There are three cases I can think of where the cantrips are clearly useful:
1. Bladesinger replacing one attack with a cantrip. Not sure how it compares to shocking grasp, but clearly better than just an attack.
2. A rogue who wouldn't use two weapon fighting anyway and who picks up the cantrip some way. Arcane trickster maybe (or multiclass/magic initiate)?
3. A warlock with pact of the blade who prefers to use invocations for other things than thirsting blade.

I think the cantrips are situationally better than a normal attack for Eldritch knights as well. However, I can't be bothered to open the spreadsheet I made to check it.

 

[Olrox17]

As a said in another thread: the Wall gets censored (for lack of a better word) out of SCAG, presumably to avoid hurting somebody's feelings, but this phrase remains intact:
"Some [referring to unclaimed souls] are charged with serving as guides for other lost souls, while others are transformed into squirming larvae and cast into the dust". Like that's a better fate than the Wall!

Whatever, WotC deciding to withhold lore details in a book doesn't change anything, anyway. The lore stays the same. Wasted opportunity on WotC's part to expand the Wall's lore and make it better, more interesting and developed. Instead, they swept it under the rug, hoping "the new generations" of D&D players and DM won't be interested enough in the lore to find out about it.

 

[Blue]

I remember when the preview came out and there was a whole bunch of people screaming about "Stealth errata, WotC sucks!". I said "it's not out yet, they will probably errata it around the time Tasha's is released. People would argue, I'd give examples like how Wizards errata'd the Triton to give it Darkvision when the Wildemount version came out with it and in fact not done any stealth errata. But no, they had to have their narrative.

Glad to see that faith Wizards would do it right paid off.

 

[tetrasodium]

You can't make a blanket statement like this. Booming Blade in particular is excellent for rogues who don't get Extra Attack and who can Disengage from their targets using a bonus action. Not sure what you mean about the ability mods. Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade allow you to make a normal melee attack, applying Strength or Dex to the attack roll as well as the damage roll. None of that changes with the errata.

When you start getting into "the cantrip was made for a rogue" level of specific something has probably gone wrong in design making a cantrip rather than an archetype. That's a design flaw not a positive. The fact that they finally fixed the interaction between extra attacks & cantrips but appear to have limited the change specifically to bladesinger

Spoiler: relevant erratas

....

rather than bite the bullet & fix the problem overall for all cantrip users is the sort of kneejerk one off edge case solution likely to make correcting it everywhere else all the more trap prone similar to how eldritch blast being a cantrip that takes all of the good from both cantrips & fighter extra attack with none of the bad from either complicates things.

 

[Blue]

When you start getting into "the cantrip was made for a rogue" level of specific something has probably gone wrong in design making a cantrip rather than an archetype. That's a design flaw not a positive. The fact that they finally fixed the interaction between extra attacks & cantrips but appear to have limited the change specifically to bladesinger

Spoiler: relevant erratas

....

rather than bite the bullet & fix the problem overall for all cantrip users is the sort of kneejerk one off edge case solution likely to make correcting it everywhere else all the more trap prone similar to how eldritch blast being a cantrip that takes all of the good from both cantrips & fighter extra attack with none of the bad from either complicates things.

I think you are mistaking giving an example of a class that it's really good for, and a statement that it's only good for that class. At least the thrust of your argument is against the second, when the first is really what is under discussion.

The cantrips are straight up power boosts for any class with a single attack that want to even occasionally make a melee attack.

Rogue are one example, but I can tell you that I'm strongly thinking of picking up Magical Initiate for my Order Cleric. I have heavy armor, simple weapon, and my 7th level subclass feature adds to damage. This (put the other parts of magic initiate) would be a good boost to melee when I want it. And considering a good chunk of my turns are (a) Concentrate on a spell, (b) cast a bonus action spell on allies (which also triggers my Order cleric special ability) and (c) have an Action available but can't cast a non-cantrip spell since I used a bonus action spell. Arcana clerics are another good example, since they could get it from their domain.

But really, anyone weapon user without extra attack gets a boost from it.

Even non-fighter classes with extra attack may have an increased average damage from it at higher levels, especially if the rider can come into play reliably. That very much depends on what other bonuses they have to their attacks.

Eldritch Knights can cantrip then get an bonus action attack with their primary weapon, giving them effectively extra attack (2) with one being this. Very effective.

 

[Eric V]

I remember when the preview came out and there was a whole bunch of people screaming about "Stealth errata, WotC sucks!". I said "it's not out yet, they will probably errata it around the time Tasha's is released. People would argue, I'd give examples like how Wizards errata'd the Triton to give it Darkvision when the Wildemount version came out with it and in fact not done any stealth errata. But no, they had to have their narrative.

Glad to see that faith Wizards would do it right paid off.

What's the stealth errata?

 

[cbwjm]

So wait, there are folks keen on the original (5th ed) version of the Bladesinger?
Does the Tasha revision somehow make it worse?

The revision gives you less uses of bladesong until high levels since it changes the uses to be equal to your proficiency bonus regained on a long rest instead of the current version where it is usable twice per short rest.

The change where you can cast a cantrip in place of an attack is a good one though.

 

[Professor Murder]

The revision gives you less uses of bladesong until high levels since it changes the uses to be equal to your proficiency bonus regained on a long rest instead of the current version where it is usable twice per short rest.

The change where you can cast a cantrip in place of an attack is a good one though.

It feels like it puts it more in line with other burst powers like Barbarian rage.

 

[Mistwell]

The scag cantrips (booming blade/gfb) are still really quite bad once you crunch the numbers. Yes they can be used with strength or dex rather than int/wis/cha, but a character with the strength/dex to effectively use them likely has at least two attacks & can use one of the many d8 or better weapons. Unlike booing blade & gfb though, using a weapon as a weapon will give +ability mod to each attack in addition to any weapon mods. Lets be honest & admit we are probably talking about an EK who gets a full 2/3/4 weapon attacks so even a +nothing 1d8 weapon with 20 strength or 20 dex is going to be 1d8+5 1x 2x 3x or 4x/round for an average of 9.5/19/28.5/38 vrs booming blade's 14/23.5/33/42.5 if there is a 100% hit chance. As soon as the hit chance drops below 100% the scag cantrip user uses 100% of their damage that round each miss while the attack chain user level 5 & up loses 1/2 1/3 & 1/4 respectively. A magic weapon with +1or anything else multiplies that by the number of attacks yet only ever works once for the scag cantrip user. Then to make an already questionable miniscule white room edge the rest of 5e makes sure to be sure of it with

Spoiler: ridiculous overuse of this

View attachment 128365

Rogue's are some of the primary users of the SCAG cantrips. And that's OK. You can make cantrips for rogues, given one of their most popular subclasses do cast cantrips.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I like the blade cantrips quite a lot.

they are good for clerics who can get them.

they are good for warlocks who don’t merely eldritch blast or who don’t use invocations on eldritch blast

they are good for eldritch knights for a number of levels.

they can be good for a melee sorcerer who quickens them. That’s fun.

the list goes on with fun options. If you do not like them, that’s fine but with so many uses, I would not toss them out merely because they are not superior to other options. The point is that the blade cantrips are options.

my arcana cleric thinks pretty highly of them and gfb is very good vs two opponents for clerics and other single attack characters.

 

[Blue]

What's the stealth errata?

People were claiming that the changes to Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade, from the DnDBeyond preview where you could read part of the spell description and it had changed, were stealth errata. There was a big hubbub about how Wizards does this all the time (hint: nto with 5e) and how bad they were for doing it (hint: these errata updates showed they didn't do it).

 

[Blue]

It feels like it puts it more in line with other burst powers like Barbarian rage.

Yes but because the context is different, the end result differs a lot even if the uses per day is in line between rages and the new bladesinging.

Barbarian is a sturdy chassis, gets the most HPs per level, and has a decent (if not top notch) AC even when not raging. It still can do it's primary focus.

Bladesingers are based on a fragile chassis with the least HPs per level, and going from no armor, no shield to light armor, no shield isn't a big AC boost. At low levels when lots of things like Shield aren't plentiful, they can't really fulfill the role of melee combatant when not Bladesinging.

 

[Eric V]

People were claiming that the changes to Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade, from the DnDBeyond preview where you could read part of the spell description and it had changed, were stealth errata. There was a big hubbub about how Wizards does this all the time (hint: nto with 5e) and how bad they were for doing it (hint: these errata updates showed they didn't do it).

Whoops! I thought you meant they issued errata to the stealth rules (such as they are)! :S

 

[Professor Murder]

I just felt the Bladesingers were already underwhelming in SCAC. I will make my own judgements when the actual book is in my hands.

 

[Guest User]

As a said in another thread: the Wall gets censored (for lack of a better word) out of SCAG, presumably to avoid hurting somebody's feelings,

Whatever, WotC deciding to withhold lore details in a book doesn't change anything, anyway. The lore stays the same. Wasted opportunity on WotC's part to expand the Wall's lore and make it better, more interesting and developed. Instead, they swept it under the rug, hoping "the new generations" of D&D players and DM won't be interested enough in the lore to find out about it.

I have been playing D&D since 1980. My memory may be hazy, but the Grey Box Forgotten released in 1987 made no mention of the Wall.

The Wall was added as a concept by the god awful books...The Time of Troubles.
Personally, I was disgusted by the notion that some 3 part fantasy series of dubious quality should automatically make changes to any and all Forgotten Realms campaigns.

I have never acknowledged any aspect of The Time of Troubles in any game that I have played in, and never will. New Generations of players should absolutely learn about the TSR period where fiction book sales dictated game design and mechanics, and reject the whole period.

Also, in Russian History, there is a period referred to as the Time of Troubles, it is when the Romanov family ascended to be Emperor.

D&D designers are typically ignorant Americans..(so am I)
so the plagiarism of the name given to actual historical events in the aforementioned FR series might have been completely unintentional. Perhaps the designers in the TSR era were unaware of the usage of the term the Troubles, to refer to a period of North Ireland history.
In a modern American context if you refer to a fictional "The Wall", people think you are talking about Game of Thrones.

Losing The Wall from the Forgotten Realms, is like removing grime from a Masterpiece painting, it is restorative.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not really. By not mentioning it this just means that in absence of new lore the old lore is still valid. So all it does is preventing someone from stumbling upon it without actually deeper diving into FR afterlive lore

Arguable, considering the remaining text. It describes what happens to the dead.

It makes it range Self, which does some odd things for use with Warcaster and other effects.

Also, a range of self that attacks a target... which I find odd.

It makes sense, the range is a 5’ radius centered on you. The target is a creature within range. It’s oddly worded to avoid...idk honestly why they wanted to avoid the synergies this gets rid of.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Losing The Wall from the Forgotten Realms, is like removing grime from a Masterpiece painting, it is restorative.

I don't think FR ever qualified as a "Masterpiece". And NWN2: Masks of the Betrayer makes good use of the Wall as a plot McGuffin.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There are three cases I can think of where the cantrips are clearly useful:
1. Bladesinger replacing one attack with a cantrip. Not sure how it compares to shocking grasp, but clearly better than just an attack.
2. A rogue who wouldn't use two weapon fighting anyway and who picks up the cantrip some way. Arcane trickster maybe (or multiclass/magic initiate)?
3. A warlock with pact of the blade who prefers to use invocations for other things than thirsting blade.

I think the cantrips are situationally better than a normal attack for Eldritch knights as well. However, I can't be bothered to open the spreadsheet I made to check it.

Yeah IMO trying to get extra attack on a Bladelock is a waste of an invocation, unless you’re trying to have more versatility and utility via cantrips (and thus don’t want booming blade or GFB).