Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 8116167" data-attributes="member: 2525">They are making this errata. Obviously. Everyone in this thread, except you, agrees that's what is about to happen with this. That will, in fact, retroactively change SCAG. It's not minutia to say "it's errata, not optional". It's directly on point to your claim about this being just some optional rule. While this book will have many optional rules, the topic we're discussing about these cantrips is not in fact in the optional category of changes. If it were, we wouldn't be having this part of the discussion. Nobody here would care, if suddenly there were two optional versions of the cantrips and you could just pick the one you liked better. That's not what is happening here.1) Nobody said "entire character solely" anything. That is a total strawman.2) Apparently, it's both BB and Green Flame Blade, and it's the Warcaster feat issue that is mostly in question as I'd argue a very larger percentage of the people who took that feat, took it with one or both of those cantrips in mind.3) When a character is devoting that many resource to be able to use Green Flame Blade or BB along with the Warcaster feat, sometimes devoting TWO feats to it to get it with Magic Initiate and Warcaster, and they've been playing an AL game for years with that PC, and you suddenly pull the rug out from essentially BOTH of their feat choices, people are going to be reasonably a bit miffed about that.4) The only excuse for doing #3 would be if you couldn't have supported that character concept AND support the new character concepts from this book without something breaking - and I totally do not buy that excuse. Because my argument is the new errata could have been drafted to accomplish both goals.All designer comments about this topic previously, for five years straight, was in fact to support their use with a gish-type character. I am not aware of a single tweet or other response on the topic from the creators (and there have been plenty) which would even vaguely hint it was not intended in that way. Because both cantrips depend on a weapon attack, OF COURSE they were always chosen by someone with the ability to be decent at weapon attacks and not the 20 intelligence 8 strength wizard with the dagger.You're essentially arguing they had tons of opportunities to tell people "Well we didn't intend it that way but sure go ahead," and opted to not that for...reasons?Yes, see #3 above, where people may have devoted most of their ASI choices to supporting this concept, for years, with support from WOTC, only to find in their AL game (where no house rules are allowed) their PC no longer functions as it's functioned for years in a very meaningful way. And that it's happening for no particularly good reason, as it was no broken the way they were using it before, nobody was complaining about their use of it that way before, and the new errata could have been drafted to accommodate that interest but for some reason it was not.</blockquote>

Verification