D&D (2024) Should Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade be in the new PHB?

[Kurotowa]

I dunno, if someone is spending a bunch of ressources like a feat instead of ASI to get Green Flame Blade on their Rogue because they like to do BIIIIG DAMAAAAAGE then maybe I'd let them enjoy their BIIIIG DAMAAAAAGE for a while.

Right now there's three easy ways for a Rogue to pick up Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade. Be a High Elf, be an Arcane Trickster, or take Magic Initiate as your Background Feat. None of which cost an ASI, and all of which raise their max damage potential.

It's a situation I'd be more worried about if Rogues weren't a little lackluster in the damage department. An extra 1d8 or 2d8 is not going to overbalance the class. Not unless the final release version has some significant differences from the UA6 version. As it stands, though, it's a cute little way to score some extra damage, and it has its downsides. You can't get an off-hand attack from dual wielding from the cantrips, and you can't use them with a reach weapon like the whip.

So overall, the status quo doesn't bother me as much as this alternative.

 

[Undrave]

Well, Clerics and Druids too, but no one's making weapon focused builds for those classes. Even the gimmick builds like Wildfire Druid with Shilelligh and Green-Flame Blade is doing more damage when they use their spell slots.

It's good for Cleric stuck in that weird middle space between the Cantrip buff at 5th and the time the melee Clerics get their Divine Strike feature a 8th, which is a VERY bizarre design and probably why Melee Clerics just fall off. Why use weapons in the first place?

Gotta wonder why the 5e Cleric even bothers being proficient in weapons when it could just be a proper Invoker.

I'm okay with Rogues being glass canons. The biggest problem is how it's good for EVERY Rogue so every rogue should grab Magic Initiate if they can...

 

[Kurotowa]

It's good for Cleric stuck in that weird middle space between the Cantrip buff at 5th and the time the melee Clerics get their Divine Strike feature a 8th, which is a VERY bizarre design and probably why Melee Clerics just fall off. Why use weapons in the first place?

Gotta wonder why the 5e Cleric even bothers being proficient in weapons when it could just be a proper Invoker.

Legacy design is a heck of a thing. There's all sorts of things in 5e that are there purely for legacy reasons, like why Fireball is so much stronger than any other AoE of its level.

As for Clerics, though, they're much better served taking the revised True Strike than GFB or BB. Making weapon attacks with Wis is a big help with their MAD, even if the damage increase is a bit smaller. I played around with a build using that, and it was still at its strongest when using spell slot. But the weapon attacks were better than before, which was something. (Also you get Divine Strike at 7th level in UA6, so it's a little better.)

 

[tetrasodium]

I dunno... Fighting Styles? If your style gives you +1 dmg per attack, it's effectively a nerf to put it on the Cantrip since you don't get to apply it multiple time.

This is an example of why the fuzzy cantrip but not really distinction causes endless and totally foreseeable headaches for gms. I'm not aware of any fighting styles that stack with poison spray fire bolt or till the dead, booming blade and gfb should obviously not be cantrip+ things that get an exception that needs to be balanced against all possible fighting style+feat+(multi)class combos of today Long with every new possibility as splatbooks are added. Since you asked, should I take it as a given that you can name a fighting style s wizard 20 could pickup through a feat and obviously be able to use with firebolt poison spray or toll the dead with rock solid RAI supporting it?

I guess Maneuvers? Again you only get one shot at it and it's a ressource.

Again the same problem. Which maneuvers if today stack with poison spray furebolt and till the dead? Which maneuvers if a few splatbooks from now stack with them? Either they are cantrips or cantrip-like but more and need to occupy a design space that can carry the "but more" like (sub)class abilities or feats without dumping that on the gm. Once again the wizard 20 maneuver via feat plus firebolt poison spray or toll the dead question?

Enchantement bonus? Any flat bonus really.

From 3.5? Those got simplified away in 5e. Also you are aware of how magic wands modify cantrips & spells is different from magic weapon right?

The big thing with the melee Cantrip that interest me more is the damage type and effect instead of the extra damage you get at later level. Maybe if the extra damage was d6 instead of d8?

For melee characters that is the role of a class ability feat or different/possibly magical weapon. There is even a few leveled spells that literally do those things. Cantrip us the wrong design space for those.

I dunno, if someone is spending a bunch of ressources like a feat instead of ASI to get Green Flame Blade on their Rogue because they like to do BIIIIG DAMAAAAAGE then maybe I'd let them enjoy their BIIIIG DAMAAAAAGE for a while.

A cantrip is very much not anywhere near"a bunch of resources". Multiple races give one or more canntrip for free and the fact that these present as cantrip+ even makes it difficult for the GM to do things like allow finding crafting or purchasing cantrip wands or similar without balancing those wands against the power of cantrip+.options occupying the wrong design space.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's good for Cleric stuck in that weird middle space between the Cantrip buff at 5th and the time the melee Clerics get their Divine Strike feature a 8th, which is a VERY bizarre design and probably why Melee Clerics just fall off. Why use weapons in the first place?

Gotta wonder why the 5e Cleric even bothers being proficient in weapons when it could just be a proper Invoker.

The Invoker should IMO be a Divine Soul Sorcerer. But I've said in the past we've reached a point where the cleric is a hybrid of a hybrid, leaving it in an odd place. The Holy Warrior is better served by the Paladin, while the White Mage/Invoker at least should be better served by a Divine Soul Sorcerer. The Cleric meanwhile is a hybrid Holy Warrior/White Mage.

I'm okay with Rogues being glass canons. The biggest problem is how it's good for EVERY Rogue so every rogue should grab Magic Initiate if they can...

Yup. A free d8 damage at level 5 is a little too much of a freebie even without the secondary effect.

 

[Undrave]

This is an example of why the fuzzy cantrip but not really distinction causes endless and totally foreseeable headaches for gms. I'm not aware of any fighting styles that stack with poison spray fire bolt or till the dead, booming blade and gfb should obviously not be cantrip+ things that get an exception that needs to be balanced against all possible fighting style+feat+(multi)class combos of today Long with every new possibility as splatbooks are added. Since you asked, should I take it as a given that you can name a fighting style s wizard 20 could pickup through a feat and obviously be able to use with firebolt poison spray or toll the dead with rock solid RAI supporting it?

Potent Spellcasting? If it’s not available through feat well that’s not the Rogue’s fault. I don’t think Wizards need a damage buff.

Elemental Adept?

 

[Undrave]

Yup. A free d8 damage at level 5 is a little too much of a freebie even without the secondary effect.

What if the damage scaling of melee cantrips was part of the Gish' class feature instead of the cantrip itself?

 

[tetrasodium]

Potent Spellcasting? If it’s not available through feat well that’s not the Rogue’s fault. I don’t think Wizards need a damage buff.

Elemental Adept?

That's a rather odd shift in direction... Potent spellcasting the class feature that explicitly modified cantrips? Elemental adept the feat that explicitly modified spells of a compatible damage type?

Those are both game elements designed to work with spells and as level zero spells cantrips fit the bill by design. The problems start when booming blade and gfb try to add on the game elements built for weapon users on top of those built for spellcasters because those two paths aren't generally designed considering simultaneous stacking. Even if they were designed to account for simultaneous stacking it's really quite unfair to casters to be saddled with a bunch of strings trying to compensate for a couple cantrips intended for no casters that never should have been built as cantrips.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Yup. A free d8 damage at level 5 is a little too much of a freebie even without the secondary effect.

I feel the solution is to add at will weapon maneuvers for non-casters.

 

[Undrave]

That's a rather odd shift in direction... Potent spellcasting the class feature that explicitly modified cantrips? Elemental adept the feat that explicitly modified spells of a compatible damage type?

Those are both game elements designed to work with spells and as level zero spells cantrips fit the bill by design. The problems start when booming blade and gfb try to add on the game elements built for weapon users on top of those built for spellcasters because those two paths aren't generally designed considering simultaneous stacking. Even if they were designed to account for simultaneous stacking it's really quite unfair to casters to be saddled with a bunch of strings trying to compensate for a couple cantrips intended for no casters that never should have been built as cantrips.

Well usually it's the non-casters who struggle so...

And the ACTUAL mix of martial and magic is precisely what makes those cantrips fun thematically. You're not a real gish if all you do is swing a sword with one hand and sling spell with the other, they're just two different things you can do. Those cantrips merge them into a single action. I dunno what the mechanical solution is, exactly, but they are thematically valid IMO.