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

[Irlo]

Yes because it comes with either an angry back and forth trying to get the cantrip plus class abilities (ie extra attack/sneak attack/smite/etc) or regular frustration channeling over not being able to do both depending on how much the GM allows.

I dislike booming blade, but I didn't have angry or frustrated players. In the scenario you describe, I'd be quicker to cut the player loose than to prohibit the cantrip.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I rename it to Echoing Blade in my games. You strike someone with it and if they move they get hit with an echo of your attack. It just has a bad name and description, but the concept is solid.

I like this approach. Just wondering if you change the damage type to match the initial attack, or is it just a fluff change?

 

[tetrasodium]

I dislike booming blade, but I didn't have angry or frustrated players. In the scenario you describe, I'd be quicker to cut the player loose than to prohibit the cantrip.

"The player”? Prior to COVID I used to run AL twice a week at a nearby FLGS for years, that adds up to a lot of attempted shenanigans and incorrect expectations that should have been avoided by having those cantrips behaving like cantrips in every way or by having them slotted into a more appropriate design space like feat/class feature.

 

[Irlo]

"The player”? Prior to COVID I used to run AL twice a week at a nearby FLGS for years, that adds up to a lot of attempted shenanigans and incorrect expectations that should have been avoided by having those cantrips behaving like cantrips in every way or by having them slotted into a more appropriate design space like feat/class feature.

Fair enough. I can't defend booming blade. But a poorly designed cantrip is just a poorly designed cantrip. Players who get angry about the way you run a D&D game don't need to be at the table, IMO. No revision of the rules will change that.

 

[Undrave]

The weapon "cantrips" don't work at all like cantrips & cause a lot of problems that either break things when applied to (sub)class features expecting cantrips to work like cantrips or they force the design of other (sub)classes to warp around avoiding them

What makes them that different? And I dunno why you worry about them interacting with class features? I don't think the designers didn't think about a Rogue getting to them or anything.

Maybe because I started in 4e but I really don't get what's the big deal with those cantrips.

"The player”? Prior to COVID I used to run AL twice a week at a nearby FLGS for years, that adds up to a lot of attempted shenanigans and incorrect expectations that should have been avoided by having those cantrips behaving like cantrips in every way or by having them slotted into a more appropriate design space like feat/class feature.

Magic Initiate is already a feat, it would just be a different feat to get them on a Rogue.

 

[tetrasodium]

What makes them that different? And I dunno why you worry about them interacting with class features? I don't think the designers didn't think about a Rogue getting to them or anything.

Maybe because I started in 4e but I really don't get what's the big deal with those cantrips.

Getting a cantrip feat or a class features have wildly different opportunity costs and different ranges of acceptable power. It's normally OK for cantrips to have dice scaling as they do at various levels because they don't even include the wand's bonus on damage let alone "weapon attack’s normal effects" or an attribute mod without a class feature adding it to cantrips explicitly. However GFB & Booming blade include weapon attack’s normal effects while also claiming the dice scaling of cantrips. You only need to look at the problems caused by the +10 from GWM & SS to see why adding a bunch of d8's to aweapon attack’s normal effects would have been immediately shot down prior to printing as either a feat or a character level scaling class feature granted at level 1.

Magic Initiate is already a feat, it would just be a different feat to get them on a Rogue.

This deserves it's own response but it has to do with the opportunity cost. Magic initiate is an absurdly high cost to pickup one cantrip. If a player is taking MI on their rogue to get BB/GFB it's probably because they are also getting basically permanent advantage from find familiar always using the help action. If a player just wants to add the weapon cantrips it is probably coming from a racial ribbon or part of what becomes a bonkers combo when able to use the weapon cantrips instead of normal cantrips like umm.... warmage(spellsword?)* using it with extra attack.

* been a while. I forget the wizard subclass name & don't feel like looking it up

 

[DaedalusX51]

I like this approach. Just wondering if you change the damage type to match the initial attack, or is it just a fluff change?

No I keep it thunder like a sonic echo.

 

[Undrave]

Getting a cantrip feat or a class features have wildly different opportunity costs and different ranges of acceptable power. It's normally OK for cantrips to have dice scaling as they do at various levels because they don't even include the wand's bonus on damage let alone "weapon attack’s normal effects" or an attribute mod without a class feature adding it to cantrips explicitly. However GFB & Booming blade include weapon attack’s normal effects while also claiming the dice scaling of cantrips. You only need to look at the problems caused by the +10 from GWM & SS to see why adding a bunch of d8's to aweapon attack’s normal effects would have been immediately shot down prior to printing as either a feat or a character level scaling class feature granted at level 1.

The cantrip scaling is specifically there to replace the extra attacks a Fighter and company would get, so in general I don’t really see it as a problem. Now, interaction with the Rogue’s Sneak Attack is special because Sneak Attack is already scaled to replace extra attacks. Is it really an overlook of the design team or is it another case of ‘Rulings not rules, figure it out yourself’ design where the idea Is that a casting action isn’t an attack action and you can’t use the sneak attack on it and we were all meant to just figure it out?

At the same time, I’m not one to try to punish competence. If a player wants to sink resources into a specific combo to inflict lots of damage, I won’t begrudge them having superior damage to people who are not investing in it. PCs are allowed to be good at stuff.

 

[tetrasodium]

The cantrip scaling is specifically there to replace the extra attacks a Fighter and company would get, so in general I don’t really see it as a problem. Now, interaction with the Rogue’s Sneak Attack is special because Sneak Attack is already scaled to replace extra attacks. Is it really an overlook of the design team or is it another case of ‘Rulings not rules, figure it out yourself’ design where the idea Is that a casting action isn’t an attack action and you can’t use the sneak attack on it and we were all meant to just figure it out?

At the same time, I’m not one to try to punish competence. If a player wants to sink resources into a specific combo to inflict lots of damage, I won’t begrudge them having superior damage to people who are not investing in it. PCs are allowed to be good at stuff.

Those bold bits are the problem. A player shouldn't have those and cantrip scaling on the same action

 

[Undrave]

Those bold bits are the problem. A player shouldn't have those and cantrip scaling on the same action

Pretty sure you can't normally use one of those cantrips and multi attack in the same action unless you go for the Eldritch Knight maybe?