What solution for "Cantrips don't feel magical"?

Saelorn said:

Honestly, I'd start with the lightning bolts and flaming sphere, as the big offenders in this example. If a wizard throws a lightning bolt, or rolls a flaming sphere, then that's about the level I'm looking at. Combat magic doesn't have to scale down all the way from 100% to zero.

"Lightning Bolt, Lightning Bolt, Fire Bolt" is no different than "Fire Bolt, Fire Bolt, Fire Bolt" from my perspective, though. I'm looking for "Lightning Bolt, Crossbow Bolt, Crossbow Bolt".

Click to expand...

When fighters are getting two attacks at +5 to hit for d8+3 (bow with archery) or two attacks +3 to hit for d12+3 (two handed), do you feel the majority of players will be happy with their action every 10-15 minutes being a single attack at +1 to hit for d8+1 damage, with lowest HPs, lowest AC, just because one time today you'll be able to throw a lightning bolt?

In other words, do you think this is how D&D should be, or do you think this is how your table should be?

Blue said:

When fighters are getting two attacks at +5 to hit for d8+3 (bow with archery) or two attacks +3 to hit for d12+3 (two handed), do you feel the majority of players will be happy with their action every 10-15 minutes being a single attack at +1 to hit for d8+1 damage, with lowest HPs, lowest AC, just because one time today you'll be able to throw a lightning bolt?

Click to expand...

Not once per day. Once per combat.

At level 5 (for example), the fighter gets six attacks every three rounds, for a total of 6d8+24 (barring feats). The wizard gets one spell for 8d6, followed by two attacks for d8+2. That's assuming the fighter has 18 Dexterity, and the wizard has 14 Dexterity. The fighter ends up dealing ~51 damage to one target, while the wizard does ~41 to that target and an incidental ~28 to anyone else in the line.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. (I also believe that it's a reasonable request for a wizard to invest more than the bare minimum into a weapon-using stat.)

Saelorn said:

Not once per day. Once per combat.

At level 5 (for example), the fighter gets six attacks every three rounds, for a total of 6d8+24 (barring feats). The wizard gets one spell for 8d6, followed by two attacks for d8+2. That's assuming the fighter has 18 Dexterity, and the wizard has 14 Dexterity. The fighter ends up dealing ~51 damage to one target, while the wizard does ~41 to that target and an incidental ~28 to anyone else in the line.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. (I also believe that it's a reasonable request for a wizard to invest more than the bare minimum into a weapon-using stat.)

Click to expand...

Replacing cantrips with weapon attacks has some niggling balance issues that are pretty easy to smooth over with minor rules changes. The more pertinent issue is that 5e (or any system, really) can't support multiple fantasy tropes simultaneously; the 5e wizard can't be used for an OD&D style magic user, Harry Dresden, and a Diablo wizard. Ultimately, the game had to pick a style, and if it doesn't match your preferred style, you're going to have to house rule.

Not a criticism of anyone, it's just one of those many cases where divergent aesthetic tastes can't all be satisfied in one rules base.

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread yet, but on a quick skim, I don't see any prior mention of Adventures in Middle-Earth, the Tolkien adaptation by Cubicle 7. It's designed for a low-magic setting. You might be able to lift some classes or at least principles from there.

Saelorn said:

Not once per day. Once per combat.

At level 5 (for example), the fighter gets six attacks every three rounds, for a total of 6d8+24 (barring feats). The wizard gets one spell for 8d6, followed by two attacks for d8+2. That's assuming the fighter has 18 Dexterity, and the wizard has 14 Dexterity. The fighter ends up dealing ~51 damage to one target, while the wizard does ~41 to that target and an incidental ~28 to anyone else in the line.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. (I also believe that it's a reasonable request for a wizard to invest more than the bare minimum into a weapon-using stat.)

Click to expand...

These numbers ignore chances to hit - a +1-2 for a wizard and a +5 for a fighter (due to archery style) make big differences. If you want to go with the closer +3 to hit and two handed weapon damage, that's fine to compare as well.

But it didn't answer my question, now updated to one lightning bolt per combat as per your comment.

When fighters are getting two attacks at +5 to hit for d8+3 (bow with archery) or two attacks +3 to hit for d12+3 (two handed), do you feel the majority of players will be happy with their action every 10-15 minutes being a single attack at +1 to hit for d8+1 damage, with lowest HPs, lowest AC, just because you are be able to throw one lightning bolt?

Is this something for your table, or something you think should be the standard for D&D?

Blue said:

When fighters are getting two attacks at +5 to hit for d8+3 (bow with archery) or two attacks +3 to hit for d12+3 (two handed), do you feel the majority of players will be happy with their action every 10-15 minutes being a single attack at +1 to hit for d8+1 damage, with lowest HPs, lowest AC, just because you are be able to throw one lightning bolt?

Click to expand...

I expect the wizard to invest a little bit more into Dexterity, but yes, I think the player of such a character would be happy to have one giant explosive attack that's balanced by smaller at-will attacks and slightly-reduced defenses. That sounds far more appealing and "magical" than everyone doing average damage every round.

Blue said:

Is this something for your table, or something you think should be the standard for D&D?

Click to expand...

This was the standard, back when I played AD&D, and it worked perfectly fine back then. It certainly makes more sense for this to be the default standard for D&D, compared to the existing alternative (especially given that the default standard for D&D is already set to six encounters per day; one big spell per encounter would be less fun if you only had one encounter in a day).

Saelorn said:

I expect the wizard to invest a little bit more into Dexterity, but yes, I think the player of such a character would be happy to have one giant explosive attack that's balanced by smaller at-will attacks and slightly-reduced defenses.

Click to expand...

First you ignored the huge modifier in to hit modifier, and now you're trivializing the rest.

"Slightly reduced defenses" - so are you giving them medium armor proficiency or making mage armor much better?

Because Mager Armor +1 Dex = 14, which is not slightly reduced. Especially when you're looking d6 vs. d10 for HPs and HDs.

To get up to a +2 DEX, assuming you aren't forcing all casters to play +DEX races, is 7 of your point buy. That comes from somewhere. CON perhaps, but that's just a trade off that doesn't help their survivability.

Saelorn said:

That sounds far more appealing and "magical" than everyone doing average damage every round.

Click to expand...

With Cantrip damage doing a lot less then weapon wielder damage, this is what the current system does. Yet that is not "more magical" according to you.

Saelorn said:

This was the standard, back when I played AD&D, and it worked perfectly fine back then.

Click to expand...

Historically, it worked so poorly that they took that out and replaced it. The started bringing in at-will with 3.5, didn't have any full casters at all without it in 4e and 5e. It was intentional design decision to move to at-will magic.

Blue said:

First you ignored the huge modifier in to hit modifier, and now you're trivializing the rest.

Click to expand...

A difference of +3 to hit is hardly the end of the world. It will turn a hit into a miss on 15% of attacks, or maybe three times over the course of an entire day, for the wizards. And those are the crossbow attacks, which are a smaller damage contribution than your one huge spell, regardless.

Blue said:

"Slightly reduced defenses" - so are you giving them medium armor proficiency or making mage armor much better?

Because Mage Armor +1 Dex = 14, which is not slightly reduced. Especially when you're looking d6 vs. d10 for HPs and HDs.

Click to expand...

Back-row combatants receive fewer attacks in the first place, so comparing Mage Armor +1 to splint armor, a difference of three AC is unlikely to come up more than twice per day. Such small differences only matter for checks that happen very frequently.

Likewise, the difference between 4hp and 6hp is only two points per level, before Constitution is factored in. Given that maximum HP doesn't affect healing from spells or potions, and everyone has abundant free healing with Hit Dice anyway, it's really not that big of a deal.

Blue said:

To get up to a +2 DEX, assuming you aren't forcing all casters to play +DEX races, is 7 of your point buy. That comes from somewhere. CON perhaps, but that's just a trade off that doesn't help their survivability.

Click to expand...

This is 5E. Every race is a +DEX race, unless you're deliberately playing against type. Humans are a +DEX race in 5E.

Blue said:

With Cantrip damage doing a lot less then weapon wielder damage, this is what the current system does. Yet that is not "more magical" according to you.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that magic feels more magical when it only shows up in big bursts, rather than trickling out all over everything until it's indistinct and meaningless. The idea that cantrips don't "feel magical" was the premise of this thread, and I agree with it. So given that cantrips don't feel magical anyway, you lose nothing by changing Firebolts into crossbow bolts, except that the magic remaining in the system would appear more dramatic - more magical - by contrast.

Blue said:

Historically, it worked so poorly that they took that out and replaced it. The started bringin in at-will it in 3.5, didn't have it at all in 4e and 5e. It was intentional design decision to move to at-will magic.

Click to expand...

We know that this game isn't perfect, or else we wouldn't be on this forum, discussing its faults. The fact that it's part of this game, or that the choice was deliberate, does not necessarily mean that it was the correct decision. After all, 4E was a deliberate decision, and we all know how well that turned out.

Saelorn said:

A difference of +3 to hit is hardly the end of the world.
...
a difference of three AC is unlikely to come up more than twice per day. Such small differences only matter for checks that happen very frequently.
..
Likewise, the difference between 4hp and 6hp is only two points per level, before Constitution is factored in.

Click to expand...

+3 to hit ranged, +3 damage ranged, +3 AC, +2 HP/level.

What I'm getting from this is that casters are supposed to do most of their combat actions that would be "on par" with weapons/damage/HP if only they somehow had +6 DEX and +4 CON, but all of that is made up for by throwing a lighting bolt once per encounter.

To flip that around, would your average martial give up +6 attack stat (& to AC) and +4 CON to be able to throw a lightning bolt once per encounter?

Saelorn said:

We know that this game isn't perfect, or else we wouldn't be on this forum, discussing its faults. The fact that it's part of this game, or that the choice was deliberate, does not necessarily mean that it was the correct decision. After all, 4E was a deliberate decision, and we all know how well that turned out.

Click to expand...

Yes, 4e had a very polarizing opinion. 5e, for better or worse depending on the gamer, stepped away from of lot of it. But it did keep at-will attacks for everyone, so that must have been seen as one of the unqualified successes.

Blue said:

+3 to hit ranged, +3 damage ranged, +3 AC, +2 HP/level.

What I'm getting from this is that casters are supposed to do most of their combat actions that would be "on par" with weapons/damage/HP if only they somehow had +6 DEX and +4 CON, but all of that is made up for by throwing a lighting bolt once per encounter.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Fighters are better on an at-will basis. They do what anyone else could do, except they're slightly better along each metric. In exchange, they don't get the big flashy powers that can take out a room full of chumps all at once.

Blue said:

To flip that around, would your average martial give up +6 attack stat (& to AC) and +4 CON to be able to throw a lightning bolt once per encounter?

Click to expand...

If they wanted to be a wizard, sure. That's the offer on the table. Give up +2 to hit/damage/AC/HP, in exchange for one big effect in each encounter.

Obviously, not everyone would take that deal, and that's a good thing. If they did, then we would know that wizards were overpowered. But I would wager that enough of them would take it for it to be considered a valid alternative, as it was in earlier editions.

Blue said:

Yes, 4e had a very polarizing opinion. 5e, for better or worse depending on the gamer, stepped away from of lot of it. But it did keep at-will attacks for everyone, so that must have been seen as one of the unqualified successes.

Click to expand...

Just because they made a decision, doesn't mean that it was the right decision, or without controversy. Every edition involves taking some risks, and not all of those risks will pay off. Hence, why we're stuck with boring, at-will cantrips in 5E.