D&D 5E Attack cantrips are a waste of the DM's time

[Wulfgar76]

After a long session of D&D Next I've come to the conclusion that Attack Cantrips really need to use attack rolls instead of saving throws. Foremost among the reasons: it's a waste of the DM's time.

In the party was a Wizard with Ray of Frost, and a Cleric with Lance of Faith, both at-will attack cantrips that require the DM to roll Dexterity saves to avoid a whopping 1d8 damage. After about three hours of rolling saves to avoid 4 points damage, I just told the players to begin rolling the monsters' saves themselves - effectively turning the cantrips back into attack roll spells.

Given that most of the monsters in the bestiary have a Dexterity modifier of +0, +1 or +2, I told my players to assume a +1 Dexterity modifier to any monster they attacked with their cantrip. If the monster had a better or worse modifier, I really didn't care (neither did the players), given that the damage is so little.

So count this as another reason why cantrips should go back to using attack rolls.

 

[Zaukrie]

Get rid of saving throws, and use the 4e elegant system....with attacks versus different defenses. So simple.

 

[Sadrik]

I think there is more going on here than meets the eye, it is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. These were all hashed out in the other thread but really it comes down to play style. I think if they make saves be attacks or resistance rolls and to be utilized interchangably on the fly then they will capture the fan base of both play styles. The only way to do that is to have a unified mechanic on how you target with a spell.

Another issue is the idea of unlimited magic. Even if weak I think it makes magic less magical. I am certainly of the opinion that low level casters should be throwing daggers, darts and shuriken or wacking with their staff when low on resources. So I do not like unlimited weak spells that are a waste of time where shooting a crossbow would be just as good.

My solution for unlimited magic is feats like the reserve feats of 3e, ie something that is acquired at a higher level. Or I can see a standard action "ritual" for certain spells. For instance acid arrow spell might grant you an unlimited acid splash like effect but if you use the more powerful acid arrow effect then it is no longer memorized so you cannot use the splash effect. Ymmv as always.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I think there is more going on here than meets the eye, it is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. These were all hashed out in the other thread but really it comes down to play style.

Yeah in the other thread we did discuss the merits of why some spells should or should not be attack-roll based. No need to rehash all that, though I don't recall talking about cantrips specifically, but I think a good argument could be made for the player doing the rolling - if just as a way to save the DM time because the damage on them is so negligible.

Another issue is the idea of unlimited magic. Even if weak I think it makes magic less magical. I am certainly of the opinion that low level casters should be throwing daggers, darts and shuriken or wacking with their staff when low on resources. So I do not like unlimited weak spells that are a waste of time where shooting a crossbow would be just as good.

This is a well-worn issue as well. I'd say I'm somewhere in the middle of this debate. I like keeping magic scarce and limited, but also I really like Traditions of Wizardry granting you your cantrips. The idea that your study of certain magics brings you to a level of familiarity where the minor uses of those magics become second nature (at will). I think Wizards running out of magic and becoming peasants who throw daggers and swing staves is a relic of past editions that was never all that great.

Come to think of it, Wizards who use a little magic to become better at throwing daggers and swinging staves is a nifty idea for two new cantrips...

My solution for unlimited magic is feats like the reserve feats of 3e, ie something that is acquired at a higher level. Or I can see a standard action "ritual" for certain spells. For instance acid arrow spell might grant you an unlimited acid splash like effect but if you use the more powerful acid arrow effect then it is no longer memorized so you cannot use the splash effect. Ymmv as always.

Not bad ideas at all, though with the scarcity and power of feats in Next, I wouldn't want to see a feat be required to 'unlock' at-will attack magic – just to bring that character's level of attack competency up to that of a Wizard who was already shooting a crossbow. After all, Cantrips in DDN are pretty weak. For a high-dexterity wizard it's probably better to shoot a crossbow than use your cantrip anyway.

 

[adembroski]

I think they need to go away period. They're horribly over-powered, for one thing, and nothing more than a benny for entitlement deprived players.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Rays and lances should probably be attack rolls. Pew pew pew and all that.

Save the saving throws for bigger effects and/or ongoing effects. Not EVERYTHING needs to be an attack roll, but yer lasers probably should be.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Here is the previous thread on this subject (for reference), which emerged specifically out of the Cleric's Lance-of-Faith.

Yes, it should be an attack roll -- and (IMO) it should be a ranged attack, not a magic attack (and therefore based on Dex and not the magic-granting ability. This means that it becomes a choice in character build, and isn't something in which every wizard or cleric is going to specialize. There is a trade-off, and one that rewards some system mastery and choice. Not every wizard will then want to have the cantrip ready; it becomes less ubiquitous and thereby more interesting.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Yes, it should be an attack roll -- and (IMO) it should be a ranged attack, not a magic attack (and therefore based on Dex and not the magic-granting ability. This means that it becomes a choice in character build, and isn't something in which every wizard or cleric is going to specialize. There is a trade-off, and one that rewards some system mastery and choice. Not every wizard will then want to have the cantrip ready; it becomes less ubiquitous and thereby more interesting.

I agree. Should it also add an ability modifier to damage? Dex or Wis?

 

[Sage Genesis]

I agree that some spells should simply be attack rolls. This is not even something unique to 4e - I know 3e and 2e both also had spells that involved attack rolls (rays, touch attacks, etc.). When a spell sprays an area and can be partially dodged, or when it affects the soul and might be held back by an effort of will, that sounds like a saving throw. Aiming a laser is more like an attack. Attacks can also more easily keep things into account like cover and the like. A laser might have trouble hitting a guy behind a chest-high wall, but a Cloudkill engulfing him surely doesn't.

More generally, the saving throw mechanic in Next needs a lot of work. Saves are based purely on ability scores but that means red dragons only have a +0 modifier to Wisdom, Intelligence, and Dexterity saving throws. Even with magic resistance, good luck making those saves (illusionists can get up to 22). "Flattened math" and "realistic monsters" have in unison come to mean "red dragons are really easy to Dominate". That can't possibly be a good thing, if you ask me.

 

[Raith5]

I like attack rolls for cantrips and other spells that directly target an enemy.

But I would like defensive and 'utility' types of cantrips as well. In general I find the spells in DDN - especially the cleric and paladin ones- really bland. It does not feel like a part of the design that has got a lot of love.