Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique

[mortwatcher]

Don't be obtuse.

Any spell casting that is effectively at will for Xd8 (or so) damage is pew pew. I mean, again, what's the difference between what you do when you cast firebolt and what you do when you cast sacred flame? In both cases, you stand back, shoot the spell and deal the damage. Just like there really isn't a whole lot of difference between a longsword and a two handed sword. Yup, one does d8 and one does 2d6 and that's about it. One character using a longsword and one using a greatsword aren't really all that different are they?

And before you get into class abilities and feats, note, NONE of that applies to cantrips. It's not like a cleric could choose a fighting style like a fighter can that applies to using cantrips. There are very few feats that apply to cantrips and those that do don't really change how the spell is used - either a straight up damage bonus or a range bonus. Whoopee.

I don't think that clerics and druids should have cantrips that are more effective than their attacks. Again, what's the point of having weapons and armor if you never actually use them?

in addition, with Xanathar, both cleric and wizard will be tolling the dead most of the time
them having weapons is more an aesthetic choice, unless you have warcaster, you still will need an empty hand for casting

 

[Imaro]

Well, considering the "holy warrior" thing has been part and parcel to clerics since day 1, I'm rather shocked [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] that you would go this route. I thought you were all about maintaining traditions.

Why would you think that? I'm all about liking Planescape lore if that's what you're referring to but you're the one who tries to claim anyone who lies it, likes it for traditions sake. your argument not mine.

As for tradition... are you claiming the paladin isn't a "traditional" class? Because at this point and for how long it's been in the game I would claim it's just as "traditional" as the cleric. Look... there are still ways to make a viable holy warrior cleric in 5e with the right domains which makes more sense and feels more thematic than every cleric (regardless of the deity or force they follow) being trained as a warrior.

But, for me, if the cleric is using magic as the primary source of combat damage, then, well, that character is just a themed wizard. What's the difference?

In 5e at least there are the different spell lists, domains, channel divinity, different class skills, the ability to request aid from a deity, proficiency in light/med armor & shields, and so on.

That said this is an incredibly broad categorization you've made ... do you feel anyone using weapons as the primary source of combat damage is a themed warrior?

Clerics have always been a close second to fighters in combat. Now, they're a wizard in armor with a bit more hit points.

No they haven't... at least as early as 2e (probably before that but I'm not really familiar with the game before 2e) there have been options for clerics that were not a close second to fighters in combat... in fact if I remember correctly there were kits that basically allowed one to forego most if not all of the cleric's martial prowess. the only difference now is that the default is spells with the ability to build towards martial as opposed to vice versa.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, considering the "holy warrior" thing has been part and parcel to clerics since day 1, I'm rather shocked @Imaro that you would go this route. I thought you were all about maintaining traditions.

But, for me, if the cleric is using magic as the primary source of combat damage, then, well, that character is just a themed wizard. What's the difference?

Do wizards heal? Do they remove negative status effects? Do they give bonuses to saves to several people at once? Can they do anything but damage against unholy creatures? Do they have spells that hit unholy creatures harder? Can they do anything g like what cleric class features do?

Of course not. And again, cantrips aren’t primary, they’re backup. Look at the spells, and class features.

Clerics have always been a close second to fighters in combat. Now, they're a wizard in armor with a bit more hit points.

So make a war cleric? Or a cantrip that at level 1 turns your weapon damage into radiant and has some minor rider, and adds dice at 5, 11, and 17. But the class is already built to accommodate both of us.

That would be my favorite solution as well. Nicely flavorful. Makes actually having weapons and armor work for the character instead of against it.

probably easy to just make it a cantrip.

Well, a rogue's primary damage source is sneak attack. So, the rogue is constantly looking for ways to deal that sneak attack which changes how the rogue is played considerably from a fighter. Not too many fighters will be looking to hide every round so they can snipe from the shadows, for example. Which, right there, makes a rogue play considerably differently from a fighter.

What's the difference between firebolt and sacred flame? One is an attack roll and one is a saving throw. Range is different I suppose. But, from the player's perspective, you act exactly the same in both cases. You stand off and chuck the spell. Both the cleric and the wizard are in the back rank chucking damaging spells.

IOW, they play very, very much the same. Minor cosmetic differences (oh, I attack a saving throw vs I attack an AC) isn't really much of a change.

So, you keep coming back to sacred flame as if it’s the only cantrip clerics have. Clerics don’t need to be spamming damage cantrips. But damage type and range is also an in game difference. Clerics can’t just hang back and cast, because they’re in dagger-throwing range if they use their ranged damage cantrip, their healing requires close range, as do most buffs, and so they have armor to keep them alive in the thick of it. They have weapon proficiencies because tradition, and so that war clerics aren’t just randomly going from none at all to fighter proficiencies.

Don't be obtuse.

I’m not.

Any spell casting that is effectively at will for Xd8 (or so) damage is pew pew. I mean, again, what's the difference between what you do when you cast firebolt and what you do when you cast sacred flame? In both cases, you stand back, shoot the spell and deal the damage. Just like there really isn't a whole lot of difference between a longsword and a two handed sword. Yup, one does d8 and one does 2d6 and that's about it. One character using a longsword and one using a greatsword aren't really all that different are they?

a more accurate comparison would be handaxes and longbows, or longswords and glaives.

And before you get into class abilities and feats, note, NONE of that applies to cantrips. It's not like a cleric could choose a fighting style like a fighter can that applies to using cantrips. There are very few feats that apply to cantrips and those that do don't really change how the spell is used - either a straight up damage bonus or a range bonus. Whoopee.

so what? Not being dismissive, genuinely asking why this matters in any way?

I don't think that clerics and druids should have cantrips that are more effective than their attacks. Again, what's the point of having weapons and armor if you never actually use them?

They can use them. And because tradition. Again, I don’t think Druids should have literally any weapon proficiencies, but I’m being a bit of a stickler for source material there, which isn’t like me, so I don’t let my preferences leak out often.

And Druids should have a subclass that makes them better at fighting in melee without using beast shape. I proposed a change to shillelagh that adds damage at later levels.

There are additive solutions available, that don’t involve changing either class.

But even without them, they don’t “pew pew like a wizard”. I’ve never seen either class played like a wizard in 5e, in actual play, and their feature dont Support doing so.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If sub-classes included alternatives to spellbooks (or that spellbook is a sub-class feature that gives you the sub-class adds), that could work.

Establish INT as the arcana mastery stat just like WIS is the divine and CHA covers socials (maybe also all the "amateur" casters (the halfs and thirds))

Could easily see it.

Narratively and mechanically, you could have the first two levels of ARCANIST be your basic features and at third level when you pass beyond novice to get end level spells you pick your sub-class that reveals your "true power" or "path to real power" be it from spellbooks and study, bloodlines, cut deal with patron, Fey changeling, a scion, secret elixirs and potions, clever devices and foci etc etc etc etc.

Could be quite awesome, streamlined and very msnageable.

Sounds like a completely different game, and not one I’d be as interested in as I am in DnD.

 

[5ekyu]

Sounds like a completely different game, and not one I’d be as interested in as I am in DnD.

Really? Completely different game?

Well everybody has their own take.

I thought I was describing an arcane caster class with 8-10 different dub-classes each with different flavors and natures... something I thought perfectly in line with 5e.

Completely different game eith class and dub-classes... ok.

Then again maybe it was the arcane casters using int and divine caster using wis... that could be a real departure - sure.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Really? Completely different game?

Well everybody has their own take.

I thought I was describing an arcane caster class with 8-10 different dub-classes each with different flavors and natures... something I thought perfectly in line with 5e.

Completely different game eith class and dub-classes... ok.

Then again maybe it was the arcane casters using int and divine caster using wis... that could be a real departure - sure.

DnD has distinct classes. What you describe is Star Wars Saga Edition with subclasses instead of talents.

Ina game with few classes that have to cover immense numbers of concepts (each subclass has sub-concepts, like wizard specialisations and wildshape focused vs casting focused Druids), I’d rather just have each class be bare bones with modular options chosen at each level, and pretty much no rails.

But neither is DnD.

 

[5ekyu]

DnD has distinct classes. What you describe is Star Wars Saga Edition with subclasses instead of talents.

Ina game with few classes that have to cover immense numbers of concepts (each subclass has sub-concepts, like wizard specialisations and wildshape focused vs casting focused Druids), I’d rather just have each class be bare bones with modular options chosen at each level, and pretty much no rails.

But neither is DnD.

Ahhh... The definition of DnD is very set the?

Cool.

 

[Hussar]

Do wizards heal? Do they remove negative status effects? Do they give bonuses to saves to several people at once? Can they do anything but damage against unholy creatures? Do they have spells that hit unholy creatures harder? Can they do anything g like what cleric class features do?

None of these things are cantrips. We're talking about cantrips and attacks here. Again, being a themed wizard means that you have different spells than a standard wizard.

Of course not. And again, cantrips aren’t primary, they’re backup. Look at the spells, and class features.

Why aren't cantrips primary? Outside of a war priest, no cleric can EVER deal as much damage with a mace as he can with his cantrips. But, weapons and armor ARE class features for clerics and druids. So, if we're actually going to give them weapons and armor, why then give them cantrips that make both of these things irrelevant?

So, you keep coming back to sacred flame as if it’s the only cantrip clerics have. Clerics don’t need to be spamming damage cantrips. But damage type and range is also an in game difference. Clerics can’t just hang back and cast, because they’re in dagger-throwing range if they use their ranged damage cantrip, their healing requires close range, as do most buffs, and so they have armor to keep them alive in the thick of it. They have weapon proficiencies because tradition, and so that war clerics aren’t just randomly going from none at all to fighter proficiencies.

Well, it's the only direct damage cantrip clerics have. No, sorry, they have Toll the Dead which technically does even more damage. IOW, all their cantrips outweigh their actual attacks. So, why have these CLASS FEATURES if the spells you give the class work against them?

They can use them. And because tradition. Again, I don’t think Druids should have literally any weapon proficiencies, but I’m being a bit of a stickler for source material there, which isn’t like me, so I don’t let my preferences leak out often.

And Druids should have a subclass that makes them better at fighting in melee without using beast shape. I proposed a change to shillelagh that adds damage at later levels.

There are additive solutions available, that don’t involve changing either class.

But even without them, they don’t “pew pew like a wizard”. I’ve never seen either class played like a wizard in 5e, in actual play, and their feature dont Support doing so.

But, let's stick with what's actually in the game, yes? Not what we wish was in the game. So, your clerics are wading into melee combat constantly? YOur clerics never take direct damage cantrips? I'd argue that Land Druids and clerics except war priests play almost identically to a wizard. Stand back and chuck spells, never get in melee. Sounds like a wizard to me.

 

[cbwjm]

I think more clerics would be getting into melee than not. You have only 2 in the PHB that gain their wisdom bonus to their cantrip damage. In general, their cantrips might still be slightly better depending on the cleric level and the damage and power of the weapon but it isn't like clerics were powerhouses in earlier editions anyway. Until 3e they only ever had a single attack so weren't particularly good in combat compared to warriors who gain more attacks, especially fighters who gained even more attacks thanks to weapon specialisation, even if they did have combat buffs. People may have considered them good only because they had a better Thac0 compared to rogues and magic-users and were able to wear better armour but they still weren't great damage dealers in melee.

 

[Hussar]

I think more clerics would be getting into melee than not. You have only 2 in the PHB that gain their wisdom bonus to their cantrip damage. In general, their cantrips might still be slightly better depending on the cleric level and the damage and power of the weapon but it isn't like clerics were powerhouses in earlier editions anyway. Until 3e they only ever had a single attack so weren't particularly good in combat compared to warriors who gain more attacks, especially fighters who gained even more attacks thanks to weapon specialisation, even if they did have combat buffs. People may have considered them good only because they had a better Thac0 compared to rogues and magic-users and were able to wear better armour but they still weren't great damage dealers in melee.

Maybe not. But, they weren't too shabby either. And, outside of fighter types, they were second best in combat, hands down. The thief and the wizard weren't even close. You could stand your cleric beside the fighter and, if the game went from say 1st to 10th level, in AD&D, you weren't that far behind the fighter. Sure, at 7th level he was getting 2 attacks per round, but, you were both getting 1/round for the past six levels. And, since only fighters got weapon specs, the ranger and the paladin weren't overshadowing you much until 7th level.

3e clerics attacked almost as well as fighters, sure, they lagged a bit on iterative attacks, but, not much. They were certainly respectable.

It wasn't until 4e that clerics suddenly stopped being front line combatants at all. In 4e, they were limited to chain mail, had very limited weapon attacks and most of their powers weren't keyed to a weapon attack.

5e clerics are a bit schizophrenic. They've got the best armor, almost the best HP, decent weapon selection but, their cantrips add nothing to weapon attacks, and, in fact, by 5th level anyway, out damage virtually any weapon attack they could do (or at least equal) and by 11th level, leave their weapons in the dust. So you wind up being pulled in two opposite directions. Your powers are telling you to stand back behind the front line and plink away with spells while your class stuff is telling you to get up there and mix it up with the front line.

I've really noticed this with my Forge Priest. Currently 8th level, I envisioned him as getting up there and smacking things upside the head with a mace. I mean, fantastic AC, good HP, good attack bonuses - I should be a front line combatant. But, here's the kicker. A mace and, say, a 16 Str (which is very high for a cleric - I think my base Str is actually 14) is only d8+3 damage. All my cantrips deal better damage than that. Sacred flame is 2d8, it not only has a better maximum damage, it actually has better average damage. So, from 5th to 7th level, there was virtually no reason to use a weapon.

But wait, I'm 8th (well, just ticked 9th level last session). So, I get a bonus d8 from my Divine Strike feature 1/round. So, my mace is now 2d8+3. Ok, so, it's now slightly better than cantrips. OTOH, I have to actually be in melee to do that, and I have to target AC instead of Dex saves. Slightly more damage while slightly less reliable. It's pretty much a wash.

Like I said, the class pushes players in two opposite directions. Really, why bother with a weapon? At best, I'm dealing equal damage, while now being in a position to take damage. Or, I can stand behind the fighter, next to the wizard, and plink away.

Do I expect clerics to be massive damage dealers? Nope. Not at all. Clerics are support characters. I've got no problem with the total damage being done. That's fine. The problem is, the class can't make up its mind what it should be.