Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

And I’m challenging your premises. We’re talking about the idea that clerics are “themed wizards” because they have cantrips that are stronger than their weapon attacks. I’ve presented the arguemrnt that this is false because cantrips are only 1 small part of what the class does, and what the class does is quite different.

The idea that any primary spellcaster is a themed wizard is too absurd to even meaningfully interact with, but that seems to be your position in this post.

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?

most characters of spellcasting classes (except warlock) spend more time casting leveled spells and using class features than they do using cantrips. A feature can’t be the character’s primary thing, if it’s used less than other features.

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?

Word of Radiance.

If your cleric concept is centered on dealing damage, there are some cantrips and a whole subclass for that. Not all clerics have any focus at all on directly dealing damage. It is good that the game supports both, and supports them well.

But, let's stick with what's actually in the game, yes? Not what we wish was in the game.

No. if you can’t handle the occasional tangential aside, don’t discuss things with me. I’m not going to change how I post at your whim. What’s more, we’ve both already been discussing what could best be done to fix the issue that you have with the classes. You’ve even agreed that a feature or cantrip that simply makes the cleric’s weapon attacks do extra radiant damage would fix the issue.

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.

A few things here.

Yes, my clerics are in melee range of enemies quite often.

Some take damage cantrips, some don’t. Some are specifically playing a 4e invoker style “wrath of god” cleric (which has been a thing since at least 3e), while some simply want a ranged backup. Including the couple warpreists we’ve had at the table. Still others only have a weapon for when there is no other action to take, and will rather use Help than attack most times, if there are literally only the two options.

All of them are in melee range of enemies frequently, because they have to be within the movement speed of enemies to do most of the things they can do that are of any use, unlike the wizard.

If you are seeing clerics always in the “backfield” never in any physical danger, your DM is very nice, or not very tactical with enemies. Or your cleric players are playing full on invokers with little interest in keeeping allies up and buffer and enemies debuffed.

But the thing you keep ignoring, it seems, is that “cast a spell” doesn’t mean anything. No one describing a fight would be like, “and then the cleric cast a spell, and the wizard cast a spell, and then...” because that would be a completely useless description of events. Wizards and clerics do completely different things with their spells, and have completely different class features. The fact they both have spells is beyond irrelevant to a discussion of how similar or different they are.

If you can read the cleric spell list, and think “sounds like a wizard”, I can’t imagine what your conception of any of the classes even is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Wait wait wait.

Being just as good in melee as at (quite short) range with a cantrip isn’t good enough for you, either!?

Why? The game is literally letting you stand next to the warriors and deal comparable damage, while also having all the cleric stuff. You’re...in better shape than in old school dnd!

“It’s a wash” come on! Of course it is! It should be! I’ve got clerics in my group who literally have no made a single weapon attack, and a war priest that is a melee beast. That is good design.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

I dont think that's a problem with the class, I thibk it's a problem with the player. Decide what you want to be and focus on that.