Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique

[CapnZapp]

Regardless, a cantrip failed save means no effect or damage.

And? Did I refute this when it was brought up?

Whether a save means half or no damage doesn't mean much. It's just one way the game can regulate the actual DPR, which is the interesting thing.

That cantrips do nothing if the monster saves, encourages the caster to cast it on the henchmen rather than the BBEG. But that's nothing new, since BBEGs do not go down to cantrips anyway. At high levels cantrips is what you use for "filler fights", the fights where you realize you will win anyway and you want to conserve real power for later.

(Unless you're a Blaster Warlock of course)

And 22(4d10) damage at 17th level is no different than someone firing a bow, or swinging a sword at the same level, and stacked next to a melee class that spell attack cantrip takes one action of the spellcasters action economy, whereas, a weapon attack benefits from extra attack.

Ouch. No no no... the four dice represents four attacks. Sure, a Cleric might not feel her cantrips are competitive to the fighter... but then again, why should she?

The fighter is the only class that gets four attacks. It is the "attack specialist". So compare it to the "cantrip specialists", which include Warlock Eldritch Blast (properly boosted) or possibly the Draconic Sorcerer.

Besides, both you and others are claiming shooting a ray of fire or acid is equal to firing a crossbow bolt or swinging a sword. Nothing could be more untrue. Just think about it, and you'll easily see how a steady peppering of energy damage has far more utility than mere physical harm.

(A sword can chop up a body, yes, but it won't impress "CSI" when you leave little bloody cubes of flesh. Whereas Acid Splash can dissolve it entirely. Just to mention one out of a myriad of things a Fighter simply cannot do, but someone with endless Cantrips can).

 

[CapnZapp]

The issue is that an option that requires a resource should always be better than an option that doesn't.

Well, no. Several posters have already stated their disagreement. And I have also shown you that "option that requires a resource" is a simplistic view of the matter.

Yes, the first level slot is not impressive when used to deal damage. But it's not limited to that usage.

Once you factor in how 1st level slots can deal competitive damage during the first few levels and can also be used for utility unmatched by cantrips throught all twenty levels, it becomes apparent to me this simply isn't a problem big enough that it needs solving.

Even if you do manage to come up with a non-cluttery solution, what then? What if a level 1 slot always did +1 damage more than your best Cantrip, how would that actually change the game? I posit that it would not and this is just a theoretical hangup; something that "looks bad" on paper but doesn't have any actual game impact.

Why? Because I'm assuming that's what you're getting at. Fixing a paper inelegance. If you OTOH want low-level spells to deal considerable damage (maybe twice the cantrip) then I really disagree, because you've just unbalanced the game! Remember that at high level you have effectively unlimited low level slots (and then you level up and gain actual unlimited slots). Are your real aim to sunset damage cantrips and raise the baseline damage of casters?

In short, maybe skip ahead to showing us what your desired end state could be, instead of getting caught on the fact that people disagree with you. One we see that end state of yours ("level 1 spells should deal N damage dice plus Y riders"), we will likely be able to slot that into either of the two states I discussed above, and this discussion can finally end.

In short: what level of damage is acceptable to you, yet low enough to not unbalance the game, and at the same time sufficiently easy to implement and remember? Looks like a very tall order if you ask me.

Best regards,
Zapp

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I guess a quick fix to that would be to make spellcasters actually lose lower level spell slots and gain more higher level ones. For example at level 5 your 1st level spell slots become 2nd level spell slots.

Basically the Warlock is already like that.

But as the others said, you can still use lower level spell slots for utility rather than damage and it might actually be by design to not grant the player a large amount of spell slots for damage spells, so he makes more use of utility.

 

[CapnZapp]

Please don't.

Main reason why wizards that I played in 3rd ed were elves is that when you run out of spells shooting a bow is like 6 categories less demeaning than shooting a crossbow every other round.

In actual play, I don't see how limiting Cantrips would have any actual impact. How many Firebolts do you actually shoot between rests?

No, this is a signal change, that prevents cheese like "I burn myself out of jail" with little actual play impact.

The difference to the bad old days couldn't be larger.

Remember that question above? It wasn't rhetorical. Let's assume you answer "X". Then I give you that the rules would be improved by limiting cantrips to X+1. In fact, I wouldn't even force you into keeping track of spent cantrips just as I don't force archers to keep track of (non-magical) ammunition!

Plus: Even if you only shoot the single loaded bolt once per encounter, that could still mean three or more saved cantrips per rest. In short: I don't see a Wizard being forced into demeaning labor except in the most esoteric of circumstances

 

[Horwath]

In actual play, I don't see how limiting Cantrips would have any actual impact. How many Firebolts do you actually shoot between rests?

No, this is a signal change, that prevents cheese like "I burn myself out of jail" with little actual play impact.

The difference to the bad old days couldn't be larger.

Remember that question above? It wasn't rhetorical. Let's assume you answer "X". Then I give you that the rules would be improved by limiting cantrips to X+1. In fact, I wouldn't even force you into keeping track of spent cantrips just as I don't force archers to keep track of (non-magical) ammunition!

Plus: Even if you only shoot the single loaded bolt once per encounter, that could still mean three or more saved cantrips per rest. In short: I don't see a Wizard being forced into demeaning labor except in the most esoteric of circumstances

THis with jail is true.

However it is the problem with hardness or lack off in 5e.

in 3.5E iron had I think hardness 10 and 30 Hp per inch(tipical iron bar) and halved all damage except acid and sonic.

you needed 22 damage from fire attack minimum to deal 1 pt of damage.

That is average for firebolt at 17th level...and it requires lots of casting. Somebody will notice.

Before lvl11 you cant even damage it.

But that were rules before for hardness,


just pointing out that atwill cantrips are less problem than (over)simplified rules for hardness.

 

[Hussar]

This is actually the path I originally thought this discussion would go down. Not about whether the logic I used to derive my result was valid, but instead if things like aoe and auto hit and half damage on miss, etc, were enough to make up for the lower damage values (maybe they are) and also if simply doing more damage than a cantrip was the accurate formulation of what we desired or if that's just caveman speak for a bit harder to convey idea. Maybe what we are really trying to ask is, "is the damage + special properties of a 1st level damage spell, sufficiently better than a cantrip that a 1st level spell slot resource should be required for it?

Clearly if a spell does less damage than a cantrip then a resource shouldn't be needed for it. But if the spell does 1d6 damage more than a cantrip is that actually enough to make me ever use it over the cantrip? I don't think that would ever be enough later to make me use the resource over the free option

So ultimately, low level spells may have to scale much to high in damage to be sufficiently higher damage than a cantrip and sufficiently lower damage than higher lever spells.

But, we're not talking about 1d6 are we? A Burning Hands does 9d6 damage pretty easily. Certainly 6d6 virtually guaranteed. Yup, there's save for half, but, fare enough, many cantrips can outright fail. You have to be 17th level before you can deal even remotely equivalent damage. The fact that I've been dealing that kind of damage for the last 16 levels kinda makes up for things.

For the majority of campaigns, 2d10 is the norm with maybe a couple of levels of 3d10 at the tail end of the campaign. 1st level spells are still seriously outdamaging any cantrip, in addition to often having rider effects like Thunderwave. Or something that deals ongoing damage as a bonus action like Flaming Sphere. There isn't a cantrip out there that's going to deal that kind of damage.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I, too, disagree with the premise regarding resources (see ranged weapons: ammunition) - and actually, for the same reason: all spells cost resources to cast, namely, actions.

Unless you can make the point that scaling damage cantrips make 1st lvl spell slots meaningless, which you can’t. You also can’t ignore the fact that other spells can be cast using higher level slots, which allows their damage (and other effects and utility) to remain relevant at higher tiers of play. The spell choice remains relevant.

Also, you can’t pretend that the “resource cost” of a 1st lvl slot is as valuable at 1st lvl as it is at 11th, or 17th, or whatever. An 11th lvl Wizard has 16 spell slots available (4 1st), and 47 spell levels to play with. By any standard, the total opportunity cost of casting a cantrip vs a 1st lvl spell slot is marginal at best, which more than accounted for by the versatility of that 1st lvl slot or the spell that was cast with it.

TLDR - all spells cost resources (actions); The resource cost of a 1st lvl spell slot decreases drastically as character level increases; spells can be cast in higher lvl slots, increasing their damage which allows more versatility at the slot cost the caster is willing to play.

1st lvl spells are already better than cantrips

 

[FrogReaver]

I, too, disagree with the premise regarding resources (see ranged weapons: ammunition) - and actually, for the same reason: all spells cost resources to cast, namely, actions.

You are bringing up 2 points. The first is that ammunition is a resource that doesn't actually enhance your capabilities. I disagree there. Even a str based 2 handed weapon fighter has a situational use for ammunition (flying enemies). In contrast I don't believe there are useful times to cast low level damage spells. Though I at least believe that question is worth exploring and I could be persuaded of it with a thoughtful and reasoned analysis.

The second point you are saying I agree with in some way. Actions are a resource in the sense of action economy. The point of note about action resources is that every ability we are discussing has the same action resource cost. They all require your action. So talking about the action economy resource component of the abilities we are discussing doesn't change anything except that bringing it up now means I have to write a paragraph to actually make the same point I was making in shorthand before. Which is going to lead to accustations that I'm moving the goal posts when all I'm actually doing is making a more explicit formal declaration of the same intuitive point I started the discussion with.

Unless you can make the point that scaling damage cantrips make 1st lvl spell slots meaningless, which you can’t. You also can’t ignore the fact that other spells can be cast using higher level slots, which allows their damage (and other effects and utility) to remain relevant at higher tiers of play. The spell choice remains relevant.

I agree other spells cast with a level 1 spell slot are meaningful and often worth doing over a cantrip. However, I actually can ignore that a spell can be cast with a higher level slot because a higher level slot isn't the same resource as the lower level slot. So that has nothing to do with my argument.

Also, you can’t pretend that the “resource cost” of a 1st lvl slot is as valuable at 1st lvl as it is at 11th, or 17th, or whatever. An 11th lvl Wizard has 16 spell slots available (4 1st), and 47 spell levels to play with.

I've never pretended a 1st level slot should be as valuable at level 11 or 17. What I am saying is that regardless of what spell is cast from it that the effect should be something stronger than a cantrip. A 1st level spell cast in a 1st level slot can both be stronger than a cantrip and be less valuable as you level.

By any standard, the total opportunity cost of casting a cantrip vs a 1st lvl spell slot is marginal at best, which more than accounted for by the versatility of that 1st lvl slot or the spell that was cast with it.

I agree that a 1st level slot is a marginal resource at higher levels. I agree that it's a very versatile resource. That said, damage is one of the options you have of using that resource on. If damage is an option for you to spend a resource on then it should be at least marginally better than if you didn't spend a resource on damage at all.

TLDR - all spells cost resources (actions); The resource cost of a 1st lvl spell slot decreases drastically as character level increases; spells can be cast in higher lvl slots, increasing their damage which allows more versatility at the slot cost the caster is willing to play.

Whether 1st level spells cast in first level slots do more damage than a cantrip or less than one, all of the above points will still remain true. When your points can just as easily be said about my suggested change as the current game then they aren't meaningful points to be making.

1st lvl spells are already better than cantrips

Correction: Some 1st level spells are better than cantrips. Others are worse. What's the problem with fixing the ones that are worse?

 

[5ekyu]

THis with jail is true.

However it is the problem with hardness or lack off in 5e.

in 3.5E iron had I think hardness 10 and 30 Hp per inch(tipical iron bar) and halved all damage except acid and sonic.

you needed 22 damage from fire attack minimum to deal 1 pt of damage.

That is average for firebolt at 17th level...and it requires lots of casting. Somebody will notice.

Before lvl11 you cant even damage it.

But that were rules before for hardness,


just pointing out that atwill cantrips are less problem than (over)simplified rules for hardness.

DMG allows the GM to decide which attacks can damage objects oof given type and which cant. Also allows GM to assign damage threshold specific for walls etc. Most but not all cantrips even specify creatures.

So your girebolt at stone walls can take a long time now.

 

[FrogReaver]

But, we're not talking about 1d6 are we? A Burning Hands does 9d6 damage pretty easily. Certainly 6d6 virtually guaranteed. Yup, there's save for half, but, fare enough, many cantrips can outright fail. You have to be 17th level before you can deal even remotely equivalent damage. The fact that I've been dealing that kind of damage for the last 16 levels kinda makes up for things.

For the majority of campaigns, 2d10 is the norm with maybe a couple of levels of 3d10 at the tail end of the campaign. 1st level spells are still seriously outdamaging any cantrip, in addition to often having rider effects like Thunderwave. Or something that deals ongoing damage as a bonus action like Flaming Sphere. There isn't a cantrip out there that's going to deal that kind of damage.

For most of the game it's a non-issue and in probably 95% of sessions people won't even be a high enough level to see cantrips doing more damage than 1st level spells cast in 1st level slots. And as we have seen player's have already devised a workaround for this problem, they just don't use 1st level spells for damage in higher levels. Though, I think, at say level 17 the 1st level damage spells not being better than cantrips is only a small piece of why we don't see them used. The bigger issue is that there's much more bang for your buck using that resource on spells like shield, tasha's hideous laughter, fog cloud, charm person, healing word, goodberry, entangle, command, bless etc. especially since most of the other 1st level spells you might cast are rituals.

So even if we could guarantee 1st level spells do more damage than cantrips they still wouldn't be used. We would have to make them do significantly better damage than current 5e cantrips and at that classes whose primary focus is damage might as well not exist from an optimization standpoint.

The only thing I think might could be done is to make most cantrips do even less damage than they currently do and to then slightly scale damage spells as you level to help make up for the difference. I wouldn't want to try this in 5e as warlocks rely on a cantrip and if we left it the same but made the others weaker then it could still be easily picked up by multiclassing. There is going to be too much fiddliness is trying to change cantrips IMO.

So I give up doing this for 5e. Maybe 6e will strike a better balance in all tiers of play between damage spells, cantrips and control and buff spells.