D&D 5E Limiting use of cantrips - what are the consequences?

[Skyscraper]

This thread is partly derailing from the original intent, but I appreciate the input nonetheless.

All comments are interesting and making me consider what approach I wish to have to my campaign. As a side note, when I'm saying I want magic to be scarce, perhaps I'm putting too much emphasis, in that the PC casters won't be the only casters in the world. Just that I wish to avoid magic being run of the mill, such that every constable is a diviner that knows the answer to any murder in a matter of a few rounds.

The entire endless cantrips flavor seems odd to me, in this respect. I was wondering if I'd meddle with it to limit uses.

The point about warlocks is well taken - no one has every played a warlock in any game i played in, so I had not considered that.

For now, I'm considering simply bringing in flavor that says that using magic requires energy from the caster, like swinging a sword from the figther. If a caster casts many spells, including spamming cantrips, he'll grow fatigued and move up in the fatigue table.

I'll continue to think about all of this because the idea of limiting the number of cantrips to a high number, simply doesn't jive with me. And limiting to a small number appears to nerf many caster classes too much.

 

[SuperZero]

It's on one of my posts on the prior page. Forgive my ignorance on forum mechanics, I'm not sure if there's a way for me to link to that post.

The number in the top right of a post is a link directly to that post. Copy that url and you can link it. Is this the post you want?

 

[Ranthalan]

As a side note, when I'm saying I want magic to be scarce, perhaps I'm putting too much emphasis, in that the PC casters won't be the only casters in the world. Just that I wish to avoid magic being run of the mill, such that every constable is a diviner that knows the answer to any murder in a matter of a few rounds.

The entire endless cantrips flavor seems odd to me, in this respect. I was wondering if I'd meddle with it to limit uses.

I think we're of like mind regarding this. 95% of my D&D history is 1E. The biggest shock starting up 5E was just how much magic there was. I know they say it's low magic, but I assume they're comparing it to editions I haven't played. The fact that the rogue in my campaign can cast a spell at all (without multi-classing), much less every turn, is just so weird to me. Every player save one at my table uses magic. It feels like everyone in the world can cast spells.

I think the fatigue idea holds promise. I'd like to hear what you come up with.

 

[Ranthalan]

The number in the top right of a post is a link directly to that post. Copy that url and you can link it. Is this the post you want?

Ah! Thanks so much!

 

[The Human Target]

This thread is partly derailing from the original intent, but I appreciate the input nonetheless.

All comments are interesting and making me consider what approach I wish to have to my campaign. As a side note, when I'm saying I want magic to be scarce, perhaps I'm putting too much emphasis, in that the PC casters won't be the only casters in the world. Just that I wish to avoid magic being run of the mill, such that every constable is a diviner that knows the answer to any murder in a matter of a few rounds.

The entire endless cantrips flavor seems odd to me, in this respect. I was wondering if I'd meddle with it to limit uses.

The point about warlocks is well taken - no one has every played a warlock in any game i played in, so I had not considered that.

For now, I'm considering simply bringing in flavor that says that using magic requires energy from the caster, like swinging a sword from the figther. If a caster casts many spells, including spamming cantrips, he'll grow fatigued and move up in the fatigue table.

I'll continue to think about all of this because the idea of limiting the number of cantrips to a high number, simply doesn't jive with me. And limiting to a small number appears to nerf many caster classes too much.

Interestingly, fighters can swing their swords all-day without penalty.

 

[spectacle]

If you want a low-magic feel I don't think limiting how often cantrips can be cast will help much. Limiting the number of casters in the party and among NPCs will have much greater impact. Adding bookkeeping for cantrip use will just make magic feel more mechanical rather than mystical.

 

[Ranthalan]

If you want a low-magic feel I don't think limiting how often cantrips can be cast will help much. Limiting the number of casters in the party and among NPCs will have much greater impact. Adding bookkeeping for cantrip use will just make magic feel more mechanical rather than mystical.

I wouldn't tell my players, only x of you get to be casters. Anyway, it's not so much the number of casters. A big part of it is that every class has a casting subclass. All but one of my party can cast spells and only one was a traditional spellcasting class. So, to me, it feels like anyone from any walk of life can use magic and makes it feel somewhat mundane. But that's just my hang up. I wouldn't break from the rules just for that.

I debated with myself for quite some time before even suggesting the rule change. One of the first factors was that Eldritch Blast (cantrip) is comparable to Magic Missile (spell). The spell is limited, while the cantrip isn’t. The warlock cast Eldritch Blast every single turn, because unlimited, it was the obvious best option. The fact that the cleric could cast Spare the Dying every turn had a profound effect on how the party unrealistically approached combat. It made sense in context, but the players even remarked how crazy their actions sometimes felt. What finally made me suggest the change was the cleric, after many sessions, wondered why he bothered carrying his weapons around when he had never used them. Sacred Flame made them moot. Every turn: Eldritch Blast, Firebolt, and most times, Sacred Flame. Even the sword swingers changed it up with a bow every now and again.

The characters still have plenty of cantrips. And while they’re still used frequently, no one has run out because they’re used judiciously. This has had the desired effect of a more natural variety of actions. The bookkeeping doesn’t really add much. Our cantrips are basically level 0 spells, so it’s just an extension of the spells they already have.

I present this solely as how my table addressed what we considered a problem. The same may not be an issue at other tables.

 

[Merchant of Shadows]

I limited cantrips in my campaign because it was just getting boring. The only thing the warlock ever did was cast Eldritch Blast. (Eldritch Blast is too powerful for a cantrip, IMO) The cleric had some decent weapons but it never made sense to use them.

Sounds good. How did you limit the fighter only ever swinging his sword and the ranger only ever shooting his bow? Weapon attacks are too powerful for weapon attacks, don't you think so?

 

[Ranthalan]

Sounds good. How did you limit the fighter only ever swinging his sword and the ranger only ever shooting his bow? Weapon attacks are too powerful for weapon attacks, don't you think so?

No, I don't. The fighter used bows when it made sense to use bows. It was strange how the class you would expect to be the most monotonous was actually the most varied.

 

[Merchant of Shadows]

And the cleric refused to use weapon when it made sence to use a weapon or the warlock refused to use spells when it made sense to use a spell? If you want your players to use something else than cantrips - them give them situation where using something else than cantrip makes sense.