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

[Li Shenron]

Frankly it's quite irritating to read many of the responses here telling [MENTION=48518]Skyscraper[/MENTION] not to do what he wants. If you disagree with the premise, you're just wasting his time...

To me it seems quite clear what he wants: he doesn't want the idea of infinite spells resources in his game. It's not about balance or realism or whatever, it's just about the simple idea that he wants spells to be a limited resources, and by the 5e rules they are not, because of cantrips and rituals (but the latter are more scarce, less frequently used, and at least the required time mitigates the problem). It's got nothing to do with other ideas under the "low-magic" umbrella, such as how many casters are in the world, so changing that will have no effect on his current issue.

Personally I liked the 1st suggestion by [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION]: enforce the cantrip's required material components (you need to check tho, if there are cantrips which don't require any). This idea will not introduce a hard daily limit (so in terms of balance, it's very possible that it won't make much difference, especially if you allow the PCs to easily gather those ingredients back), but in terms of feeling it will help a lot, because cantrips just won't feel unlimited. The DM will have the option to dial on the availability of the ingredients if she feels that a particular cantrip is been overused.

Another, more radical approach, is to just remove cantrips from the game, or make them count as 1st level spells and use slots. This does hurt the balance of spellcasters classes, so some compensation is needed, for example a bonus feat (if your game uses feats). You can of course also consider a less radical middle ground, like a daily limit of "slot-free" cantrips followed by requiring slots.

 

[jbOKgamer]

I once thought of requiring using spell points instead of slots and making cantrips cost 1 spell point. I would increase the number of spell points caster receives at each long rest (short rest for Warlocks) by their spell casting ability score (or want more restriction use the modifier). Variant spell point rules are found on page 288 of DMG.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Personally I liked the 1st suggestion by [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION]: enforce the cantrip's required material components (you need to check tho, if there are cantrips which don't require any). This idea will not introduce a hard daily limit (so in terms of balance, it's very possible that it won't make much difference, especially if you allow the PCs to easily gather those ingredients back), but in terms of feeling it will help a lot, because cantrips just won't feel unlimited. The DM will have the option to dial on the availability of the ingredients if she feels that a particular cantrip is been overused.

Unfortunately, to make that effective, you'll also need to play with the spell focus rule. That is, unless there's a cost listed against the component, you can use your spell focus (arcane focus, holy symbol, etc) instead of a material component.

Also, for the vast majority of spells, spell components are not used up. You can use the same spell component to cast the spell again. Of course, that rule can also be varied by the DM, but you can see that it's not just a case of making one rule change -- you need to make multiple rule changes to bring around the result you're looking for, with the constant danger of an unexpected consequence.

I don't have any problems with the idea of a low-magic world having a limit on cantrip use. I just want to point out that the game system isn't designed for that. It's roughly the equivalent of limiting the number of times a fighter is allowed to swing their weapon. You can do that (fatigue rules have been mentioned), but it gets complicated. Cantrips are to spellcasters what weapons are to martial characters. I would be more inclined to constrain the cantrips that have wider uses (eg. Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy), leaving the spellcasters with the cantrips that have specific uses (light, message, mending, firebolt, etc) that aren't easy to use outside of the cases that they were designed for. Yes, a spellcaster could cast firebolt to burn their way through a door, but a fighter could do similar with a mace or axe. Either way would take time. Is there an effective difference between the two that means the fighter should be allowed to do it but the spellcaster shouldn't?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I understand that rules balance and all. Just toying around with ideas, to get the flavor I hope to achieve.

I don't have any problems with the idea of a low-magic world having a limit on cantrip use. I just want to point out that the game system isn't designed for that.

In the broader sense, D&D has had limits on cantrip use from the moment cantrips were introduced (in a Dragon article in the early 80s) until late in 3.5 when the Warlock and, IIRC, some wizard feat finally opened up at-will spellcasting. So for the majority of it's history with cantrips, the game has had limits on them.

And, 5e, specifically, is designed to be 'modular,' to allow the DM to make rulings, opt in and out of modules, and mod the system as much as he wants. Robust, built-in balance is necessarily no part of that, you can change one class and leave others the same. The DM task of keeping the game playable & fun will not be made any harder.

It's roughly the equivalent of limiting the number of times a fighter is allowed to swing their weapon. You can do that (fatigue rules have been mentioned), but it gets complicated.

Fatigue rules can be pretty simple, really. But the game already features such short combats and such long 'short' rests that it doesn't seem like there's a lot to be gained from remotely realistic/practical fatigue rules.

Cantrips are to spellcasters what weapons are to martial characters.

Weapons are gear that characters - including spellcasters - can use to make attacks, and can freely swap out to change the damage, range, damage type, and other characteristics of those attacks. A character can be proficient in a large number of weapons, though few carry all that they are proficient in. Cantrips are class abilities that do a wide range of things, including damage or making an attack roll (or forcing a save), and, while they are at-will, a given character can know only a relatively few of them, and not generally change them out.

Aside from being at-will, cantrips and weapons are really nothing alike. The Battlemaster's maneuvers, in doing a wider range of effects than weapons, and in being limited in number 'known' and not readily swapped out, would seem a stronger analogy to cantrips. And, those maneuvers /are/ limited-use, as well.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Aside from being at-will, cantrips and weapons are really nothing alike.

Cantrips are a spellcasters core non-resource-limited tool. Weapons are a martial characters core non-resource-limited tool. That was the point I was trying to make. Yes, spellcasters can use weapons, and many martial characters can use spells -- neither do so as their primary focus. Restricting spellcasters use of cantrips is analogous to restricting martial characters use of weapons. That's the point I was trying to make.

It's like a DM telling fighters that, sorry, the only weapons they'll be able to use are clubs, daggers and slings. Yes, other weapons are listed in the rulebook, but they're not available in this world. Some players would take that as a roleplaying challenge and others would not want to play because it's forcing them to play something that doesn't match their view of what a fighter is.

Changing the rules changes the balance between the classes. It's doable, but should only be done after a lot of thought. If you take away part of a class feature without compensation, you're weakening that class. If you want that class to be weakened, then that's okay, but it should be a conscious decision to weaken the class -- understanding how that's going to impact on any players who have a character of that class -- and shouldn't be done lightly.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yes, a spellcaster could cast firebolt to burn their way through a door, but a fighter could do similar with a mace or axe. Either way would take time. Is there an effective difference between the two that means the fighter should be allowed to do it but the spellcaster shouldn't?

Once again, that is not the OP's point. The point is not wanting to have characters using magic over and over like a trivial commodity.

And by the way, exactly because the fighter can do that with an axe, so can the wizard

 

[Tony Vargas]

Cantrips are a spellcasters core non-resource-limited tool. Weapons are a martial characters core non-resource-limited tool. That was the point I was trying to make. Yes, spellcasters can use weapons

Which means they still have non-resource-limited tools even if you resource-limit cantrips.

It's like a DM telling fighters that, sorry, the only weapons they'll be able to use are clubs, daggers and slings. Yes, other weapons are listed in the rulebook, but they're not available in this world.

Then that's the way it is. A little odd to have wood to make clubs, sharp-pointies to make daggers, but no staffs or spears, but, hey, it's the DM's world - maybe the clubs are made from femurs or the tallest trees or 4' or very gnarled and twisted or something.

Changing the rules changes the balance between the classes.

Which is only an issue of the change is significant relative to how balanced they were in the first place. In 4e, taking at-will attack spells away from arcane-source classes would have been imbalancing - though, even then, it'd've just meant paying a feat tax or two to gain proficiency in a decent weapon and melee training to use it with their caster stat. In 5e, it's barely an issue, because the classes aren't balanced that precisely to begin with. You could take away half the casters' slots, too, and not make it any harder on the DM to keep the PCs in the party relatively balanced against eachother and the encounters they face - it'd mostly be a matter of reducing the number of encounters/day.

 

[Li Shenron]

Aside from being at-will, cantrips and weapons are really nothing alike.

Well that doesn't seem true to me... of course, non-combat cantrips have nothing similar with weapons. But combat cantrips are exactly designed to be a wizard's weapon.

After all, the reasons why cantrips were made at-will at some point in D&D history, was that (1) some players just hated daily limits on magic, and (2) people wanted laser wizards (the two motivations clearly are connected).

They specifically designed the combat cantrips to do about the same base damage as typical weapons (Fire Bolt 1d10, same as crossbow, was possibly the baseline) or a bit less but with additional minor benefits. But they also made that damage scale to partially keep up with the other classes getting more attacks and other combat improvements. Roughly, they tried to keep the combat cantrips about as good as choosing a bow or a crossbow, each option offering a slightly different benefit/cost.

Combat cantrips pretty much look like alternative weapons to me!

 

[Skyscraper]

So... I get that removing/limiting cantrips is something that changes game balance. Just so we're clear I also get that to many people this is a change they'd rather not see in a game they play in. Fair enough. I still appreciate this having been expressed in this thread, because the same posters that mentioned this, did provide some useful information about balance issues resulting from limiting cantrip use. But now, I'd like to jump to the next step.

Let's assume I do wish to implement a low-cantrip limit. I'm thinking of something pretty straightforward:

number of daily cantrip slots = spellcaster level + ability bonus.

In my campaign(s), I get players through the heroic tier of play, i.e. levels 3-10. So considering what are, for me, level 1 or level 15-20 corner cases, is not relevant.

I would wish to counter-balance this important reduction in spell availability for casters with something. I'm not necessarily looking for total balance in classes.

We'll go at this one class at a time, if you will (to address different mechanics that they all have). Firstly how could I modify the iconic caster: the wizard; to have him be a decent character during battles, while having limited cantrip uses as indicated hereinabove?

For example:

1) I could allow spells that normally allow a saving throw when they are cast, and then each round, to simply be allowed a saving throw when they are cast.

2) I could allow non-cantrip damaging spells to deal 1 additional die of damage.

3) I could allow some type of bonus to weapon attacks. Any ideas here? I don't mind that they will be behind in melee or ranged combat - I expect that they will. However, perhaps a small... Something... To trail less behind?

What about the druid and the cleric? They are relatively combat competent. Would they require something to help them along? Or could they rely on their melee capacity to remain somewhat effective?

Finally, the sorcerer and warlock. I don't really understand why sorcerers or warlocks would be more negatively impacted by this than wizards or clerics: I've seen both sorcerers and warlocks mentioned in this thread as suffering more than others. I've only played a little 5E (but plenty of 1E, 3.5E and 4E, and other systems too) and there were none of these classes in both short games I played. And we've played little of these even in past editions. Would someone be kind enough to explain to me how one or both of these classes relies more than wizards on cantrips? I don't seem to be able to figure out by looking through the PHB entry.

I might consider leaving unlimited cantrip use to one of these two classes, this then becoming a signature element for this class.

 

[dmnqwk]

Bards, Druids, Clerics have access to combat options not entirely derived from spells. For example, Bards can get Extra Attack while Clerics can also gain a limited number of bonus action attacks in the War Domain. Druids obviously have wild shape so that leaves Warlock, Sorc and Wizard. Warlock can take an extra attack option which is why we're left with Sorcs and Wizards with pretty much no damage options outside of cantrips. And Wizards who take evocation spec can add their prof bonus to evo spells, meaning their cantrips are more powerful.

Personally, why not simply come up with a way that they can attack with cantrips, but they're not magic. Just let them take a Cantrip, then when they fire a Crossbow it deals damage equal to the cantrip, It's not hard to say and removes the magic. No explanation necessary and it's much easier than you trying to balance things but failing because you're giving them options that run out without contemplating 5th edition is designed to prevent the mistakes of the past, when casters were useless without spells.