Cantrip House Rule

FrogReaver said:

Personally I think the ability to cast 1 additional fireball even against a single creature more than makes up for the damage you are losing per day from not having scaling cantrips from levels 5-10. Honeslty, i'm more concerned that I may be over compensating characters with too many spell slots for eliminating scaling cantrips.

Click to expand...

I think you might be overcompensating. You also make Eldritch Blast entirely the defacto Warlock choice; the way it is now, a warlock could use other cantrips if they don't want to buy Agonizing Blast or the other EB invocations (I've only seen 2 warlocks played, and both intentionally built to not use EB so they could use their invocations for other things; I feel like they were outliers, though).

FrogReaver said:

I disagree. Cantrips remain your action to do something useful while saving spell slots. It's just now cantrips would actually be inferior to any given spell as opposed to being nearly equivalent to many of them.

Click to expand...

I don't see it. Using your action at level 10 to do a cantrip that only deal 1d6/8/10 damage is pretty weak, as it is dealing double then that is already pretty weak.

the eldritch knight ability to use a cantrip and bonus action attack is still better than just extra attack in the same level range it always was. It's still inferior to extra attack in the level 11+ range just like always. It's just won't be as much better than extra attack in the level 7-10 range as it is now.

Click to expand...

an eldritch knight in my game uses the cantrip attack over multi attack at levels 11+ all the time... his base longsword is 1d8+7, his green flame blade is 2d8+7 to main target, and secondary targets take 2d8+3 (maybe 4 does he get the focus I don't remember) then he attacks for the 1d8+7... your way the choice would be 3 attacks for 1d8+7 or make 1 attack that deals 1d8+7 and secondary targets take 3 (maybe 4 again need to check) then make a 1d8+7 attack...

or he could swordburst… right now that is 3d6+1 damage AOE then an attack for 1d8+7, your way is eaither 3 attacks at 1d8+7 or 1 attack at 3d8+7 plus a 1d6+1 AOE


or he could use shocking grasp (he never does I don't know why he even has it) to deal 3d8+1 lightning damage and make an attack for 1d8+7 or your way 3 attacks at 1d8+7 or 1 of those plus a 1d8+1 attack


so the full attack is 3d8+21... or about 34 damage (this wont change with your change)
green flame blade with 1 adj target prime takes 4d8+10 (or 11) and secondary takes 2d8+3(or4) or your way prime target takes 2d8+10 (or11) and secondary take 3 (or4)
so GFB orginal deals 28ish damage primary and 12ish damage secondary
The GFB your way deals 19ish damage primary and 3ish 2nddary...

But as it stands right now eldritch knights would be compensated with extra spell slots anyways. Personally I think the spell slots would actually make them a little better than scaling cantrips but in any case I don't see the balance really changing to a degree that warrants any worry.

Click to expand...

the spells in this case may work that way...but that class feature will feel pretty uselsess

If they already have more than they can cast then adding extra can't hurt anything. They will just have more left over spells they can't cast.

Click to expand...

this is not at all what I said, I compaired having 1/2-2/3 of the rounds casting spells to 3/4 the rounds casting spells...and remember no cantrip is as powerful as tasha's laugh spell...none ever.

So if anything the wizard with firebolt would do an extra 8d10 attacks worth of damage with scaling cantrips.

Click to expand...

yup, over the course of the day that is about right

I would instead be giving him a level 1 spellslot a level 2 spell slot and a level 3 spellslot in complensation.

Click to expand...

a tasha's laughter, hold person and counterspell… so 2 'take someone out of the fight' spells and 1 stop the NPC action spell... seems ALOT more powerful then 8d10, and that is if they use the d10...ray of frost is only d6s...

Honestly it sounds to me like that's a slight improvement.

Click to expand...

it sounds to me like it is 3 rounds of super power (maybe 2 after all counter spell can be used same round as one of the others) being traded for 8 rounds of useful but not too powerful... and since there are 5 rounds (or 6) not having those spells in general you have given them MORE big spells and less lasting ability to contribute.

Is it enough of an improvement to cause significant balance issues? I personally don't think so but maybe I'm missing something.

Click to expand...

it depends on what you want form the game... it CHANGES the balance significantly. It gives casters more big guns in eaxhange for not having there little ones scale to be useful. It excaserbates the issue of "ALL POWERFUL" or "WEAK KITTEN" and nothing inbetween (starting in or around 7th level...with an extra 1s,2nd,3rd, and 4th slot)

If I am I can easily adjust the spell slots such that he gains them at a slightly different rate. There has to be some number of additional spell slots that you think would be a fair trade for non-scaling cantrips right?

Click to expand...

yea, I can see it... maybe take lower level spells and let them make them quisi cantrips... like at level 3,5,9,11,15,and 17...


at level 3 choose 1 damage (not misc defenseive or SOD) 1st level spell and you know and cast it once as if using a 1st level slot without using a slot, you can't do so again until you take a short rest
at level 5 choose any 1 1st level spell and it always counts as prepped without taking a slot and you can cast it once as if using a 1st level slot without using a slot, you can't do so again until you take a short rest.

at level 9 the 2 1st level spells you choose now can be used a total of 3 times between them without using a slot, and choose 1 damage 2nd level spell that you can use 1/per short rest without using a slot...all 3 of these spells count as prepped all the time


at level 11 the 1st spell you choose can now be cast at will as if a cantrip, the other 2 (1 1st 1 2nd damage causing) can be used 3 times between them per short rest...


I don't know if that quite works or not...but I would also add at level 5 cantrips that cause damage add caster mod stat to damamge...it might work but not sure.



edit: I also like the idea of if doing so let every caster just have detect magic x/short rest...like sensing magic should be like a default...not cost a slot.

Xeviat said:

I think you might be overcompensating. You also make Eldritch Blast entirely the defacto Warlock choice; the way it is now, a warlock could use other cantrips if they don't want to buy Agonizing Blast or the other EB invocations (I've only seen 2 warlocks played, and both intentionally built to not use EB so they could use their invocations for other things; I feel like they were outliers, though).

Click to expand...

almost all the Warlocks that are not blade locks I have seen take it anyway...but the most memorable and fun one was a warlock of the tomb that used chill touch, sheilighli (druid stick thing) and thorn whip

FrogReaver said:

Is there any forseeable issues or problems you can think of with doing this?

Click to expand...

Casters in the 5-7 range are crippled over the long haul, since attack cantrips are a big part of their firepower.

Casters at high levels, who hardly ever cast attack cantrips anyway, are strengthened.

Caster nova potential, which was already excessive, gets even greater.

No problem that I can see is solved, except certain warlock multiclass shenanigans, which can be trivially solved in a much more targeted way.

FrogReaver said:

Is it too imbalanced compared to the current rules?

Click to expand...

The way I measure balance, yes. I don't believe that crippling a class at certain levels and overpowering it at other levels constitutes "balance." I'm aware not everyone agrees.

FrogReaver said:

Do you like the change?

Click to expand...

No, for the reasons stated above.

FrogReaver said:

The next person that asks why gets blocked.

I mean Seriously? I ask what issues my suggested change has. I ask if you like it. I ask if it's balanced. What the heck does Why I am looking at this change have to do with any of that?

Click to expand...

Most respectfully - if I don't have an issue with cantrip scaling and evaluate it on that basis, I'll talk about my problems with it. However, if we know what you are trying to accomplish we can answer within this context.

I recently got snarked at because someone asked for feedback on something and I said that what they posted didn't work by the rules. They had a house rule in place, didn't bother to mention it, and so the feedback offered wasn't helpful.

Now, trying to be helpful and give feedback, but again it's based on just what I see:

Tier 1 there's no change, and tier 4 there's about enough spells and items that use actions that cantrip usage is low. But during tiers 2 & 3 even before casting spells outside of combat and casting spells outside an action (shield, bonus action, etc.) there's a lot more combat actions per day then there are spell slots even with the minor increase. This means that:

1. Out of combat casting will be even more depressed as players save them for combat.
2. More push for 15 minute adventuring days.
3. Caster contribution will go well down with a good number of encounters per day.
4. Caster contribution will go well UP with few encounters per day because they have more high level slots.
5. Bonus action and Quickened spells only allows a cantrip as the only other casting, which being weaker impacts the total effect of those spells as well.
6. This weakens the Eldritch Knight greatly, almost in line with the Warlock. The idea that the 1-3 slots WELL behind the power curve for their level is the equivalent of a every-round usage with War Magic is provably wrong. (The Rogue (AT) is also hurt some, but not as much as the EK.)
7. Every cleric who gets a cantrip booster class feat is majorly screwed by this.
7. Cantrip scaling is like extra attack, giving a few bonus spells doesn't even it out.

Have you thought about applying your warlock fix to all of them? Cantrips scale with your spells known caster level. (Which warlock levels doesn't so you can't "double dip" with warlock level.) And put in some fix for Eldritch Knights and cantrip-boosting cleric domains to give them current levels of power.

FrogReaver said:

Personally I think the ability to cast 1 additional fireball even against a single creature more than makes up for the damage you are losing per day from not having scaling cantrips from levels 5-10. Honeslty, i'm more concerned that I may be over compensating characters with too many spell slots for eliminating scaling cantrips.

Click to expand...

If you think it is a concern, I can tell you from my experience it probably won't be. I use a house-rule for spell slot recovery, allowing a caster who just cast use their action the next round to attempt to regain the expended slot. This has led to the casters using more leveled spells instead of cantrips all the time. It works great and the players like it since they have more options for regular use. Only after a very long adventuring day do they risk running out of slots.

Of course, I read some posts about combat taking 3-5 rounds or something for an encounter, but I have to wonder about it since our encounters typically run 6-8 rounds, and sometimes 10 or more. With the house-rule in place, casters often have slots left but are hesitant when they get down to the last few.

We still have cantrips scale for now, but they scale by total caster level, not character level, since half the party is multiclassed.

I do think that gimping cantrips will overly hamper primary casters that rely on them as their go-to action when conserving spell slots or when they don't have an appropriate spell for the situation.

I don't think giving extra spell slots is going to majorly unbalance anything and I do it already although it doesn't kick in until level 14 and it is only for levels 2 to 4 as there are levels where casters do not gain any additional spell slots upon level up which I don't like.

So I guess I'm 50/50 I don't like the gimping on cantrips but I'm okay with the granting of additional spell slots.

Reading through the thread I think this is ultimately a solution looking for a problem. Whatever works.

FrogReaver said:

The House Rule would remove cantrip scaling (except for Eldritch blast) which would then get tied to warlock level for scaling.

To compensate for the lack of scaling cantrips I would reward casters with extra spell slots. I'm leaning toward 1 extra spell slot of each level up to level 6 spells. You would gaub the extra spell slot immediately upon reaching the level where you first gain that spell slot. For example a level 5 Wizard would have spell slots of 5 level 1, 4 level 2, 3 level 3 but his cantrips would not scale.

Is there any forseeable issues or problems you can think of with doing this? Is it too imbalanced compared to the current rules? Do you like the change?

Click to expand...

Problems:
As others have mentioned, your proposed changes would create problems with 1/2 and 1/3 casters. I'm sure you could iron out every caster's progression, but it would require some fiddling and make spell progression more complex. I also forsee this making casters less fun. Admittedly, a few lost dice of cantrip damage isn't gamebreaking. But I think that throwing a 1d10+nada firebolt at something would feel so lackluster at 5th+ level that it would rarely be done and would feel like a non-option. Replacing an option with a non-option is unfun.

Balance:
It's probably fine. By all means, try it and tell us how it goes!

Do I like it?:
I think it's okay. I also dislike the way damage cantrips trivialize magic missile, chromatic orb, and pals (and understand why you don't want to have that particular argument again). However, I think it would be hard to remove cantrip scaling without making damage cantrips feel pointless.

You note:

FrogReaver said:

Cantrips remain your action to do something useful while saving spell slots.

Click to expand...

which is true enough. But you could also take the attack action which, in most cases, would be functionally equivalent. My guess is that non-scaling damage cantrips would be a near-vestigial class feature. Most of the scaling cantrips already feel vestigial... I mean, poison spray, acid splash, infestation; 5e's got mediocre damage cantrips for days, and making them even more so strikes me as less than ideal.

FrogReaver said:

There has to be some number of additional spell slots that you think would be a fair trade for non-scaling cantrips right?

Click to expand...

Fair in terms of power, absolutely. Fair in terms of player fun, I'm skeptical.


Anyway, though, since naysayers without constructive criticism are also unfun, let me suggest a tweak to your idea:

Why don't you have damage cantrips get a feature at character levels 5 and 11, that allow them to scale, temporarily, at the cost of a spell slot. At 5th level, casters can add 1 extra die to cantrip damage by expending a 1st level spell slot upon casting the cantrip, and retain the increased damage for 1 minute (or 10, whatever). At 11th level, casters can add 2 extra dice to cantrip damage at the cost of a 2nd level spell slot. To compensate them for the increased slot usage, full casters get an extra 1st level spell slot at 5th level and an extra 2nd level slot at 11th level, as a class feature, with no changes to base slot progression. No special features are needed at 17th level, cantrips no longer matter at that point. 1/2 casters are unaffected, since they don't have cantrips. 1/3 casters would get to add dice to their damage cantrips at no cost as a subclass feature, b/c rule of cool. PCs with the magic initiate feat get nothing, they don't need extra bells and whistles.

FrogReaver said:

Interesting, I actually would predict the party will rest less. Wizards already push for rest when their spell slots get very low. I expect more spell slots will mean wizards maintain having some good spell slots longer and as long as they have that then they are less likely to insist on rest.

Click to expand...

One of the meta-considerations is that the players know you have instituted this change, so they will base their decisions accordingly. It's not as important, whether a non-scaling cantrip is mathematically superior to firing a crossbow; player perception of the house rule will tell them that cantrips have been nerfed, and there's no point in using them, so they'll be more inclined to find alternatives. Maybe that alternative would be to use a spell slot (in which case they will run through spell slots more quickly), but maybe it would be to Dodge (which isn't a lot of fun), or maybe they'll increase their Dexterity so that they'll be better with the crossbow.

Most likely, the players will interpret that you've nerfed wizards, and simply choose to play some other class instead. Or they'll play a cleric, but they'll play a melee cleric that wasn't going to cast cantrips anyway, so now they benefit from extra spell slots with absolutely no drawback. (Note that it doesn't actually matter, whether the extra spell slots balance anything out. Player perception is what drives their decisions.)

Monster HP bloat is a big issue, when it comes to balancing the utility of cantrips against spell slots. Unless you're still fighting orcs when you're level 17, the 1d10 from Fire Bolt goes from a meaningful action to a meaningless one pretty quickly; but so does the 3d6 from Burning Hands. If you have a 4d10 Fire Bolt, then that's bordering on something useful. When the monster has 200hp, you're not going to sit there and decide to use Burning Hands instead of Fire Bolt because it does 10 damage instead of 6; if you can't spare a high-level spell slot to deal damage, then you're going to look for other things to do, which have level-appropriate effects. You'll cast Grease, or Protection from Evil, because those spells are equally effective regardless of what you're fighting.

This may be getting off-topic, and if so I apologize, but you're never going to get high-level casters using low-level damage spells against high-level monsters. It's simply not worth it, and reducing the damage from cantrips will not change that; it just changes cantrips into another meaningless action. The alternative you should be comparing against is the non-damage spells, and the only way to make a low-level damage spell equivalent to a low-level non-damage spell, against a high-level target, is to auto-scale the damage to compensate for HP bloat. If you don't make any changes to cantrips, and let lower-level damage spells scale automatically, then it would usually be worthwhile to cast a low-level damage spell instead of a cantrip. Off the top of my head:

• When you reach level 5, your first-level and second-level damage spells automatically gain the benefit of being cast one level higher than the slot you use.
• When you reach level 11, your first-level through fifth-level damage spells automatically gain the benefit of being cast one level higher.
• When you reach level 17, your first-level through seventh-level damage spells automatically gain the benefit of being cast one level higher.

By level 17, your Burning Hands would be automatically upgraded from 3d6 to 6d6, which is marginally useful again. You might actually cast that instead of Fire Bolt, even if Fire Bolt was 4d10, if you could hit more than one target.