Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique

schnee said:

Clerics don't go 'pew pew', they either go 'Burn with holy fire!' as that person literally catches flame where they stand, or 'Feel your death, mortal!' as a doom-sounding bell tolls. Druids hurl a fireball like a literal Ryu Hadouken - one that burns flesh but not the plants or trees.

Those are all pretty bad-ass.

Click to expand...

I dunno, it might seem cool if they only did it once in a while, but it stops being remotely cool or interesting when they've done it three times in the last minute. At that point, anyone who still makes a performance of it is just trying to be dramatic.

schnee said:

Clerics don't go 'pew pew'

Click to expand...

Not even when they're directing the congregation to their seats as they file into the church?

FrogReaver said:

I find it very strange you would say that about me. I definitely care about balance. However, I don't think allowing the wizard to do maybe 2d6 more damage per 1st and 2nd level spell at level 17 is really going to affect the overall game balance one way or the other. Your talking about a total of around 20d6 or less per day and that's only really going to matter after you have used numerous objectively better higher level encountering changing spells. That said, if cantrips diminished a bit because of something like this that would be acceptable as well.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply you did not care at all about balance. My assumption was that if you gave anything, even a tiny bit, you would take something in return.

Spell casters are generally considered among the most powerful classes in D&D (its certainly a lot closer in 5e than previous editions) so adding a little dpr to them is only widening that gap.

If you are keeping that extra dpr so low that it won't really affect anything it begs the question, "Why bother?"

doctorbadwolf said:

Ill never understand why folks want either class to be using weapons as their main means of fighting. Is it just tradition?
/snip.

Click to expand...

Hardly "just" tradition. Clerics and druids more than easily held their own in combat, without combat spells, for all of B/E D&D, 1st and 2nd level D&D. The idea that my cleric or druid should be a themed wizard was never part of the concept.

doctorbadwolf said:

How? They've all always been full casters, but having melee weapons as a backup rather than the wizard's crossbow really made that big a difference?

They have very different spells, and surely they could have even more different cantrips if they aren't different enough.

Click to expand...

It was 3e that turned clerics and druids into "full" casters. Previously, they had very few direct damage spells and most of their buffs affected the entire party. 3e gave rise to CoDzilla.

But, let's turn it around. If the primary source of damage for a cleric or a druid is cantrips, why bother giving them weapon and armor proficiencies? What's the point? Why can my cleric use any armor and a pretty decent selection of weapons if I'm either casting Sacred Flame or Toll the Dead from range most of the time because either spell has outstripped my weapon attacks by about 5th level?

The pew pew spells make clerics and druids feel a lot like themed wizards.

FrogReaver said:

I understand how to play effectively. I'm asking why that should be the effective way to play in the first place. Why should cantrips continue to get stronger, to the point that they are stronger than level 1 damage spells? Or alternatively either

1) Should cantrips not scale any at all?
2) Should spells that end up being strictly inferior to scaled cantrips scale themselves at some point?

Click to expand...

I prefer #2 as long as you use higher level spell slots. Damage spells that don't allow you to scale them with higher spell slots are a large annoyance of mine. I prefer almost all spells to have some scale ability but I also think lower level spells slots like 1 & 2 should have a great deal of focus on defense. So having a fire bolt cantrip and 3 level 1 spell slots for the shield spell is a good functioning design as well as Scorching Ray scaling with number or rays with higher level spell slots which allows for a nova spread against multiple week enemies without risking damage to allies. Even if its cast at level 1 it has a use against 3 week enemies at a time in against a goblin horde rush for example, but cast a level 7 you can focus on one target or 8 weaker targets making limited use epic moments... which is what I want from magic. Then the cantrip means after that the caster is not useless but its time for others to shine.

Firebolt, Shield, Scorching Ray, and hold person all by themselves would be enough to make a decent caster and do it "right" but I am not opposed to having more options and other types of caster builds I just think this viable caster template that works and represents the "damage wizard" fine.

Hussar said:

Hardly "just" tradition. Clerics and druids more than easily held their own in combat, without combat spells, for all of B/E D&D, 1st and 2nd level D&D. The idea that my cleric or druid should be a themed wizard was never part of the concept.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you've assumed some additional connotation to "just tradition" that isn't intended, but it seems to me that you literally just said that it's not just tradition and then also basically said it's just tradition.

5e Clerics and Druids aren't themed wizards. I still haven't seen any explanation for the idea that they're basically wizards.

It was 3e that turned clerics and druids into "full" casters. Previously, they had very few direct damage spells and most of their buffs affected the entire party. 3e gave rise to CoDzilla.

Click to expand...

3e was terrible, sure. So what? The only thing I care less about than arguments purely from tradition are discussions about DnD's worst edition. (ok, a lot of the pre-ADND DnD's are even worse in many ways, but 3e managed to be simultaneously horrifyingly bland and mind-numbingly complicated, which I'd mark as the only impressive thing about it, outside of some great fluff)

But, let's turn it around. If the primary source of damage for a cleric or a druid is cantrips, why bother giving them weapon and armor proficiencies? What's the point? Why can my cleric use any armor and a pretty decent selection of weapons if I'm either casting Sacred Flame or Toll the Dead from range most of the time because either spell has outstripped my weapon attacks by about 5th level?

The pew pew spells make clerics and druids feel a lot like themed wizards.

Click to expand...

What the buttholes does "pew pew spells" even refer to, here? Literally just any damage spell? So, just...if it does damage magically it's a wizard? That seems to preposterous on it's face to even vaguely take seriously, so I gotta assume you've got more than that, right?

Beyond that, your Cleric can choose the War domain, and get a second attack. Your Druid can choose Primal Savagery for scaling melee attack damage, or use wild shape. Both classes do things that no wizard can do, with a list of spells that do completely different things from a wizard. Or eachother.

Sure, both classes could use a class feature that adds some sort of benefit with weapon attacks, so they can be more workable in melee for the sake of **tradition**, but it shouldn't be the same thing that fighters and paladins and rangers get for that purpose. And I'd again point out that Druids do, even before Primal Savagery came out. Should Shillelagh get better? Sure! Let it get an upgrade where if you use a special action to attack with it, it sprouts thorns and does an extra 1d8 piercing damage. Boom! No MC/Magic Initiate cheese, Druids get to hit things with sticks real good at later levels.

Let Clerics get something similar to Improved Divine Smite around level 5, or give them a cantrip that acts like the SCAG cantrips but with radiant damage, whatever.

There is no reason to make them less magical just because back in the day they weren't full of damaging magic.

It's not just tradition though. It's niche protection as well. If the cleric is dealing damage primarily through cantrips, what actually differentiates him from a wizard or sorcerer? Weapons and armor? Who cares, he's standing X feet away and blasting away with spells.

Sorry, but, I'm not really seeing much of a difference between firebolt every round and sacred flame or produce flame. Different die, I suppose. But, essentially, I'm doing the same thing as a wizard or sorcerer.

If my primary function in combat is to stand off and lob spells, why bother having weapons and armor? What's the point?

Sure, the spell lists are different. That's what I mean by themed wizard. A cleric casts essentially the same as a wizard and a Land Druid is essentially a Sorcerer with wild shape instead of meta magic. Heck, a good chunk of the land druid's spell list is actually drawn from wizard spells.

Because nothing screams cleric or druid like casting invisibility or fireball while mostly eschewing weapon attacks in favor of energy blasts from my fingertips.

Oh, and bud, tone down the hostility just a touch. That I think that clerics and druids need a bit of work is not an attack on you in any way, shape or form.

Hussar said:

It's not just tradition though. It's niche protection as well. If the cleric is dealing damage primarily through cantrips, what actually differentiates him from a wizard or sorcerer? Weapons and armor? Who cares, he's standing X feet away and blasting away with spells.

Click to expand...

OK, an argument that is more than tradition, I can respect and engage with!

Sorry, but, I'm not really seeing much of a difference between firebolt every round and sacred flame or produce flame. Different die, I suppose. But, essentially, I'm doing the same thing as a wizard or sorcerer.

Click to expand...

I mean, rogues stab or shoot dudes with weapons, but they're not fighters. I'm not sure I quite get where you're coming from, unless it's that cantrips should vary in effect more than they do. I don't see how this relates to whether any given class should have cantrips. Even if we agree that the cantrips are too much the same, most characters don't spend most of their time using cantrips when playing a full caster. They cast actual spells.

But let's check out thsoe cantrips.

Fire Bolt is long range spell attack, and can either burn a critter or set something aflame.

Produce Flame creates a harmless flame in your hand that works like a candle that lasts for 10 minutes. You can throw it at someone within short range (30ft) spell attack, ending the spell.

Sacred Flame brings searing radiance on someone's head within mid range (60ft), forcing a dex save. Radiant damage isn't available to wizards, and is especially useful against certain creatures. This is the most boring of the three, mechanically, but also very different from the others thematically.

Now, lets look at other cantrips these classes get, shall we?

Cleric and Druid get Resistence, but Wizards don't. Essentially cantrip level single target bless.

Wizards and Druids get Shape Water. I'd argue that only Druids should, but it's not a big deal. Clerics don't get much elemental magic.

Only Druid gets Thorn Whip. You could argue that it's similar to Lightning Lure, but Wizards are also less likely to want to pull things up next to them, compared to Druids.

Etc. Druids have more overlap with the other two than they have with eachother, but Druids also get wild shape, and some pretty crazy unique leveled spells.

War Clerics are solid warriors, also, while Moon Druids are oddball but solid melee combatants. Bladesingers are advanced difficulty gishes. Fun, but harder to play that other gish builds in the game.

The classes are very different. I...I don't get why this is a controversial statement, apparently.

If my primary function in combat is to stand off and lob spells, why bother having weapons and armor? What's the point?

Click to expand...

I agree, though you won't like my conclussion. Why do those classes have those proficiencies? Druids shouldn't be using weapons, and clerics should be priests, not holy warriors. If they're going to use weapons and armor (no druids in armor!) they should be doing so either less well than actual warriors, or keep up via their divine blessings, not via martial might.

Sure, the spell lists are different. That's what I mean by themed wizard. A cleric casts essentially the same as a wizard and a Land Druid is essentially a Sorcerer with wild shape instead of meta magic. Heck, a good chunk of the land druid's spell list is actually drawn from wizard spells.

Because nothing screams cleric or druid like casting invisibility or fireball while mostly eschewing weapon attacks in favor of energy blasts from my fingertips.

Click to expand...

It's a couple spells from their enormous list of spells. <shrug>
Invisibility especially shouldn't be remotely unique to wizards. At all. Fireball is iconic, sure, but so what? There are vastly more spells that wizards don't share with either class than spells they do.

Oh, and bud, tone down the hostility just a touch. That I think that clerics and druids need a bit of work is not an attack on you in any way, shape or form.

Click to expand...

I didn't act like it was, in any way, shape, or form. I also wasn't hostile. I genuinely don't know what you're talking about. If it helps, no hostility of any kind was intended to be put across in my post, because no hostility of any kind was felt. Rereading the post, I can't even figure out what may have come across as hostile, but if you point it out, I'll happily apologize for the hostility. Intended or not, what's done is done.

Also, we both think clerics and druids need some work. Just in opposite directions, apparently.

Me, I'd much rather the cleric fill the "holy warrior" niche than the "priest" niche. We are talking about adventurers after all. Why would a priest be an adventurer? A priest tends to his or her flock. A priest has duties and responsibilities that generally tie that priest to a specific location.

Whereas a "holy warrior" of this or that diety isn't tied to a flock. That character is meant to go forth and do battle on behalf of whatever diety is being worshipped.

You mention rogues as not being different from fighters. After all, they stab stuff just like a fighter. But, only, not really. The rogue is limited to certain kinds of weapons, and, since they don't get extra attacks, they are always looking to deal that sneak attack damage. It changes, significantly, how they play and they play VERY differently from a fighter.

But a land druid? Or a non War domain cleric? Yeah, they're not different enough, AFAIC, from a sorcerer or wizard. Often doing pretty much exactly the same thing. I'm sorry, but, "I do d8 radiant" vs "I do d10 fire" damage isn't enough to make much of a difference. Whoopee. They are both still standing off and lobbing spells. And the attack cantrips very strongly push clerics and land druids to do exactly that and not actually use straight up attacks.

Hussar said:

Me, I'd much rather the cleric fill the "holy warrior" niche than the "priest" niche. We are talking about adventurers after all. Why would a priest be an adventurer? A priest tends to his or her flock. A priest has duties and responsibilities that generally tie that priest to a specific location.

Whereas a "holy warrior" of this or that diety isn't tied to a flock. That character is meant to go forth and do battle on behalf of whatever diety is being worshipped.

Click to expand...

But if this is what you want, well... shouldn't you just choose paladin instead of cleric?