Cantrip House Rule

Mistwell said:

You are speaking for the OP? Because he hasn't said that and made it clear he doesn't want to discuss why he wants this. I think that part of the discussion ended before it began.

Click to expand...

Thanks for respecting my desire not to discuss that.

Mistwell said:

You are speaking for the OP? Because he hasn't said that and made it clear he doesn't want to discuss why he wants this. I think that part of the discussion ended before it began.

Click to expand...

Side question. I started this thread. I cannot see 5ekyu’s posts but he is posting to this thread which presumably means one of us has the other blocked. Has the block function recently been changed because this used to be impossible to my knowledge?

Mistwell said:

You are speaking for the OP? Because he hasn't said that and made it clear he doesn't want to discuss why he wants this. I think that part of the discussion ended before it began.

Click to expand...

I think that assuming that rules changes would only be made to rules that see enough use in that game for their current mechanics to be noticeably lacking is reasonably safe.
While the OP might have refused to explain why they are asking for our help, it is a safe bet that they would not feel the need to make changes to the rather robust 5e ruleset unless those current rules are causing problems. If attack cantrips aren't being used in a game, why would the DM need to meddle with them?

As a general guesstimate, I would say that my last two dedicated caster characters spent roughly 50% of their combat actions using an attack cantrip, post 5th level. (Although neither has gone beyond 12th level.) Maybe that's an outlier. Maybe not.

Cap'n Kobold said:

I think that assuming that rules changes would only be made to rules that see enough use in that game for their current mechanics to be noticeably lacking is reasonably safe.
While the OP might have refused to explain why they are asking for our help, it is a safe bet that they would not feel the need to make changes to the rather robust 5e ruleset unless those current rules are causing problems. If attack cantrips aren't being used in a game, why would the DM need to meddle with them?

As a general guesstimate, I would say that my last two dedicated caster characters spent roughly 50% of their combat actions using an attack cantrip, post 5th level. (Although neither has gone beyond 12th level.) Maybe that's an outlier. Maybe not.

Click to expand...

Yes... one can evaluate a change to lessen any festure or any rule based on a game where that rule r feature is already so undervalued it isn't used or isn't important but it's not getting you much progress.

I thought it was pretty obvious that if combat cantrips were already the not worth it option, then nobody would be pushing to add a trade cantrips for slots. But hey, obviously I guessed wrong.

FrogReaver said:

Side question. I started this thread. I cannot see 5ekyu’s posts but he is posting to this thread which presumably means one of us has the other blocked. Has the block function recently been changed because this used to be impossible to my knowledge?

Click to expand...

I assume he is subverting the rules by use of the tapatalk app?

You don't want to discuss why you think this idea is necessary, but I think that's an important question to bring up. What are you trying to fix with this change? That's not changing the subject, that actually matters.

Whatever it is you are trying to change, it is unlikely that it is broken in the first place. Cantrips like ray of frost and fire bolt are far from overpowered. I don't see how this change is necessary or adds anything to the game of value. Ignoring the question of why you think this is necessary, I'd call this change sloppy. It does not sound fun. You either have adventuring days where your casters run out of spell slots and are forced to use their now totally useless cantrips*, or you have adventuring days where they get plenty of rest and have more spells to throw around and never use cantrips at all. Neither option sounds particularly engaging.

*Yes, at 11 a cantrip that does 1d8 damage is useless, you'd be better off providing the help action to the fighter.

Captain Panda said:

You don't want to discuss why you think this idea is necessary, but I think that's an important question to bring up. What are you trying to fix with this change? That's not changing the subject, that actually matters.

Whatever it is you are trying to change, it is unlikely that it is broken in the first place. Cantrips like ray of frost and fire bolt are far from overpowered. I don't see how this change is necessary or adds anything to the game of value. Ignoring the question of why you think this is necessary, I'd call this change sloppy. It does not sound fun. You either have adventuring days where your casters run out of spell slots and are forced to use their now totally useless cantrips*, or you have adventuring days where they get plenty of rest and have more spells to throw around and never use cantrips at all. Neither option sounds particularly engaging.

*Yes, at 11 a cantrip that does 1d8 damage is useless, you'd be better off providing the help action to the fighter.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure he's not making an "it's broken" argument here. I think he is trying to better simulate a style of play that focuses less on attack cantrips as levels increase. Sort of similar to pre-4e spellcasters, but as a hybrid such that they can use cantrips, but won't use specifically attack cantrips beyond low levels. As if the cantrips really are just simple spells which don't ever grow in power. You still might throw up an illusionary wall with minor illusion to provide cover or block line of sight just as you could at level 1, but you won't be blasting with a powerful firebolts which have grown in power since level 1.

Anyway, assume he's not asking how to fix something broken, but is just trying to better simulate a magic flavor in his setting which does not include cantrips which grow in power as the user grows in power but are static. Given that, how many additional spell slots would be necessary to sort-of make up for that loss?

Mistwell said:

Anyway, assume he's not asking how to fix something broken, but is just trying to better simulate a magic flavor in his setting which does not include cantrips which grow in power as the user grows in power but are static. Given that, how many additional spell slots would be necessary to sort-of make up for that loss?

Click to expand...

I think I'd go with more low level slots only. Maybe 3 extra 1st level slots at 5th, 3 extra 2nd level slots at 11th, and 3 extra 3rds at whatever the next level is that cantrips scale up at.

I'd like to make the spellcasters more versatile rather than more powerful, and I think this would feel that way.

Captain Panda said:

You don't want to discuss why you think this idea is necessary, but I think that's an important question to bring up. What are you trying to fix with this change? That's not changing the subject, that actually matters.

Click to expand...

Since I apparently cannot threaten to block people in order to keep my thread on topic I guess I'll do this the hard way.

The only reason to ask my why is to subtly shift my thread topic into being about some problem and whether it's actually a problem and whether some idea you have solves the problem better etc. In other words asking why is a point blank attempt to change the thread topic. I don't want my thread topic changed. I want to discuss my suggested rule change, it's potential downsides and what if any variations to it may be more fair and balanced.

Whatever it is you are trying to change, it is unlikely that it is broken in the first place. Cantrips like ray of frost and fire bolt are far from overpowered. I don't see how this change is necessary or adds anything to the game of value.

Click to expand...

Now before you actually start trying to defend your asking of me "why" as some noble gesture of trying to help me out I want to point out that this comment reveals your true intentions. You already believe there couldn't be something broken with the game and that I have no legitimate reason for actually wanting the change and that this proposed change adds nothing of value to the game, so your question about why is revealed as just bait so you can get a discussion started on why the change isn't needed in the first place.

Anyways, thanks for being exhibit A on why I refused to answer the "why" question in the first place.

Ignoring the question of why you think this is necessary, I'd call this change sloppy. It does not sound fun. You either have adventuring days where your casters run out of spell slots and are forced to use their now totally useless cantrips*, or you have adventuring days where they get plenty of rest and have more spells to throw around and never use cantrips at all. Neither option sounds particularly engaging.

Click to expand...

This sounds a lot like current 5e to me: "You either have adventuring days where your casters run out of spell slots and are forced to use totally useless cantrips, or you have adventuring days where they get plenty of rest and have more spells to throw around and never use cantrips at all."

Given that, I'm not sure how criticizing my change with a criticism that could just as easily apply to current 5e helps support your "all 5e changes are bad position".

*Yes, at 11 a cantrip that does 1d8 damage is useless, you'd be better off providing the help action to the fighter.

Click to expand...

Actually in terms of DPR helping on a fighter's attack or casting a 1d8 cantrip would come out about the same


BTW [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] answered your post much better and nicer than I did. Thank you Mistwell.

Mistwell said:

I am pretty sure he's not making an "it's broken" argument here. I think he is trying to better simulate a style of play that focuses less on attack cantrips as levels increase. Sort of similar to pre-4e spellcasters, but as a hybrid such that they can use cantrips, but won't use specifically attack cantrips beyond low levels. As if the cantrips really are just simple spells which don't ever grow in power. You still might throw up an illusionary wall with minor illusion to provide cover or block line of sight just as you could at level 1, but you won't be blasting with a powerful firebolts which have grown in power since level 1.

Anyway, assume he's not asking how to fix something broken, but is just trying to better simulate a magic flavor in his setting which does not include cantrips which grow in power as the user grows in power but are static. Given that, how many additional spell slots would be necessary to sort-of make up for that loss?

Click to expand...

You explained it much better than me!