D&D 5E reducing dominance of ranged: cantrips

[Tony Vargas]

Bolded for emphasis.

Why are weapons incongruous?

How often do you see wizards throwing darts or firing crossbows in genre?

The iconic example (Gandalf) used a sword.

And the iconic D&D magic-user could not.

Daggers and staves are pulled straight from hermetic and thaumaturgical tradition (the latter rooted in Judaeo-Christian mythology), though they're not primarily weapons in them, a wizard brandishing either isn't terribly out of place. Swords aren't exactly devoid of mystical connotation, either, even though D&D eschews them for the traditional magic-user - heck, they're a suit in the Tarot.

But darts and crossbows? They suggest a very de-mystified mystic rooted in the practical rather than the arcane.

Being able to resort to a low-baseline more or less 'at will' magical attack instead of darts or crossbows was long in coming (and came late in 3.5, with the Arcane Reserve feat, IIRC). I'm glad that 5e kept it, even if it might be a bit much on top of neo-Vancian casting. In this thread, my point is that doing away with the at-will aspect would be overkill when trying to address the perceived imbalance between melee and range in 5e.

...I can understand a desire to be a cantrip spammer, but I don't understand the necessity.

No necessity - one could choose not learn any attack cantrips, at all, for instance.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Springheel]

I have endured them for a long campaign now, but realizing I can't recalibrate ranged visavi melee as long as cantrips remain such a strong ranged choice, made me start this thread.

If I can fix cantrip impact on ranged vs melee, and get rid of the irksome worldbuilding issues at the same time, that's a win-win for me.

Every time the character casts a cantrip, have them roll a d20. On a 1, they drain themselves and lose their ability to cast any further cantrips until they have a short rest. If they cast a cantrip last round, they drain on a 1-5.

That would stop stop characters from spamming cantrips, and they won't be using them to create mending assembly lines. You can play with the numbers and the severity of the consequence (fatigue works well) to suit your taste. For example, you could apply this only if they cast a cantrip using a higher level slot if the ranged combat thing is your main issue. All depends on what you want to accomplish.

 

[Caliban]

Herein I would like to explore consequences of limiting cantrip use.

The main reason is that if we (as a larger effort) tweak the game to reduce the advantages of ranged weapons over melee weapons, this might make minmaxers simply switch over to Eldritch Blast et al.

What's this "we" stuff, white man? Don't presume to speak for me.

Personally, I see more issues with the SCAG melee cantrips (Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade) than with the ranged cantrips in the PHB.

The PHB cantrips give the casters something to contribute when they don't want to waste spell slots.

I also think you vastly overestimate the abilities of cantrips in a game world. (i.e. mending can't fix everything, and DM's can easily rule that cell doors and locks are immune to firebolt, just as a piece of equipment is immune to being targeted by firebolt or any other targeted attack. Why? Because the rules (or in this case the DM) says so.)

I'm not gonna worry rewriting the entire combat and magical system for a minor bit of "verisimiltude", when it can be much more easily rectified in other ways.

As for consequences, I predict a lot of annoyed casters complaining about how all your changes seem to be fixated on making melee combat the only viable option.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Outside of novelizations of D&D products, how often do you see something resembling a typical D&D party in genre?

Depends on how close you want the resemblance. I was just remarking the other day how much the characters of Rogue 1 resembled an RPG party, for instance. But, yes, because of a few D&D oddities - Vancian casting, the typecast Thief, and most of all, the vital but very genre-incongruous Cleric (and other magical healers) - even those genre stories that use an ensemble cast don't closely resemble the classic D&D party. They're doable (though probably not viable) in highly-customizable 3e, or readily 'skinned' into conformity in 4e, though, FWLTW.

Introducing always-on cantrips, IMO (and an opinion shared by some others) is just an attempt to give magical characters near-parity with martial characters round for round.

I don't think it's such an attempt, and, if it's come close to it, it's overshot any reasonable mark.

D&D has, for most of its history, suffered from (among other things) the infamous LFQW problem. Fighters have robust base-line DPR that grows steadily with level, and nothing else. Casters have whimpy base-line DPR, punctuated with overwhelming one-shot spells that grow exponentially with level, and everything else.
5e's solution to this was to give casters a less whimpy, more steadily-growing baseline DPR, while reigning in the extreme power/scaling of spell slots. Maybe it's done the former a little too much and the latter not nearly enough, but I'll have to go with that being the target, because it remotely makes sense in terms of game design, and if all that was desired was to perpetuate the classic problems, there'd've been no need.

Which is fine if that's your desired design goal, but it isn't justified by "genre" or by any of the other excuses I've seen trotted out; just as my saying that Wizards should be restricted from ever casting attack cantrips because OD&D/1e (aka, "tradition,") also isn't a valid excuse.

Caster ability varies some in genre, certainly, and doesn't often approach the D&D model of overwhelmingly powerful, easily/quickly cast spells with an arbitrary daily limit (let alone a memorization mechanic). Much more often, magic is a ritual affair not usable in combat, and casters virtually non-combatants. Less often the caster is also an able warrior, or has magic he can use freely in combat (often only one or two tricks, sometimes quite nasty). Of course, the more capable the caster, the more likely he's the villain...

The point is, CapnZapp has issues with the at-will combat cantrip... Your responses are orthogonal to his concerns.

On the contrary, I feel I'm addressing those concerns directly. At least, as best as I've been able to parse them. There may be a communication issue here, too.

FWIW, this attack cantrip spamming (and the overall "ubermagicking" of 5e) is my least favorite aspect of 5e.

I strongly disagree (and agree). How 'bout that - and I thought I was confused before.

 

[Jer]

Personally, I see more issues with the SCAG melee cantrips (Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade) than with the ranged cantrips in the PHB.

This is part of CapnZapp's continued efforts to make ranged combat more difficult for his players so they will be encouraged to enter into melee combat instead. He feels that the 5e rules make ranged combat far more effective than melee combat and so his players are apparently sniping at things instead of charging into combat to attack his critters. (CapnZapp can correct me if I'm oversimplifying, but I believe that's the gist of it).

Since I've never, ever, in any edition of the game ever had this problem with any group of my players (who usually need to be reminded that "charging heedlessly into combat without thinking through your options" isn't always the best approach), I read his threads mostly to see what the peanut gallery has to say about the topic. But there's no point in arguing back against his basic premise - he thinks it's a problem with the game mechanics, and so it needs to be fixed by tweaking the game mechanics. He will just reject your rejection of his premise. As well he probably should - it's apparently a problem at his table even if it isn't for the rest of us.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Herein I would like to explore consequences of limiting cantrip use.

The main reason is that if we (as a larger effort) tweak the game to reduce the advantages of ranged weapons over melee weapons, this might make minmaxers simply switch over to Eldritch Blast et al.

Are you sure its actually "Eldritch Blast et al."? Not just "Eldritch blast in conjunction with Agonising blast"?
What is the baseline non-magic, non-melee damage you are after in your game? How many cantrips outside that specific combination exceed the limits you want to impose?

A smaller (but to me equally important) reason is to me, granting some characters infinite access to magical powers presents large verisimiltude problems. Wizards trivially escaping cells by burning away locks. Entire economies wrecked since nothing needs repair. And so on. No matter how I try to solve these worldbuilding issues, the end analysis is always "the problem is that cantrips aren't finite".

How common are spellcasters in your games? Several in every village? A wandering caster serving several villages? Only a few even in a town?
How much would such individuals charge to perform this service?

How did these factors wreck the economy of your campaign world?

Why are locks made out of flammable materials?

Do you see any major negative impacts on playing the game, if cantrips were, say, limited to 4 slots per short rest?

Currently, yes.
As mentioned, cantrips are the majority of my wizard's action use in combat. Carrying around a crossbow and having to use it would not only be reducing his capability to contribute, but also be rather jarring as a character.

 

[Jer]

Currently, yes.
As mentioned, cantrips are the majority of my wizard's action use in combat. Carrying around a crossbow and having to use it would not only be reducing his capability to contribute, but also be rather jarring as a character.

It would return spellcasters to being as they were in 3rd edition - where they didn't have unlimited cantrips and had to fall back on using crossbows and darts and whatnot.

Since the cantrips are basically a "skin" over a ranged attack (that the spellcaster gets a better bonus for because the relevant stat is Int or Cha or Wis instead of Dex) I can see why some (though not me) would prefer this approach. It sets things for lower levelled casters back to what they were in 3e where spellcasting was less "Doctor Strange" or "Harry Dresden" narrative effect and more of a "resource management subgame" in its usage. My players hate that approach and refused to go back to 3rd edition after 4e came like a breath of fresh air for them, but there are plenty of people around who don't think that 5th edition did enough of dragging the game back towards that 3e spellcasting baseline and are looking for ways to restrict their players more.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[jasper]

I blame 3rd Edition for this.
It codified how common adventurers were, and said that people with PC classes were close to 0.5% of the population. Which sounds low when you compare it to actual jobs in the real world. In North America, 0.5% of an urban population might be Elementary School teachers. (I actually ran the numbers for my school district/county. And 0.99% of the population are Full Time teachers.)

So meeting a wizard in a typical D&D setting should be as common as meeting a Grade 4 teacher. Which feels far, far too common, and implies adventurers are in every settlement, large and small.

Alabama has pop of 4,863,300. And 53,616 public teachers (all grades). Which is .0110 of Or just over 1% of population. So teachers are very very rare (like wizards). And depending on your location it maybe hard to find a wizard.