D&D 5E What if Combat Cantrips looked like this instead...

[Cap'n Kobold]

That's definitely not the problem.

Weapon attacks generally scale elegantly and in interesting ways (Extra attacks, maneuvers, divine strike, sneak attack, etc.). Cantrips, with the possible exception of the single-classed warlock, do not.

Spellcasting however, does scale and offer interesting options.

I doubt Crawford is scanning this thread for UA content, so we probably aren't going to see any extensive implementation examples.

Presumably the OP who put forward this homebrew suggestion will however. Particularly after that response to Blue's comments.

 

[Ganymede81]

Presumably the OP who put forward this homebrew suggestion will however. Particularly after that response to Blue's comments.

I really think you're missing the tenor of the conversation here. This isn't homebrew or a proposal for how people should run their own games. It is just musing on the notion "what if cantrips were modeled more similarly to weapon attacks as opposed to being modeled as spells?" I'm interested in spitballing what other people thought the pros/cons would be, not on making an actual house rule.

In other words: how would the game be different if we made cantrip-like attacks with the Attack action instead of the Cast a Spell action?

 

[Quickleaf]

I really think you're missing the tenor of the conversation here. This isn't homebrew or a proposal for how people should run their own games. It is just musing on the notion "what if cantrips were modeled more similarly to weapon attacks as opposed to being modeled as spells?" I'm interested in spitballing what other people thought the pros/cons would be, not on making an actual house rule.

In other words: how would the game be different if we made cantrip-like attacks with the Attack action instead of the Cast a Spell action?

One of the big differences that comes to mind is that cantrips-as-attacks wouldn’t be affected by dispel magic, countetspell, dead magic zones, and wouldn’t count as “Spells” whenever that comes up (eg. corner case monster design, spell scrolls, etc).

For me personally that would be undesirable, because it would create a mechanical artifact (a spell but not really a spell) with no in-narrative justification.

 

[Ganymede81]

One of the big differences that comes to mind is that cantrips-as-attacks wouldn’t be affected by dispel magic, countetspell, dead magic zones, and wouldn’t count as “Spells” whenever that comes up (eg. corner case monster design, spell scrolls, etc).

For me personally that would be undesirable, because it would create a mechanical artifact (a spell but not really a spell) with no in-narrative justification.

Yeah, you're right; I wouldn't lose sleep if these cantrips couldn't be counterspelled, but it would be pretty weird if these attacks operated in anti-magic fields and such.

I assume you'd just alter the Antimagic Sphere spell to say "Within the sphere, spells [and cantrips] can’t be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even magic items become mundane." Alternatively, you could always add a notation to the ability itself to note that it counts as a spell.

Then again, the Antimagic Sphere already says "Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere and can’t protrude into it." That language might already be sufficient.