Potent Cantrip: To "fix" or not to fix?

[Wyvern]

I recall when 5e first came out, some people were a bit miffed that the evoker's Potent Cantrip feature applied to only two spells in the PHB (acid splash and poison spray), neither of which is an evocation spell.

Now that the game has been out for nearly four years, I'm wondering whether people still feel that way with the benefit of actual play experience. If you've played an evoker, or seen one played, what are your thoughts? If you played it by-the-book, did you feel that the benefits of Potent Cantrip were underwhelming? And if you (or your DM) house-ruled it, what fix did you apply, and how well do you think it turned out?

Wyvern

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And what about the dyslexic Tabaxi wizard who chose Evocation because he thought it said potent catnip?

 

[jaelis]

You could have your attack cantrips do half damage on a miss, but I'm not a huge fan of that either. Feels a little strong and can be hard to explain in game.

Not that I think potent cantrip is good as it is. I've never really come up with a houserule I liked. Maybe let you reroll some of the damage dice?

 

[Wyvern]

And what about the dyslexic Tabaxi wizard who chose Evocation because he thought it said potent catnip?

What better school for a tabaxi than evocation?

 

[Wyvern]

You could have your attack cantrips do half damage on a miss, but I'm not a huge fan of that either. Feels a little strong and can be hard to explain in game.

That's one possibility I've thought of. Others would be advantage on attack rolls with cantrips (or perhaps just evocation cantrips), or +1 damage/die.

So have you or someone else in your group played an evoker?

 

[houser2112]

Well, there is the frostbite cantrip now.

 

[the Jester]

So have you or someone else in your group played an evoker?

We had an evoker for a while, starting just after 5e released, until he moved out of the area. He had acid splash, so he got some use out of it. I don't recall him ever complaining about it, and he felt plenty potent overall.

That said, I have a ton of custom spells in my game, which often can affect a character's ability to play their chosen role as a caster. He got several spells that were perfect for his "blow stuff up" approach to play, including two that did multiple low-damage small areas of damage. Combined with his "leave my buddies out of it" evoker ability....

 

[jaelis]

That's one possibility I've thought of. Others would be advantage on attack rolls with cantrips (or perhaps just evocation cantrips), or +1 damage/die.

So have you or someone else in your group played an evoker?

We have an evoker who never takes advantage of the ability. The group I've been playing with lately, and the wizard player in particular, are not much about mechanics. But it has bugged me

 

[Li Shenron]

I would not change the Potent Cantrip ability itself, but rather add more applicable cantrips or at least variants of the two in the PHB.

That's because for my tastes poison and acid damage both feel quite "mean" from a narrative point of view, not necessarily evil but at least somewhat sadistic. Naturally, it's just the narrative, because functionally it doesn't matter if you kill a foe with an elemental damage or another... but for some reason, to me a "fire splash" or "cold spray" would feel a bit less horrible and thus better suit good-aligned PCs. Swapping (permanently, not on a need-basis during the game) a spell's damage type does not alter the game balance, as long as the damage type is in the same category of usefulness (this may sound a bit vague, but the game designers have given hints based on how many monsters have immunity/resistance to various damage types, that at least you should not swap elemental damage with force or radiance because there are few monsters in the game that can resist these two damage types).

 

[Nevvur]

I would not change the Potent Cantrip ability itself, but rather add more applicable cantrips or at least variants of the two in the PHB.

That's because for my tastes poison and acid damage both feel quite "mean" from a narrative point of view, not necessarily evil but at least somewhat sadistic. Naturally, it's just the narrative, because functionally it doesn't matter if you kill a foe with an elemental damage or another... but for some reason, to me a "fire splash" or "cold spray" would feel a bit less horrible and thus better suit good-aligned PCs. Swapping (permanently, not on a need-basis during the game) a spell's damage type does not alter the game balance, as long as the damage type is in the same category of usefulness (this may sound a bit vague, but the game designers have given hints based on how many monsters have immunity/resistance to various damage types, that at least you should not swap elemental damage with force or radiance because there are few monsters in the game that can resist these two damage types).

Going pretty far off topic here, apologies... I was just reminded of the time ISIS executed a Jordanian pilot with fire and how it caused such an uproar in the Middle East. It was enough, in any case, to cause many Muslims who supported or were on the fence about ISIS to turn against them. I found this inspiring and adapted a new fire magic policy for one of the human empires in my homebrew setting. Murder is murder, of course, but killing a sapient creature with fire magic is considered especially egregious.

Of course, undead don't count. The only thing worse than fire magic is necromancy!

---
[MENTION=2374]Wyvern[/MENTION]

I agree the PHB Evocation wizard was funky for the reasons you list. However, the Elemental Evil Player's Companion fixed that to my satisfaction, so it hasn't been an issue at my table for years.