D&D 5E Obvious Attack Cantrips That Should Exist

[Jeff Carlsen]

Even in older editions, we always house ruled cantrips to be infinite in use. It fit our image of how magic worked, where most spells had to be prepared because they were complex, but that simple effects could be constructed on the fly.

 

[Sadras]

You know what else is reliable like technology? A crossbow. Yet no one seems to complain about that like they complain about at-will spells. This is baffling to me.

How can this be baffling? An endless supply of at-will damage-dealing cantrips implies a certain magical level within the world. Can you seriously not understand that not every group/DM prefers that kind of setting? Magic like technology are two very important factors to consider when starting a new campaign - and clearly from these and other forums not every D&D group adheres to the rule that "zapping" wizards exist.
As I have stated before both variations should exists within the players handbook with clearly marked "High-Level Magic Setting" spells which would make it easy for the DM to exclude such spells from the setting. Or perhaps it a write-up could be included within the DMG stating as such in the form of advice or problematic spell list for "Low-Level Magic Settings".
What I'm suggesting is similar to the "inherent system" in 4E where magical items did not have a "+" instead at certain levels the characters received an inherent +1 to hit and AC to negate the requirement of +magical items for the math to work. It was a good system leaning in the direction of a "Low-Level Magic Setting." A system within a system which pleases both camps.

Otherwise, if you don't want at will magic, don't go to the crossbows, but go for true vancian casting. The spells should change the combat encounter, either by ending it or by significantly reducing the threat. It is worth carrying a 1st level mage around for 10 encounters if he can make one problematic encounter "go away" with his "I win" button.

There are many systems/mechanics one can adopt before jumping to that extreme scenario you reflected above. Also DMs create many different type of adventures which do not all adopt the approach that 10 encounters of continual combat = fun adventure.

 

[Falling Icicle]

How can this be baffling? An endless supply of at-will damage-dealing cantrips implies a certain magical level within the world. Can you seriously not understand that not every group/DM prefers that kind of setting?

The ability to perform minor magic at-will (and yes, doing as much damage as a crossbow, a simple weapon, is minor) does not imply that a setting is high magic. The power to perform extremely simple spells over and over again is hardly going to turn a world upside down. It's what the upper limits of magic can do that truly alters a setting. Not being able to shoot weak little rays at people over and over again.

 

[Sadras]

The ability to perform minor magic at-will (and yes, doing as much damage as a crossbow, a simple weapon, is minor) does not imply that a setting is high magic. The power to perform extremely simple spells over and over again is hardly going to turn a world upside down. It's what the upper limits of magic can do that truly alters a setting. Not being able to shoot weak little rays at people over and over again.

Cannot agree as our definitions of low and high magic appear to be different, and that is fine given the endless variations of how magic can interact with the world which is only limited by our imagination. But from what I have seen on these forums, the people who object to damage-dealing cantrips they usually use words like "limited" "mysterious" when describing magic and as such - damage-dealing cantrips do not fall into that definition of it.
I'm not saying your idea of how magic interacts with the world is wrong I'm just saying it is not everyones.

 

[AldereIctus]

Its a fundamental misunderstanding of what cantrips are. They're parlor tricks, not lethal spells at-will. Yet another dumb move in this "5E" game. Mages should have to earn their power.

Sais the guy who apparently is misunderstanding the value other people are placing on his opinion. Personally I hate wizards wielding crossbows they have no proficiency in because he has two spells a day. This is some arrogant smarter than though nonsense and I literally made an account just to call you out for it. OP is talking about how to fill out nieces in flavor and combat utility for different styles of play and if you don't like damaging cantrips feel free to play your frail wizard with a broadsword take only utility cantrips.

 

[Eltab]

and I literally made an account just to call you out for it.

Did you notice that the rest of the thread is seven years old?

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Did you notice that the rest of the thread is seven years old?

And the person they're responding to hasn't logged in since Jul 18, 2017.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

This thread is so old, he couldn't raise it as a zombie. Instead, he animated a skeleton.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Theo R. Cwithin fails his save....

Raise Thread
Necromancy cantrip

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: ENWorld
Components: V, S, F (dusty keyboard)
Duration: Permanent, until people stop replying

You raise a single forum thread from oblivion. Anyone in range reading the Raised Thread must succeed on a DC 10 Wisdom saving throw or be compelled to leave a comment.

 

[Weiley31]

Cantrips are probably one of the best things that happened to magic users in 5E.
Never played 4E so if they originated there, my bad.

I'd rather rely on a Cantrip in a sticky situation while backed in a corner, instead of relying on a weapon I suck using or my bare fists as a Spell User.

If I want to stand around like a roll of toilet paper doing nothing, I'd roll up a Roll of Toilet Paper character.