D&D 5E Cantrip nerf (house rule brainstorm)

[el-remmen]

So in your mind a wizard makeing 100 attacks with a staff and isn’t winded make more sense then one that uses chill touch 20 times and not be winded ?

Yes.

Because it is not about "being winded" but about thematic sense of "magic" being linked to its limits and restrictions. I know this is an unpopular view these days - but having played wizards in older editions who sometimes had to get creative with what few spells they have left or even with non-magic solutions was as fun as casting magic some damage dealing spell.

 

[Oofta]

Generally speaking, cantrips will not be as effective as classes that don't rely on spells for damage.

Personally I like cantrips, my caster feels like a caster, a master of magic, not some second-rate dart thrower.

 

[Burnside]

Would make some classes more or less unplayable (I'm thinking about warlock, specifically). Which you might be okay with.

If I was in a group playing 5E with these rules, I just wouldn't play a class that uses cantrips. The non-cantrip classes would instantly become way more powerful in comparison. And by that I mean, a paladin would suddenly be WAY better than a cleric. A ranger would suddenly be WAY better than a druid. Most rogues and fighters would be WAY better than wizards in tier 1 (except of course for Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, which would become unplayably terrible).

 

[TwoSix]

You could definitely tweak that idea to suit your views on D&D magic. For example, you might decide that instead of exhausting all spellcasting, you simply exhaust your uses of that one cantrip.

That was the tweak we made even when playing Beyond the Wall. Nobody liked losing all your spells just because you blew a cantrip, especially when cantrips had a 25-30% failure rate.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The rule completely destroys the melee focused Bladesinger that relies on Booming Blade and the like for DPR

 

[DnD Warlord]

Yes.

Because it is not about "being winded" but about thematic sense of "magic" being linked to its limits and restrictions. I know this is an unpopular view these days - but having played wizards in older editions who sometimes had to get creative with what few spells they have left or even with non-magic solutions was as fun as casting magic some damage dealing spell.

As a 25+ year vet of the D&D edition wars I see your “I was there when” and laugh. Thematic means fit a theme and if your theme is uses magic, and someone else’s theme is use weapons NO!!! It doesn’t make more thematic sense for you use weapons instead of magic.

don’t mistake “I like it when” for “it makes more thematic sense when”

I do run low or even no magic campaigns but the setting amd the magic system adapts to that when I do. My biggest problem with 5 e is how many spell casting classes there are (I think only barbarian doesn’t have at least 1 sub class)

 

[el-remmen]

As a 25+ year vet of the D&D edition wars I see your “I was there when” and laugh. Thematic means fit a theme and if your theme is uses magic, and someone else’s theme is use weapons NO!!! It doesn’t make more thematic sense for you use weapons instead of magic.

don’t mistake “I like it when” for “it makes more thematic sense when”

I wasn't trying to say my POV has more weight because of how long I've played. I am saying that what makes more thematic sense for me and what I like are essentially the same and using my experience as evidence of that.

Sure, other people should play how they like - I even play that way b/c removing cantrips has cascading effects in 5E that I don't want to deal with.

 

[el-remmen]

Oh but I will add, that with the lower ACs across the board in 5E and Dexterity's increased role in combat, I think a wizard has a decent shot to hit with those darts or crossbow.

 

[Ancalagon]

Less flippant observations.

1) I have never actually considered cantrips "unlimited". I have always considered them to take the same amount of energy out of the caster as swinging a sword (or using a shovel) would out of someone acting physically. So "unlimited" really means "as long as you can sustain activity, which is more than enough for adventuring but not enough to level a mountain".

2) Because I like the idea of physical spell focuses (perhaps the Harry Potter fan in me?) I think cantrips should be at-will as long as you have your focus. If you don't, they cost a 1st level spell slot. "Oh look, NOW the wizard cares that you were all strip searched before being tossed in the cell."

I really agree with your #1 point. Can you cast a cantrip a dozen times in a row? Sure! Hundreds of time... I'm going to start giving exhaustion levels. I've never had to put down a firm rule on how much is too much, but so far my players have been ok with this.

 

[Ancalagon]

Hello all,

A bugbear about 5e (for me at least) was the idea of unlimited spammable cantrips for casters. To us 'get off my lawn' grognards, this seems a touch excessive.

I had an idea for a nerf I wanted to brainstorm - Each cantrip can only be cast a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus. Recover all uses upon short rest.

And discuss...

That would be very painful for the Warlock...