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

[jmartkdr2]

A bug doesn't become not a bug just because it's been around a long time.

I think the argument is: if a class is based around feature X, being based around feature X isn't a bug. It's just what the class is. If anything, the bugs are when the class tries to be something other than based around EB (ie bladelocks)

Analogy: Excel isn't a good word processor - but I wouldn't call it's lack of word processing features a weakness or failure of the program.

I'm going to guess that your counter will be "you shouldn't design classes around features" - which is a valid point of view. But it is a statement about what classes are supposed to be, which is a whole other thread at least.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm going to guess that your counter will be "you shouldn't design classes around features"...

No, I would not counter with that at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with designing a class around 1-2 features. What I would counter with is, "You shouldn't design a class around this feature."

Some examples of "feature classes" done well:

• Barbarians. Barbarian rage provides benefits (damage resistance, bonus damage) which can be applied to any Strength-based weapons and combat tactics you like. Barbarian subclasses then provide additional "rage boosts" on top of this core.
• Rogues. Again, Sneak Attack is a simple boost that can be used with the finesse or ranged weapons and tactics of your choice. Rogues then get a variety of bonus-action tricks, and Sneak Attack is designed to be compatible with all of them.
• Sorcerers. The sorcerer's defining features are Font of Magic and Metamagic--technically two features, but joined at the hip. These allow you to dramatically boost the power of individual spells, but you still have an array of spell options to use them on.

What makes these classes work is that the "single feature" builds on the general mechanics available to all martial PCs (barbarians, rogues) or all spellcasters (sorcerers). It can piggyback off the options built into those general mechanics--it isn't trying to replace the entire Combat chapter.

A less successful "single-feature" class in 5E is the monk with Stunning Strike. Monks are more restricted in their choice of equipment than either barbarians or rogues--a handful of weapons, no armor at all--and Stunning Strike dictates very repetitive tactics: Pick a big threatening creature, blitz it with stuns until it stops moving, then watch your allies whale on it. And because few other uses of ki can compare to SS, a lot of secondary monk features are a waste of space.

And then we have the warlock and EB. EB is even more restrictive than Stunning Strike: No choice of weapons, no choice of spells, not even an option to switch between ranged and melee. You make X ranged attacks for 1d10+Cha force damage each, end of story. It combines with nothing (except hex and multiclass cheese), layers over nothing, it stands completely alone in the system. You can't customize it except with invocations, and your options there are very narrow.

That is why I consider the reliance on EB to be a bug. It doesn't make the class unplayable, but it limits the options available more than it should.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's just what the class is. If anything, the bugs are when the class tries to be something other than based around EB (ie bladelocks)

This is why I say that Pact of The Blade should have leveraged EB rather than try to replace it with martial attacks. "You can cast EB and make melee spell attacks with the same reach as your pact blade, instead of ranged spell attacks. If you have bound a magical weapon, these attacks benefit from any feature that would beenefit a melee weapon attack with the weapon." would have solved a lot of problems, saved players some Invocations, etc.
Likewise, Celestial Pact should have let you turn EB into Radiant damage, and given the bonus to radiant damage.

Stunning Strike dictates very repetitive tactics: Pick a big threatening creature, blitz it with stuns until it stops moving, then watch your allies whale on it. And because few other uses of ki can compare to SS, a lot of secondary monk features are a waste of space.

So, quite correctly, wotc did not build 5e around the concerns and habits of optimization. The Monk is an excellently built class from any perspective other than optimization. I have a monk who is level 10 and has used Stunning Strike maybe a dozen times, ever. In another more optimised game I have used MC and feats to create a mostly-monk crit fisher that puts out very high damage, and in another we have a the only Monk I've seen IRL who "spams" Stunning Strike.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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...

Here is my solution to the cantrip problem.

1. Is it a cantrip?

2. NUKE IT! NUKE IT FROM ORBIT!!! NUKE IT TWICE TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T COME BACK!!!!!!!!!

3. Continue playing without those pesky 0th level spells.

4. You're welcome!

 

[Nefermandias]

I am frequently tempted to simply get rid of all damage dealing cantrips. Or just replace the whole idea of cantrips with the 2E notion of the spell Cantrip.

The damage dealing cantrips are really just weapons that cannot be easily removed from you. I wouldn't fret about those.
What really drives me mad are the utility cantrips that trivialize a lot of aspects of gameplay and downplays the importance of resource management.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Here is my solution to the cantrip problem.

1. Is it a cantrip?

2. NUKE IT! NUKE IT FROM ORBIT!!! NUKE IT TWICE TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T COME BACK!!!!!!!!!

3. Continue playing without those pesky 0th level spells.

4. You're welcome!

Huh.
What do wizards in your game do on all the rounds they aren't burning spell slots?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Huh.
What do wizards in your game do on all the rounds they aren't burning spell slots?

Firing crossbow bolts, like wizards in the classic stories do.

 

[el-remmen]

The damage dealing cantrips are really just weapons that cannot be easily removed from you. I wouldn't fret about those.
What really drives me mad are the utility cantrips that trivialize a lot of aspects of gameplay and downplays the importance of resource management.

I get the argument but I just don't buy it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Huh.
What do wizards in your game do on all the rounds they aren't burning spell slots?

Engage in witty repartee, of course!

 

[fearsomepirate]

Simplicity isn't a bug. It's a preference. An automatic transmission is not broken because you would rather drive a manual, or vice versa. One of the features of 5e is that players with different complexity preferences can play side-by-side without those who prefer having a big spell list completely overshadowing those who just want to play "point at orc, shoot a blast."