D&D 5E Limiting Cantrips?

[DND_Reborn]

But there's just so damn many cantrips flying around in 5e. How do you in-world justify the fear and hatred of arcane spellcasters in an edition where magic is so much more common across all classes? And it's not just cantrips. I mean, stereotypically back in the 2e era the magic-hating barbarian was a very common trope, but now I'd guess more than half of the barbarian subclasses we have get some sort of quasi-magical ability along the way somewhere, from summoning flumphs to growing a tail. The mechanics of the current edition just don't support that sort of magic-suspicious world setting very well without a major rewrite.

I'd be happy, for instance, giving arcane spellcasters light armour proficiency and maybe a martial weapon or two (psionic wild talents can level the playing field in Athas too) in exchange for a hard mechanical enforcement of the preserving/defiling system (preserving is hard but sustainable, defiling is easy but ruins the world forever). But with so many spellcasters running around now (hell, even BARDS are primary spellcasters who can get 9th level slots now), and with the plethora of subclasses even of non-traditionally magic classes who get spellcasting, running a low-magic setting in 5e without major surgery to the class list is a hard thing to do.

(bold added)

This, this, and more this!!! Yeah, I can't stand how many classes have magic or magic-like features! We made bards half-casters again like in 3E IIRC, got rid of Sorcerers and Warlocks (now subclasses of Wizard and Cleric, respectfully), and are so much happier with 5E now.

But yeah, MAJOR rewrite (about 150 pages of house-rules and homebrew) to the point many people wouldn't even consider it 5E anymore.

 

[Laurefindel]

hum, why do we have to justify hatred of arcane spellcasters?

[edit] nevermind, I failed to take the post in context. bad me.

 

[Asisreo]

Of course, there are ways to deal damage without spamming cantrips.

Even a wizard with a +2 dex does more damage with their light crossbow pre-5th level, at the expense of 5 percentage points of accuracy.

Post-level 5, if you want a wizard that isn't slinging spells anyways, you'd need to houserule until the cows come home anyways.

Every other character can do decent damage without cantrips (outside of Sorcerer and the lore bard). Clerics usually have decent weapon damage, Druids can wildshape, warlocks have features that give them alternate at-will options (a little less than agonizing blast), half-casters and martials usually don't have cantrips anyways.

Really, it's a bit inefficient to spam cantrips anyways unless Dexterity is your tertiary stat, which is still a viable build assuming strength is your secondary.

 

[humble minion]

hum, why do we have to justify hatred of arcane spellcasters?

In Dark Sun (which is the context of the quote), because hatred of arcane spellcasters is a major setting element, around which is centred the existence of one of the major setting power groups (the Veiled Alliance), and which is based in very reasonable in-world history (ie, the vast majority of arcane spellcasters suck the very life out of the earth to fuel their magic, leaving it barren and infertile, so you certainly don't want one wandering through your village)

 

[Laurefindel]

In Dark Sun (which is the context of the quote), because hatred of arcane spellcasters is a major setting element, around which is centred the existence of one of the major setting power groups (the Veiled Alliance), and which is based in very reasonable in-world history (ie, the vast majority of arcane spellcasters suck the very life out of the earth to fuel their magic, leaving it barren and infertile, so you certainly don't want one wandering through your village)

Ah yes, I missed the whole context indeed.

Then yeah. Pretty much what you said...

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, I played through those days as well (never 4E though). I remember casting my one sleep spell and then throwing daggers, etc. But the trade off was (if I survived) I knew the power my M-U would have later on. Once I reached 5th level, I didn't feel like I was restricted anymore, but maybe that was just my experience.

To be fair, there are a lot of complaints about trying to balance by overall campaign length, because campaigns are finicky things. Some people feel like the game should be wrapping up by level 5-6, others feel like level 5 or 6 is when the "training wheels" come off.

In my view, a wizard and a fighter should both be able to contribute at the same general power level at level 1 and at level 20. Ideally, the wizard has more power to shift the overall environment and narrative via spells, but the fighter will still kick his ass unless the wizard is super-prepared.

Often I hear people complain about the QWLF issue. Frankly, I never saw it or felt it in the decades of playing AD&D. No one ever had an issue with it because we understood d4 hp and low spells meant power later on vs. d10 hp and kill stuff vs. still d10 hp and kill stuff later on.

LFQW is way more of a 3e specific issue. High-level AD&D wizards were stupid powerful, but still had some obvious counters. The only thing that countered 3e casters were other casters. And that's not theorycraft, I participated in multiple games where I observed the issue.

 

[Malmuria]

I actually don't might the damage dealing cantrips that much. I mind cantrips that bypass aspects of gameplay. Certain cantrips, like guidance, are annoying as they have an interruptive effect on gameplay. The light cantrip not only makes keeping lantern/torches unnecessary, but is much more versatile than the mundane options (e.g. casting light on an object and throwing it somewhere, or being able to hide and unhide your lightsource easily). Mage hand makes traps much less risky and interesting. Prestidigitation is a microwave and refrigerator, an instant campfire, and an instant dry-cleaner. A world will unlimited minor illusion and friends and thaumaturgy would be complete chaos. I would go as far as to say that it's impossible to make 5e "old school" without doing something about cantrips.

A couple ideas, though I haven't tried either of these:

• use the spell points variant, but make cantrips cost 1 spell point. Or change the scale to make it easier, but still have there be a cost
• make it so you can only "attune" to one cantrip per long rest? Or per short rest?

 

[J.Quondam]

Personally, I like the idea of limited cantrips. One thing I liked about PF1 was that you had limited cantrips, but different casters (for example, different arcane schools) had additional minor features per day, which added some variety. All together, it was still a limited number, but I rarely recall running out of "magical" options and having to rely on a sling.

(Of course, I also tend to play casters who are somewhat competent in a melee, too, so "whack it with my staff!" is usually a perfectly fine tactic in my spellcaster PCs' book.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

In my view, a wizard and a fighter should both be able to contribute at the same general power level at level 1 and at level 20. Ideally, the wizard has more power to shift the overall environment and narrative via spells, but the fighter will still kick his ass unless the wizard is super-prepared.

My preference for casters is that they not focus directly on combat (i.e. damage) except once in a while (the occasional fireball, etc.).

I feel like non-martials should be able to participate in combat, but with roughly half the effectiveness of martials. Meanwhile, out side of combat, casters are more effective in other ways (or at least can accomplish some things more easily via magic).

LFQW is way more of a 3e specific issue. High-level AD&D wizards were stupid powerful, but still had some obvious counters. The only thing that countered 3e casters were other casters. And that's not theorycraft, I participated in multiple games where I observed the issue.

I imagine that is possible. I played 3E for less than a year in 2004 before moving on to d20 SW.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Does that increase the the net enjoyment at your table?

Did unlimited cantrips detract from the players without cantrip? Who was harmed, and is the table as a whole happier now - without having to change choices of classes.

Speaking for myself, we, as a table, prefer limited cantrips as is makes magic feel less trivial and allows for more logical seeming effects. For instance allowing acid splash to dissolve the lock on a door or chest, which isn't allowed under the current rules.

It is, of course, perfectly acceptable that your table feels differently.