D&D (2024) Playtest 8: Cantrips

[UngeheuerLich]

Again, I think this is one of those things requiring a sage advice.

Not really.
Is it worth arguing over a single point of damage?

 

[mellored]

Evoker 3/ Rogue, with True Strike...

 

[Neonchameleon]

Better for a cantrip to be useless for one particular build, then overshadow the other cantrips.

And I'm meeting you half way.

Magic attack roll, but 1d8+dex damage.

You have presented no conclusive evidence that anything needs changing. All you have boils down to:

• At levels 1-3 True Strike means that non min-maxed builds do the same crossbow damage as min-maxed builds - and at L4 it's slightly higher
• From levels 5-10 the most min-maxed of optimisers get a completely trivial amount of extra DPR if they want to faff around with crossbows rather than firebolts that synergise better with the rest of their kit

I do not have a problem with either of these situations.

pretty sure your double 16 build is already doing that.

Yes - and when the difference is 5.5 average damage vs 8.5 and you've only got first and second level spells it's worth it. The 1.36 (or whatever it was) times damage is a significant buff. But that's a consequence of weapon rules, not something True Strike has added.

I've even seen crossbows used in 16/14 builds because people wanted to save the cantrip at low levels. It's a cost. Different people make builds focusing on different things.

And if your in a campaign where weapons are hard to find, then you just invalidated a lot of classes.

I'm not sure what that is in respect to. The cost is the faffing and the weapon/implement juggling you have to do. All for trivial extra damage.

 

[mellored]

You have presented no conclusive evidence that anything needs changing. All you have boils down to:

• At levels 1-3 True Strike means that non min-maxed builds do the same crossbow damage as min-maxed builds - and at L4 it's slightly higher
• From levels 5-10 the most min-maxed of optimisers get a completely trivial amount of extra DPR if they want to faff around with crossbows rather than firebolts that synergise better with the rest of their kit

True Strike invalidates other cantrips.

That's the problem.

And I'm not sure I'd call 16/16 a min-max build. You're not going to have good Con, which you want to concentration checks.
Especially with medium armor is a level 1 feat.

Yes - and when the difference is 5.5 average damage vs 8.5 and you've only got first and second level spells it's worth it. The 1.36 (or whatever it was) times damage is a significant buff. But that's a consequence of weapon rules, not something True Strike has added.

Weapon rules would require a trade-off between hit points (Con) and damage (Dex).

I don't have an issue with trade offs.

All for trivial extra damage.

If it's this trivial, then you can let it go.

 

[Neonchameleon]

True Strike invalidates other cantrips.

That's the problem.

You haven't shown that in the slightest. You've shown it's a good cantrip. But it's explicitly harder to use than other cantrips because you need special equipment to use it. It's competitive with other cantrips - but there are literally no cantrips it invalidates. Not even the truly awful ones that no one ever takes because none of them are such a faff to use.

If it's this trivial, then you can let it go.

Arbitrarily complexifying the rules by having a single cantrip using two stats is non-trivial.

If you are arguing the extra d6s should go down to d4s I'm not arguing. I don't care about an average of 1 point of damage per tier.

 

[mellored]

You haven't shown that in the slightest.

I have. A few times.

You can go ahead and do the math yourself if you don't believe me.

But it's explicitly harder to use than other cantrips because you need special equipment to use it.

Poor fighters and all the "special equipment" they need to function as a class...

I don't care about an average of 1 point of damage per tier.

Then you won't mind if the base damage is dropped below firebolt.

 

[WanderingMystic]

Potent Cantrip would still apply to True Strike.

I thought potent cantrip was just evocation like the aoe ability.

 

[mellored]

I thought potent cantrip was just evocation like the aoe ability.

It's changed.

When you cast a cantrip at a creature and you miss with the attack roll or the target succeeds on a saving throw against the cantrip, the target takes half the cantrip’s damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect from the cantrip.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have. A few times.

You can go ahead and do the math yourself if you don't believe me.

No you haven't. You need more than higher damage to "invalidate" something. You need a higher damage with no significant drawbacks. As it is you do a trivial amount of higher damage for a significant thematic change plus mechanical and in character faffing around.

Then you won't mind if the base damage is dropped below firebolt.

As long as you do it without messing up the game's other consistent systems. As I say I do not care if you want to drop the d6 to a d4.

Your "Spellcasting stat to attack, physical stat to damage" however gives a unique system that is out of line with just about everything else. And True Strike should do weapon damage. So does any attempt to not make it do weapon style damage.

 

[mellored]

But it's explicitly harder to use than other cantrips because you need special equipment to use it.

There is a one point in your favor that you missed. If you have a Shield, that doesn't affect Firebolt.

And Javelins have quite a bit shorter range to use with True Strike.

So... randomly.
6.5 radiant, 30' or melee
Vs
5.5 fire, 120'

How does this nerf sit with you?

Components: S,M (a one handed weapon with which you have proficiency)