D&D (2024) Playtest 8: Cantrips

[Mistwell]

Ok... so the wizard having a crossbow ready does 1 more damage than the one spraying poison at will...

makes sense to me.

Why? Why would true strike, which has far more utility than poison spray with its force damage and applicability to all weapon attacks and which scales faster, make more sense than poison spray which already does the most resisted and immune damage type in the game with a relatively short range?

I am pretty sure it's not intended to be useable with two handed weapons. Which would solve this issue fairly well.

 

[Mistwell]

Welcome to the character optimization boards!

I mean, it's a meaningful portion of the overall damage you're doing with it, and it scales by that one point each time. I don't think this is purely an issue for optimization. It really is a meaningful portion of the overall damage.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't understand how stuff like Thaurmgy, Presidigation, and Druidcraft didn't get a fit, they are almost pure ribbon abilities with next to no practical use, BG3 did them better, advantage on a skill a related check.

They may still get that. I think there isn't much to playtest there. They can keep them as they are right now and simply add, "In general, a use of this spell provides the caster with advantage on one applicable skill check."

 

[James Gasik]

Why? Why would true strike, which has far more utility than poison spray with its force damage and applicability to all weapon attacks and which scales faster, make more sense than poison spray which already does the most resisted and immune damage type in the game with a relatively short range?

I am pretty sure it's not intended to be useable with two handed weapons. Which would solve this issue fairly well.

Why do we have attack cantrips in the first place? I mean, 5e is built so that your Wizard could throw darts or plunk things with crossbows just as effectively as anyone else with proficiency and a decent stat to use them. And it's not like Dexterity isn't something most Wizards want.

They exist, primarily, so that players of spellcasters can feel like they're doing magic stuff all the time. By giving the player a "spell attack" that's as effective as using a weapon, or a "spell torch" that's as effective as a real light source, it sells the class fantasy.

I could hold a torch or lantern in one hand as a Wizard because I don't normally need to use both hands to walk around and cast magic. But that doesn't sell the bit, it doesn't make me feel as much a Wizard as being able to go "behold, rubes! You with your primitive burning sticks! Witness my power, that allows me to create a superior light source that is infinitely renewable and hands free!".

So enter a cantrip that lets you make weapon attacks. Why would you use it over a spell attack, which doesn't require any gold investment or inventory space, if there wasn't some advantage to using it?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Why? Why would true strike, which has far more utility than poison spray with its force damage and applicability to all weapon attacks and which scales faster, make more sense than poison spray which already does the most resisted and immune damage type in the game with a relatively short range?

I am pretty sure it's not intended to be useable with two handed weapons. Which would solve this issue fairly well.

Ok. If you are sure, play it this way.
I am sure you are wrong. But you have my blessing to ignore my assessment if it makes you happy.
Nit the hill I would die on.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't understand how stuff like Thaurmgy, Presidigation, and Druidcraft didn't get a fit, they are almost pure ribbon abilities with next to no practical use, BG3 did them better, advantage on a skill a related check.

We have gotten a lot use out of those ribbon abilities. But yes, getting advantage on a check seems in line with our plays. It is just not automatic, as the generated effect needs to make sense.
For a computer game, you need that automatism as tgere is no DM to haggle with.

 

[Clint_L]

They may still get that. I think there isn't much to playtest there. They can keep them as they are right now and simply add, "In general, a use of this spell provides the caster with advantage on one applicable skill check."

Those spells are more for the role-play aspect of the game, and their applicability can be immense, depending on the situation (well...not so much druid craft). A lot of this game has nothing to do with attacks or skill checks. I would never call Prestidigitation a "ribbon" ability; it gets used all the time!

If your players can't find impactful ways to use the following, then they have failed their IRL imagination check!

You create one of the following magical effects within range:

• You create an instantaneous, harmless sensory effect, such as a shower of sparks, a puff of wind, faint musical notes, or an odd odor.
• You instantaneously light or snuff out a candle, a torch, or a small campfire.
• You instantaneously clean or soil an object no larger than 1 cubic foot.
• You chill, warm, or flavor up to 1 cubic foot of nonliving material for 1 hour.
• You make a color, a small mark, or a symbol appear on an object or a surface for 1 hour.
• You create a nonmagical trinket or an illusory image that can fit in your hand and that lasts until the end of your next turn.

If you cast this spell multiple times, you can have up to three of its non-instantaneous effects active at a time, and you can dismiss such an effect as an action.

 

[mellored]

I'd like the caster to be able to use it with a bow or crossbow, both of which are two-handed.

What about reducing the range then?

Say... starting a 15', and scaling as you level.

 

[mellored]

Also, does anyone want poison spray to be a 15' cone?

You know, like a spray.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Also, does anyone want poison spray to be a 15' cone?

You know, like a spray.

Yes. Definitely.