D&D 5E Attack Cantrips

[Falling Icicle]

I don't get why they got rid of lance of faith. Sacred flame is different enough to justify having both spells. Why not let clerics have both spells on their list? Why should clerics only have one attack cantrip?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Cantrips should not do damage, period.

 

[Zustiur]

Cantrips should not do damage, period.

I'm inclined to agree, but I can also see where this is coming from. The desire to play a caster who only uses spells is a very strong one in the community, and thus they're catering for it. I can't really blame them for that.
It should therefore be balanced against the class's other abilities. e.g. a battle cleric (armour proficiency and weapons) should either not get these cantrips, or be inherently bad at them. A priest (very little armour/weapon proficiency, ala a wizard) can be expected to live on his spells, and therefore requires some way to contribute in every battle without ever running out of 'I attack' ability. I get it, but that doesn't mean I like it

 

[Klaus]

Cantrips should not do damage, period.

Then take no attack cantrips in you game.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'd rather HP didn't scale as much, so combat cantrips didn't have to deal so much damage at high level. It looks weird that mage hand doesn't scale, but ray of frost does. I'd rather have the cantrips do interesting things with small amounts of damage.

 

[Blackwarder]

I don't like damage cantrips, I'd much rather have them do interesting things I also don't like light as a cantrip it's invalidate torches completely.

If there are damage cantrips than they should do at max 1d6 damage or 1d4 plus a small effect.

Warder

 

[Paraxis]

There needs to be a separate class ability for wizards and certain cleric builds, like arcane lance in Dragon Age rpg. It needs an attack roll not a save, damage scales with level and you need to wield an implement to use it so you can be disarmed. It is no longer a cantrip so the fact it scales doesn't mess with the basic way all other cantrips work.

I don't understand why game design is hard for these people they should have a very good foundation of all the core classes by now. Build a game with the 4 key classes and 4 main races of D&D. Get that to work well, balance monsters around those classes, balance treasure around the classes and levels, get a foundation set then build the rest of the game on top of that. It seems like they are still trying to figure out core rules that need to be in place for the rest of the game to work right and have been at it for a long time now.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Very sensible suggestions, [MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION]

 

[howandwhy99]

Agreed with [MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION] on this. Cantrips shouldn't be damage leveling pop guns. Spells have an identity and it's world altering effects. Better suggestions would be: Erase, Minor Telekinesis (mage hand), Audible Glamour, Wood Warp, Eldritch Flame (light), Ethereal Seam (mage pocket), and so on. Spells never stop being useful. Hit point damage effects largely do.

Also, if these are going to be At-Will effects than call them what they really are: Abilities. Magical Abilities perhaps, like Dragon's Breath is a magical ability, but not Spells. Spells are arcane completions to prepared rituals for those times when a wizard just happens to bump into Conan. It's far better to keep your roster open for the day, if you're a wizard. But then you leave yourself unprotected against quick incursions.

 

[howandwhy99]

Also, think about designing abilities that are not exclusively single character abilities. A conjured silver arrow could be shot by your fighter, because, hey, she's more likely to hit. Or those ferns you animated. Maybe the ranger would be better off corralling them through a forest than you?