FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Then don't use silly examples where I have the opportunity to miss the point.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Cantrip Auto-Scaling - A 5e Critique
- Thread starter FrogReaver
- Start date
Then don't use silly examples where I have the opportunity to miss the point.
Hussar
Legend
That's the whole problem in a nutshell though. Your assumption in Step 2 is not true. It's flat out not true. It is not better to use the cantrip in most circumstances. The opposite is true. It is almost always better to use a first level spell in a first level slot. The first level spell either straight up deals better damage or it is going to have an effect greater than a cantrip.
Charm Person is outright better than Friends. All 1st level direct damage dealing spells are better than direct damage dealing cantrips. Silent Image is better than Minor Illusion. Continual Flame is better than a Light spell (granted, I did have to go up to 2nd level for that one).
I'm still rather baffled how you are coming to your assumption here.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
I talked about picking a damage spell. Why did you bring charm person, minor illusion, continual flame etc into the discussion?
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Lol, I'm to blame for your actions.Please don't rob any banks.
Using a silly example totally detracted from any point you may have had. Want to try to make the same point without resorting to a silly example?
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
No, not really. I don't like repeating myself so others can indulge their needlessly pedantic navelgazing. Either you're smart enough to figure it out on your own or I'm smart enough to not fall for your bs. You can pick.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Considering I've had to repeat myself about 1000 times in this thread I don't feel the least bit sorry for you.
Hussar
Legend
The reason you've had to repeat yourself, and the reason I brought in non-damaging cantrips, is because your basic premise is flawed. You are insisting that cantrips at high levels are inherently better than 1st or 2nd level spells.
You have yet to actually demonstrate that. Several people, including myself, have shown you why we think that your assumptions are mistaken.
Now, if you want to compare cantrips to weapon attacks, then I might be much better persuaded. One failing I see in 5e is that clerics and druids, by being granted damage dealing cantrips, are no longer really weapon classes. Most cantrips, particularly at high level, well far out damage any weapon damage a cleric or druid can do. So, it means that clerics (outside of maybe war clerics) and certainly Land druids are basically full time casters, which is something that these classes actually weren't in the past. Clerics and druids weren't all that far behind fighters at one time when it came time to smack people about the head and ears with lumpy metal things.
But now? What's the point of doing a d8+Str (maybe with a couple of extra bits) when my cantrips are doing 3d8 or even 4d8 (or 4d10 with Toll the Dead)? I could seriously see the argument for bumping clerics and druids a bit in melee and dropping direct damage cantrips.
But wizards? Naw. Cantrips aren't dealing enough damage to overshadow 1st and certainly not 2nd level spells. If you think that Fire Bolt overshadows Chromatic Orb, well, maybe. But it's certainly not overshadowing Scorching Ray at any caster level.
And there is another issue as well. In the base game (ignoring additional books for the moment), the only direct damage dealing 1st level spells are Magic Missile and Burning Hands and Thunderwave. At 2nd level, you've got Acid Arrow, Flaming Sphere, Scorching Ray and Shatter. That's seven spells out of what, sixty spells? I'm fairly willing to say that dealing direct damage isn't really what 1st and 2nd level spells are for anyway. When 90% of your 1st and 2nd level wizard spells DON'T deal direct damage, I'd hazard a guess to say that utility is far more what these slots are for.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Ok, but you're wrong.
Magic MIssile, and Chromatic Orb, for instance, are simply more versatile as singular specific abilities, than any cantrip in the game. That is a benefit of those spells, that cantrips don't have. Magic Missile can be used to hit up to 3 targets with a level 1 slot, or can be piled on, as circumstance dictates. Just last month I had a player throw a level 1 Magic Missile becaus there were 3 casters holding concentration, and none of them were likely to die from anything he had left, so making all 3 make saves to keep concentration was the most useful thing to do. Chromatic Orb can do a wide range of damage types, making it extremely useful to have on hand at every level of play.
But beyond those specific examples, ignoring the versatility of preparing spells, and the versatility of how spells and spell slots interact is simply an incorrect way of discussing the utility of spells. Spells don't exist in a vacuum, therefor discussing them as if they do is incorrect.
Part of the power level of any given level 1 spell is that it can be used when it is most useful, while cantrips are very very limited in number, and only the mechanically weakest of them has any versatility within the cantrip itself.
If you can't see past comparing magic missile and any direct damage cantrip as if nothing else in the game exists, then you're simply approaching all of this in a irreparably flawed manner.
This simply makes it seem that you are not engaging genuinely in a discussion, but rather simply using pedantics and petty rhetorical tactics to avoid having an actual discussion while talking down to people who are trying to communicate in good faith.
That's on you. You keep repeating yourself, not because you actually need to, but because you refuse to accept or acknowledge any nuance, and you whenever anyone has an aside in their post, compares one thing to another, or in any other way get's the least bit tangential, you ignore literally the entire rest of their post, to nit pick about the tangent.
You also blatantly ignore points that are brought up several times by several people, until finally responding with things like "ah, yes, thank you for finally saying something relevant. it only took 100 pages for someone to bring this up!", and then proceed to...not even actually address what was brought up.
Whatever frustration you're experiencing in this thread is on you.
CapnZapp
Legend
Nope - I (and others) have been infinitely patient with you. Make up your mind with what you have.
If you can't immediately decide I have given you considerable leeway I don't want to discuss this further with you, since then my conclusion is that you don't want to admit your every avenue has been met, discussed and found wanting.
I think it's bad design that save DCs eventually outstrip saving throw bonuses (that is, having to make a DC 23 save with only a +1 modifier). I understand that most gamers just shrug, since it doesn't affect them for easily understood reasons. In short, I accept an argument like "It's not important to me", or "it's not bad enough to worry about". What I don't accept, however, is the argument "it isn't bad design".
In this case, however, it isn't as simple and obvious.
As I've said, I agree it would be bad game design if there was a limited resource that was unequivocally feebler than an unlimited resource.
But as has been shown to you, no such case actually exist.
Some spells cast in level 1 slots deal less damage than cantrips, but other spells can't be compared to cantrip and far exceed cantrips in utility.
Some level 1 spells deal only (or mostly) damage, and less so than cantrips, but can then be upcast to surpass cantrips.
The number of spells that can be compared directly to cantrips in that they deal only (or mostly) damage, and yet can't be upcast, is so small that it's a stretch to call it "bad design".
The chief reason for this is that "bad spells" doesn't equal "bad design" in general. Sure, we all dislike how certain signature spells feel worthless or wastes of space. But the mere existence of a bad spell is not bad design.
This can trivially be shown: that spell can be given to a monster to reduce its deadliness. If the monster is big enough, even a "bad spell" can present a clear danger to the heroes (just less danger than an optimal spell). There is value even in bad spells.
As an adjunct to this: if you couldn't avoid bad spells, you might have more of a case. But the fact is, players simply don't use bad spells, or spells generally in unfavorable circumstances. Some spells you just don't cast. Other spells you stop using when cantrips surpass them.
Is this excellent game design? Perhaps not. But is it so bad it needs fixing? This is far from certain.
I personally find that there are far bigger fish to fry.
Similar Threads
