Cantrip House Rule

[FrogReaver]

The thing that might change the power level in this is that you are removing straight damage, wich is not a big focus of the affected classes to give them versatility wich is a big deal for casters. Not telling what the caster can do with the slot means they will use for anything they want, and more acces to spells that interfere with the action economy and/or remove enemies from combat can tip the scale very heavilly, in any tier of play.

What I mean about balance is not sctrictly power level, but being able to use the Raw notions of power to create encounters. If the option isn't balanced, it will affect the way you have to create encounters for your party, if you want to know if the enconter is easy or deadly...

That said, I'm not stating that IT IS unbalanced, nor that caster will be too weak or too powerfull, I'm not that good of a designer to state that without playtests, my only argument is, it has a good chance to happen, so be ready to ajust your game around that.

I do not think it's really adding versatility IMO. A freshly rested wizard won't be able to do anything in a game with my change that he couldn't already do in a game under normal rules. That said as any wizard progresses throughout the day and uses all their highest level spell slots and next highest level spell slots etc, they become less versatile as they have less actual things they could do in any given situation that arises after that. So if you were to graph an average wizards versatility over time you would expect a decrease to it over time (maybe call it daily diminishing versatility). There's a bit of a running debate on how quickly my change would cause a wizard to run out of spell slots compared with a normal rules wizard. So I think it's premature to say for sure how it's going to change the distribution of versatility over an adventuring day.

Then there is also the consideration of actual versatility vs practical versatility. If I'm ever fighting a single goblin at level 5 at most I might practically use a level 1 slot (maybe to sleep and capture it). All my level 2 and 3 slots while they add actual versatility they aren't going to be practically used in this situation and thus might as well not exist for it.

I think versatility is a form of power. But again I'm not looking for an exact match to power/versatility. It just has to be close enough. Balanced is the word I use to designate that "close enoughness".

Needless to say, I think talk of versatility is a much more complex discussion than it's often made out to be.

 

[jmartkdr]

Something I'm not sure has been brought up - this change would make booming blade and greenflame blade completely useless after Extra Attack becomes available, and mostly useless even without the feature after 5th level. This isn't much different form other damaging cantrips, except those two are the only spells that actually blend magic and weapon attacks - so this change would invalidate an entire group of concepts (basically all gishes) and leave EKs, sorcadins, and Hexblades with significantly fewer options turn-to-turn, since they go from three basic attacks down to one.

One alternative to scaling by level, though: instead of cantrip damage going up automatically at certain levels, you could have the base damage/effect be fixed but allow the character to spend slots to up the effect. So if you spend a 1-st level slot, you'd get the 5th-level version of the cantrip. A second-level slot gives you the 11th level version, an so on.

I'd probably even allow pc's to spend higher level slots for really strong options - a 10d10 firebolt really isn't worth a 9th-level slot, after all. A 9th-level GFB might be, for someone who's built their whole style around it, and more options is almost always more fun.

 

[CrimsonCarcharodon]

Well what you did say was:



That kind of gave me the vibe that you thought these changes would have significant impact on such a character concept. I'm sorry if I misunderstood and am happy to hear that is not the case.

I probably should have left that last sentence at the very end of the post. When I play spellcasters, I lean very heavily on cantrips for combat, so this rule would make a caster much less fun for me to play. I didn't mean to imply that it would totally kill the idea of a utility spellcaster, just that it does have an impact.

 

[FrogReaver]

Something I'm not sure has been brought up - this change would make booming blade and greenflame blade completely useless after Extra Attack becomes available, and mostly useless even without the feature after 5th level. This isn't much different form other damaging cantrips, except those two are the only spells that actually blend magic and weapon attacks - so this change would invalidate an entire group of concepts (basically all gishes) and leave EKs, sorcadins, and Hexblades with significantly fewer options turn-to-turn, since they go from three basic attacks down to one.

5e had Gishes before melee cantrips and will have gishes after them as well. The blade pact warlock, the bladesinger wizard. any caster using flame blade, sword or valor bards, eldtritch knights, arcane tricksters etc. All of these classes/subclasses can blend magic and weapon attacks in some way.

That said, I agree that melee cantrips are an important consideration.

One alternative to scaling by level, though: instead of cantrip damage going up automatically at certain levels, you could have the base damage/effect be fixed but allow the character to spend slots to up the effect. So if you spend a 1-st level slot, you'd get the 5th-level version of the cantrip. A second-level slot gives you the 11th level version, an so on.

I'd probably even allow pc's to spend higher level slots for really strong options - a 10d10 firebolt really isn't worth a 9th-level slot, after all. A 9th-level GFB might be, for someone who's built their whole style around it, and more options is almost always more fun.

Not a bad solution for melee cantrips. After some thought, I think the game actually needs leveled spells that function similar to melee cantrips (but have stronger effects). I think that would be the correct way to keep the flavor of melee cantrips in a game with my proposed change while still making the change. Honestly, I think such spells would be a welcome change to the regular game as well.

 

[Ash Mantle]

5e had Gishes before melee cantrips and will have gishes after them as well. The blade pact warlock, the bladesinger wizard. any caster using flame blade, sword or valor bards, eldtritch knights, arcane tricksters etc. All of these classes/subclasses can blend magic and weapon attacks in some way.

That said, I agree that melee cantrips are an important consideration.

It's true that 5e had gishes before melee cantrips but these classes and the spellcasting classes had other cantrips that scaled. The EK essentially has a class feature tied to casting a cantrip and attacking in the same turn. With this proposed change, this class feature would probably see little play whereas previously it was a key element of the EK.
I feel cantrips and their ability to scale is an integral component of 5e, and makes the casters, half casters included, competitive throughout their adventuring life. Under your proposed change, there is also a danger of just going nova in every combat.

 

[Aenorgreen]

Another effect is that it would make the Magic Initiate feat way less valuable. I think it would have a lot farther reaching effects than perhaps at first considered.

 

[André Soares]

It's true that 5e had gishes before melee cantrips but these classes and the spellcasting classes had other cantrips that scaled. The EK essentially has a class feature tied to casting a cantrip and attacking in the same turn. With this proposed change, this class feature would probably see little play whereas previously it was a key element of the EK.
I feel cantrips and their ability to scale is an integral component of 5e, and makes the casters, half casters included, competitive throughout their adventuring life. Under your proposed change, there is also a danger of just going nova in every combat.

Maybe this house rule should not affect the EK at all.

From a narrative standpoint it makes sense for his cantrips to do more damage than other casters.

 

[André Soares]

Another effect is that it would make the Magic Initiate feat way less valuable. I think it would have a lot farther reaching effects than perhaps at first considered.

People use Magic Initiate to choose damage cantrips? I've never seen that happen, but it might be just a sample of my play group's experience.

 

[Aenorgreen]

People use Magic Initiate to choose damage cantrips? I've never seen that happen, but it might be just a sample of my play group's experience.

I have seen it taken by Paladins to get EB for a ranged attack and rogues for BB or GFB. Probably other times also, but those I remember.