Cantrip House Rule

[cmad1977]

Anyone want to actually talk about the proposed changes instead of why I'm asking about the proposed changes?

How could anyone possibly help you without knowing your goal?

 

[cmad1977]

Interesting, I actually would predict the party will rest less. Wizards already push for rest when their spell slots get very low. I expect more spell slots will mean wizards maintain having some good spell slots longer and as long as they have that then they are less likely to insist on rest.

I doubt you’ll see any real change in frequency of rest either way.

 

[FrogReaver]

If it's 3 fights per day, I think players will adjust. 6 per day is tougher (and was the designers' target).
Characters want to do something every round, which was the motivation for creating cantrips. Clerics and druids have other things to do (weapons, Wild Shape), which leaves the wizards and sorcs. I envision them choosing spells like Flaming Sphere that persist, but that will cut down on buff spells that require concentration.
Or cast Magic Weapon. Actually, magic damage will be in shorter supply. Monster resistance to normal weapons becomes more significant, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. (I play in AL which changed the rules last year so every character is pretty much guaranteed a +1 weapon by 7th.)
There is also such things as wands. The mix of magic items you give out will matter, but when does it not? Decide if you want that to be a tool to compensate or not.
Going back to the player choices, they might just avoid building characters that run out of things to do, e.g., more elven wizards with bows.

They still have cantrips its just for levels 5-10 they are half as effective as they are now. A longbow on a wizard who doesn't increase dex isn't significantly better than a d10 cantrip that scales by intelligence. In that case though, either the cantrip wizard or longbow wizard are both viable and one is just slightly better than the other in terms of damage but ends up with a lower attack roll as well.

In short characters will be doing something every round. It's just for a few rounds per day they will be doing something much more beneficial than they otherwise could have and for a decent amount they will be doing about half as much as they otherwise could have.

I totally agree that having non-scaling cantrips may impact chosen spells and such. I don't see that as an argument that it's imbalanced, just that it's different.

 

[FrogReaver]

How could anyone possibly help you without knowing your goal?

My goal is to discuss the idea. Is it balanced? When isn't it balanced? Do you like the idea?

If you want to help you can discuss those things.

 

[5ekyu]

I doubt you’ll see any real change in frequency of rest either way.

Hard to say.

If cantrips are not viable then spell slot use will go up. It's impossible to judge then use vs gains without info.

 

[FrogReaver]

These are my initial thoughts as well. It will also make the lower and mid-levels more of a slog as casters won't be able to dish out as much damage round-to-round; a single extra spell slot won't compensate.

At level 5 you would have one extra level 1 slot and 1 extra level 2 slot and 1 extra level 3 slot. That's not a single extra spell slot.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I assume you are only keeping the scaling for Eldritch blast for Warlocks because of the very few spell slots they have/ the way pact magic works? I don't see that being a big issue at all.

As for removing scaling for cantrips in general? I, for one, am all for it. I don't like the mechanic of cantrip scaling in 5E and requiring a higher level slot to bolster other spells. I prefer the older method where caster level increased the effect of spells and not using a higher level slot. Then again, I am also going to house-rule Counterspell and Dispel Magic do not automatically stop spells of 3rd level or lower. It should always be a check IMO, and should be linked to the caster level as well as the spell level.

Granting extra spell slots for spell levels 1-5 will only improve casters options and usefulness, so that sounds good to me, too.

I don't think any of it is too imbalanced and I don't see any real issues with it either. The only issue for combat is remember, even with the extra slots, the casters will likely need to rely on those cantrips to deal damage at some point. Without scaling, they won't be nearly as effective in this regard. Is that a bad thing? Up to you.

 

[FrogReaver]

I assume you are only keeping the scaling for Eldritch blast for Warlocks because of the very few spell slots they have/ the way pact magic works? I don't see that being a big issue at all.

As for removing scaling for cantrips in general? I, for one, am all for it. I don't like the mechanic of cantrip scaling in 5E and requiring a higher level slot to bolster other spells. I prefer the older method where caster level increased the effect of spells and not using a higher level slot. Then again, I am also going to house-rule Counterspell and Dispel Magic do not automatically stop spells of 3rd level or lower. It should always be a check IMO, and should be linked to the caster level as well as the spell level.

Granting extra spell slots for spell levels 1-5 will only improve casters options and usefulness, so that sounds good to me, too.

I don't think any of it is too imbalanced and I don't see any real issues with it either. The only issue for combat is remember, even with the extra slots, the casters will likely need to rely on those cantrips to deal damage at some point. Without scaling, they won't be nearly as effective in this regard. Is that a bad thing? Up to you.

Personally I think the ability to cast 1 additional fireball even against a single creature more than makes up for the damage you are losing per day from not having scaling cantrips from levels 5-10. Honeslty, i'm more concerned that I may be over compensating characters with too many spell slots for eliminating scaling cantrips.

 

[Xeviat]

The next person that asks why gets blocked.

I mean Seriously? I ask what issues my suggested change has. I ask if you like it. I ask if it's balanced. What the heck does Why I am looking at this change have to do with any of that?

I'm normally 100% on board with trying to keep a thread on track and not have people just saying "no" instead of being constructive, but in this case the "why" is important to figuring out what problem you are trying to fix.

My own answer would depend heavily on what is your issue with cantrips scaling. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum; I've been considering removing Extra Attack as it stands, having weapon damage scale like cantrip damage (1[W] at 1st, 2[w] at 5th ...), and replacing the Extra Attack features with more unique abilities for each class.

I don't believe removing cantrip scaling and adding additional spell slots will be balanced. Crunching the numbers to show this would be difficult, as the oomph of spell slots often lies in more than damage. But when I was crunching the numbers on an entirely spell damage focused evoker using the DMG spell damage table (and not actual spells, which some are better than the spell damage table), it feels like a high level wizard isn't going to be using cantrips very often already, unless they're utilizing bonus action spells a lot. So the extra spell slots would just mean more higher level spell slots for attacks and then characters would fall back on their lower level spell slots for utility and defense.

 

[Kurotowa]

My goal is to discuss the idea. Is it balanced? When isn't it balanced? Do you like the idea?

Okay, since you insist, idea in isolation, no dialog about what flaw you're trying to solve and how well it does that.

It's terrible.

Scaling Cantrips give casters a default attack action that doesn't consume resources and is just strong enough to feel worthwhile. Is 2d10 no modifier too strong? Hardly. Compare that to a Rogue with a shortbow shooting for 5d6+5. We're talking average 11 damage (min 2, max 20) versus average 22.5 damage (min 10, max 35). That's night and day.

Now yes, the caster can burst higher by using a spell slot... but that's already balanced by having a lower basic attack. Lowering the basic attack even further just means the casters burn their spells and demand a long rest sooner, or they resort to gimmicks like getting Gauntlets of Ogre Strength and a set of throwing weapons.

There's no good reason to make casters useless at higher levels unless they're actively spending a spell slot. Casters get fewer spell slots in 5e compared to some earlier editions precisely because they have Cantrips that fill those actions where they'd previously be spending a bonus 1st level spell on Magic Missile or throwing daggers. Fewer spell slots and scaling Cantrips smooths out the gap between "spend a spell slot" and "don't spend a spell slot" actions by providing an acceptable middle ground that's weaker than a martial class's basic attack but not so weak the player feels worthless or starts resorting to extreme alternatives.

So, now can we discuss? What reason do you have for thinking it's a good idea, besides change for change's sake? I'm really curious to know.