Cantrip House Rule

[Sadras]

Innovative solutions/suggestions [MENTION=6937590]squibbles[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION].
Man I love this edition.

 

[aco175]

I like the way they scale now. The other classes have attacks that gain power as he gains levels, so the basic attacks of the casters should gain in power as well. I can see the argument that casters get higher level spells that do more powerful things being the same as the other classes gaining power since they have less useful powers at higher levels. I like the idea of scaling with caster level vs. total level.

I most likely could be on board with capping the power at just double damage at 5th level and at 11 and 17 being able to target one additional target. There could be other minor powers that could take the place of more targets like pushing or freezing for 1 round.

 

[Mistwell]

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?

They're not asking why to poke at you, they're trying to help.

 

[Mistwell]

So I had an idea and I'm not even sure if it's a good idea yet but I wanted to share and see what you all thought.

The House Rule would remove cantrip scaling (except for Eldritch blast) which would then get tied to warlock level for scaling.

To compensate for the lack of scaling cantrips I would reward casters with extra spell slots. I'm leaning toward 1 extra spell slot of each level up to level 6 spells. You would gaub the extra spell slot immediately upon reaching the level where you first gain that spell slot. For example a level 5 Wizard would have spell slots of 5 level 1, 4 level 2, 3 level 3 but his cantrips would not scale.

Is there any forseeable issues or problems you can think of with doing this? Is it too imbalanced compared to the current rules? Do you like the change?

I don't think it's imbalanced. It sort of simulates an older edition spell caster, prior to having cantrips. I doubt it's imbalanced because we already have items like rings of spell storing and nothing terrible seems to come from them.

Because cantrips would be less useful in the long term, I suspect you'd see a return to spellcasters using light crossbows and similar mundane weapons at lower levels, and selecting non-attack cantrips more often. Mage hand, mending, prestidigitation, guidance, friends, light, minor illusion, mold earth, etc. will all be chosen more often.

Given the option, I'd choose that route right now. I am of the opinion that attack cantrips are mostly overrated. They help with lower levels, but their scaling doesn't really keep up with the other things you can do with spells, and your spell slots become plentiful later on anyway.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't think it's imbalanced. It sort of simulates an older edition spell caster, prior to having cantrips. I doubt it's imbalanced because we already have items like rings of spell storing and nothing terrible seems to come from them.

Because cantrips would be less useful in the long term, I suspect you'd see a return to spellcasters using light crossbows and similar mundane weapons at lower levels, and selecting non-attack cantrips more often. Mage hand, mending, prestidigitation, guidance, friends, light, minor illusion, mold earth, etc. will all be chosen more often.

Given the option, I'd choose that route right now. I am of the opinion that attack cantrips are mostly overrated. They help with lower levels, but their scaling doesn't really keep up with the other things you can do with spells, and your spell slots become plentiful later on anyway.

I might focus a bit more on bards.
A two-attavk bard (is that valor or seords) using csnttip like VicMock for the debuff but mostly filling in the "dont burn slots" turns with pairs of weapon attacks.

Basically some debuff and utility cantrips but mostly shuffle to the already very strong cleric, bard, druid options. Aldo Warlovk becomes a bit more appealing if they keep scaling EB.

My bet is sorcs and wizards get rare.

Players adapt.

 

[Blue]

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 disagree with this for Tier 2 specifically.

Say a caster does a few out-of-combat spells a day. A utility, mage armor, speak with animals, whatever. I'll pick equal to their proficiency as a easy way to slowly increase it as they get more slots. I'll also make the conservative assumption that these out-of-combat spells are coming from your lower levels, leaving your higher level spells for encounters.

Say a caster would do three spells in a combat. This is conservative, especially when for classes with reaction spells like Shield or Absorb Elements.

Tier 1, cantrips do the same as normal, so it's easy to fill up extra actions with them.

At 5th, a caster has 12 slots (because of the 1 extra per spell level) and casts 3 out of combat. That's 3 combats of 3 rounds before running out of spells. That's definitely lower.

6th is 13 slots, same deal.

7th is 15 slots, so now after out-of-combat casting they are good for four combats.

8th is 16 slots, about the same.

9th jumps to 19 slots, but also up to 4 used out of comat for 15 left. That's good for 5 combats and is just barely covering it. Any combats that last longer or have reaction casting, or more out-of-combat usage such as healing or utility, or worse yet, 6+ encounters, and it isn't really covered.

Higher tiers will get more spells because of the +1 per spell level. But in tier 2 I think casters will really feel the burn.

This doesn't talk about half-casters and third-casters, they have a different situation for this.

 

[FrogReaver]

I disagree with this for Tier 2 specifically.

Say a caster does a few out-of-combat spells a day. A utility, mage armor, speak with animals, whatever. I'll pick equal to their proficiency as a easy way to slowly increase it as they get more slots. I'll also make the conservative assumption that these out-of-combat spells are coming from your lower levels, leaving your higher level spells for encounters.

Say a caster would do three spells in a combat. This is conservative, especially when for classes with reaction spells like Shield or Absorb Elements.

Tier 1, cantrips do the same as normal, so it's easy to fill up extra actions with them.

At 5th, a caster has 12 slots (because of the 1 extra per spell level) and casts 3 out of combat. That's 3 combats of 3 rounds before running out of spells. That's definitely lower.

6th is 13 slots, same deal.

7th is 15 slots, so now after out-of-combat casting they are good for four combats.

8th is 16 slots, about the same.

9th jumps to 19 slots, but also up to 4 used out of comat for 15 left. That's good for 5 combats and is just barely covering it. Any combats that last longer or have reaction casting, or more out-of-combat usage such as healing or utility, or worse yet, 6+ encounters, and it isn't really covered.

Higher tiers will get more spells because of the +1 per spell level. But in tier 2 I think casters will really feel the burn.

This doesn't talk about half-casters and third-casters, they have a different situation for this.

If you are talking the whole day, you have arcane recovery and will be able to get back most any spellslot you used for an out of combat task. Thus you should have very close to 12 spells for combat, 5 level 1's, 4 level 2's, level 3's.

The spell plan for a 6 encounter adventuring day for a level 5 wizard is something like.
Hard Encounters - only use a single level 3 spell, a rough gauge
Medium Encounters - a level 2 and level 1 spell
Easy Encounters - a level 2 spell

Assuming 2 encounters of each you will have left 3 level 1 spells and a level 3 spell. Now encounters fall outside those cookie cutter guidelines quite a bit and a lot also depends on how many resources your allies are throwing into a particular encounter. So there will be a lot of variance but to me that seems like you have plenty enough spells to contribute your fair share to all encounters in the day.

Now if you on average use 3 spells per encounter as you suggest then you are blowing them much to fast. In fact if you are blowing spells that fast you wouldn't have a prayer of having your spells last all adventuring day in a game with normal cantrips and spell slots either.

 

[Blue]

If you are talking the whole day, you have arcane recovery and will be able to get back most any spellslot you used for an out of combat task. Thus you should have very close to 12 spells for combat, 5 level 1's, 4 level 2's, level 3's.

The spell plan for a 6 encounter adventuring day for a level 5 wizard is something like.
Hard Encounters - only use a single level 3 spell, a rough gauge
Medium Encounters - a level 2 and level 1 spell
Easy Encounters - a level 2 spell

Assuming 2 encounters of each you will have left 3 level 1 spells and a level 3 spell. Now encounters fall outside those cookie cutter guidelines quite a bit and a lot also depends on how many resources your allies are throwing into a particular encounter. So there will be a lot of variance but to me that seems like you have plenty enough spells to contribute your fair share to all encounters in the day.

Now if you on average use 3 spells per encounter as you suggest then you are blowing them much to fast. In fact if you are blowing spells that fast you wouldn't have a prayer of having your spells last all adventuring day in a game with normal cantrips and spell slots either.

3 spells per encounter is a conservative estimate, it could easily be more based on both guidelines and actual play. Four actions spent casting, and two reaction casts is easily in the realm of possibility, doubling that. Three is really a very low number of spells per combat in 5e.

With the normal rules, some of those spells are cantrips. Because they scale when the other classes get their level 5 (and 11) power boost. But when the CRs have climber (especially HP bloat common to 5e), casting a d10 plus nothing cantrip, nothing on a miss/save, is a near useless action. It's definitely not contributing as much as others. Since the cantrip action isn't viable anymore those action need to be filled with spells that cost slots.

As is it, I'm also assuming that your low level spells are still worthwhile without upcasting, which is not a given. The numbers I used are best case for making this concept work while still being realistic.

Oh, only wizards and land druids have arcane recovery. That should not be part of general calculations. A class feature they get as a bonus shouldn't need to become a support just to get things working at a level that the other classes had before, and that the classes without it are left with even less.

Clerics, especially the ones with the Cantrip boost (Potent Spellcasting) class feature at 8th and no martial weapons/heavy armor, in particular will be needing their spells every round in order to meaningfully contribute. And they probably also have the heaviest out-of-combat casting needs for healing, especially between encounters that don't have a rest between them.

 

[Mistwell]

My bet is sorcs and wizards get rare.

Players adapt.

Really? I think wizards would be more popular. They have soooooooo many spells prepared and not enough slots. With more slots, they gain a lot of power for little loss, as I find they rarely use attack cantrips.

 

[5ekyu]

Really? I think wizards would be more popular. They have soooooooo many spells prepared and not enough slots. With more slots, they gain a lot of power for little loss, as I find they rarely use attack cantrips.

It would depend on the pace of the game.

The context of this rule is obviously a game where cantrips are being used to effect commonly.

If the context was a game where wizards have enough or almost enough spell slots without cantrips then the rules change makes no sense.

If the context was a game where offensive cantrip were not used to effect already, the rules change makes no sense.


If it is a game where cantrips are needed and used due to the pace and scope, then the most obvious non-cantrip replacements are the guys who substantial infinite attacks by weapons on top of full spells.

So, you have to consider where you are starting - you campaign where the nature of the beast results in cantrips not being used offensively means this change just would not be made.