Cantrip House Rule

[Mistwell]

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.

You act like there are games where wizards have no choice as to using attack cantrips.

I say again, I think they are overrated. For ANY type of game, I think they are overrated. They're not the best cantrips in my opinion.

You seem to want to define this scenario as "This only would happen when everyone agrees it would not be a good thing to happen". That does not appear to be the scenario described. Lacking further information (and he's made it clear he does not want to provide further information on why) I am not going to speculate. So, I am just taking an average. And I am saying on average I think wizards would be much more popular because they already want more spell slots more than they want to use attack cantrips at mid and higher levels.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

So let me ask you this, if my non-scaling cantrip caster is using 3-6 spells per encounter and 3 out of combat. How many spells is the current scaling cantrip caster using in those same situations? I would think it's fairly similar. As such isn't he nearly ran out of spells after 1-2 encounters?

 

[Blue]

So let me ask you this, if my non-scaling cantrip caster is using 3-6 spells per encounter and 3 out of combat. How many spells is the current scaling cantrip caster using in those same situations? I would think it's fairly similar. As such isn't he nearly ran out of spells after 1-2 encounters?

He's using the same amount of spells, just a lot less spell slots because some of the spells are scaling cantrips.

Scaling cantrips are (excepting Warlock EB + Agonizing blast) behind other classes at-will damage, but are enough in the neighborhood that they are still contributing. So if you have 3-4 actions and you cast spells from slots some of them and you cast cantrips the other ones you have a meaningful contribution.

But when you take away the scaling, you halve or more the contribution of damage cantrips. It's not quite as bad as taking extra attack away from fighters/rangers/paladin, but it's a the same percentage reduction.

So in order to contribute meaningfully, you need to fill that gap with more spells from slots.

This isn't even considering the psychological "plink" of doing 5-6 points of damage vs. foes with 80, 100, or more HPs. You don't feel like your turn is worthwhile.

 

[Mistwell]

Am I wrong in assuming that, if your attack cantrip options were ineffective at mid levels and you needed to use a cantrip, you'd just use alternate cantrips? You'd throw up an illusionary wall with minor illusion more often, difficult terrain with mold earth, disadvantage with Vicious Mockery, move a foe or ally with Gust, Thornwhip, or Lightening Lure, or slow a foe with Ray of Frost?

 

[FrogReaver]

He's using the same amount of spells, just a lot less spell slots because some of the spells are scaling cantrips.

Obviously I was talking about spell slots

So how about actually answering the question. You think a conservative estimate for my non-scaling cantrip caster is 3 spells slots out of combat and 3 spell slots per encounter in combat.

I'm asking for your conservative estimate on how many spell slots a current level 5 full caster uses per combat and how many out of combat? That's all I'm trying to find out. Saying a lot more isn't going to cut it when you are able to quantify the non-scaling cantrip caster without ever having played one.

 

[Blue]

Obviously I was talking about spell slots

So how about actually answering the question. You think a conservative estimate for my non-scaling cantrip caster is 3 spells slots out of combat and 3 spell slots per encounter in combat.

I'm asking for your conservative estimate on how many spell slots a current level 5 full caster uses per combat and how many out of combat? That's all I'm trying to find out. Saying a lot more isn't going to cut it when you are able to quantify the non-scaling cantrip caster without ever having played one.

A non-scaling caster is going to have them spread out over the day, depending on the difficulty of the encounter. Much like what you were suggesting several posts ago. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be difficult - I missed the gist of your question. My fault.

And based on how many encounters they expect that day - a dungeon crawl and a three week march usually don't have the same encounter density. (Doesn't mean players don't under or over estimate to their chagrin.) Sometimes it's a three encounter day, sometimes it's a seven.

I can give you an amount per day, not per encounter. It's just a bit shy of the total they have. But I can tell you that every single action of every single encounter they want to feel like the contribute meaningfully to helping their party. No one gets that every round, and there are plenty of other things that can also be done. But throwing out consequential damage to finish an encounter is an evergreen action, especially when you've already cast a concentration spell.

BTW, just to keep the focus (not saying either of us lost it), I'm right now talking about tier 2 specifically. Tier 3(ish) and 4 you've given enough extra slots that with their base slots it should offset, and tier 1 cantrip damage is unchanged.

 

[Umbran]

The next person that asks why gets blocked.

This is several days gone by now, but just to say - block who you will, but please don't be a big jerk about it. It is not something you are supposed to use to try to use to punish people, or threaten them into doing what you want.

Why I am looking at this change have to do with any of that?

Because balance is not universal, for one thing. What issues will arise from it depend on context, as well. In general, whether a change will have a positive result depends on what problem you are trying to solve. Basically, they are asking for context.

 

[5ekyu]

You act like there are games where wizards have no choice as to using attack cantrips.

I say again, I think they are overrated. For ANY type of game, I think they are overrated. They're not the best cantrips in my opinion.

You seem to want to define this scenario as "This only would happen when everyone agrees it would not be a good thing to happen". That does not appear to be the scenario described. Lacking further information (and he's made it clear he does not want to provide further information on why) I am not going to speculate. So, I am just taking an average. And I am saying on average I think wizards would be much more popular because they already want more spell slots more than they want to use attack cantrips at mid and higher levels.

Actually I am saying that the games where you dont need to cast combat cantrips at all are not the games this rule is bring proposed for.

If someone proposes changes to druids it's a bit off the mark to then discuss how those changes will work in games without druids.

Similarly, if someone discusses changes to combat cantrips because in their games cantrips are outperforming low level spells, wanting to focus on games where combat cantrips are not used is just as off the mark. The rule change would never be used in those games.

I am not saying anything about the validity of either style, personally, I think it's a bit off.

But, in games where combat cantrips were needed, I think players will simply adapt any you will see more use of full spell classes with other fillers.

In games where wizards did not need or use combat cantrips, sure ****if**** for some reason the GM gave them more slots, you might see an uptick.

 

[cbwjm]

To ensure that using a low-level spell slot for an attack spell is still better than a cantrip, has anyone thought about upgrading the spell slots at levels 11 and 17? Something like the following:

• Keep cantrip scaling.
• At level 11, all 1st-level spell slots are converted into 2nd-level spell slots (A fighter 10/wizard 1 would have two 2nd-level spell slots. A wizard 11 would have seven 2nd-level spell slots)
• At level 17, all 2nd-level spell slots (including the upgraded 1st-level slots) are converted into 3rd-level spell slots (A fighter 16/wizard 1 would have two 3rd-level slots to cast his magic missiles while a wizard 17 would have 10 3rd-level spell slots).

You might only need to do a single bump of spell slots at level 11 to make combat spells of 1st-level still feel worthwhile to cast instead of cantrips.

I can see reasons why people might not like this which includes that, at 17th level, the wizard could throw around 10 fireballs if he really wanted to since they could be used to cast any 3rd-level spell, but then at 17th level the PCs are meant to be awesome so I'm not sure if this really worries me.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually I am saying that the games where you dont need to cast combat cantrips at all are not the games this rule is bring proposed for.

You are speaking for the OP? Because he hasn't said that and made it clear he doesn't want to discuss why he wants this. I think that part of the discussion ended before it began.