Cantrip House Rule

[CrimsonCarcharodon]

This sounds a lot like current 5e to me: "You either have adventuring days where your casters run out of spell slots and are forced to use totally useless cantrips, or you have adventuring days where they get plenty of rest and have more spells to throw around and never use cantrips at all."

Except that cantrips aren't really useless right now. So this change results in casters never using cantrips after 5th level, using more spell slots. And then when they run out of slots, they're useless, just like the old magic-user with a dagger.

In my games, casters use cantrips enough that a few extra spell slots aren't going to offset how many rounds are taken up with casting cantrips. So they're more likely to run out of slots more quickly. And once they do, without scaling cantrips, they're basically useless.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except that cantrips aren't really useless right now. So this change results in casters never using cantrips after 5th level, using more spell slots. And then when they run out of slots, they're useless, just like the old magic-user with a dagger.

In my games, casters use cantrips enough that a few extra spell slots aren't going to offset how many rounds are taken up with casting cantrips. So they're more likely to run out of slots more quickly. And once they do, without scaling cantrips, they're basically useless.

In current 5e, When I play a wizard and have no spell slots I feel useless. Decreasing my already minuscule cantrip damage may make me feel more useless but that doesn’t mean I feel useful the other way.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I am pretty sure he's not making an "it's broken" argument here. I think he is trying to better simulate a style of play that focuses less on attack cantrips as levels increase. Sort of similar to pre-4e spellcasters, but as a hybrid such that they can use cantrips, but won't use specifically attack cantrips beyond low levels. As if the cantrips really are just simple spells which don't ever grow in power. You still might throw up an illusionary wall with minor illusion to provide cover or block line of sight just as you could at level 1, but you won't be blasting with a powerful firebolts which have grown in power since level 1.

Anyway, assume he's not asking how to fix something broken, but is just trying to better simulate a magic flavor in his setting which does not include cantrips which grow in power as the user grows in power but are static. Given that, how many additional spell slots would be necessary to sort-of make up for that loss?

Depends on whether the problem he is trying to fix is one of feel (returning to the feel of earlier editions where wizards either used spell slots or made weapon attacks) or mechanical (wanting to make caster damage over the day more nova/less smooth.)
Upping the power of attack cantrips a little and making them actual 1st level spells would retain their usefulness for example but mean that casters would still have to spend some rounds shooting crossbows or similar. Satyrn's suggestion of additional lower-level slots would aid that approach.

If increasing the raw nova power of a full caster is the aim however, and reducing the "smoothing" effect that upscaled cantrips have on a caster's daily damage output, then the original suggestion of extra spell slots including high level ones would have that effect. In a standard 6-encounter day, this will probably result in a slight power bump due to on-call power being better than continuous, but obviously this will rise sharply as the number of encounters the party expect to encounter reduces.

Either way, you do get a bit more of the earlier edition feel where casters would sit out their turns when they didn't have an applicable spell to cast, since exposing themselves to the enemy may not be worth the risk compared to the potential contribution your dagger or crossbow attack could make.

I think I'd go with more low level slots only. Maybe 3 extra 1st level slots at 5th, 3 extra 2nd level slots at 11th, and 3 extra 3rds at whatever the next level is that cantrips scale up at.

I'd like to make the spellcasters more versatile rather than more powerful, and I think this would feel that way.

I'd definitely say no to granting additional fireballs in place of cantrips. That's just raw power.
I'd suggest sticking to additional 1st level slots, but granting automatic upcasts as well. So any first level spell cast by a 11th level caster is cast as if from a 3rd level slot, but they can't actually cast a fireball using it.

However this may or may not be useful depending on whether the problem is to remove attack cantrip use, or to increase caster nova, or what.

The only reason to ask my why is to subtly shift my thread topic into being about some problem and whether it's actually a problem and whether some idea you have solves the problem better etc. In other words asking why is a point blank attempt to change the thread topic. I don't want my thread topic changed. I want to discuss my suggested rule change, it's potential downsides and what if any variations to it may be more fair and balanced.

No, that is not the only reason why someone responding to a request for help evaluating a fix might want to know what the fix is intended to actually do before evaluating it.
No one knows what variations might be more fair and balanced because no one knows what was unfair and out-of-balance in the first place. Any variation we might suggest could be better, or could be the exact thing that you are trying to move away from.

Now before you actually start trying to defend your asking of me "why" as some noble gesture of trying to help me out I want to point out that this comment reveals your true intentions. You already believe there couldn't be something broken with the game and that I have no legitimate reason for actually wanting the change and that this proposed change adds nothing of value to the game, so your question about why is revealed as just bait so you can get a discussion started on why the change isn't needed in the first place.

Given that the majority of their post was actually doing exactly what you had requested, perhaps a little less public accusation of unpleasantness is in order. I would avoid claiming to know someones true intentions on the basis of a few sentences, and I certainly wouldn't make claims as to someone else's beliefs and motivations on that basis.

You might not like the opinions about your changes expressed in the rest of that post, but you were the one requesting opinions.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

In current 5e, When I play a wizard and have no spell slots I feel useless. Decreasing my already minuscule cantrip damage may make me feel more useless but that doesn’t mean I feel useful the other way.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. Why do you feel useless?
Scaling cantrip damage isn't generally as high as a martial class' weapon attacks, but is generally in a similar ballpark.
Is the rest of your party heavily optimised, such that your cantrip damage actually is very significantly less than their weapon damage?
Are your attack cantrips of elements or effects that are commonly resisted by the opponents you generally fight in that campaign?

What sort of level of effect would a scaling cantrip require before you would no longer regard it as minuscule and useless?

 

[5ekyu]

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. Why do you feel useless?
Scaling cantrip damage isn't generally as high as a martial class' weapon attacks, but is generally in a similar ballpark.
Is the rest of your party heavily optimised, such that your cantrip damage actually is very significantly less than their weapon damage?
Are your attack cantrips of elements or effects that are commonly resisted by the opponents you generally fight in that campaign?

What sort of level of effect would a scaling cantrip require before you would no longer regard it as minuscule and useless?

Had an odd thought, that stemmed from an actual play non-white room moment some months ago.

Question - Would it be a reasonable use of a cantrip to HELP the other optimized killers you surmise, in campaigns where a caster feels marginalized? Here I mean specifically using cantrips at range, not the usual 5'.

Could the "getting use out of your cantrip being minor illusion scream tight beside its head - from 30' away? Or a sudden buckler floating right there? Or a flashed by firebolt? Or etc etc etc

So, what are your thought on allowing this kind of thing.

Situation from actual play.

Team was fighting a creature immune to non-magic weapons and due to idiocy two of the three oils of "make weapon count" had been utterly wasted. So we had one dagger that mattered.

The creature also produced fear effects so the rogue kept getting driven off.

So my halfling sorc grabbed the dagger from where the rogue dropped it and yelled for the cleric to "meet me at the monster."

So my halfling rushed up to the monster, screaming and shouting how she was gonna kill it and then right there... handed the dagger to the cleric and said **kill this thing**.

For my character's action I " helped" the cleric strike by distracting the monster with cantrips aimed at the face of the beast etc. The spell stuff was just a better fluff/narrative cite gor the HELP action to give the cleric advantage than ssy grabbing its legs or anything physical.

The character was at 5' and it fit the requirements, but even then I thought "could you not reasonably do this distraction from range?"

Never bothered to scratch that itch in that gsme. Did ponder the idea of a special cantrip aimed at explicitly doing just that.

Startle cantrip 60'r 1 target, a variety of loud, flashy noisy effects distractsvone target you can see, giving one ally you can see advantage on their next attack against it, as if the Hrlp action were taken. Both the target and the ally must be within the spells range. Att ack must be made before the start of your next turn.

**if scaling was desired** you could add a second third fourth ally to the mix - each getting advantage on the one target, but that's maybe too much.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except that cantrips aren't really useless right now. So this change results in casters never using cantrips after 5th level, using more spell slots. And then when they run out of slots, they're useless, just like the old magic-user with a dagger.

In my games, casters use cantrips enough that a few extra spell slots aren't going to offset how many rounds are taken up with casting cantrips. So they're more likely to run out of slots more quickly. And once they do, without scaling cantrips, they're basically useless.

Cantrips wouldn’t be useless with my change either. So they could still take up a bunch of rounds casting cantrips. They have more slots so they wouldn’t be as likely to run out of them as fast.

Casters in tier 2 and 3 are basically useless now if they get down to the point where they have no spell slots. Surely your not suggesting that’s not the case?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Cantrips wouldn’t be useless with my change either. So they could still take up a bunch of rounds casting cantrips. They have more slots so they wouldn’t be as likely to run out of them as fast.

I suppose that it depends on the individual, and how frequently they cast a cantrip while they still have spell slots remaining, under the current parameters. In my experience, spellcasters cast cantrips with the primary intent of saving their spell slots for later, because they the cantrip provides them with a viable alternative that doesn't cost anything. If they didn't have a cantrip, then they'd be more likely to spend the spell slot now, since the alternative is doing nothing. And the wider the gap between the power of the cantrip and the spell slot, the harder it is to justify using the cantrip.

Feel free to test it out in a campaign, but I'm fairly certain that your change would cause spellcasters to run out of spell slots even more quickly. The only way it would not be the case is if the spellcaster was already burning through their spell slots as quickly as possible.

 

[Captain Panda]

The only reason to ask my why is to subtly shift my thread topic into being about some problem and whether it's actually a problem and whether some idea you have solves the problem better etc. In other words asking why is a point blank attempt to change the thread topic.

No, the reason the 'why' is important is because one needs to know what the end goal of the change is to comment on whether or not it accomplishes that.

Now before you actually start trying to defend your asking of me "why" as some noble gesture of trying to help me out I want to point out that this comment reveals your true intentions.

Oh no, my true intentions revealed!

You already believe there couldn't be something broken with the game and that I have no legitimate reason for actually wanting the change and that this proposed change adds nothing of value to the game,

Glad you can read my mind and know what I'm thinking.

Though no, there are a lot of things in 5e that need design polish. The problem is that generally the designers of the game know how their system works better than someone doing homebrew; and their design has the benefit of extensive playtesting. That doesn't mean it's perfect, somehow the beast master ranger got through playtest, but it does mean that one should approach redesigns with caution or risk throwing the game's balance off wildly.

Removing something that is assumed in this edition, that casters have something functional to do with their turn even if they don't burn a resource, is a big change to make without having a solid design reason why. The design reason, the "why," is critical as to whether or not your solution is a good one.

Are casters too strong, and you think they need a nerf outside of their big resources? Do you feel cantrips in some way compete with martial characters and their damage output? Do you want cantrips to just feel super weak and spells to feel stronger generally? There are a lot of reasons one could dislike cantrips as they are, and each one would require a different assessment and a different approach. In order to know if a fix is appropriate, first one needs to know the problem.

You getting defensive when asked why shows you probably shouldn't be asking the general public things like this.

so your question about why is revealed as just bait so you can get a discussion started on why the change isn't needed in the first place.

Anyways, thanks for being exhibit A on why I refused to answer the "why" question in the first place.

You're welcome, I suppose. It's still a totally relevant question if you are serious about wanting a critique of the homebrew.

This sounds a lot like current 5e to me: "You either have adventuring days where your casters run out of spell slots and are forced to use totally useless cantrips, or you have adventuring days where they get plenty of rest and have more spells to throw around and never use cantrips at all."

Some groups play like that, some don't. This change would ensure that yours has no choice but to play like that. I think the most important question to ask yourself is: "Would my change be fun for the players in my group?" I don't think it would. I don't think most players would enjoy having their already piddling at-will damage functionally removed.

Given that, I'm not sure how criticizing my change with a criticism that could just as easily apply to current 5e helps support your "all 5e changes are bad position".

It might be possible you've characterized my view inaccurately in your unnecessarily defensive response.

Actually in terms of DPR helping on a fighter's attack or casting a 1d8 cantrip would come out about the same

It depends, but mostly this statement wrong. If you have a melee character who can hit reasonably hard (assuming something like sneak attack, sharpshooter, great weapon master is present), the advantage on a big hit is going to far, far outweigh a d8 of damage. At level 11 you are probably going to have a melee character who can hit harder than 1d8+5, and the increased chance to hit and/or crit on a big attack is going to dramatically outweigh throwing a d8 out.

Ignoring the question of "why" entirely, your homebrew is just a bad idea because while some groups have casters who go nova, run out of steam, and rest... your change would make that playstyle mandatory. Suggesting that it's mandatory right now, as you seemed to do earlier, is just not true.

 

[Cornpuff]

A few observations:

-This rule reeeeeeeeally assumes that combat is the only time a caster's gonna cast. Especially in that Tier 2 zone (which is one of the most common areas of play) where spell slots are still a semi-precious resource, this rule discourages casters from using slots for stuff like Alter/Disguise Self, Knock, Pass Without Trace, Enhance Ability, Invisibility, Fly, etc. for social/exploration challenges.

-It guts ability scale. I'll admit this is kind of an esoteric point, but: 5e is made with the idea that you should seldom if ever have an ability/feature that becomes straight up useless at a certain level. Fighters get an extra Extra Attack, Barbs do more damage on Rages, Rogues get more SA dice, Paladins get an always-on Smite, Rangers get ways to make more attacks, etc. Canceling out cantrip scaling goes against that.

-This astoundingly both cuts the legs out from under and handily buffs Sorcerers. On one hand, Sorcs are supposed to lean on cantrips harder (they get 4 out of the gate up to a max of 6), but also by giving another spell slot of every level, you're giving them a bank of up to an extra 15 Sorcery points. You've totally kneecapped them in some areas, like no more "Quickened Fireball+Fire Bolt" or no more twinning cantrips for 3d10 damage at 2 targets, but then virtually every damage spell is going to get Empowered and way more save or sucks are gonna get Heightened because they'll have the extra resources.

-The cleric options that get a WIS mod to cantrips or something similar at level 8 or whenever just kinda suck now.

Overall, it seems like a change for the sake of change move that affects more classes than others and doesn't feel worth the headache.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ignoring the question of "why" entirely, your homebrew is just a bad idea because while some groups have casters who go nova, run out of steam, and rest... your change would make that playstyle mandatory. Suggesting that it's mandatory right now, as you seemed to do earlier, is just not true.

To be fair, the OP can say with reasonable certainty whether or not it already feels mandatory at the one table which might implement this change. If it's a problem at that table, then we can accept it as a given, and move on to discussing whether or not this solution would solve that problem. And given that premise, it does seem to follow that more spell slots would address the issue (though I'm not sure whether it would more elegant to simply nix damaging cantrips entirely at that point).

Homebrew only needs to work in the specific context for which it's designed.