D&D 5E Cantrip nerf (house rule brainstorm)

[Horwath]

This solution is reminding me of 3.5E.

Where I played elven arcane casters, as using longbow every other round is 3 categories less demeaning than using crossbow as a wizard...

 

[Ancalagon]

Low level: OK, so I pull out my crossbow and deal d8+2 rather than d10 (most of my nonwarlock spellcasters do not take a combat cantrip until 4th level).

You are assuming that the wizard would be as good a shot with a crossbow as with a spell, which is not an assumption I would make. The firebolt is better.

 

[Don Durito]

You are assuming that the wizard would be as good a shot with a crossbow as with a spell, which is not an assumption I would make. The firebolt is better.

A quick review of the maths suggests that a 1st level wizard with 16 Int and 14 Dex is better off using a crossbow than fire bolt. At 16 Int and 12 Dex they're at a small disadvantage (half a point of damage). (Assuming a base hit chance of 65%).

Of course if they get to 18 Int at level 4 firebolt will start to pull ahead, and the lack of additional attacks means that at level 5 the difference will start to blow out.

And that's where we run into the problem. Unless all you're battles are deadly (which I realise is not an uncommon way to play) the casters need to be able to fall back on cantrips over the course of the day. Higher level casters get progessively more spell slots - but the game balances this out by really expecting that the party can handle more between long rests.

 

[Shiroiken]

It really depends on what your issue is. If it's the fact that combat cantrips become better than low level combat spells, then remove the scaling bonus (or half it). If it's spamming in general, then you want to limit their use, and I like the idea of making it a short rest recovery. Cantrip uses equal to proficiency + spellcasting ability would give a tight, but workable amount, forcing spellcasters to mostly use weapons in combat. A more lenient option would be to limit the use of each cantrip to that amount, but that would create a lot more bookkeeping.

 

[Eubani]

Never understood the joy some found in being an untrained crossbowman. Nerf the Grognard in you and embrace change.

 

[tetrasodium]

It takes something like the very rare attune illusionist bracers from ggtr to start pulling about even with starting weapons being used up to level 20 with doubled fitebolt. A d12 cantrip like roll the dead will fare better and start pulling ahead against some of the weaker weapons but the toll:fighter with dagger math comparison is already appalling so I'd not expect doubled toll to be beating too many starting weapon choices ... of course if the "cantrip" is agonizing eldritch blast it's like a longsword fighter being able to action surge their attack every rounf.

It really depends on what your issue is. If it's the fact that combat cantrips become better than low level combat spells, then remove the scaling bonus (or half it). If it's spamming in general, then you want to limit their use, and I like the idea of making it a short rest recovery. Cantrip uses equal to proficiency + spellcasting ability would give a tight, but workable amount, forcing spellcasters to mostly use weapons in combat. A more lenient option would be to limit the use of each cantrip to that amount, but that would create a lot more bookkeeping.

I think it's more frustration over how cantrips remove cantrip casters from the loot tables to such a large degree for many. I've thought about moving attack cantrips from class feature to weapons with cantrips thst have set mechanics (ie set level x +1 erc) it ultimately avoided it because the math is so bonkers and so many other system aspects like spell/monster design feel like they are individually trying to combat a situation that doesn't exist making it a really tough pronto fix even before archetype abilities could wreck a fix punpun styt

 

[jgsugden]

You are assuming that the wizard would be as good a shot with a crossbow as with a spell, which is not an assumption I would make. The firebolt is better.

I showed you my assumption - +2 to dex. That is common amongst wizards. Not all have it, buyt most wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks (outside Hexblades) tend to have at least a 14 dexterity. You're 1 less likely to hit (5% less likely), but your average damage goes from 5.5 to 6.5 (over an 18% increase in damage). Even with a 12 dexterity, you have the same average damage and only miss one extra time out of every 10 strikes. That is not insignificant, but it is not game changing either.

This ends up being much ado about nothing, other than altering the perspective so that spellcasters are not like Gandalf, able to do a little magic at any time, and more like wands, able to do magic only when charged.

 

[Sithlord]

Cantrips are so ineffective I see no need to limit them. And as they raise in level the low level spells are so ineffective for damage they are used for other things.

 

[embee]

Question: Do you track arrows? Do you track wand charges?

Be honest.

If you are not tracking arrows and wand charges, are you prepared to track cantrips? Let's say you have 2 casters with cantrips in the party. You (or your players) will now be tracking cantrips, spell slots, and ammo (and possibly wand charges) for 2 players.

Everything is a compromise. If you are going to nerf cantrips to prevent spamming, then you are going to increase book-keeping. I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm just saying that you should look at a potential real-world application.

 

[embee]

At low levels, it doesn't matter that much.

At mid to higher levels, once multiple attacks come into play, a wizard with only a crossbow and no spell slots might as well be sent into the kitchen to make the rest of the table nachos. Because they certainly aren't adding anything useful to the fight.

This.

Wizard: Well, I'm out of cantrips. That's okay. I'll just pull out my trusty crossbow. Good thing I have a 14 DEX... Okay, Mandalf pulls out his light crossbow and fires at the slavering wight. Yuss! 16! I roll a 3. So that's 5 damage.

DM: No. You do 2 damage.