D&D 5E Homebrewing a Cantrip

[Chaosmancer]

What if the initial burst required a (con?) saving throw to nullify their AoO? And failure instead just gives them disadvantage on the attack? Or if failure imposes disadvantage then if they save they get to make their AoO as usual?

I think that is starting to get too complicated. Also, most con saves are passed (everything has good con) so it would effectively work out to just be disadvantage on AoO's anyways.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There are no bonus action cantrips for a reason. They'd be used almost every turn. They stop being a cantrip and become more like a class ability. To me, that is a non-starter. So is the idea of flat damage that does not escalate through either improving damage at certain levels or attaching to weapon attacks.

Thunderclap is a 1d6 5' radius con save (usually viewed as the worst save) with a negative condition (loud) attached to the casting of it. It is balanced and has a place in the game. It may not be hugely popular, but I have seen it used to good effect in games, especially in certain style of games where goblins are still common foes at levels 5 to 10.

If you're going to make another 5' radius cantrip and add abilities to it, you'll need to make it worse than Thunderclap in some ways, and I don't think there is an appetite for it. Going lower than d6 damage is a tough sell, you can't get worse than con saves, so that would require adding more penalties to the use of it. I'd consider the following which essentially gives what the original poster initially wanted, but then adds a lingering penalty like faerie fire:

Or you could make it equal to Sword Burst, a 5 ft AOE cantrip that does 1d6 Force damage on a dex save, and has no negatives.

I do agree that being a bonus action is a non-starter though.

Stormwalk: 1 Action to cast. S component. 5 ' range. Dexterity Save. Lightning Damage.

You create a burst of lighting around you that crackles brightly for a moment, then fades over a few seconds. Creatures within range must succeed on a Dexterity Saving Throw or take 1d6 lightning damage. You gain a +10 to your movement speed until the end of this turn. Until the end of this turn, creatures that could see you when this spell was cast and were adjacent to you when it was cast have disadvantage on attacks against you. However, between the end of this turn and the end of your next turn, you shed dim light in a 10-foot radius, any attack rolls against you have advantage if the attacker can see you, and you can't benefit from being invisible.

The spell’s damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).

See, here is the thing. Will you ever have a situation where someone looks at this and goes "Maybe dealing 2d6 damage is worth everyone having advantage on all attacks against me, or I could just disengage and be better off in most ways, except for damage." Honestly, every attack against you having advantage is something even raging barbarians don't always want, and they have a d12 HD and take half damage. I think you've gone way too far in making this "undesirable"

Also... how could you even become invisible if you used your action to cast this? And if you could become invisible, why not become invisible and become immune to AoO's AND give everyone DISadvantage to hit you?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I have a cantrip in my campaign that is a bonus action to cast and ONLY gives a +15' speed bonus until the end of the caster's next turn, and it feels powerful, but not too powerful, for a cantrip. Adding damage- especially against multiple targets- and I wouldn't allow it.

Even if it were an action for only +10' speed bonus? I think a +15' bonus action is better than what I proposed. Because in the scenario I'm thinking my cantrip would be most powerful (multiple enemies surrounding a caster) your's is more reliable for getting away with no damage, it just costs the action to disengage, but then moves them 45' away, which is out of most creature's movements ranges, and your cantrip is highly effective for kiting, where as mine isn't.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There are no bonus action cantrips for a reason.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was comparing my proposed form for stormwalk to expeditious retreat, which is a bonus action spell. Being bonus action, lasting much longer (Concentration, up to 10 min), and offering a much more powerful effect (Dash as a bonus action), expeditious retreat is justified as being a full 1st-level spell, rather than a mere cantrip.

My proposed stormwalk would look like this:

Stormwalk
Evocation cantrip
Casting time: 1 action
Range: Self (5-foot radius)
Components: V, S, M (a tiny glass rod and a piece of silk cloth)
Duration: 1 turn

Electricity crackles across your skin before arcing to enemies near you, and a lingering static charge briefly energizes and protects you. All other creatures in range must make a Dexterity save or take 1d6 plus your Proficiency modifier electricity damage. Any creature which takes damage from this spell is unable to make opportunity attacks against you until the end of your current turn, and any creature not affected by this spell which attempts to make an opportunity attack against you has disadvantage on that attack until the end of your current turn. Your movement is also increased by 10 feet for this turn.

---

So. Initially this does 1d6+2--slightly better than the 1d8 of lightning lure or ray of frost, since the average is 5.5 as opposed to 4.5, but the difference is minor. However, as soon as you hit 5th level (which is when cantrips improve, and when your prof bonus goes up), it becomes 1d6+3 vs 2d8, which is 6.5 vs 9 average damage--and that's using the "not as good" cantrips, not even considering something like fire bolt which is the go-to damage cantrip. Even 2d6 is 10.5 average vs. 6.5. Meaning, the damage is very slightly front-loaded, but hardly to an extreme degree. If you wanted to forestall that, just have it be 1d6 flat at first, and become 1d6+Prof at level 5.

Again, I want to emphasize that this is a spell which should only be used when you are in a bad situation. Realistically, you should only be using it when you have at least two enemies adjacent to you. That's a situation you never ever want to happen if you're a (non-Bladesinger) Wizard or Sorcerer or (non-Valor/Swords) Bard. Even for those, though, it's clearly weaker than something like acid splash, green-flame blade, or sword burst in terms of damage potential. You won't be casting this cantrip constantly. Indeed, it's likely that you'll never want to cast it at all in many combats. Its effects are certainly useful, but restrained. I really don't think it's overpowered.

It has shades of shocking grasp (narrowed to only OAs, not other reactions, but broadened to any creature which tries to OA you), expeditious retreat (far less than half the movement bonus, lasting only for a turn), and thunderclap or sword burst (AoE cantrip). Its damage scales extremely poorly (gaining only +1 damage every 4 levels!) and is of a mediocre type, only slightly less common as a resistance than cold, occasionally an immunity, but essentially never a weakness. The weak damage output means its niche effects are the primary focus, but that niche is quite narrow, such that most spellcasters will want to spend their few cantrips on something more generically useful. It really won't take the world by storm (pun absolutely intended.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

Stormwalk: 1 Action to cast. S component. 5 ' range. Dexterity Save. Lightning Damage.

You create a burst of lighting around you that crackles brightly for a moment, then fades over a few seconds. Creatures within range must succeed on a Dexterity Saving Throw or take 1d6 lightning damage. You gain a +10 to your movement speed until the end of this turn. Until the end of this turn, creatures that could see you when this spell was cast and were adjacent to you when it was cast have disadvantage on attacks against you. However, between the end of this turn and the end of your next turn, you shed dim light in a 10-foot radius, any attack rolls against you have advantage if the attacker can see you, and you can't benefit from being invisible.

The spell’s damage increases by 1d6 when you reach 5th level (2d6), 11th level (3d6), and 17th level (4d6).

Too strong for a cantrip.

You deal d6 damage to multiple target potentially. This is already Sword Burst, just with different damage. So, already a cantrip.

Adding +10 speed. Adding disadvantage on attacks against you from damaged targets (I assume that would be the easy way to rule which creatures saw you cast...?) Having it be even more creatures outside of 5 feet it much too strong IMO.

Downside: shed dim light (not a downside in an of itself IMO in most cases, it could actually be beneficial...), attacks have advantage (so does this cancel the disadvantage mentioned above) due to the "faerie fire" like dim light (I assume?). No benefit from being invisible... well, unless you have Improved invisibility, its a moot point since you cast a spell and would otherwise lose invisibility.

Chimera-like spells (combining so many effects) are poor design IMO, especially for a cantrip.

Now, my take would be something like this:

 

[jgsugden]

...If you're going to make another 5' radius cantrip and add abilities to it, you'll need to make it worse than Thunderclap in some ways, and I don't think there is an appetite for it...

...
See, here is the thing. Will you ever have a situation where someone looks at this and goes "Maybe dealing 2d6 damage is worth everyone having advantage on all attacks against me, or I could just disengage and be better off in most ways, except for damage." Honestly, every attack against you having advantage is something even raging barbarians don't always want, and they have a d12 HD and take half damage. I think you've gone way too far in making this "undesirable".

As I said - no appetite for it. Adding a penaltyto offset an advantage is a hard design choice to make work. Either people will find it too easy to avoid the penalty, or the penalty will be too restrictive in too many cases. But heck, for other opinions, others think my version is too strong ... so ...

Also... how could you even become invisible if you used your action to cast this? And if you could become invisible, why not become invisible and become immune to AoO's AND give everyone DISadvantage to hit you?

PCs are not an island, and other PCs could make you invisible, ... or you could have a reaction triggered invisibility.

....
Electricity crackles across your skin before arcing to enemies near you, and a lingering static charge briefly energizes and protects you. All other creatures in range must make a Dexterity save or take 1d6 plus your Proficiency modifier electricity damage. Any creature which takes damage from this spell is unable to make opportunity attacks against you until the end of your current turn, and any creature not affected by this spell which attempts to make an opportunity attack against you has disadvantage on that attack until the end of your current turn. Your movement is also increased by 10 feet for this turn.

---

So. Initially this does 1d6+2--slightly better than the 1d8 of lightning lure or ray of frost, since the average is 5.5 as opposed to 4.5, but the difference is minor...

Most PCs start witha 16 or better in their cantrip ability, so we're talking about 1d6+3 at levels 1 to 4. That is a lot ofr an at will area of effect. Tossing extra abilities on top of it is over the top. Giving it a harder to save against saving throw, adding a speed bonus, adding extra damage, and preventing OAs ... at no offset cost versus an existing cantrip for levels 1 to 4. The reduction in efficiency at laster levels is irrelevant - breaking levels 1 to 4 is a problem that can't be overlooked.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As I said - no appetite for it. Adding a penaltyto offset an advantage is a hard design choice to make work. Either people will find it too easy to avoid the penalty, or the penalty will be too restrictive in too many cases. But heck, for other opinions, others think my version is too strong ... so ...PCs are not an island, and other PCs could make you invisible, ... or you could have a reaction triggered invisibility.
Most PCs start witha 16 or better in their cantrip ability, so we're talking about 1d6+3 at levels 1 to 4. That is a lot ofr an at will area of effect. Tossing extra abilities on top of it is over the top. Giving it a harder to save against saving throw, adding a speed bonus, adding extra damage, and preventing OAs ... at no offset cost versus an existing cantrip for levels 1 to 4. The reduction in efficiency at laster levels is irrelevant - breaking levels 1 to 4 is a problem that can't be overlooked.

Cantrips do not add your ability modifier unless you have a feature which offers that. Evokers get that feature at 10th level (though, technically, only spells of the Evocation school, though that's more than half of the Wizard cantrips which do damage.) Warlocks can get it as early as level 2, but it only applies to eldritch blast. Dragon Sorcerers gain it at level 6, but only for spells of their elemental type.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

As a bonus action cantrip I'd take this on almost every character that could possibly qualify for it. Non-resource consuming bonus actions that do anything remotely useful are hard to come by for many classes.

As a normal action cantrip I'd never take it for any character ever, in any of the proposed formulations, because the "character who isn't good enough at melee to be better off just staying in melee is in melee with multiple enemies" scenario is a once-in-a-while scenario, albeit an important one, for which I might well want to learn a leveled spell, spend the resources and have something truly effective happen, but which I want to avoid having happen often enough to invest a known cantrip in.

 

[Ancalagon]

Cantrip design is usually "a bit of damage + something else", a "rider" so you will. The AOE is such a rider. If the cantrip allows you to have an AOE and another rider, it's too much IMO.

 

[jgsugden]

Cantrips do not add your ability modifier unless you have a feature which offers that.

If you look what I was responding to, it was what was proposed. I was commenting on it being problematic.