D&D 5E Limiting cantrips - advice needed

[Rocksome]

Most classes would be fine with reduced cantrips. It would play a little like 3e where low level wizards use crossbows. You might consider giving full-caster classes a single ASL for STR or DEX, letting clerics wade into combat a little more and rely less on sacred flame, and wizards could use crossbows, thrown daggers and darts more effectively. Additionally you might need to change some domain/wizard specialization abilities. Change all instances of domains with Potent Spellcasting to Divine Strike, and give Evokers a similar ability called Elemental Strike to replace Potent Cantrip.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=56322]phmas[/MENTION] I think you've got plenty of options for limiting Cantrips already, so I'll add something completely different: you're playing Planescape? Check out the 5e conversions in my sig!

 

[Li Shenron]

That being said, I am well aware that changing or limiting cantrips will alter the balance of classes. We already know that Warlock is almost required to spam EB, which is actually fine, as long as EB is the only thing he can spam, and the warlock is the only class tha "can" spam spells. That's his niche. Clerics and Druids are also not so dependent on cantrips, on a whole. The wizard/sorcerer/bard, OTOH, are very much dependent on cantrips to maintein their DPR. So our main concerns are with these classes, and how changing things could effect them, and how to compensate for that.

I think your first idea of 4 cantrips per short rest is fine. In fact, it doesn't change much.

But are you really sure about your premise above ^^? Because I remember that all the criticism to this "cantrips at will" idea (to which I have been myself mildly against since the start) was rejected on the ground that damaging cantrips do about the same DPR as mundane weapons, and therefore they do not make the characters more powerful, but are meant for narrative purposes*. So if you take them away, you don't need to compensate.

*Specifically, they were meant to allow spellcasters to "do something magical all the time" instead of running out of spells and having to use crossbows and quarterstaves.

 

[Leatherhead]

What level are you playing at currently?
Cantrips are the only spells that scale without resources in 5e, which is an incredibly significant thing at later levels.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think your first idea of 4 cantrips per short rest is fine. In fact, it doesn't change much.

But are you really sure about your premise above ^^? Because I remember that all the criticism to this "cantrips at will" idea (to which I have been myself mildly against since the start) was rejected on the ground that damaging cantrips do about the same DPR as mundane weapons, and therefore they do not make the characters more powerful, but are meant for narrative purposes*. So if you take them away, you don't need to compensate.

*Specifically, they were meant to allow spellcasters to "do something magical all the time" instead of running out of spells and having to use crossbows and quarterstaves.

I have nothing against letting a Wizard drop his crossbow and instead use magic.

In combat.

All the time in combat <> All the time

Ten uses per cantrip per short rest is at least 20, perhaps even 30 or 40 cantrips per short rest.

But isn't spamming the same cantrip for an hour to wreck the game's economy, or environment (because that's 360 castings of the same cantrip over and over again)

For me, I don't want to force the player to keep actual count of how many times he has cast Firebolt. I just want the rules to back me up when I say "no, you can't do that" ☺

 

[houser2112]

I have nothing against letting a Wizard drop his crossbow and instead use magic.

In combat.

All the time in combat <> All the time

Ten uses per cantrip per short rest is at least 20, perhaps even 30 or 40 cantrips per short rest.

But isn't spamming the same cantrip for an hour to wreck the game's economy, or environment (because that's 360 castings of the same cantrip over and over again)

For me, I don't want to force the player to keep actual count of how many times he has cast Firebolt. I just want the rules to back me up when I say "no, you can't do that" ☺

I'm not sure what you mean by "wreck the game's economy". D&D is not a JRPG. If I was a player trying to, say, burn down a door with firebolt (this seems like the kind of thing you're trying to restrict), I'd say "OK, let's roll initiative, I'm attacking the door. I got a *roll* 15.".

 

[jodyjohnson]

I had to restrict poking at things with a torch, whacking things with an axe, and hitting the wall with a pick for the same reasons.

Cantrips are a narrative tool and I agree, if my players have a simulation bent to use them in "unfun" ways (less fun for the DM) then maybe we need to have a talk or just part ways.

 

[bedir than]

I'm DMing a low magic setting. That means significant limitations on cantrips. They are now used 1 + caster level + controlling attribute modifier per short rest. That means that a 1st level primary caster will have either 4 or 5 cantrips per short rest and non-casters (who get a single cantrip in my game world) will have 0-5 cantrips per short rest.

It does neuter spell casting a bit, but that's the goal.

In a standard DnD magic world I would likely replace that 1+ with 2 or 3 times (caster level plus controlling attribute) for a total of 8-15 cantrips per short rest at 1st level and a whopping 20-33 at 5th level (2nd tier and assuming ASI on casting attribute).

 

[Li Shenron]

I have nothing against letting a Wizard drop his crossbow and instead use magic.

In combat.

All the time in combat <> All the time

Ten uses per cantrip per short rest is at least 20, perhaps even 30 or 40 cantrips per short rest.

But isn't spamming the same cantrip for an hour to wreck the game's economy, or environment (because that's 360 castings of the same cantrip over and over again)

For me, I don't want to force the player to keep actual count of how many times he has cast Firebolt. I just want the rules to back me up when I say "no, you can't do that" ☺

The OP seems concerned only with "spamming" offensive cantrips, in fact he mentions about leaving other cantrips such as Prestidigitation at-will.

So for combat/damaging cantrips I just say there is no reason to compensate if limiting their number, because the spellcasters will just resort to weapons they are proficient in, and get roughly the same DPR (at least for a few levels, then the difference with scaling cantrips might be more significant, but at the same time at higher levels they are typically expected to use less cantrips and more spells).

The issue with utility (non-combat) cantrips being available at-will is real, but the OP didn't seem to be concerned with that. It was brought up many times during playtest, but the majority of gamers didn't seem to bother about infinite Guidance, or how unlimited uses of Mage Hand can strongly affect how the fantasy world looks & feels like. Oddly enough, most of those who didn't bother said it was because "it doesn't happen that often after all", rather than because they liked their fantasy world to be spammed with minor magic.

 

[Dausuul]

I would go with the following:

• You get 5 cantrip slots. These refresh on a short rest.
• Give these class abilities to wizards, sorcerers, et cetera:

Level 5: Arcanist's Weapon
You can spend 10 minutes to temporarily enchant a weapon for your own personal use. For 24 hours, the weapon is considered magical, and once per turn you can deal 1d12 bonus damage when you hit with it. Each time you use this ability, the effect ends on any previously enchanted weapon.

Level 11: Improved Arcanist's Weapon
The bonus damage of your Arcanist's Weapon increases to 2d12.

Level 17: Improved Arcanist's Weapon
The bonus damage of your Arcanist's Weapon increases to 3d12.