D&D 5E Limiting cantrips - advice needed

[Matuco]

Apparently the major problem is the "free" scaling effect that cantrips have at higher levels and that the damage/game balance has been built around cantrips.
To ilustrate, at level 1 a firebolt does ~5,5 dmg / cast while a magic missile does 10,5 dmg, which is about double the dmg, to maintain that same ratio at level 17 when the firebolt does 5,5*4=22, the wizard would have to cast a level 9 magic missile (12d4+12=42), which is the most rare resource (1 / day) - this is obviously not a real game situation, but intented only for balance testing. That leaves level 1 spells mostly to supportive roles (which is nice to have just a very few powerfull spells and the rest mostly to support - very narrative like feeling, but probably not well balanced witout the cantrips.)

For those like us (I'm playing the wizard of the OP group) that like to make magic game changing but a rare resource, the most attractive idea is to make a way to really limit cantrips but maintain the efficacy of wizards in combat (either trough dmg or control). Combat cantrips are probably balanced, being the main problem flavor and roleplaying (Gandalf and Raistlin doesn't run around blasting stuff every 6 seconds, but when they do cast a spell it changes the battlefield).

Dausuul's idea of the magic weapon seems good to me, but limits every wizard to Always rely on weapons (which some find good, like my military elf wizard who is good with the longbow, but the player with the fragile scholar like wizard will find no fun in that).

Trying to come up with something like cutting cantrips or limiting to 6/day BUT giving like X levels of heighened spell, so one could cast a level 1 spell with a higher level effect but spending these points instead of actually a higher level spell (like a rod of heighened spell was in 3.5). I need to do some detailed work on the math to get to the balance of this. Also need to search what kind of uninteded exploits this might lead to.

Thanks all guys for helping our group!
PS.: sorry for edits, posting from working and new to 5e

 

[Staffan]

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.

Not quite. They're meant to do a little less damage than a martial character attacking, but they also let the caster use their casting stat to hit (or for saves), and in the case of warlocks for damage.

So wizard with Int-based fire bolt vs fighter with Str-based longsword? The wizard will be a little behind, but not too much. But give the wizard a Dex-based crossbow instead, and he's going to suck mightily.

And at level 5, when the wizard is getting one crossbow shot off to the fighter's two attacks? He might as well go home.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Cantrips play approximately the same role as weapons do in 5e - they're your bread-n-butter thing you hit the enemy with. Warriors get bows and greatswords, spellcasters get firebolts and acid splashes. Taking them away is roughly like taking away a fighter's ability to use high-damage weapons.

So if you want to replace the cantrips, the most straightforward thing to do is to look at things the casters will do to hit the enemies instead of cast spells using spell slots, and enhance that. For a bard, this might look like simply some extra weapon / armor proficiencies - give 'em those instead of cantrips, and that'll be fine. For wizard/sorcerer, the calculation is a little....different. going around with greatswords would be fine mechanically, but it's not strongly in-character. Most solutions that I'd propose would look basically like cantrips, so I'd want some more specifics on why cantrips are an issue.

One idea we had was to limit cantrips to maybe 4 per short rest. This way, cantrips are still powerful, but more limited, but can still be used as a backup when you don't have higher level spells to cast.

One other idea is to limit cantrips to around 6-8 per long rest. This one seems more strict, and should probably be followed by maybe a higher number of 1st level spells per day (maybe +1 or 2)

Ah, so if there's a resource counter, you'd be happier? I'd put it at 6 per short rest, or maybe Int/Cha mod per short rest. 4 per short rest probably isn't a major issue.

I'd avoid upping their daily number of spell slots - spell slots are intentionally low, and raising them is a significant spike in power, especially given their flexibility.

Another idea yet, would be to remove almost all cantrips, leaving only the ones for flavor (like thaumaturgy and prestidigitation). All the other cantrips are either banned or are moved to 1st level, with proper adjustments. This option would of course need some rebalancing of the classes, maybe adding 2 or more 1st level spells per day, as a compensation.

Again, I'd steer away from extra spells/day and look more directly at how you expect them to contribute to a fight when they're not casting spells. That's what cantrips are there for, and any replacement should fill a similar niche.

 

[jodyjohnson]

In your case I'd consider a rule that each spell cast, regardless of level, costs the caster 1 hp. Thus they can still use their cantrips but there's a tradeoff that makes other options somewhat more attractive.

A variation on the Evoker Overchannel ability. That only applies once a player 'overdoes' the whole at-will side of cantrips - at the DMs discretion.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Personally, if "magic is game changing but rare" were my goal, I'd make changes like this:

1. Eliminate all cantrips except light, prestidigitation, thaumaturgy, mending, dancing lights, spare the dying, and (possibly) message and mage hand. Some may be altered slightly to be 1st level spells with damage or effects on par with burning hands or magic missile, but otherwise, they're gone.
2. Spell save DCs are 10 + proficiency + ability mod instead of 8 + prof + mod. Spell attack modifier is 2 + proficiency + ability mod instead of proficiency + mod.
3. If a spell effect deals damage which increases with spell level, treat the spell as though it were one spell level higher than normal. Exceptions may exist for some spells at DM's option (e.g., spiritual weapon). Alternately, increase spell damage by 1 die.
4. Reduce spell slots per spell level by 1 each for spell levels 1-5. Levels 6-9 never go above 1 spell per level.
5. Eliminate Warlock, Sorcerer, Four Elements Monk, Arcane Trickster Rogue, Eldritch Knight Fighter, and Totem Warrior Barbarian from available classes.
6. The Bard's Magical Secrets feature is eliminated. The Lore Bard's Additional Magical Secrets feature is restricted to spells on the Bard spell list. You still get the extra spells known, but they must be Bard spells.
7. Eliminate Tiefling, Drow Elf, and Dragonborn from available races.

There.

Magic is now significantly more rare and unique, but the magic that is used is also significantly more deadly.

 

[bganon]

First, one thing I've considered but not implemented yet is reducing the damage of damage-dealing cantrips down a step or two, and possibly (or not) adding some minor riders to compensate. I don't really mind Wizards casting utility cantrips all day, or even Fire Bolt if it's a pretty weak mote of flame that's mostly useful for other things.

But on Fire Bolt specifically: there are plenty of flames that produce heat but very little light. Besides, Dancing Lights and Light are already cantrips, why tread on their toes? Fire Bolt is a pretty terrible way to produce light, and I'd rule it as such.

And yes, it ignites flammable objects. Flammability is really a continuum, but "flammable" usually means "easily set on fire", and wood is usually considered flammable while water is not. But does tossing a match even into a barn of dry straw instantly cause a giant inferno? No. Casting a fire bolt at a wooden door does the same damage as the fighter stabbing it... with a dagger. And now the door is smoldering. But have you ever started a campfire? Going from "just barely ignited" to "burnt to crumbling fragments" can take an hour for a log of even moderate thickness. There's no way I'd allow a Wizard to burn down more than a paper-thin door with Fire Bolts in any reasonable amount of time, and then you have a door-sized uncontrolled fire to deal with. Easier to just bash it down.

And finally - fresh corpses are mostly water. Not flammable. Seriously. Go buy a fresh (dead) chicken and drop a match on it. Heck, drop a red-hot coal on it. You might burn off some fat if you're lucky. And then you'll have a cold, very much not on fire chicken with a small blackened spot on it.

 

[CapnZapp]

A spell capable of killing you on the spot (10 damage kills a lot of npcs) is hardly a match...

...but say you're right, the point still stands.

Use enough matches and that chicken is charcoal.

I'm sure a freshly killed human doesn't catch on fire, but put it in an incerator oven long enough and you will have only bones and ash left.

Shoot Firebolts every round, it seems comparable to a thin stream of intense heat, burning your fallen foes almost as if you packed a (single target) napalm thrower...

 

[jbear]

I think the fact that you are not messing with the warlock (which simply wouldn't work anymore as a class if you limited EB), and the fact that you are just wanting to capture the flavour of your other 2e game by limiting cantrips as this is leading to unfun situations seems totally reasonable.

Could you use the exhaustion rules to make the limit not so hard and fast, but limit use at a certain point because it becomes risky. Say for example that the first 3 uses of certain evocation cantrips per short rest are not taxing on the body. From the 4th time onwards each check requires a CON save at a DC you decide to be fair (something that works out to have a 50/50 chance of success for a PC with slightly better than average Constitution). Success means no adverse affect. Failure means the PC is exhausted. Subsequent attempts to use the cantrip (at a progressively more difficult DC) result in progressing further along the exhaustion track. A short rest can shift you back only 1 step along the exhaustion track.

You could then say that cantrips such as prestidigitation or thaumaturgy (great cantrips imho) do not tax the body in this way,so the 'magical PCs' always remain magical even when their evocation cantrips have hit their physical limits. But the PCs still have the choice to puch those physical limits if things get really dire (but they are unlikely to try and burn through a door out of combat due to the waste and risk ... best just to let thefighter use his axe, right?

Mechanically:
Evocation Cantrips: 3 uses/rest
Each subsequent use after the 3rd requires a CON save DC 12 or the PC becomes exhausted
Each following failed CON save causes the PC to progress one step further along the exhaustion track. If used while exhausted the DC of the CON save required increases by 2 for each step the PC is on upon the exhaustion track e.g. DC 14 save required if used while on the first step of the exhaustion track.
A PC may recover a maximum of one step upon the exhaustion track by taking a short rest, or two steps by taking a long rest.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Could you use the exhaustion rules to make the limit not so hard and fast, but limit use at a certain point because it becomes risky.

That's an interesting idea. Potentially "banned by the backdoor," but it does make cantrip use a choice rather than an automatic thing.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I do not understand why anyone believes that a 5E wizard or warlock can cast a cantrip round after round for hours on end in order to break the rules/economy/whatever.

No, the cantrips aren't limited to X/day. Neither is punching or swinging an axe. But I don't know any DMs who would allow a character to punch through a stone wall by taking eleven days of constant pounding to do it, or cut down an entire grove of old oak trees.

Why treat cantrips any differently?