D&D 5E Limiting cantrips - advice needed

[Leatherhead]

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.

I've never truly accused someone of having badwrongfun, but I don't think I would play at a table where bashing down the door wasn't an option.

 

[Smoo]

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

...snip...

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

This is very very similar to what I was planning to do when I start a War of the Lance campaign later this month. Very nice.

 

[Smoo]

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.

LOVE IT.

 

[phmas]

Thanks for all the excellent replies!

I think I need to clarify some points: we don't have so much problem with the possible exploits of cantrips because they are at will abilities (like the incinerator Fire Bolt case presented above). I am fortunate enough to have very reasonable players, which, thankfully, means they rarely try to break the system, or think of exploits that would make the game unfun. We even house rule one thing or another, ban a particular spell (or feat, in earlier editions) if we felt it was unfun for everyone or broken. No problems at all with that.

Also, we like almost 100% of 5e, and what we didn't like, we simply not used or used differently (ie. inspiration rules and feats). We loved how 5e could be flavored as "old school" almost right out of the box. I was amazed how easy it was to migrate my PS campaign from 2e to 5e, and how easy it was to convert all the old adventures.

However, when we migrated to 5e (we played in 2e to level 3, and we are level 4 in 5e right now), suddenly the flavor changed, epecially for the wizard, who was now casting spell after spell (ok, cantrip after cantrip, but in the game world, a cantrip is a spell), round after round. I know it may sound absurd, but we don't like that, at least not for this particular campaign. One of the things that, to us, evokes so much of the old school feel, is the strict resource management of magic, specially for wizards. Believe it or not, we actually like linear fighters and quadratic wizards, so to speak. I realized that limiting cantrips per short rest or per long rest would only solve the problem os possible exploitation, but would not solve the flavor problem.

I could simply take out all offensive cantrips and limit it to x times a day, and call it a day. But that would hurt the wizard a lot, as 5e class design was based on the assumption that (specially) wizards would rely a lot on offensive cantrips, besides the great reduction of the number of spells slots per day, compared to previous editions. What I am brainstorming is a way to remove cantrips altogether (leaving only the flavor ones), but at the same time, I have to try and be fair to the classes that rely on cantrips (specially the wizard and the sorcerer). How to do that is the big question. Removing cantrips and adding 2 more 1st level spells per day, would that be enough? Maybe more spells per day at higher levels as well?

 

[phmas]

[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!

I did it already! Never had the chance to thank you enough!

Cheers!

 

[Gnarl45]

However, when we migrated to 5e (we played in 2e to level 3, and we are level 4 in 5e right now), suddenly the flavor changed, epecially for the wizard, who was now casting spell after spell (ok, cantrip after cantrip, but in the game world, a cantrip is a spell), round after round. I know it may sound absurd, but we don't like that, at least not for this particular campaign. One of the things that, to us, evokes so much of the old school feel, is the strict resource management of magic, specially for wizards. Believe it or not, we actually like linear fighters and quadratic wizards, so to speak. I realized that limiting cantrips per short rest or per long rest would only solve the problem os possible exploitation, but would not solve the flavor problem.

I could simply take out all offensive cantrips and limit it to x times a day, and call it a day. But that would hurt the wizard a lot, as 5e class design was based on the assumption that (specially) wizards would rely a lot on offensive cantrips, besides the great reduction of the number of spells slots per day, compared to previous editions. What I am brainstorming is a way to remove cantrips altogether (leaving only the flavor ones), but at the same time, I have to try and be fair to the classes that rely on cantrips (specially the wizard and the sorcerer). How to do that is the big question. Removing cantrips and adding 2 more 1st level spells per day, would that be enough? Maybe more spells per day at higher levels as well?

The idea behind cantrips is to give spellcasters an interesting combat option that doesn't use their precious spell slot resources. Cantrips were introduced in 3e (reserve feats) and more formaly in 4e because many players didn't like shooting their crappy darts. You have to admit that shooting those darts at level 10ish with that pathetic Thac0 of yours didn't really feel heroic.

If you didn't have a problem with wizards sucking when they ran out of spells in 2e, you could just give your casters 4 or 5 cantrip slots per day (or less). Your low level wizards will feel a bit more magical than in 2e but your high level wizards will still be very limited.

You could also try to give spellcasters an at-will attack that isn't as flashy as a cantrip but still a little magical. For exemple, you could give wizards an Arcane Strike class feature that allows them to empower their weapon attacks with a minor magical enchantment. As an action, a wizard could make a single attack using his intelligence modifier instead of strength or dexterity. If you don't add the intelligence bonus to damage, your wizard won't be as good with weapons as a fighter so he'll still feel old school 2e but he won't be totally useless. You could have the damage increase by 1d8 (or 1d6) at levels 8 and 14 like the war cleric or something like that.

You could also explore totally non-magical variants such as multiple attacks at level 5 or higher, or make a single attack that deals an extra 1d6 damage at levels 5, 11, and 16. Just make sure your attack doesn't synergize too much with other weapon attack options.

But if you like the resource management aspect of spellcasting, you want to find an alternate non-flashy at-will attack for your wizard without increasing the number of spell slots. Increasing the number of spell slots will just make your wizards more magical. A high level 5th edition wizard without cantrips would play more like a level 5 ti 10 AD&D wizard.

The above ideas need a little fine-tuning. You could have both limited cantrips and a non-magical weapon attack in which case the cantrip damage would need to be higher than the weapon attacks. Once you know where to go, feel free to ask if you need any help adjusting the math and avoiding unwanted broken combos.

 

[Smoo]

The idea behind cantrips is to give spellcasters an interesting combat option that doesn't use their precious spell slot resources.

Here's that focus on combat again. I don't know when this game became all about combat, but it's disappointing. The idea behind cantrips originally was to give spellcasters interesting non-combat options that didn't use their precious spell resources.

 

[Paraxis]

I absolutely dislike this idea is every way, so can't contribute advice but have a question.

What do you expect wizards and sorcerers to do during their turn in initiative if they are worried about resource management?

When you answer that with "shoot a crossbow or sling a stone", I ask are you sure that is more fun for the players? Because I can't imagine it is.

Because like you say no one will build a caster focused bard, cleric, or druid they will go with the heavy combat focus builds so they can have fun with those classes and not worry about cantrips, but where is the fun for the wizard and sorcerer?

Is firebolt honestly that bad?

Next question, do you hand out a lot of magic wands and staves because then I guess it wouldn't be noticed much that they can't spam cantrips, but if you do that why not just add "Wand of cantrip X" to the starting equipment of wizards and sorcerers?

 

[Smoo]

where is the fun for the wizard and sorcerer?

When their dancing lights cause the orc patrol to pursue down the wrong passage.
When they become friends with the bar patron long enough for him to share the location of the secret treasure vault.
When they use their mage hand to reach the trap shutoff valve behind the adamantium portcullis.
When they can use mending on the chain keeping the ceiling trap from collapsing before it breaks.
When they can send a message to the rogue hiding in the distant tree that the individual on the left is their intended target.
When they can create the minor illusion which...

You get the point. And that's just the cantrips. This assumption that damage output is the only measure of success and fun in this game is starting to overcook my grits. The wizard no more has to contribute equally in combat than the fighter has to contribute equally in picking locks. Everybody shines in different places.

 

[Gnarl45]

Here's that focus on combat again. I don't know when this game became all about combat, but it's disappointing. The idea behind cantrips originally was to give spellcasters interesting non-combat options that didn't use their precious spell resources.

Not really, but whatever. D&D is a game about both combat and non-combat and when your limited resource can be used for both, they become intertwined. Unless you're playing 4e that has seperate combat and non-combat resource, it doesn't really make sense to look at one aspect of the game without looking at the implications on the other.

In AD&D and 3e, you could always come up with a solution that doesn't use magic to solve a non-combat problem but it was much harder to avoid getting your friends killed if you didn't have combat spells prepared. That was the problem many people were complaining about (at least on the Internet and at in my local games). The main benefit of unlimited cantrips is that they lower the "cost" of using utility magic. A wizard no longer jeopardizes his friends (as much) in combat when he burns a spell slot for a non-combat situation.

You're right though. In AD&D, some spells such as light were just too crap to use a 1st spell slot on. Unless the party ran out of torches and lantern oil, I would never ever memorize the light spell. But adding limited cantrips like in 3e already solved that problem. The unlimited aspect of 5th edition cantrips make these spells less interesting because you loose the resource management aspect. In my opinion anyways.

Bottom line, I wasn't saying that the game was only focused on combat. I was just explaining that there was a design flaw in the previous editions of D&D that cantrips fixed.