D&D 5E Limiting cantrips - advice needed

[Smoo]

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.

I agree completely. I've swung the pendulum too far the other way more to make a point than to suggest that that's an optimal play style. Wizards of course need to balance both. I'm just reacting to the implication I'm seeing through this thread that combat potential is the only source of enjoyment in this game. I concede that a wizard who knows only utility spells is going to be equally boring. I just don't think that every class needs to, or should be expected to, contribute equally in a combat situation. That's one thing that WoW has done to poison modern gaming. Niche roles are really not being embraced at all.

 

[Gnarl45]

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.

It depends on how good the wizard is with his crossbow. If attacking with a crossbow or sling is roughly equivalent to casting a fire bolt, it becomes a fluff issue. You might prefer Narruto or Fairy Tail but you can't really blame the OP and his friends for prefering Merlin or Gandalf.

 

[steeldragons]

Just remove combat/damage causing cantrips. They don't exist. Can't learn them. Can't find them.

Minor Illusion, Mage Hand, Friends, et al. and Dancing Lights your night away.

Done.

 

[Gnarl45]

I just don't think that every class needs to, or should be expected to, contribute equally in a combat situation.

Neither do I! And I am so glad that 5th edition decided to go back to a more old school way of designing classes.

I don't think most players want equal classes though. I think most of them want each class to be meaningful both in combat and in non-combat. It's very easy to contribute in non-combat because simply making suggestions to the others is meaningful. If you have a few skills and spells of your own, it's even better because it opens more possibilities. Combat is different because it's very mechanical. How good you are in combat can be measured in terms of DPR or other geeky charop board terms. If you're not one of them, just think about how fun it is to play an AD&D wizard without spells or an AD&D thief in a combat-heavy adventure. It's not fun because hitting only on a 20 to deal 1d4 damage is meaningless.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'm going to say that's what they've done to clerics in 5e, and it's part of why they're disappointing to me.

The choice to deny the possibility of the laser cleric in 5e (no attack cleric spells; only a single spell requiring a save to avoid damage) shows that the deployment of cantrips is crucial to the experience of play for a class. If there were a single fire bolt available to classics, is it one everyone would take? Not necessarily. But it sure would be nice to have the option.

Mutatis mutandis for wizard cantrips. If the DM wants to incentivize non-combat cantrips, provide opportunities for casters to use -- and so to want to have -- non-combat cantrips. They're a limited resource. But if the DM only provide combat, then players rightfully will want to use them there. They still won't have to (they can shoot crossbows or darts or whatever), but some players will want that, and I don't see why they should be denied.

It's up to the DM to make players want to have Dancing lights or Message or Mending. The player should have the choice.

 

[Smoo]

Combat is different because it's very mechanical. How good you are in combat can be measured in terms of DPR or other geeky charop board terms. If you're not one of them, just think about how fun it is to play an AD&D wizard without spells or an AD&D thief in a combat-heavy adventure. It's not fun because hitting only on a 20 to deal 1d4 damage is meaningless.

That's fair. But this is one area in which I think 4e did very well. The idea of the roles was pretty inspired. The Defender/Leader/Striker/Controller divisions gave everybody niche roles to fill, even in combat. A lot of this conversation, however, has been couched in making sure that one class's DPR is comparable to another class's DPR. Nobody in 4th edition cared that the Avenger hit for more than the Paladin, because the Paladin had a different responsibility. But there have been several references to the effect that if the spellcaster isn't dealing some kind of damage every round, they're not effective. That's what's irking me.

As to your second point, maybe I just played differently, but I remember old school rogues using combat as a distraction to sneak behind and loot the treasure while the fighter kept the monster occupied. Then maybe it's mission accomplished and they can tactically retreat without caring about killing the monster. And even if theres no treasure to loot, whatever, they disabled the trap in the corridor leading to the room, so they feel they;ve contributed. Likewise, I don't remember wizards ever having a problem hiding for a few rounds while the combat went on, because they'd be the ones who could contribute the most outside of combat. They always had to be the party translator, for example, what with knowing the most languages thanks to the INT modifier.

I get that these points are a poorly-couched crusty old "get off my lawn" rant, but 5e is just so close to being optimal that I can't help but claw at the (very) few places it falls short for me.

 

[CapnZapp]

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?

All editions I have played have rules and statistics on axes, doors and walls.

Chopping your way through a stone wall with your magic axe perhaps sounds ridiculous to you, but it's fully supported by the rules.

A mid-level high damage fighter can probably do it in well under an hour.

You might exercise DM fiat, and that's fine. Just as long as you're aware this is a trivial application of the rules. (Haven't actually checked the details in the 5E DMG, but would be surprised if things have changed since 4E or 3E)

Question here: should you really be able to sling magic as long as a woodcutter can chop wood?

 

[phmas]

It depends on how good the wizard is with his crossbow. If attacking with a crossbow or sling is roughly equivalent to casting a fire bolt, it becomes a fluff issue. You might prefer Narruto or Fairy Tail but you can't really blame the OP and his friends for prefering Merlin or Gandalf.

Thanks again for the feedback, guys!

We are certainly a peculiar group. We are all family members - myself (DM), my other 2 brothers and 2 cousins. We are the exact same group since we started playing regularly in 2000. Our tastes are very much alike, and we were inspired by Gandalf, Conan, the original Dragonlance series and so on. And that's despite all of us being gamers, who mainly play MMOs, MOBAs and CRPGs. We love non-combat scenarios, and specially in this particular campaign, we had sessions over sessions with not one single combat. OTOH, we also like the tactical aspect (not necessarily the mechanical aspect) of D&D combat.

After so much discussion, it became clear to me that there is no simple solution. If I let cantrips the way they are, sooner rather than later it will break our group's suspention of disbelief. OTOH, severily limiting combat cantrips completely changes the way some classes work, not to mention the repercussions on class balance, and how to compensate for the "combat effectiveness" lost without breaking the game. That said, I am leaning towards limiting cantrips as x number per short rest (probably 5/short rest, as suggested before). This, to me, seems to strike a fine balance of resource management, while at the same time permitting that the wizard can fall back to using FB. More like a Gandalf, that sometimes shoots a ray of fire, but on a large scale battle, would utimately need to use his trusty sword or bow, 'cause he can't spam FBs all day long. If you know what I mean.

Cheers!

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

I agree.

Handing out at will cantrips sounds reasonable *precisely* because of the combat focus.

It's outside combat it gets absurd, fast, that you can do cold or acid damage every round, for at least as often and as long as your friends can swing their swords and stab their daggers.

It's simply a staggering amount of energy. And since it isn't slashing, blunt or piercing, you can do things I'm sure the designers and playtesters never thought of, much less explored or tested.

 

[phmas]

On a side note, while we are all gamers, we ABSOLUTELY HATE anything too gamist, or anything pop culture/ gamer culture related for the matter, when playing D&D. Just wanted to add that.

Cheers!