D&D 5E Limiting Cantrips?

[Joshy]

Just make a cantrip to keep it mundane.
Like shillelagh but for a variety of weapons.


A touch of magic guides the blade,
Let it flow like a wave,
One swoosh and a cut is made,
All that is left is to watch them fade,
For you have a Flowing Blade.


Flowing Blade:

• Casting Time: 1 bonus action
• Range: Touch
• Target: A weapon you are proficient with and are touching.
• Components: V S M (The weapon)
• Duration: 1 minute
• Classes: Any
• For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength or Dexterity for the attack and damage rolls of attacks using that weapon. The weapon also becomes magical, if it isn’t already. The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon.

Okay my random poetry sucks but whatever.

 

[Quickleaf]

Bringing back an older thread...

I noticed several comparisons were made between "caster casts a cantrip" and "warrior swings a sword"...and it got me thinking. The big difference between equipping a sword and having a cantrip is that (a) the sword takes up some weight/space in your hand, and (b) people cannot see that you have a cantrip but they can see you have a sword.

This is an experimental idea...

What if you had to equip cantrips if you wanted to use them at-will? "Equipping" a cantrip might look like some kind of 10 minute magic rite/exercise (comparable to donning/doffing armor, casting a ritual, searching a room, or a house ruled 10-min short rest), channeling magic into a token/object, inscribing magic henna on your arm, infusing one of your hands with crackling magic, bookmarking/dogearring/underlining sections of your spellbook, etc.

The idea is that if you've "equipped"/charged a cantrip you can now cast it at-will, but a close observer can tell that you have magic around you. For ex, "equipping" light might cause your eyes to glow slightly or it just might mean your staff is lit up like a candle even when you haven't actively cast the cantrip, whereas "equipping" eldritch blast might indicate swirling arcane energy wreathes one of your hands.

Casting a non-equipped cantrip that you know is still possible, but doing so would expend your use of that cantrip until taking a short rest.

Some sort of limit on how much can be equipped would keep all cantrips from being equipped. In my house rules, PCs can equip 5 things, with heavy armor = 3, medium armor = 2, most things =1, little things not counted. Narratively, this might hint at some kind of interference different object materials or object psychic impressions have with entrapping magical energies in the caster's body.

What I'm trying to do with this is...

• Making at-will vs. short rest cantrip casting a player choice, based on how obviously magical they're comfortable with their PC coming across in a scenario.
• Tighten the # of "equipped" cantrips to make the player's selection a bit more strategic, thinking about the dungeon or scenario in the same way PCs think about what gear they're bringing. Also, this "equipping" phase signaling to the GM what approach that player has in mind.
• Allow for non-ideal scenarios which present a hard choice to casters (in the same way a warrior could lose or just not have their sword), such as having to help support a wounded person or carry a McGuffin taking up 1 equipped item/cantrip slot, getting ambushed at night before having a chance to equip cantrips, a curse or exhaustion level that eats up an equipped item/cantrip slot, etc.
• Making the cantrip "equipping" phase encourage players considering if they're going all-in on the exploration mode (light, mage hand, mending), then if they do get into a combat situation, they'll either need to use spell slots or short rest cast an offensive cantrip. Or conversely, if their "Equipped" cantrips are all combat focused, during exploration they'd need to short rest cast exploration cantrips. So there's a bit of thought about: what do I want at my fingertips, versus what am I ok having to switch up with 10 minutes?

Obviously, this is not as OSR as other suggestions, but I'm hoping it might be more palatable / interesting for players who balk at the idea of a hard cap on # cantrips/rest?

 

[Deset Gled]

Bringing back an older thread...

I noticed several comparisons were made between "caster casts a cantrip" and "warrior swings a sword"...and it got me thinking. The big difference between equipping a sword and having a cantrip is that (a) the sword takes up some weight/space in your hand, and (b) people cannot see that you have a cantrip but they can see you have a sword.

This is an experimental idea...

What if you had to equip cantrips if you wanted to use them at-will? "Equipping" a cantrip might look like some kind of 10 minute magic rite/exercise (comparable to donning/doffing armor, casting a ritual, searching a room, or a house ruled 10-min short rest), channeling magic into a token/object, inscribing magic henna on your arm, infusing one of your hands with crackling magic, bookmarking/dogearring/underlining sections of your spellbook, etc.

The idea is that if you've "equipped"/charged a cantrip you can now cast it at-will, but a close observer can tell that you have magic around you. For ex, "equipping" light might cause your eyes to glow slightly or it just might mean your staff is lit up like a candle even when you haven't actively cast the cantrip, whereas "equipping" eldritch blast might indicate swirling arcane energy wreathes one of your hands.

Casting a non-equipped cantrip that you know is still possible, but doing so would expend your use of that cantrip until taking a short rest.

Some sort of limit on how much can be equipped would keep all cantrips from being equipped. In my house rules, PCs can equip 5 things, with heavy armor = 3, medium armor = 2, most things =1, little things not counted. Narratively, this might hint at some kind of interference different object materials or object psychic impressions have with entrapping magical energies in the caster's body.

What I'm trying to do with this is...

• Making at-will vs. short rest cantrip casting a player choice, based on how obviously magical they're comfortable with their PC coming across in a scenario.
• Tighten the # of "equipped" cantrips to make the player's selection a bit more strategic, thinking about the dungeon or scenario in the same way PCs think about what gear they're bringing. Also, this "equipping" phase signaling to the GM what approach that player has in mind.
• Allow for non-ideal scenarios which present a hard choice to casters (in the same way a warrior could lose or just not have their sword), such as having to help support a wounded person or carry a McGuffin taking up 1 equipped item/cantrip slot, getting ambushed at night before having a chance to equip cantrips, a curse or exhaustion level that eats up an equipped item/cantrip slot, etc.
• Making the cantrip "equipping" phase encourage players considering if they're going all-in on the exploration mode (light, mage hand, mending), then if they do get into a combat situation, they'll either need to use spell slots or short rest cast an offensive cantrip. Or conversely, if their "Equipped" cantrips are all combat focused, during exploration they'd need to short rest cast exploration cantrips. So there's a bit of thought about: what do I want at my fingertips, versus what am I ok having to switch up with 10 minutes?

Obviously, this is not as OSR as other suggestions, but I'm hoping it might be more palatable / interesting for players who balk at the idea of a hard cap on # cantrips/rest?

In general, I love it. I would be tempted to change it slightly. In my version, it is impossible to cast a cantrip you don't have "equipped", but the act of "equipping" a cantrip is only one round. This makes it much more akin to a fighter changing a weapon (or picking one up if they get caught off guard). But your version does have some benefits. Also, some thought needs to be put into how this will work for Warlocks.

The unfortunate issue I see, though, it that it adds complication. Many players simply will not see any benefit to adding on this system, and will view it as unnecessary work. Just like the option others have suggested of allowing X+Mod number of cantrips between short rests. If the problem only comes up once in a blue moon, is it worth the extra effort? IMNSHO, yes. I like crunch. I like tactial resource management in my games. But I don't think I would get buy-in to the idea at my current table, or from the 5e community at large.

 

[Pedantic]

Bringing back an older thread...

I noticed several comparisons were made between "caster casts a cantrip" and "warrior swings a sword"...and it got me thinking. The big difference between equipping a sword and having a cantrip is that (a) the sword takes up some weight/space in your hand, and (b) people cannot see that you have a cantrip but they can see you have a sword.

This is an experimental idea...

What if you had to equip cantrips if you wanted to use them at-will? "Equipping" a cantrip might look like some kind of 10 minute magic rite/exercise (comparable to donning/doffing armor, casting a ritual, searching a room, or a house ruled 10-min short rest), channeling magic into a token/object, inscribing magic henna on your arm, infusing one of your hands with crackling magic, bookmarking/dogearring/underlining sections of your spellbook, etc.

The idea is that if you've "equipped"/charged a cantrip you can now cast it at-will, but a close observer can tell that you have magic around you. For ex, "equipping" light might cause your eyes to glow slightly or it just might mean your staff is lit up like a candle even when you haven't actively cast the cantrip, whereas "equipping" eldritch blast might indicate swirling arcane energy wreathes one of your hands.

Casting a non-equipped cantrip that you know is still possible, but doing so would expend your use of that cantrip until taking a short rest.

Some sort of limit on how much can be equipped would keep all cantrips from being equipped. In my house rules, PCs can equip 5 things, with heavy armor = 3, medium armor = 2, most things =1, little things not counted. Narratively, this might hint at some kind of interference different object materials or object psychic impressions have with entrapping magical energies in the caster's body.

What I'm trying to do with this is...

• Making at-will vs. short rest cantrip casting a player choice, based on how obviously magical they're comfortable with their PC coming across in a scenario.
• Tighten the # of "equipped" cantrips to make the player's selection a bit more strategic, thinking about the dungeon or scenario in the same way PCs think about what gear they're bringing. Also, this "equipping" phase signaling to the GM what approach that player has in mind.
• Allow for non-ideal scenarios which present a hard choice to casters (in the same way a warrior could lose or just not have their sword), such as having to help support a wounded person or carry a McGuffin taking up 1 equipped item/cantrip slot, getting ambushed at night before having a chance to equip cantrips, a curse or exhaustion level that eats up an equipped item/cantrip slot, etc.
• Making the cantrip "equipping" phase encourage players considering if they're going all-in on the exploration mode (light, mage hand, mending), then if they do get into a combat situation, they'll either need to use spell slots or short rest cast an offensive cantrip. Or conversely, if their "Equipped" cantrips are all combat focused, during exploration they'd need to short rest cast exploration cantrips. So there's a bit of thought about: what do I want at my fingertips, versus what am I ok having to switch up with 10 minutes?

Obviously, this is not as OSR as other suggestions, but I'm hoping it might be more palatable / interesting for players who balk at the idea of a hard cap on # cantrips/rest?

Wouldn't it just be simpler at that point to make cantrips physical, say in the form of wands, orbs, staves, etc.? You could even have rare cantrips that are in ring form instead, so you can dual wield.

The idea of an attack that is tied to a specific wand but otherwise unlimited is pretty clearly established in video games at this point so I don't think it would come as a surprise to any player. If you want to make the magic still innate to the caster, give them the ability to craft those items in downtime.

 

[Umbran]

The big difference between equipping a sword and having a cantrip is that (a) the sword takes up some weight/space in your hand, and (b) people cannot see that you have a cantrip but they can see you have a sword.

Well, we can note that in 5e, you get one free interaction with objects in the environment per round. So, if you've got a free hand, you may draw your weapon effectively as part of the attack action. So, you don't need to have it equipped and ready in hand - and, especially if you are using a dagger or some other smallish weapon, the thing may very well be concealed.

Then, there's not a whole lot of difference between the fighter's weapon, and the spellcaster's focus or component pouch. The physical weight difference is there, but I don't know if that's typically really an issue.

 

[Quickleaf]

@Deset Gled @Pedantic Those are great questions – why not treat cantrips as objects that can be equipped as normal, or maybe requiring an action like a shield?

I know most of the past conversation, there was lots of "I don't want to be reduced to a crossbow wielding mage" or OTOH "Unlimited fire bolts really rubs me the wrong me." There was, with a few exceptions, focus on combat cantrips.

Instead, I'm more concerned about the effects that at-will cantrips have on exploration play – things like light obviating (or significantly reducing the need for) thinking about what kind of light or lack thereof would best suit this scenario, or mage hand being used to push/prod/test everything to minimize threat to the rogue. IME those are a bigger gameplay shift.

Which is where the 10 minute transition/equipping time came from. But that's just my personal thing.

I think I've seen a few OSR hacks treat spells as magic items with a slot-based inventory system, so doing that with cantrips is very possible. It's definitely a flavor change that could work better with some classes/character concepts, and worse with others...

 

[Tonguez]

Bringing back an older thread...

I noticed several comparisons were made between "caster casts a cantrip" and "warrior swings a sword"...and it got me thinking. The big difference between equipping a sword and having a cantrip is that (a) the sword takes up some weight/space in your hand, and (b) people cannot see that you have a cantrip but they can see you have a sword.

This is an experimental idea...

What if you had to equip cantrips if you wanted to use them at-will? "Equipping" a cantrip might look like some kind of 10 minute magic rite/exercise (comparable to donning/doffing armor, casting a ritual, searching a room, or a house ruled 10-min short rest), channeling magic into a token/object, inscribing magic henna on your arm, infusing one of your hands with crackling magic, bookmarking/dogearring/underlining sections of your spellbook, etc.

The idea is that if you've "equipped"/charged a cantrip you can now cast it at-will, but a close observer can tell that you have magic around you. For ex, "equipping" light might cause your eyes to glow slightly or it just might mean your staff is lit up like a candle even when you haven't actively cast the cantrip, whereas "equipping" eldritch blast might indicate swirling arcane energy wreathes one of your hands.

Casting a non-equipped cantrip that you know is still possible, but doing so would expend your use of that cantrip until taking a short rest.

Some sort of limit on how much can be equipped would keep all cantrips from being equipped. In my house rules, PCs can equip 5 things, with heavy armor = 3, medium armor = 2, most things =1, little things not counted. Narratively, this might hint at some kind of interference different object materials or object psychic impressions have with entrapping magical energies in the caster's body.

What I'm trying to do with this is...

• Making at-will vs. short rest cantrip casting a player choice, based on how obviously magical they're comfortable with their PC coming across in a scenario.
• Tighten the # of "equipped" cantrips to make the player's selection a bit more strategic, thinking about the dungeon or scenario in the same way PCs think about what gear they're bringing. Also, this "equipping" phase signaling to the GM what approach that player has in mind.
• Allow for non-ideal scenarios which present a hard choice to casters (in the same way a warrior could lose or just not have their sword), such as having to help support a wounded person or carry a McGuffin taking up 1 equipped item/cantrip slot, getting ambushed at night before having a chance to equip cantrips, a curse or exhaustion level that eats up an equipped item/cantrip slot, etc.
• Making the cantrip "equipping" phase encourage players considering if they're going all-in on the exploration mode (light, mage hand, mending), then if they do get into a combat situation, they'll either need to use spell slots or short rest cast an offensive cantrip. Or conversely, if their "Equipped" cantrips are all combat focused, during exploration they'd need to short rest cast exploration cantrips. So there's a bit of thought about: what do I want at my fingertips, versus what am I ok having to switch up with 10 minutes?

Obviously, this is not as OSR as other suggestions, but I'm hoping it might be more palatable / interesting for players who balk at the idea of a hard cap on # cantrips/rest?

This is what I do in my homebrew system Cantrips take a round to ‘focus’ and then can be cast on the next round (Using either Attack or a skill check) A spellcaster can prepare a wand or staff as a focus earlier if they choose.

In the system later spells build off the Focus to do more complex effects

 

[Vaalingrade]

@Deset Gled @Pedantic Those are great questions – why not treat cantrips as objects that can be equipped as normal, or maybe requiring an action like a shield?

I introduced spellcasting items that do an elemental damage that mage types are proficient with. I'm not so much against cantrips as for making magi item dependent like everyone else though.

Instead, I'm more concerned about the effects that at-will cantrips have on exploration play – things like light obviating (or significantly reducing the need for) thinking about what kind of light or lack thereof would best suit this scenario, or mage hand being used to push/prod/test everything to minimize threat to the rogue. IME those are a bigger gameplay shift.

I just gave humans and halflings darkvisions also, ignored the actual rules for darkvision and the problem was solved forever.

 

[ECMO3]

Has anyone house-ruled a limitation, like 3rd edition had, on the # of cantrips that can be cast before rest is needed (e.g. limit to # known or # known + ability modifier per short rest)? Was curious to hear any positive or negatives from actual play before I consider whether to add this to our table (which seeks a grittier style of play). I know some potential areas of concern from reading are:

• Warlocks. I'm planning on adopting Level Up's version of the Warlock, which currently turns Eldritch Blast from a cantrip to a class feature. Wonderful idea imo and resolves this concern.
• Lesser-used cantrips. Some of the more trivial cantrips may never get used, like mending or prestidigitation, as casters save their slots for combat.
• Scaling for higher level play (as the number doesn't increase but reliance might in order to save big spells for big occasions).
• Tracking. Just another # to track. And if we make it too low, hoarding. If we make it too high, what's the point.

Anyhow, anyone actually tried it?

I am fine with Catrips how they are and if I was going to limit them it would be on the number you could know, not the number you can cast.

The only problem I see with cantrips, and it is a minor one, is a level 1 Wizard, Level 1 Sorcerer, Level 1 Hexblade has 9 cantrips or more than a 20th level sorc.

If I was going to limit cantrips I would do it like they do extra attack or channel divinity - the number does not stack and your total number can not exceed the total number from any of your classes. So the triple class above would have 4 cantrips, which is how many a Sorcerer can get. He could pick those from any of his classes and uses the ability from the class he picked them from, but no more than 4.

 

[aco175]

I think I would rather limit the damage of cantrips over having to track number of times per day. I can see the reason to have a limit, but my game does not really track arrows and such unless it is needed somehow. I also would not want a discussion on how many times a fighter can swing a sword before being exhausted and need rest or have some sort of penalty.

I would rather limit damage by not having the cantrip deal more damage at higher levels or start at a lower die. I would have some sort of wand that may allow you to add your modifier to damage, or double the damage (2 dice). Maybe a feat that does something if it is not a feat tax or if people have more feats. It will likely be taking something away from the class to add it to the DM to give out or be a feat to specialize in cantrips.