D&D 5E Limiting Cantrips?

lingual

Adventurer
I just hope that the people who want to remove attack cantrips aren't also the same people who get mad about dump stats? Because if you are going to require all of your casters to shoot crossbows in combat you're going to see another uptick in DEX-heavy characters.

At least having attack cantrips that use your spellcasting stat makes the need for DEX being your second-highest stat less of an imperative. I mean, it's still going to be a popular ability score... but it just isn't AS necessary than if you were stuck using ranged weapons all the time. :)
Wizards across the realms would all become nimble, agile acrobats or else they would be no better than farmers most of the time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

LoganRan

Explorer
Personally, I like the idea of limited cantrips. One thing I liked about PF1 was that you had limited cantrips, but different casters (for example, different arcane schools) had additional minor features per day, which added some variety. All together, it was still a limited number, but I rarely recall running out of "magical" options and having to rely on a sling.

(Of course, I also tend to play casters who are somewhat competent in a melee, too, so "whack it with my staff!" is usually a perfectly fine tactic in my spellcaster PCs' book.)
Tenser would be proud!
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I know right? It's bizarrely common. I've even seen your exact Paladin example at the table. It's like, what the heck, you going to complain that the Wizard is casting Fireball? Oh you ARE?! Damn. Wow. So maybe we should just not use any class-based abilities, because you clearly hate it and have these encounters which seem to have been prepared assuming PCs have no abilities, because you're surprised and clearly upset when they're used?

Mod note:
Dude. This reads like somewhere, you got the idea that words dripping with disdain and sarcasm were somehow productive.

Please dial it back a notch or two.
 

LoganRan

Explorer
My preference for casters is that they not focus directly on combat (i.e. damage) except once in a while (the occasional fireball, etc.).

I feel like non-martials should be able to participate in combat, but with roughly half the effectiveness of martials. Meanwhile, out side of combat, casters are more effective in other ways (or at least can accomplish some things more easily via magic).


I imagine that is possible. I played 3E for less than a year in 2004 before moving on to d20 SW.
I echo this sentiment whole heartedly.

Combat is where martials are supposed to shine; while casters can play a role in combat their opportunity for center stage should be outside of combat. Unfortunately, the game has shifted so heavily to emphasize combat that everyone (understandably) focuses on the combat capabilities of their PC.

Regarding the topic of the OP, as another poster expressed previously I think the best way to handle cantrips is to use spell points and have cantrips cost something (e.g. 1 point) per casting. I would also NOT have cantrips increase in power as the caster levels up. Cantrips are supposed to be the weakest spells a caster can use but due to scaling cantrips actually outstrip low level spells (1st and 2nd) when cast by a very high level caster which annoys the heck out of me.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
It's not really arguable. The facts of the mechanics speak for themselves.
It is entirely arguable, but not worth doing since what constitutes a strong class is entirely subjective. Some favor DPR, some favor flavor, some favor other things. A half-caster Bard truly can be a Jack of All Trades and is not meant to rival classes who have a stronger focus.

Can they fight was well as fighters? Cast as well as casters? and so on? No, but they can cast better than fighters, fighter better than casters, and so on.

By that "every round" logic, Paladins can't spam Smite, so you're what, refuting your own claim? That's confusing lol.
They can't do it with every attack is the point, they can do it each round sure--just like a caster can cast a leveled spell each round if they wanted. And frankly, they have few enough slots that even then smites are often reserved for crits, so they count more.

By spamming I would mean with Fireball that the vast majority of combats, certainly every one with groups monsters, involve the caster casting one or more Fireballs, and it being their default approach to groups of monsters.
IME it might be the opening salvo for an encounter, certainly, but hardly used even close to the "every round" you're implying.

You keep saying this, but it's extremely vague to the point of meaninglessness without clarification. How often does magic have to be cast to be mundane?
It is entirely subjective. For some people if casters could cast TWO spells per round, it would still feel magical, to others allowing magic only once per encounter might do it. Obviously most people are in between.

For me, spamming the same cantrip, round after round, instead of focusing more on using leveled spells is mundane and boring.

The same amount of magic is being used. If anything, your approach slightly increases the amount of "serious" magic being used, which surely makes magic more mundane?
It isn't the same amount. Those attack cantrips are being used less and leveled spells more. Using more powerful magic, and often in more meaningful ways, does not make it mundane.

If fighters had better options that just making weapon attacks, such as using tactics, maneuvers such as shoving, disarming, etc. which were designed to be as effective as simply dealing damage, it would be the same thing.

In media you don't see martials whack-whack-whack all the time. You see them change position to get the upper hand, punch, kick, trip, shove, and all sorts of other things that in D&D because they don't deal damage are sub-optimal to attacking. FWIW, we are trying to fix this as well so martials have a more exciting and engaging game than just whack-whack-whack.

So does it make sense we have been able to do that for casters? Instead of just pew-pew-pew they are encouraged to use leveled spells, creating a greater impact than simply doing damage and having more fun in the process.

I know everybody plays DND at their tables differently and by their way, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it still kills me how everybody has an issue with 5E's Cantrips.
When it makes for a mundane and boring experience, yes, I will take issue and try to change it for the better.

I mean, you all realize there are groups out there who have entirely removed attack cantrips from their games, right?
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
That's a threshold question for any particular setting. Dr. Strange weaves magical portals all day everywhere he goes whereas Dragonlance's Raistlin gets exhausted and begins to spit up blood after casting a handful of spells (but his love of magic is so strong he considers his health a small price to pay).
Yes, it is entirely one which is why I use it. I talk to my group and others about it. What is your particular point? Where do you like to see the line drawn to keep magic interesting to you. Some want Dr. Strange, others like Raistlin (I can't believe I forgot him earlier!).

There is also the idea of what I call High Magic in our games, which are 6th and higher level spells--spells that can truly shift an encounter with a single casting sometimes. Along the Raistlin lines, we considered casting high magic was so fatiguing you gain a level of exhaustion. Fortunately with our reduced spell slot system, it wasn't really needed.

That's where I'm headed: a setting where magic isn't something that can be spammed all day and night. I am exploring a fair game mechanic from those who have tried it, and I'll also consider simply working with my gamers for a role-play, not a mechanical, solution.
I often ask people to consider a city in their game world:

Are the streets lit by continual flame spells at night?
Do the guards have Sending Stones at their posts to quickly communicate?
Are healing potions (which would heal a commoner from death's door to full HP at a minimum!) sold routinely for the wealth/adventurous?
Etc.

I mean, an uncommon magic items (by XGtE) has an asking price of 100-600 gp, so for a big city that has been around for centuries, would that be unreasonable to have sending stones or continue flame street lamps?

Ultimately it just comes down to preference.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
I echo this sentiment whole heartedly.
Thanks!

Combat is where martials are supposed to shine; while casters can play a role in combat their opportunity for center stage should be outside of combat. Unfortunately, the game has shifted so heavily to emphasize combat that everyone (understandably) focuses on the combat capabilities of their PC.

Regarding the topic of the OP, as another poster expressed previously I think the best way to handle cantrips is to use spell points and have cantrips cost something (e.g. 1 point) per casting. I would also NOT have cantrips increase in power as the caster levels up. Cantrips are supposed to be the weakest spells a caster can use but due to scaling cantrips actually outstrip low level spells (1st and 2nd) when cast by a very high level caster which annoys the heck out of me.
Yeah, I forgot this point as well, but is a very good one!
 

DnD is a kind of game where by RAW you can change the rules!
The beginning of chapter 9 in DMG gives some hints about that.
main hint
Does the rule improve the game?
Do the players like it?

I remember another thread about GWM and SS where a furious opponent of these feats confess that indeed they havent banish yet the feats at their table. So before yelling about a features as DM you don’t like at your table, DM should give a try to a house rule.
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
I remember getting attacked on reddit for saying "you should let fighters use their weapons sometimes." Some (who was getting upvotes) Insisted that any time you use a monster that can be affected by weapons, you're being a terrible dm.

People who play fighters want to never use weapons. All of them, all the time.
You know what's even better than having fighters use their weapons? Have fighters use their magic weapons!

I like giving a diverse set of magic items and the fighter having a weapon for every occasion. For example, a flame tongue greatsword and a Frost brand scimitar. Fighting a mummy? Guess which one to use? But now a flame elemental? Gotta pull out a different one.

So yeah, I agree that fighters should have more weapon options. It's fun for the fighter to tactically switch in-and-out weapons that may be useful imo.
 

You know what's even better than having fighters use their weapons? Have fighters use their magic weapons!

I like giving a diverse set of magic items and the fighter having a weapon for every occasion. For example, a flame tongue greatsword and a Frost brand scimitar. Fighting a mummy? Guess which one to use? But now a flame elemental? Gotta pull out a different one.

So yeah, I agree that fighters should have more weapon options. It's fun for the fighter to tactically switch in-and-out weapons that may be useful imo.
This only becomes a "problem" when you try to add a lot of different elemental resistances and vulnerabilities to keep the system of figuring it out engaging (a la pokemon) - eventually you need to bring a caddy for all you magic swords.

I say "problem" in air quotes because obviously that's just some people's silly opinion. :p
 

It is entirely arguable, but not worth doing since what constitutes a strong class is entirely subjective. Some favor DPR, some favor flavor, some favor other things.
I mean, it's not entirely subjective, and that's how 5E did such a good job. It's odd to suggest it is subjective. If it was, 5E would not have managed to balance its classes so remarkably tightly mechanically. 5E is probably the best-balanced edition of D&D after 4E, it might even be ahead of 4E, and it's so far ahead of all other editions that and indeed most other RPGs that it's nuts.

You seem to conflating "strong" and "class I like", which are two totally different things. Flavour doesn't ever make a class "strong". It can make it interesting, attractive, or engaging, which is different.

IME it might be the opening salvo for an encounter, certainly, but hardly used even close to the "every round" you're implying.
I literally specified "most encounters" and you're telling me I'm implying "every round". How does that work?

It isn't the same amount. Those attack cantrips are being used less and leveled spells more. Using more powerful magic, and often in more meaningful ways, does not make it mundane.
This is what was asking about, but it doesn't make much sense, and I'm wondering if you've really thought this through, because it seems like a very half-considered idea that casting combat cantrips 20% less and leveled spells 20% more is "less mundane". And that is the sort of numbers we're discussing, based on the facts and figures you've given. I feel this may the placebo effect in action.

(Especially given that a lot of D&D combat spells are themselves, fundamentally pretty boring and unmagical-feeling, being more like superpowers or the like. Again, we can look at Worlds Without Number for magic that feels like magic, particularly Vancian magic.)

In media you don't see martials whack-whack-whack all the time. You see them change position to get the upper hand, punch, kick, trip, shove, and all sorts of other things that in D&D because they don't deal damage are sub-optimal to attacking. FWIW, we are trying to fix this as well so martials have a more exciting and engaging game than just whack-whack-whack.
I literally don't know what you're saying has changed for Martials here. Are you talking about changes to martials you haven't yet mentioned? Or are you implying that by casters dominating combat more (as they will, casting more leveled spells), that's somehow helping Martials, because, what the Martials can chill out and not attack, and thus do nothing, which is a good thing?! It's a bit of a headscratcher.

What I do understand is that you've created a situation which encourages casters to use leveled spells in combat more, and not to rest on their laurels. This must mean, however, they have fewer spells for problem-solving etc. (especially given your combats run unusually long). Which means, I guess, that Rogues are going to better than otherwise, because skills will be needed to solve more problems? But it also means casters are likely to be more dominant in combat than they are in other games. I genuinely don't get how this makes "magic less mundane", it really sounds like it makes it more mundane, because powerful combat magic is being deployed even more routinely, but perhaps we don't mean the same thing by mundane?

I mean, you all realize there are groups out there who have entirely removed attack cantrips from their games, right?
Why stop there? Plenty of people have entirely removed spellcasters from their games! I'd actually say I've heard more people say they're running games like that than games with no attack cantrips.

(Btw how are your combats running to 5-6 rounds routinely? Simply by the math involved, unless you're doing something like routinely running Deadly-grade encounters for every combat, or using truly vast numbers of low-grade enemies, or inflating enemy HP, or I guess, starting combats at vast distances, that shouldn't really be possible.)
 
Last edited:

DND_Reborn

Legend
I literally specified "most encounters" and you're telling me I'm implying "every round". How does that work?
Spamming something is not most encounters, it is every round. You said spamming fireball, so I went with that. 🤷‍♂️

This is what was asking about, but it doesn't make much sense, and I'm wondering if you've really thought this through, because it seems like a very half-considered idea that casting combat cantrips 20% less and leveled spells 20% more is "less mundane". And that is the sort of numbers we're discussing, based on the facts and figures you've given. I feel this may the placebo effect in action.

(Especially given that a lot of D&D combat spells are themselves, fundamentally pretty boring and unmagical-feeling, being more like superpowers or the like. Again, we can look at Worlds Without Number for magic that feels like magic, particularly Vancian magic.)
Ok, your tone is becoming too condescending at this point for my tastes. We HAVE thought it through, and in fact have been playing this way for months. To suggest otherwise is offensive. So, it works, it solves the issue we had, and we're happy with it--thus I don't feel I need to continue to justify it to someone who hasn't actually done it.

I'll do you the courtesy of answering some of your final questions:
Are you talking about changes to martials you haven't yet mentioned?
We are currently working on this, which I wrote explicitly in the quote you cited: FWIW, we are trying to fix this as well so martials have a more exciting and engaging game than just whack-whack-whack. We are adding and revising attack options so players might actually want to do them instead of just attacking all the time. Once we have something I feel is solid, I'm sure I'll be posting it for others to consider.

perhaps we don't mean the same thing by mundane?
No, we don't. You seem to think the use of magic often makes it mundane, while I say the use of cantrips and spamming them, makes it mundane. Leveled spells are casted for a purpose with thought because when you can't cast them all the time. That makes a difference in the game. If you don't understand that, I'm sorry but I can't help you. We simply have different views, which of course is fine.

Why stop there? Plenty of people have entirely removed spellcasters from their games!
I never had heard of any D&D game where people entirely removed spellcasters (perhaps one class, like no clerics or no wizards, but not all spellcasters), while I have certainly heard of and seen posts on this forum of people who either have removed attack cantrips (and don't miss them, BTW) or are considering it. Honestly, I don't think I have ever heard of someone who contemplated removing them and actually decided to bring them back without a house-rule of some sort to curtail them. I mean, this is basically the point of the thread and the views in question by the OP after all.

Finally...
Btw how are your combats running to 5-6 rounds routinely?
Our 5E mod makes hitting in combat more difficult and making saving throws a bit easier. Now, to compensate, we also have no CON bonus to HP, for PCs or creatures to remove much of the HP bloat. In short, you "succeed" less often, but when you do it "counts for more". Most people feel 5E's attacks hit about 60-65% of the time, which we don't like because like spamming cantrips, it is boring as well. I've posted in other threads about this a number of times. We want success to be exciting and special, not commonplace and boring. A side effect of this is battles gain about 1-2 rounds typically over RAW. It does not, however, make battles take any longer because you have less instances of rolling damage and calculating HP loss; just in case you were wondering.

Thank you for the conversation, but at this point I am finished with it. Have a nice night and happy gaming! :)
 

Horwath

Hero
Finally...

Our 5E mod makes hitting in combat more difficult and making saving throws a bit easier. Now, to compensate, we also have no CON bonus to HP, for PCs or creatures to remove much of the HP bloat. In short, you "succeed" less often, but when you do it "counts for more". Most people feel 5E's attacks hit about 60-65% of the time, which we don't like because like spamming cantrips, it is boring as well. I've posted in other threads about this a number of times. We want success to be exciting and special, not commonplace and boring. A side effect of this is battles gain about 1-2 rounds typically over RAW. It does not, however, make battles take any longer because you have less instances of rolling damage and calculating HP loss; just in case you were wondering.

Thank you for the conversation, but at this point I am finished with it. Have a nice night and happy gaming! :)
Well, to each it's own, but I don't know about this one.

Doing nothing with your attacks, round after round, it's not only boring, it gets frustrating.

For next campaign, I might "borrow" something from PF2E. Like degrees of success.

keep the hit rate at about 60%

when you hit AC, damage as normal.
if you hit AC+5 it's 50% higher damage,
if you hit AC+10 it's double damage. This also works with natural 20 or any increased crit range.
if you miss AC but less than 5, you deal 50% damage,
you miss completely if you roll 5 lower than AC
if you roll 10 lower than AC then you fumble. It might be disadvantage on next attack, you might fall prone, you might provoke AoO, you might drop your weapon.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Well, to each it's own, but I don't know about this one.
No, it certainly isn't for everyone, but we feel hitting too often is boring and having to roll, calculate, and apply damage 60-70% of the time (due to BA and how large attack bonuses get) adds to the time combat takes to resolve.

It was so frustrating at one point that I just decided to use average damage for creatures to speed the game up again. I would only roll damage if average would automatically drop the PC to 0, other wise I didn't bother rolling.

I figured 35-45% (typically it is about 40-45% really except harder to hit foes), is a better sweet spot. You are not frustrated because you miss so many times more than you hit, and it makes hitting more exciting because you know the odds are against you, even if just a little bit.

Because I also reduced HP in general by not linking it to CON, it lessens the effect of monsters being bags of HP. Personally the HP bloat in 5E is one of the worst things about the game. Another impact is with less HP, spells causing damage are more impactful.

For example, in AD&D sleep had a 50/50 change to put an ogre to sleep. In 5E, it is impossible unless the ogre is fairly injured and even at half HP, the changes of sleep knocking it out are only about 12.5%! So, we go from 50/50 for a healthy ogre to less than 12.5% for a half-dead ogre? No thank you! I like my way better. :)

Doing nothing with your attacks, round after round, it's not only boring, it gets frustrating.
It can be, sure, and for many people the hit-fest that 5E is appeals to them. 🤷‍♂️ I just found it ridiculous how often people were hitting and how often saves were failed, especially even at lower levels. No wonder they had to remove the "one-and done" aspect of saves from prior editions because in 5E your fail so often they had to bake in a mechanic to allow you to try again on your next turn. THAT is frustrating IMO.

keep the hit rate at about 60%

when you hit AC, damage as normal.
if you hit AC+5 it's 50% higher damage,
if you hit AC+10 it's double damage. This also works with natural 20 or any increased crit range.
if you miss AC but less than 5, you deal 50% damage,
you miss completely if you roll 5 lower than AC
if you roll 10 lower than AC then you fumble. It might be disadvantage on next attack, you might fall prone, you might provoke AoO, you might drop your weapon.
I appreciate the effort (I really do), but this just complicates and increases the frustration problem of hitting and dealing damage too often. With this I would have the extra complexity of determining half damage, etc. and applying damage even more. True, it would bring the HP done quicker, but for most groups ending battles quickly isn't so much an issue.

At any rate, I know the changes we've made to our game would hardly suite a lot of players here, but like others they work for us and I am happy to present them in case others share our experience and want rules to maybe make their game more to their liking.
 

Cruentus

Adventurer
Because I also reduced HP in general by not linking it to CON, it lessens the effect of monsters being bags of HP. Personally the HP bloat in 5E is one of the worst things about the game. Another impact is with less HP, spells causing damage are more impactful.

For example, in AD&D sleep had a 50/50 change to put an ogre to sleep. In 5E, it is impossible unless the ogre is fairly injured and even at half HP, the changes of sleep knocking it out are only about 12.5%! So, we go from 50/50 for a healthy ogre to less than 12.5% for a half-dead ogre? No thank you! I like my way better. :)

This is also one of the reasons (at our table, what we find fun, ignore as necessary, your mileage might vary, etc.) that we are looking to scale back cantrips, smite, sneak attack, etc. The game decided that to make PC's more "fun", let's add a ton of abilities and spell like abilities, and buffs to all the damage output. Which then leads to HP bloat for monsters (usually without an equal damage output) to keep them around for longer than a round/two tops.

We are scaling it all back. Which ends up NOT being a net negative for players, they do just as much damage proportionally as they did before, just to monsters with proportionally less HP, etc. It helps balance encounters, speeds up or lengthens combats as needed, and makes combat fit better into the other pillars, and not dominate most of our game time (and we don't run a typical day as 6-8 encounters, we run encounters as necessary, with a lot travel in between as well).

When characters use a spell, it has meaning "in world". Most villagers in the area my party travel in would be absolutely amazed and terrified of Burning Hands, let alone Fireball. And what the party throws around in the deep wilderness should not be what they use in polite and civilized company. Spamming any kind of spells in a city or village will get you hunted down. For our group, its fun and interesting. Others might not find it so.

I'm in the process of a major world event that will fundamentally alter how magic works. We're going to transition from the semi Vancian 5e as written to Spell Points and a universal "wild magic" roll for all casting, with a much harsher, scaling incident chart or all known spells can be cast whenever, but with a spell casting roll (DC base + spell level) for it to go into effect. That will also make those spells and cantrips function more like a fighter's unlimited attacks, where there is a chance to miss.

We're still tossing back and forth the write-ups for the different spell systems, collecting feedback.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
@Cruentus I am glad at least someone understand what I am my group have been doing for over a year now. I know what you mean about using a spell and it having meaning "in world". Commoners fear casters, as well they should, or at least show tons of respect.

One thing I've seen in the past (in other games, and players have tried it in my games--to their regret) is when adventures run all over NPCs and such in towns/cities quickly find themselves on the wrong side of things.

We use a reduced spell slot (really spell point) system. I'll send you the info if you're interested. We steered away from rolling "spell casting success checks" because many spells require either an attack or allow a save, it is double-jeopardy really to have the spell casting check as well.

I'd be interested to see what you are pursuing for your spell systems, if you care for another opinion?
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
This is also one of the reasons (at our table, what we find fun, ignore as necessary, your mileage might vary, etc.) that we are looking to scale back cantrips, smite, sneak attack, etc. The game decided that to make PC's more "fun", let's add a ton of abilities and spell like abilities, and buffs to all the damage output. Which then leads to HP bloat for monsters (usually without an equal damage output) to keep them around for longer than a round/two tops.

We are scaling it all back. Which ends up NOT being a net negative for players, they do just as much damage proportionally as they did before, just to monsters with proportionally less HP, etc. It helps balance encounters, speeds up or lengthens combats as needed, and makes combat fit better into the other pillars, and not dominate most of our game time (and we don't run a typical day as 6-8 encounters, we run encounters as necessary, with a lot travel in between as well).

When characters use a spell, it has meaning "in world". Most villagers in the area my party travel in would be absolutely amazed and terrified of Burning Hands, let alone Fireball. And what the party throws around in the deep wilderness should not be what they use in polite and civilized company. Spamming any kind of spells in a city or village will get you hunted down. For our group, its fun and interesting. Others might not find it so.

I'm in the process of a major world event that will fundamentally alter how magic works. We're going to transition from the semi Vancian 5e as written to Spell Points and a universal "wild magic" roll for all casting, with a much harsher, scaling incident chart or all known spells can be cast whenever, but with a spell casting roll (DC base + spell level) for it to go into effect. That will also make those spells and cantrips function more like a fighter's unlimited attacks, where there is a chance to miss.

We're still tossing back and forth the write-ups for the different spell systems, collecting feedback.
This reminds me of a setting I frequently use.

It's perpetually in a massive Anti-magic zone. There's an artifact that let's players bypass it with limitations...Yada Yada.

Mechanically, though, it was balanced around extremely high-damage, low HP enemies vs PC's. Spells were extremely reduced, such that a level 20 party could still only cast one spell combined (not including cantrips, which were limited) and it could only be up to 5th level for a full caster.

The tradeoff, however, is that enemies were extremely susceptible to magic. Their saves were extremely low, usually no higher than +2 for even boss-type enemies and even intelligent creatures were usually shocked magic could still be cast in the world at all, so they wouldn't have any defenses.

It was fun having adventures in that setting. I would like to say up a full campaign at one point, but I would like to balance the reduced magic system a bit better first.
 

I fully get the sentiment and have considered something similar.

I also understand that people necessarily don't have fond memories of playing low-level casters in some of the older editions, where your fall back was ineffectively throwing darts when you had burned your two spells.

But I agree with the frequent and easy magic making the magic feel less magical. I was reading some of Vance's books recently (where the Vancian casting originated from) and the wizards used spells very sparingly, and it felt important when they did use them. They also were competent pulp adventurers who knew how to use a sword. I have to say that this fees personally more appealing model to me than casters constantly spamming magic lasers like in a video game. YMMV and all that.

And it feels a tad annoying to me how utterly pointless weapons are in 5e for most casters. Even clerics, who used to be mace-wielding warrior-priests are being encouraged to be built as magic laser spammers.

Now if one were to limit cantrips it might be prudent to actually boost the caster weapon use capability somewhat to compensate.
 
Last edited:

DND_Reborn

Legend
Now if one were to limit cantrips it might be prudent to actually boost the caster weapon use capability somewhat to compensate.
This is why I think giving Extra Attack to casters (albeit at higher levels) is a good thing. I would rather have my wizard using a staff and my cleric swinging their hammer than spamming attack cantrips. I know others want the laser-light show, which is fine and works with the current system, but just not for me or my group.
 

Horwath

Hero
Now if one were to limit cantrips it might be prudent to actually boost the caster weapon use capability somewhat to compensate.
no at will or scaling cantrips can only be somewhat balanced with proficiency with all weapon and extra attack at 5th level.
possible even a fighting style at 3rd level.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top