D&D 5E Limiting Cantrips?

[toucanbuzz]

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?

 

[Stormonu]

I've been considering it, limiting the uses per interval (something like proficiency bonus + spellcast modifier per short rest), and I'd be curious as well to see if anyone has taken the leap and how it worked out.

Also, I'd like to see interesting alternatives to Eldritch Blast so its not so much of a one-trick attack class.

 

[commandercrud]

I use: # cantrips per short rest = caster ability modifier * per 90 days downtime "cantrip study" at 1 gp per day per level of caster. Some magic items, such as a wand, might add to that.

 

[Blue]

I played back in AD&D and AD&D 2nd before there were cantrips. If you weren't casting a slot you were throwing darts or firing a crossbow. It didn't feel very magical.

Cantrips let a pure caster feel like a caster. You can do minor magical things all the time without using up slots, and even when you are in combat you have things to do once your slots are consumed or you want to save them for future encounters.

Taking them away is a big flavor issue.

 

[TwoSix]

There’s an OSR game called Beyond the Wall, where casters have at-will cantrips but each casting requires a check. Failing the check means either a) no more magic for the rest of the day or b) you botch the cantrip and cause a negative result.

I also ran a 5e knockoff where knowing a cantrip meant you knew the method of making a personal wand for that cantrip. Each cantrip wand had 7 charges and regained 2d4 charges at dawn and dusk. Not super limited, but enough to prevent abuse and felt a little more magic-y.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Has anyone house-ruled a limitation, like 3rd edition had, on the # of cantrips that can be cast before rest is needed

Anyhow, anyone actually tried it?

Yes, in a way.

We have separated cantrips into "jinxes" (i.e. "attack/damage" cantrips) and "cantrips" (non-combat).

Jinxes are usable 1 + spellcasting ability modifier per short rest.
Cantrips are at will.

Frankly, it keeps casters from spamming cantrips in combat and works well for us for nearly a year now.

 

[aco175]

No, mostly like what @Blue said. I remember the older editions and it did not feel like a caster being a poor crossbowman waiting so I could use my one spell per day.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

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?

Nope. I'm more in the camp of allowing not only whatever is in the phb but brewing up other options that wouldn't be balanced if I just ran things like the phb and dm guide suggests, all I do is scale up the encounters I give them. In fact I have a reputation for difficult encounters and normally dropping at least one player, everything is increments of 5% it's not half as hard as GMs make it out to be, to change all the math from scratch.

 

[Blue]

Frankly, it keeps casters from spamming cantrips in combat and works well for us for nearly a year now.

Does that increase the the net enjoyment at your table?

Did unlimited cantrips detract from the players without cantrip? Who was harmed, and is the table as a whole happier now - without having to change choices of classes.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Not to be negative, but overall I'm not a fan. That said, I have seen:

• Proficiency bonus cantrips per short rest.
• Double 1st level spells as cantrips per long rest.

Since I don't really care for the idea of limiting cantrips I can't really speak towards how effective the rules were. They both felt about the same to me, which is to say like casters were less... well, just less. But that was kind of the design goal. Ultimately people just stuck with light crossbows, and it kind of felt like it didn't matter much except to make Dex even better. I just always played a martial character in those two campaigns (run by the same DM).

It made more sense in the second campaign because it was a "magic is dying" storyline, but in the end the only full caster was a Valor or Sword Bard. So to me it felt like it just discouraged players from taking caster classes.