D&D 5E Limiting Cantrips?

[TwoSix]

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).

100% agreed. That's why I'm generally on-board with toning down cantrips for 5e casters. I mean, casters are much more balanced than any other edition sans 4th, but there's still a gap at higher levels. (And that's an observed gap, not theorycraft.)

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

Probably one of my ultimate memories of 3e is arriving at a city besieged by monsters, realizing the fighter-type and rogue-type we were carrying (because we were flying) were weighing us down, and dropping them off on the city wall so we could go actually fight the monsters.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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?

From a design standpoint, I have definite issues with Eldritch Blast alongside its various invocations. It is flat-out bad because it is so powerful, to the point where it is limiting the design of a warlock with a good alternative. If you make the alternative more powerful, you're beating the martial classes at their own game while still being a full spellcaster. If you make the alternative less powerful, why use that alternative rather than Eldritch blast? Attempts to give an alternative seem to have led to the equally problematic Hexblade for example.

I also have major issues with the power discrepancy between casters and non-casters, particularly in "normal" rather than "ideal" play.

However I've only really dabbled with limiting cantrips once. It definitely didn't fix my main concern. Issues that you may need to look out for include:

• Dex becomes even more emphasised as the god-stat as casters now use it for their at-will attacks as well as initiative, saves, skills etc.
• Often the adventuring day actually becomes shorter, since without a scaling alternative, casters are pressured into burning more spell slots in order to feel like they are contributing to the group. Even clerics, outside of the limited concept of the mace-wielder wading into melee, feel this so they also burn more spells, leading to less healing and thus the shorter adventuring days that exacerbate the martial/caster discrepancy.

This also tends to make fights more of a fireworks display when levelled spells are being used more regularly rather than the more low-key cantrips.
-More Hexblade multiclass dips.

 

[Cruentus]

100% agreed. That's why I'm generally on-board with toning down cantrips for 5e casters. I mean, casters are much more balanced than any other edition sans 4th, but there's still a gap at higher levels. (And that's an observed gap, not theorycraft.)


Probably one of my ultimate memories of 3e is arriving at a city besieged by monsters, realizing the fighter-type and rogue-type we were carrying (because we were flying) were weighing us down, and dropping them off on the city wall so we could go actually fight the monsters.

I agree with this 100% as well. I'm okay with Wizards needing to be protected and not as strong as fighters at lower levels, knowing they equal out in the middle, and exceed them later.

I think the sheer flexibility of casters with unlimited cantrips makes them much more useful at even lower levels: damage every round, mage hand, light, etc. Their ability to overcome adventure obstacles easily really sucks the fun out of the game - even other players at the table moan about unlimited cantrips.

Cantrips being unlimited would be fine if they were minor effects, actually simple magics like Prestidigitation, for example.

 

[dave2008]

I've wondered how this is going to work for Dark Sun in particular.

I didn't play 4e at all, let alone in the DS setting, so the idea of an Athas where the rare and widely hated arcane casters have infinite spammable cantrips is going to take a while to get my head around. There's some cantrips that could pass as psionics i suppose (so long as another psionicist or caster isn't nearby and able to tell the difference). Vicious Mockery, Mold Earth, Message, Mind Sliver, Mage Hand, Friends, Blade Ward and the like could all be telepathic or telekinetic manifestations, and you could make a case for things like Poison Spray as biometabolism.

But there's just so damn many cantrips flying around in 5e. How do you in-world justify the fear and hatred of arcane spellcasters in an edition where magic is so much more common across all classes? And it's not just cantrips. I mean, stereotypically back in the 2e era the magic-hating barbarian was a very common trope, but now I'd guess more than half of the barbarian subclasses we have get some sort of quasi-magical ability along the way somewhere, from summoning flumphs to growing a tail. The mechanics of the current edition just don't support that sort of magic-suspicious world setting very well without a major rewrite.

I'd be happy, for instance, giving arcane spellcasters light armour proficiency and maybe a martial weapon or two (psionic wild talents can level the playing field in Athas too) in exchange for a hard mechanical enforcement of the preserving/defiling system (preserving is hard but sustainable, defiling is easy but ruins the world forever). But with so many spellcasters running around now (hell, even BARDS are primary spellcasters who can get 9th level slots now), and with the plethora of subclasses even of non-traditionally magic classes who get spellcasting, running a low-magic setting in 5e without major surgery to the class list is a hard thing to do.

We play a low magic 5e campaign and our house rules are 1-2 pages at most, and most of those have nothing to do with magic! 5e does low magic really well IME.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Luckily we found a simple solution that works for us.

Does that increase the the net enjoyment at your table?

I think both posters are saying the same thing: they use rules, or a variant, that makes the game more enjoyable for their gamers. There's no right or wrong so long as the answer is: works for us.

Anyhoo, good stuff to consider. I'm looking for those gameplay pitfalls, some of which seem apparent, and for those who have implemented alternative systems, did those pitfalls actually come true (e.g. did casters all purchase light crossbows and players complain they weren't contributing as well)? And if they did at first, what did you do in response, if anything?

 

[dave2008]

We play with limited cantrips, and it works really well for us.
Our cantrip rules:
Cantrips can be cast once/prof. bonus per short rest, but any particular cantrip can only be cast once/prof. bonus per long rest

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm looking for those gameplay pitfalls, some of which seem apparent, and for those who have implemented alternative systems, did those pitfalls actually come true (e.g. did casters all purchase light crossbows and players complain they weren't contributing as well)?

Well, I already addressed this for our group but quickly:

No pitfalls came true. No mass purchases of light crossbows, darts, or daggers. No casters complaining that they didn't feel they were contributing, or it was too limiting, etc.

But, it has to be a type of game, obviously, you want to play in. It might be more of an issue in tiers 3 and 4, but our current games haven't reach that level yet so it might need to be revisited then.

 

[AtomicPope]

Your memory is a bit faulty there. Cantrips were in AD&D. They were introduced in 1st Ed Unearthed Arcana and were a part of the 2nd Ed PHB.

Cantrips in AD&D were more role playing devices for spell casters than anything else.

From Unearthed Arcana (pg 45):

Most cantrips are simple little spells of no great effect...

All cantrips are 0 level, have a 1" range, have a generally small area of effect, require only soft, simple verbal and somatic components...

If you actually look at the cantrips in the AD&D Unearthed Arcana each individual cantrips is an effect of the class flavor cantrip found in 3e and 5e like Prestidigitation or Thaumaturgy. So instead of having a few "useful" cantrips and a few "legerdemain" cantrips a Wizard just takes Prestidigitation. None of them were even close to Firebolt.

 

[AtomicPope]

As a long time DM in 5e, I have no problem with cantrips. They're not game breaking. Nor to they outperform other classes. In many ways they don't hold up to weapon attacks. A basic weapon attack with a chosen stat adds the stat's damage, while a basic cantrip doesn't. When a cantrip has an effect the damage dice is lower. The damage increases as part of a constraint (Toll of the Dead, Booming Blade). Adding a damage die for levels still falls behind multi-attack because they lack stat modifiers, and even further behind multi-attack with feats, class features, and magic weapons. I don't want to go back to the days of throwing darts and shooting crossbows.

Cantrips are best when they have a control option like Ray of Frost or Thornwhip, or they also add utility like Produce Flame. Cantrips that focus on damage (Eldritch Blast and Firebolt) are less useful overall because their only use is damage and they're just not that good. EB can be boosted with Invocations, and that helps, but now we're getting into a game design issue. When a class leans so heavily on a cantrip we should be looking at turning that cantrip into a class feature rather than glorifying a zero level spell.

 

[Flamestrike]

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)?

I did.

You get [casting mod] number of cantrip slots [minimum 1], that come back on a Long or Short rest. If you have more than one class that grants you cantrips, you can choose which casting stat applies.

The agonizing blast warlock invocation gives the additional bonus that Eldritch blast doesnt count against this limitation (meaning Warlocks can spam it as needed).

I didn't really like it much because the mages would revert back to plinking with a X-bow, instead of doing magic stuff.