D&D 5E Limiting Cantrips?

[Jacob Lewis]

No, because those are mundane, not magical. See my other posts if that is not a sufficient explanation for you.

Otherwise, please stop trying to provoke, okay?

Do my questions provoke you? That's weird. I am genuinely curious if you curbed any other class features or abilities to keep things even between classes. Traditionally, if you change something for one class, then you create an imbalance with all the others. Your course corrections to address ill-perceived issues with the game just creates more disparities in different ways. Several posts already mentioned this, most being common issues from previous editions.

For the record, mundane vs. magical is an old perspective that really has a hard time fitting in the high-magic game of D&D. You may want to look at some other low-magic setting books, like Primeval Thule and Adventures in Middle Earth, to see how they addressed it in 5e.

That said, there's no need to be defensive unless you're just trying to avoid a conversation you don't want. I asked because all of your explanations so far have been insufficient at explaining why you limit some class abilities but not others. If these new disparities are something you and your group are happy with, then so be it. Some people may like that. I would not. Who cares what I think? But this is a board for discussion, not consensus. If you put your ideas out there, people can respectfully agree or disagree. If you have a problem with that, or someone just gets under your skin, do what I do: just stop responding to them or put them on the ignore list. Otherwise, leave it to the moderators to shut people down. Your call. Cheers!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah I can see the temptation to try to reflect 3.XE (2E Bards are basically full casters thanks to the way XP works), but Bards are easily the weakest class in 5E as half-caster (far below even the worst Ranger subclasses and the like). No question. They lack all the combat "oomph" of other half-casters, and they lack the flexibility and depth of spells that full casters have, they're not actually as good with Skills as Rogues (not even Persuasion), and further, because 5E assumes they're full casters, they're missing tons of stuff that would be baked into the class otherwise (as it's assumed you're doing that stuff via leveled spells).

We haven't seen this problem at all. Sword and Valor are both good in combat, especially getting Extra Attack, and their wider spell selection even if just 1st-5th is superior to Paladins and Rangers. Throw in Expertise and allowing Inspiration to work on yourself and usable as a reaction instead of bonus action, and they're rather good IME. You can also still focus in other areas by choosing different subclasses.

I think there's probably a way to fix them short of making them a full caster, but the obvious solutions (basically making Valor Bard's subclass Features into core features class features for example, and eliminating Valor Bard as a subclass) keep Bard as the weakest class in 5E because they just make it MAD and still don't give it actual combat oomph. So you need to go a bit beyond that, but that's a separate discussion.

IME you don't need to turn those features into core features, but like I said with the changes we've made we like bards as half-casters again. Also, since we don't use Artificers, it creates a half-Arcane caster.

Sure you are. I've seen that happen since 2E. As long as your party is smart about positioning, and you often encounter groups of enemies, you're going to cast tons of fireballs. It's still a ridiculously great spell in 5E (indeed I believe it's intentionally buffed over other 3rd-level options, I think the devs said that). I've seen plenty of casters upcast Fireball over using higher-level spells, too.

If you're spamming Fireballs, you have a very kind DM and you don't mind burning higher level slots.

BUT, let's use the standard adventure day, 6-8 encounters, at 3 rounds each say, is 18 rounds, you'd have to be at least 11th or 12th level to do it, assuming you get in an arcane recovery and never cast any other spell.

So, if you saw it all the time, then I'll just chalk it up to experiences differ.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Do my questions provoke you? That's weird. I am genuinely curious if you curbed any other class features or abilities to keep things even between classes. Traditionally, if you change something for one class, then you create an imbalance with all the others. Your course corrections to address ill-perceived issues with the game just creates more disparities in different ways. Several posts already mentioned this, most being common issues from previous editions.

Let's say it's the tone I hear there?

Or, you correct an imbalance you see to create a game that is more fun for you and your players to experience?

For the record, mundane vs. magical is an old perspective that really has a hard time fitting in the high-magic game of D&D. You may want to look at some other low-magic setting books, like Primeval Thule and Adventures in Middle Earth, to see how they addressed it in 5e.

It has a hard time fitting into 5E certainly, because they put magic just about everywhere which makes it, ironically, less magical.

I've looked at AiME and never found anything inspiring about it.

That said, there's no need to be defensive unless you're just trying to avoid a conversation you don't want. I asked because all of your explanations so far have been insufficient at explaining why you limit some class abilities but not others. If these new disparities are something you and your group are happy with, then so be it. Some people may like that. I would not. Who cares what I think? But this is a board for discussion, not consensus. If you put your ideas out there, people can respectfully agree or disagree. If you have a problem with that, or someone just gets under your skin, do what I do: just stop responding to them or put them on the ignore list. Otherwise, leave it to the moderators to shut people down. Your call. Cheers!

Perhaps insufficient to you, but there's really no other way to put it.

When magic becomes mundane, it ceases to be magical.

That is the best way to sum up my feelings about the game. I don't do tons of magical items for the same reason, I don't have +X items for weapons, etc. but try to make each item as unique as possible. Magical locations are shrouded in mysteries waiting to be uncovered, but such locations are rare and spoken of in hushed tones. I don't have a priest in every town, or "ye ol' magic shoppes", etc. either.

You've read (I would think) other threads about how martials are so much more powerful than casters? Well, all these things help balance that out as well.

All that being said, I've posted repeatedly that people who prefer high-magic games and want casters slinging firebolts every round can be happy with the game as is, but that isn't for me.

At any rate, if you did not intend your post to sound provoking, my apologies. Cheers to you as well!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

We haven't seen this problem at all. Sword and Valor are both good in combat, especially getting Extra Attack, and their wider spell selection even if just 1st-5th is superior to Paladins and Rangers. Throw in Expertise and allowing Inspiration to work on yourself and usable as a reaction instead of bonus action, and they're rather good IME. You can also still focus in other areas by choosing different subclasses.

They're the weakest class by far, however you spin it. That you haven't noticed it being a big problem is a tribute to how solid the base of chassis of all classes is in 5E, but it doesn't make it not objectively true. They are doing less damage than any other class (even Clerics), impacting enemies less than any other class, healing less than any other healer, and being less flexible and skilled that Rogues. It sounds like you might be giving them Expertise to make them at least as skilled/flexible as Rogues skill-wise, which is something, but they'll still do the least damage in the entire group, and offer less CC and the like than casters.

Other subclasses will be weaker still - Blade and Valor will be the best performers, but both are MAD where other classes are not.

It's not really arguable. The facts of the mechanics speak for themselves.

If you're spamming Fireballs, you have a very kind DM and you don't mind burning higher level slots.

BUT, let's use the standard adventure day, 6-8 encounters, at 3 rounds each say, is 18 rounds, you'd have to be at least 11th or 12th level to do it, assuming you get in an arcane recovery and never cast any other spell.

So, if you saw it all the time, then I'll just chalk it up to experiences differ.

By that "every round" logic, Paladins can't spam Smite, so you're what, refuting your own claim? That's confusing lol.

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.

 

[Krachek]

Honestly I approve DM who try to house rule the game,
the optimal test is the game play experience, if it is satisfying for all, you house rule well.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When magic becomes mundane, it ceases to be magical.

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?

What you've described is a scenario where, say, Wizards, cast spells or cantrips on exactly the same number of rounds as normal 5E.

The only difference you've outlined is that possibly combat cantrips are used about 60-80% as often as normal. You're explicitly claiming this isn't filled in with weapon use, so presuming the actions aren't wasted, they're what, casting utility cantrips instead? More reliably burning through all their leveled spells/day?

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?

 

[Weiley31]

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But it still kills me how everybody has an issue with 5E's Cantrips.

By everybody you mean "about 5% of DMs", I presume?

 

[Weiley31]

By everybody you mean "about 5% of DMs", I presume?

I guess cuz I see a lot of threads/posts on ENworld where people are like "Man, I totally wish I could go back to the days of Merlin being stuck with a Crossbow because he spent all his spell slots on that single goblin."

Editor's Note: Okay not in those exact words/situations/whatever, but man..

 

[toucanbuzz]

Do you also limit the fighter on how many time they can use their big weapon? Force them to switch to a dagger once in a while?...

The thread isn't about other classes.

Getting off topic

Spoiler

I do make my game more challenging for martial types because my monsters have old-school AD&D resistances. Some can only be harmed by silver, or cold iron, or adamantine, or weapons made of celestial steel, and even a +1 weapon may not overcome these resistances. It makes monsters more a puzzle to be solved than a big bag of hit points, and if you don't have the right material and knowledge, you'll need to come up with something more constructive than the usual "we all whack it till it's dead."

For example, the AD&D Iron Golem was immune to pretty much all magic and only the most powerful magic weapons. One such encounter many years ago, a wizard player used a Pit spell (digs a pit) under it, buying the party time to flee. In another game (not mine), a wizard used an illusion of a bridge with a fly spell to lure such a golem to chase him (and fall off a cliff). I'm waaaaaay off topic, but stylistically, most D&D monsters are set up not to be solved but rather to be beaten to a pulp.

To use a Gygax 1975 letter quote: Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to "survive".

...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?

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.

Ok, now we're getting into silly-talk.

...But it still kills me how everybody has an issue with 5E's Cantrips.

Other than my hatred of guidance spam, I'm okay with the idea of cantrips. They've been around since 1982, albeit frivolous like making someone belch. I worry the thread has gotten off-topic into yet another "I run my game right and you run your game wrong" discussion. However, I am cautioned by a Gygax interview (Dragonsfoot forum 2005):

Spoiler

Q: A good heuristic for a DM is: Before breaking a rule, try to understand the reasons why that rule was made in the first place. If you understand the “why” of the rule, you can break it in an informed, knowledgeable way.

Gary: Heh… As if that usually were the case. for every able GM running a game there are probably 99 others who are less than that, and gaining a real understanding of the overall workings of an RPG isn’t an easy thing unless one has sat down and designed one…or made a hash of a revision.

The number of crashed RPG groups from ill-advised “improvements” to the game system is likely staggering....

And reference to my previous spoiler's 1975 letter in which he's saucily addressing criticisms on the rules he's proposed:

Spoiler

My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. DandD enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them -- except as a referee in my own campaign where they jolly well better toe the mark. Let us consider the magic-user question.

Wherein he explained why magic users only get 1 spell per day in OD&D. It was the simplest solution because spells were too powerful to be unlimited, and a point system was too clunky.

When magic becomes mundane, it ceases to be magical.

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).

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.