D&D 5E Limiting Cantrips?

[lingual]

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.

 

[LoganRan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Krachek]

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]

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.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.