D&D 5E Limiting use of cantrips - what are the consequences?

[Bawylie]

I prefer "low magic" to apply more to the setting than the PCs.

The PC casters will be feared/revered. Components and magic weapons & gear will be relatively rare.

NPC casters will be very few and difficult to deal with.

Edit: I wouldn't mess with reducing cantrips, but peoples' reactions to magic will be awed.

 

[Skyscraper]

With this said... has anyone toyed with the idea of a very limited use of cantrips, for example 10 or less per long rest?

 

[Skyscraper]

IF you make cantrips more restricted in their use, what do you expect your players to do instead? 5e already suffers from copy pasted turns in practice, ie the fighter says he moves + uses an action for 3 turns in a row without variation. Limiting how often cantrips are used just seems to encourage this kind of behavior since the reason you would use a cantrip in the first place is so you don't use a higher level slot. Is the goal here to try to encourage or force players into using slots?

Relevant question.

 

[3SpdDragster]

With this said... has anyone toyed with the idea of a very limited use of cantrips, for example 10 or less per long rest?

My DM went down a path of limiting it to 5 times your caster level per short rest. However, it tended to unfairly punish casters and he decided to play it as written.

Is it mainly the utility spells that are of concern? I cannot see attack spells being an issue.

 

[Neorealist]

Necessary?

It seems like you are trying to 'fix' a problem that isn't there, 5e is already 'low magic' by default. (as in, less magic items, fewer spells, the concentration mechanic, etc)

Giving a high (10+) number of daily uses for cantrips should result in essentially no difference than the current system, and giving a low (<5) number of uses will tend to reduce their utility even further since they were presumably balanced to work within 5e with unlimited uses.

In short, Why would you want to mildly reduce the power of all casters and pretty much remove the warlock (or other concepts which rely heavily on cantrips) as a viable option in order to establish your setting as 'low magic'?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Interesting points.

So, with only conceptual limitations, how about I mention to the players the following: you have about X spell slots for your cantrips. We won't be keeping track of those uses, unless you're spamming them and I consider you're close to hitting your limits, at which point I'll issue a warning, that means that you have Y uses left.

So, for example, I could say that a caster has 25 uses of his cantrips, and I'll warn him when he has 5 left. He then needs to start book keeping.

This has the advantage of avoiding cantrip book keeping while still getting the flavor of lower-magic through.

As to how I come to a decision about the total number, I'll eventually pin a target number I have in mind, and come up with an appropriate equation, or just put a number down - who cares really. Whether it's an equation or not, it's still a house rule so might as well choose an arbitrary number. The intent is, as you say, to avoid the 100 fire bolts on the door type of situation. However, I'm (mildly) concerned about increase book keeping.

This'll work. I wouldn't personally do it because I don't need another friggin' thing to make a judgement about as a DM, so if I'm going to choose an arbitrary number, I might as well make it a consistent arbitrary number and leave it on the PC's to track. But as long as your players trust you and you're not using it as a bludgeon to get them to act a certain way, it'll probably work fine.

 

[Leatherhead]

I haven't done the math, but I am quite sure that standing around shaking pom-poms to use the help action would be a better use of time than mages trying to have a go at the baddies with a dagger. Probably safer too. Especially after level 5 or so, where the attack classes start doing the real heavy lifting.

And any action that is worse than using help isn't even good enough to be considered sub-optimal imo.

 

[The Human Target]

If you aren't having numerous combats in a day, why are cantrips an issue?

 

[bedir than]

If you aren't having numerous combats in a day, why are cantrips an issue?

Because with unlimited casting you never need to pick a lock, or beat down a door, or cook a meal, or struggle to cool down the overheating room because you can make ice, or you poison the rats infesting your house or you use shocking grasp to invent lightbulbs, you don't need torches because you literally just continually cast fire bolt.

 

[Gadget]

Hmmm...I think 5e was designed with heavy use of cantrips my spell casting classes in mind and balanced accordingly. Paladins, Rangers, EK, AT would be less affected than others. Some of the 'full casters' are more dependent on cantrips than others, such as the Warlock, and would potentially be more adversely changed.

But, with the idea of a 'low magic' feel in mind there are several ways, depending on which flavor of 'low magic' is desired. I personally am not enamored with the x+y-z slots/castings per long rest formulas that come to mind, both from a book keeping perspective and feel.

1) Only restrict the 'pew, pew' attack cantrips, but allow prestidigitation and the like to still give a bit of magical flavor (not suitable for some 'low magic' interpretations).

2) Only can cast cantrips when you have unspent spell slots left (might lead to just hoarding that last spell slot at mid to high levels, could be changed to highest level spell slot or highest level - x spell slot).

3) Some sort of 'cool down' time between cantrips (prevents the pew, pew through the mountain scenario and causes the user to be judicious and not spam them).

4) Impose some sort of Con saving throw to get a weariness level after the first casting (possibly combine with the 'cool down' option above to allow an 'over channel' option with some risk.

None of the above are perfect I think, but messing with them tickles the inner designer in me more other options.