D&D (2024) Martials: damage scaling like cantrips?
- Thread starter Bae'zel
- Start date
Clint_L
Legend
I think the crux of the issue is that D&D's class system is intentionally designed so that there are distinct differences between classes, and especially between broad categories such as pure spellcasting classes and primarily martial classes. The play experience is supposed to feel distinct, and this means that comparing them is always going to be subjective. But dealing damage, one of the main functions of a martial class, is very quantifiable.
Cantrips were originally implemented so that spellcasters could always feel like spellcasters, and not have to resort to throwing darts for some of their turns, like in ye olde days. Over the years, they have become more effective, but they were never intended to compete with the kind of damage a martial class can do, because wrecking face is supposed to be what martial classes do. And they do that very effectively in the current rules set. The level 5 barbarian, paladin and monk in our current campaign all routinely do more than 30 points of damage in a round.
If it's a balanced party and you're playing a spellcaster, DPR should not be your primary focus.
Cantrips were originally implemented so that spellcasters could always feel like spellcasters, and not have to resort to throwing darts for some of their turns, like in ye olde days. Over the years, they have become more effective, but they were never intended to compete with the kind of damage a martial class can do, because wrecking face is supposed to be what martial classes do. And they do that very effectively in the current rules set. The level 5 barbarian, paladin and monk in our current campaign all routinely do more than 30 points of damage in a round.
If it's a balanced party and you're playing a spellcaster, DPR should not be your primary focus.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
So you're saying it CAN be cast as a cantrip for the EK/Valor Bard/Artificer/Bladesinger?
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I am not sure what you try to say here. If you try to be funny, sarcastic or really don't understand what i was saying over three posts.
Maybe you should look up the rule yourself. And maybe read the posts before that.
Here is what I tried to say: What I said was that if you only use 2024, then you have to use true strike instead of green flame blade.
True strike uses your casting ability. Green flame blade uses your normal attack stat.
If one finds green flame blade unbalanced, because you can now use it as part of the attack action, one might find true strike more balanced, because the rider effect is weaker and the eldritch knight or valor bard has to focus on two stats instead of one.
Last edited:
No, what I believe he is saying is using Truestrike with extra attack generally requires two different abilities making it more difficult to optimize than Green Flame Blade or Booming Blade which only require one ability, hence why they should be left legacy.
Additionally GFB and BB are substantially higher damage than other Cantrips, including Truestrike, even if some of this is situational.
Also regarding your original contention - I see more Fighters "subbing in a Cantrip" for an attack with Extra Attack than I do Bards.
mellored
Legend
Eldritch knight with warlock 2 will give you lots of rolls.
Not in 2024. While there is some debate about what constitutes a "Wizard Cantrip" for War Magic, I don't think even the most liberal interpretation would include Eldritch Blast.
mellored
Legend
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
I wasnt being sarcastic, I legit didnt understand what you were saying. But both are options for the "sub an attack for a cantrip". You seemed to imply otherwise.
Regardless, at level 10, the fighter is attacking twice for weapon damage and dealing less than bladesinger/paladin/battlesmith/valor bard, etc.
At least they have all that utility to fall back on! /s
I'm really tempted to give them back weapon specialization for +1 to hit and +2 to damage.
Xeviat
Dungeon Mistress, she/her
Im a huge 4E lover. When 5E first came out, I started working on a variant to introduce +W die scaling at 5, 11, and 17 level, and replace Extra Attack with unique features for each class.
Barbarian got half damage on miss
Fighter got weapon focus/specialization/mastery for +to hit and +damage
Monk I wasn't sure of, I was trying to keep them with multiple attacks.
Paladin started getting bonus radiant damage earlier.
Ranger got a lesser sneak attack.
Rogue needed to have its sneak attack progression adjusted since they already get a die at those levels, but this is actually a buff for rogues as more damage isn't tied to sneak attack (and 1d8 weapon users get a little buff).
Subclasses that gain extra attack were going to be changed too. Bonus action weapon attacks after you cast a spell with an action for blade singer and valor bard, for instance.
I didn't like that Extra Attack didn't stack, so warrior multiclassers were suboptimal past 4 levels.
But, as we played 5E more, my players said they liked having multiple attacks.
Barbarian got half damage on miss
Fighter got weapon focus/specialization/mastery for +to hit and +damage
Monk I wasn't sure of, I was trying to keep them with multiple attacks.
Paladin started getting bonus radiant damage earlier.
Ranger got a lesser sneak attack.
Rogue needed to have its sneak attack progression adjusted since they already get a die at those levels, but this is actually a buff for rogues as more damage isn't tied to sneak attack (and 1d8 weapon users get a little buff).
Subclasses that gain extra attack were going to be changed too. Bonus action weapon attacks after you cast a spell with an action for blade singer and valor bard, for instance.
I didn't like that Extra Attack didn't stack, so warrior multiclassers were suboptimal past 4 levels.
But, as we played 5E more, my players said they liked having multiple attacks.
Similar Threads
