Most frustrating quirk of 5E?

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

* And, yes, I still agree 1-2 times per day is maybe a little too limited, but that really only applies at very low levels. And in 5e it starts at 2 and goes up fairly quickly. Thinking about it, I'd probably be in favor of a slightly faster ramp in #s of spell slots if I could get rid of cantrips. Or have a fairly generous, but not unlimited, supply of 0-level (cantrip) spell slots.

If you want to limit cantrips, maybe something along the lines of:

Number of Cantrip "slots" per Short Rest equals:

1. number of cantrips known
2. associated ability score modifier + 1
3. proficiency bonus

Most of these cases mean the caster will have 2-5 cantrips per Short Rest, possibly a bit more.

I've been thinking about using a rule such as this simply because I also don't like the feel of a high-magic, repetitive, almost to the point of boredom, casters. I don't mind casters swinging a staff, mace, or throwing a weapon into combat a bit now and then... But that is just my opinion.

 

[Flamestrike]

If you want to limit cantrips, maybe something along the lines of:

Number of Cantrip "slots" per Short Rest equals:

1. number of cantrips known
2. associated ability score modifier + 1
3. proficiency bonus

Most of these cases mean the caster will have 2-5 cantrips per Short Rest, possibly a bit more.

I've been thinking about using a rule such as this simply because I also don't like the feel of a high-magic, repetitive, almost to the point of boredom, casters. I don't mind casters swinging a staff, mace, or throwing a weapon into combat a bit now and then... But that is just my opinion.

I briefly toyed with the idea of limiting them to [1+ Ability score mod] per SR, plus adding the 'In addition you can use Eldritch blast an unlimited amount of times' line to the Agonizing blast invocation for Warlocks (because they rely on EB cantrip more than any other class for effectiveness, and it fits with the 'at will' blast nature of locks.

 

[Mepher]

Yes, I remember (dimly) AD&D casters also, and your point about them is well-taken. It just seems to me that 5e has gone too far in the other direction. But to be fair, I think my complaint rests on more than cantrips (and on more than their at-will-ness); they are a principal contributor, but not the whole story. The other major part of the problem is that you cannot turn around without bumping into a caster. And, of course, then the majority of them get cantrips. The overall effect is that spell casting becomes magical-in-name-only, as it is ordinary, commonplace, unremarkable - mundane in the common sense of the word.

So when the wizard casts Firebolt, well, shrug - it doesn't feel any different that if he shoots a crossbow. He makes an attack roll and he can do it every round. What's the difference?

My other complaint about cantrips is the business of damage scaling with level in order, presumably, to ensure that our poor caster never feels left out. Eff that. That's the way casters (or at least wizards-as-successors-to-1e-magic-users) are supposed to feel in return for the limited* occasions when they can grab the spotlight and do something awesome that no one else can even come close to. Oh, but I forgot; everyone is a caster now, so they aren't that special anymore, so yeah, I guess we have to do that because we wouldn't want different classes to actually play differently or anything.

Not to mention that at-will spell casting opens the door for abominations such as Guidance.

Not to mention that by the way now many casters get a decent at-will ranged damage capability that bypasses both the need to have a weapon in hand and the need for ammunition. (Admittedly this is a complaint about particular cantrips, not cantrips in general. But again, if you have at-will spell casting at all, you probably get some version of these.)

</rant>
though I'm not sure where I should have put the corresponding <rant>

* And, yes, I still agree 1-2 times per day is maybe a little too limited, but that really only applies at very low levels. And in 5e it starts at 2 and goes up fairly quickly. Thinking about it, I'd probably be in favor of a slightly faster ramp in #s of spell slots if I could get rid of cantrips. Or have a fairly generous, but not unlimited, supply of 0-level (cantrip) spell slots.

I feel the same way about unlimited at-will cantrips. I suppose I would have little problem with wizards throwing firebolts if they didn't hit as well as the fighter and do as much damage as them swinging their swords. Add to it the scaling damage and I find most casters whipping around cantrips instead of spells most of the time. It just feels so much like a video game. There is no more "bursts of power" from the casters. It's a the same across the board though since every fighter is throwing superiority dice, rogues are sneak attacking every round, rangers are hunter's mark/colossus slaying everything, and warlocks are hex/eldritch blasting everything. Special turns boring when it becomes the norm.

My biggest complaint about cantrips is Light. Combine that with the replacement of Infravision with Darkvision, and most darkness just became trivial. When the adventuring party delved into a dungeon in 2E the human fighter up front might have had a torch burning so they can see. Of course the heat from the torch prevented the Dwarf in the back from seeing with his Infravision because the heat from the torch would prevent it. On the flip side when that torch went out the Dwarf could see those heat signatures in front of him. Of course when those zombies were shuffling towards them the infravision wouldn't pickup their lack of heat. It created a whole dynamic to night and dungeons that is missing when half the party can cast light at the snap of their fingers. Don't forget when combat begins that Fighter must decide what to do with that torch. These are the little change that were made that imo have large impact in the game.

Of course it seems from reading lot of 5E forums or groups that to the new player, this type of play somehow "restricts" their fun.

 

[Pauln6]

I feel the same way about unlimited at-will cantrips. I suppose I would have little problem with wizards throwing firebolts if they didn't hit as well as the fighter and do as much damage as them swinging their swords. Add to it the scaling damage and I find most casters whipping around cantrips instead of spells most of the time. It just feels so much like a video game. There is no more "bursts of power" from the casters. It's a the same across the board though since every fighter is throwing superiority dice, rogues are sneak attacking every round, rangers are hunter's mark/colossus slaying everything, and warlocks are hex/eldritch blasting everything. Special turns boring when it becomes the norm.My biggest complaint about cantrips is Light. Combine that with the replacement of Infravision with Darkvision, and most darkness just became trivial. When the adventuring party delved into a dungeon in 2E the human fighter up front might have had a torch burning so they can see. Of course the heat from the torch prevented the Dwarf in the back from seeing with his Infravision because the heat from the torch would prevent it. On the flip side when that torch went out the Dwarf could see those heat signatures in front of him. Of course when those zombies were shuffling towards them the infravision wouldn't pickup their lack of heat. It created a whole dynamic to night and dungeons that is missing when half the party can cast light at the snap of their fingers. Don't forget when combat begins that Fighter must decide what to do with that torch. These are the little change that were made that imo have large impact in the game.Of course it seems from reading lot of 5E forums or groups that to the new player, this type of play somehow "restricts" their fun.

Characters without Darkvision have disadvantage with ranged attacks in the dim light zone so it can lead to tactical issues and it limits the manoeuvrability of melee characters. I think at-will magic is fun, I just think it should scale more slowly.

 

[5ekyu]

Characters without Darkvision have disadvantage with ranged attacks in the dim light zone so it can lead to tactical issues and it limits the manoeuvrability of melee characters. I think at-will magic is fun, I just think it should scale more slowly.

That is an intriguing house rule.

 

[Pauln6]

That is an intriguing house rule.

It might be a bit much but people do bang on about how strong missile fire can be. I suppose the way round it is to place the light spell close to your target. It does mean elves are superior archers but only just. I'm not sure to what extent it steps on the toes of rogues as they need to be stealthed in dim light or in darkness to gain advantage but they can't sneak attack if they also have disadvantage.

 

[Mepher]

Characters without Darkvision have disadvantage with ranged attacks in the dim light zone so it can lead to tactical issues and it limits the manoeuvrability of melee characters. I think at-will magic is fun, I just think it should scale more slowly.

The thing is there are many more races with Darkvision than without. In my group of players only the Human fighter doesn't have it.

 

[Mepher]

It might be a bit much but people do bang on about how strong missile fire can be. I suppose the way round it is to place the light spell close to your target. It does mean elves are superior archers but only just. I'm not sure to what extent it steps on the toes of rogues as they need to be stealthed in dim light or in darkness to gain advantage but they can't sneak attack if they also have disadvantage.

But they don't need advantage for sneak attack or to be stealthed, only an engaged ally. Sneak attack is another issue for another day

 

[5ekyu]

It might be a bit much but people do bang on about how strong missile fire can be. I suppose the way round it is to place the light spell close to your target. It does mean elves are superior archers but only just. I'm not sure to what extent it steps on the toes of rogues as they need to be stealthed in dim light or in darkness to gain advantage but they can't sneak attack if they also have disadvantage.

Almost all the rogues i have seen manage sneak attacks almost every round - not always hit mind you - so advantage from hiding is not the only way.

The net result of this house rule -off the cuff - is to make the already existing 5e hamner fist on non-darkvision races even stronger. Fewer of the non-darkvision races played, more strive to tactically exploit scenes using the lighting rules which really are not that sound, etc.

Giving the entire swath of enemies disadvantage is just potent, very potent.

Have to look if it makes Faerie Fire self-contradicting - provides dim light and advantage but the dim light means disadvantage so... Cancel out?

I look for,options tharmt shift the rules presentations close to the source materials, genre, etc and in general the "game of fireflies" tactical lighting game is not in many of them as more than an occasional oddity to spotlight a character.

So adding more reasons to make lighting and vision more restrictive on your choices is not a move towards the playstyles my group seeks. We would rather focis on tactics of action surges spent for attacks or grapples not lughting replacement torches and not weaponizing light cantrips.

My current group has a water genasi, a goliath, a human, a lizardfolk and a tiefling. I doubt, given my setting, darkvision was a major consideration.

 

[Pauln6]

Almost all the rogues i have seen manage sneak attacks almost every round - not always hit mind you - so advantage from hiding is not the only way.The net result of this house rule -off the cuff - is to make the already existing 5e hamner fist on non-darkvision races even stronger. Fewer of the non-darkvision races played, more strive to tactically exploit scenes using the lighting rules which really are not that sound, etc.Giving the entire swath of enemies disadvantage is just potent, very potent. Have to look if it makes Faerie Fire self-contradicting - provides dim light and advantage but the dim light means disadvantage so... Cancel out?I look for,options tharmt shift the rules presentations close to the source materials, genre, etc and in general the "game of fireflies" tactical lighting game is not in many of them as more than an occasional oddity to spotlight a character. So adding more reasons to make lighting and vision more restrictive on your choices is not a move towards the playstyles my group seeks. We would rather focis on tactics of action surges spent for attacks or grapples not lughting replacement torches and not weaponizing light cantrips.My current group has a water genasi, a goliath, a human, a lizardfolk and a tiefling. I doubt, given my setting, darkvision was a major consideration.

Mind you, there are some that view faerie fire as overpowered.My group is melee focused and mostly human, relying on light spells and a flaming sword to see. The principal missile fire comes from sacred flame (no attack roll) and eldritch blast. Personally, I've never believed that missile fire is as powerful as everyone claims because people hate discarding weapons on the battlefield.