D&D 5E New cantrip: Mage strike.

[Horwath]

Mage strike;

Cantrip; wizard, sorcerer, warlock,

Casting time: action,

Components; Somatic(melee weapon in hand),

As the part of the casting action make one melee attack with melee weapon in hand.

You can use your casting modifier for attack and damage instead of standard ability for weapon attack.

Attack is considered magical for purposes of damage reduction,

At lvl5 attack deals additional +1d12 damage, at lvl11 +2d12 damage, at lvl17 +3d12 damage,
Bonus damage is the same type as weapons base damage.

 

[kalil]

I came here expecting a spell that made all arcane union members stop working and demanding more "nice things". IR dissapoint.

On a more serious note: See Shillelagh for an implementation of what you want.

 

[cbwjm]

I think for this cantrip, I'd drop the bonus damage to d10s, just a feeling, I don't really have anything to back up why I would drop it. Even dropping it to d8s might be warranted since, unlike the SCAG cantrips, it let's the caster use their spellcasting stat instead which is likely to be better, though not always. Being able to use their spellcasting stat is nice, though I'm a little undecided about it, but that's mainly because I try to keep my spellsword style spells similar to the cantrips in SCAG which has it as a regular melee attack.

I like that it makes your weapon magical for the strike, it's a nice starter bonus instead of straight +damage to the attack.

It is similar to Shllileigh in that it makes the attack count as magical and using your spellcasting stat, but unlike shilllleagh it is with each strike of the spell rather than having a duration, which I think is fine since later levels of your cantrip add damage. Basically, you trade the duration for bonus damage and a constant need to use the cantrip to be effective with your weapon.

Maybe it's because I've recently watched Rogue One, but the spell feels very jedi-like to me. At the very least, I think that wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks need their own version of shellegh.

 

[Ath-kethin]

One of my favorite parts of 5e is hearing people actually argue that wizards don't get enough nice things.

 

[Horwath]

I think for this cantrip, I'd drop the bonus damage to d10s, just a feeling, I don't really have anything to back up why I would drop it. Even dropping it to d8s might be warranted since, unlike the SCAG cantrips, it let's the caster use their spellcasting stat instead which is likely to be better, though not always. Being able to use their spellcasting stat is nice, though I'm a little undecided about it, but that's mainly because I try to keep my spellsword style spells similar to the cantrips in SCAG which has it as a regular melee attack.

I like that it makes your weapon magical for the strike, it's a nice starter bonus instead of straight +damage to the attack.

It is similar to Shllileigh in that it makes the attack count as magical and using your spellcasting stat, but unlike shilllleagh it is with each strike of the spell rather than having a duration, which I think is fine since later levels of your cantrip add damage. Basically, you trade the duration for bonus damage and a constant need to use the cantrip to be effective with your weapon.

Maybe it's because I've recently watched Rogue One, but the spell feels very jedi-like to me. At the very least, I think that wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks need their own version of shellegh.

fireblast is already d10 damage per tier.

I feel that being into melee as wizard should be more rewarding then being 100ft away.

 

[Ahrimon]

I really don't like the casting ability used for attack and damage. It's a personal preference though.

Another concern I have with this is that melee classes have to work hard, as in gain multiple levels of a single class, in order to up their melee damage by getting that second attack. 5th level is considered a big step for melee classes because of it. With your spell, all any class would need is this cantrip and they can keep up with every melee class.

It just feels too much like the old "anything you can do I can do better" sore spot between casters and melee that 5e has done a lot to fix.

 

[Mad_Jack]

I sort of agree with Ahrimon in that it's just a tiny bit too close to having the potential to turn from "great back-up option" if the wizard finds themselves in melee combat to something that might encourage the wizard to want to get into melee combat.

For a warlock, anyway, it sort of makes the bladelock a bit less relevant since the other two could just grab this cantrip and do almost as well.

I'm fine with being able to use casting stat for attack and damage, but I think reducing the scaling damage a bit might be in order.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Mage strike;

Cantrip; wizard, sorcerer, warlock,

Casting time: action,

Components; Somatic(melee weapon in hand),

As the part of the casting action make one melee attack with melee weapon in hand.

You can use your casting modifier for attack and damage instead of standard ability for weapon attack.

Attack is considered magical for purposes of damage reduction,

At lvl5 attack deals additional +1d12 damage, at lvl11 +2d12 damage, at lvl17 +3d12 damage,
Bonus damage is the same type as weapons base damage.

I assume you're here looking for design feedback? If so, here's my comments:

(1) Instead of making it S (Weapon In Hand), it would be more consistent with Booming/Greenflame Blade to make it V, M (a weapon). The attack is not, strictly speaking, a somatic component. This avoids any confusion about whether Warcaster or a free hand is necessary to cast the spell.

(2) From a balance perspective, it looks as if, relative to Fire Bolt, you are trading being at range for a larger die size (d10 to d12), +weapon damage (likely d8 or 2d6), and +STAT to damage. Relative to Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade, you are trading the lack of secondary effects for SADness, counting the whole attack as magical, and +0 to +6 to base damage.

(2a) For grapplers, Mage Strike dominates Booming Blade in two ways: more damage (including better criticals), likely a better attack stat, and getting to count the whole attack as magical (so, harder for monsters to resist). It's a dominant choice for them--no down side because the enemy isn't going anywhere anyway.

(2b) So, be careful with this spell. It is a form of power creep in that it is likely to become dominant in a certain niche. (Armored fighter/mages engaged in melee.) If that's what you intend, then fine. If not, it might be best to re-tune this spell to make it use the regular attack stat and drop the die size to d8 in exchange for giving it a rider (e.g. reduce speed by 10').

 

[Ashkelon]

I'd say drop the bonus damage down to d10s or d8s and it should be fine.
Allowing a spellcaster to make melee attacks that ignore their Strength or Dexterity is pretty huge. A 20 Int blades over with this csntrip would be a fright to behold.

And while Fire bolt may do d10s on its own, firebolt is far more likely to be resisted, doesn't add ability modifier to damage, and cannot be used to make a really great OA with the warcaster feat.

 

[Satyrn]

This is a really nice damage boost for an arcane trickster.

 

[Ganymede81]

I feel that being into melee as wizard should be more rewarding then being 100ft away.

Remember that non-Wizards (and Bladesingers) get access to this cantrip, too.

Something like this is pure joy to an Arcane Trickster or pretty much any High Elf.


Personally, I like the idea of a cantrip that enhances a melee attack, but I do not like how this spell does it. Why compound the mistake of the SCAG cantrips by having this stack with Sneak Attack and Divine Strike but not with multiple attacks?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Another concern I have with this is that melee classes have to work hard, as in gain multiple levels of a single class, in order to up their melee damage by getting that second attack. 5th level is considered a big step for melee classes because of it. With your spell, all any class would need is this cantrip and they can keep up with every melee class.

Not quite. This cantrip never lets you add your ability bonus multiple times. The big deal with Extra Attack is that it also adds you add +10 or +20 to your total damage, instead of being at the mercy of the dice.

A cantrip for 4d12+5 is nothing compared to an attack routine for 8d6+20, or even 4d8+28 (for duelists). Even at level 5, your 1d8+1d12+5 is barely comparable to the 2d8+14 that the tank is dealing, and you probably don't have the armor or HP to support staying on the front line for very long. Granted, if it's going to be a backup weapon in any case, it could still serve that role with d8s instead of d12s.

 

[Awesome Adam]

It's superior to Booming, Greenflame Blade, and Shillelagh, which to me is a problem.

It's Shillelagh, without using a bonus action, plus superior bonus damage to Booming & Greenflame Blades.

That's like 2.5 Cantrips strong (Shillelagh + Greenflame + Larger Damage die)

There would be no reason to take Shillelagh or Booming Blade over it, and it would outshine Greenflame Blade against single targets as well.

The existance of this spell, even with d4's for bonus damage, craps all over Shillelagh.

If I were to tinker with it, I would allow the Spell Casting mod to hit, but not to damage, and allow d6's to damage, to keep it on par with other similar cantrips.

 

[cbwjm]

Shilleagh is a different kind of spell though. It has a minute duration which means you can use it with other options. This spell locks you into using it if you want that magical hit. Also, shillelagh and this spell aren't generally options since they aren't on the same spell list. If a druid did pick up this cantrip via a feat then they would likely be taking a decent accuracy hit as their intelligence or charisma is likely a few points less than there wisdom.

GFB while it can affect a single target has the added bonus of also dealing damage to a second, so I don't see a bigger damage die than GFB as being that much of an issue though I'm still undecided on the die size but, when combined with the other bonuses the spell grants I think I would likely drop the die size to d8s or d10s.

Sent from my SM-G925I using EN World mobile app

 

[Horwath]

It's superior to Booming, Greenflame Blade, and Shillelagh, which to me is a problem.

It's Shillelagh, without using a bonus action, plus superior bonus damage to Booming & Greenflame Blades.

That's like 2.5 Cantrips strong (Shillelagh + Greenflame + Larger Damage die)

There would be no reason to take Shillelagh or Booming Blade over it, and it would outshine Greenflame Blade against single targets as well.

The existance of this spell, even with d4's for bonus damage, craps all over Shillelagh.

If I were to tinker with it, I would allow the Spell Casting mod to hit, but not to damage, and allow d6's to damage, to keep it on par with other similar cantrips.

Shillelagh has a duration, you must cast it only once and can be used if you have extra attack feature twice per round. Also it has benefits on AoO what this cantrip does not(except via feat),

It should outshine GFB against single targets as it is designed as single target spell, at 5th level this cantrip gets +1d12 damage while GFB vs 2 targets gains total of +2d8,

Booming blade is also circumstance spell that also at 5th level deals extra +3d8 damage if triggered.

Also if we take eldritch blast and firebolt cantrips, they do 1d10 damage at 1st level with only caster mod to attack but in general lower damage die d6 or d8 with casting modifier vs d10 without modifier and 120ft range.
then later this cantrip gains +1d12 vs +1d10 for simple reason that it is melee attack and casters do not like to be in melee alot.

 

[77IM]

I like this cantrip a lot. It's what shillelagh should have been. To me shillelagh is weak because it doesn't scale at higher levels; but it's hard to make it scale because any scaling would stack with Extra Attack, Improved Smite, Divine Strike, etc. By phrasing arcane strike as a melee-attack cantrip, it avoids all those problems.

I do agree that there might be a problem stacking this with Sneak Attack. It's unclear to me whether Sneak Attack would apply.

It seems about as strong as the SCAG melee-attack cantrips; using your spellcasting stat is really helpful, but it doesn't get any other benefits until 5th level. And it deals damage about as well as poison spray; poison spray has reach and uses a saving throw (overall slightly more likely to deal damage) but doesn't get any ability mod to damage at 1st level. So, overall, I think this is reasonably well balanced.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It seems about as strong as the SCAG melee-attack cantrips; using your spellcasting stat is really helpful, but it doesn't get any other benefits until 5th level. And it deals damage about as well as poison spray; poison spray has reach and uses a saving throw (overall slightly more likely to deal damage) but doesn't get any ability mod to damage at 1st level. So, overall, I think this is reasonably well balanced.

Out of curiosity, why do you say that Poison Spray is "slightly more likely to do damage"? Most monsters that I can think of are less likely to take damage from Poison Spray than from an attack--you can think of a Con save +0 as mathematically equivalent to AC 14, and every +1 of Con is like +1 to AC. E.g. an Int 18 5th level spellcaster has +7 to attacks and DC (8+7) 15 on his spells; vs. an AC 13 Orc, he has a 25% chance to miss. But the orc has a 45% chance to succeed on his Con save (+3 to Con), which is the same as the miss chance if the Orc were actually AC (14+3) 17.

The Orc is a tiny bit of an outlier but not that much. A Goblin is AC 15 and Con save +0 (Poison Spray is slightly better than an attack), a Chuul is AC 16 and Con save +3 (attack is slightly better than Poison Spray), a T-Rex is AC 13 and Con save +4 (attack is much better than Poison Spray), a Displacer Beast is AC 13 with disadvantage and Con save +3 (attack is very slightly better than Poison Spray, about 1%), a Mind Flayer is AC 15 and Con save +1 with advantage (attack is much better than Poison Spray), etc.

Overall it seems that attacks are better than Con saves. Do you disagree, and if so, why?

 

[bid]

Overall it seems that attacks are better than Con saves. Do you disagree, and if so, why?

Attack rolls are 3 points better than saves. You need heavy armor or to target an abysmal stat to compensate.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Attack rolls are 3 points better than saves. You need heavy armor or to target an abysmal stat to compensate.

My question was directed to 77IM, why he/she said the opposite, that saves were more likely to deal damage than attacks. Perhaps he/she plays with a lot of goblins? Having you chime in to agree with me, while flattering, doesn't really satisfy my curiosity.

 

[Ganymede81]

Here's how I would do it...

Imbue Weapon
Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V, S, M (a weapon)
Duration: 1 round
You imbue a weapon you are holding with a brief flicker of elemental power. When you cast this spell, select a damage type: fire, ice, lightning, or acid. The next time you hit a target with the imbued weapon before the spell ends, the attack inflicts an extra 1d4 damage of the chosen type. The spell ends once you successfully hit a target with the imbued weapon or at the end of your turn.
This spell’s damage increases by 1d4 when you reach 5th level (2d4), 11th level (3d4), and 17th level (4d4).

There. It solves the weird "Why does this stack with Divine Strike and Sneak Attack but not with Extra Attacks?" conundrum, it presents a meaningful choice via competition with other bonus actions, and its damage errs on the side of caution.