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.