I don't think attack cantrip vs dagger or crossbow is necessarily an either/or thing, myself. I like having both options.
D&D 5E Obvious Attack Cantrips That Should Exist
certainly not trolling, as it was sincere. Edition warring, well...no, but I am glad you asked. I am expressing a real hate of certain directions in what is called D&D, yes, and the worst of it comes up in the tactical minis game we call 4E. But I don't hate that game unto itself, nor its graphic design, art, or useful RPG products in its line.
What I get that some people are saying is, they want a 1st level mage to be able to kill a common man (or zap within a hp of his life), once per round. They want the Zap, and they want it now.
Ok. But now we've completely lost the classic m-u. They don't exist in 5E. I think that sucks. I certainly don't feel a need to impose that class on any of you, but, my being a fan(and currently playing and DMing) of the original editions makes my m-u the common denominator.
To which, by the way, I give bonus spells, and a pile of Gygax UA cantrips to, so even I am adding stuff to the base, but in 5E, they don't even touch it.
What at-will "power" does a fighter have that is comparable? The sword? The bow? None of those are magic! "Attack cantrip" is an oxymoron! And here we have a thread complaining there aren't enough of them?
Heh. I will see you all (figuratively) at the convention regardless. But picture this: your wizard, who is also the party's mapper, has successfully co-led the group through three levels of dungeon dread, with nothing but a spell or two, his wits, and a ten foot pole. And there in the depths, he finds a wand of magic missiles, with 99 charges, which bumps him up to 2nd level. In the distance, an alarm sounds...
With attack cantrips, we are front-loading some of the mage's power, which dilutes magic in the whole game by essentially flooding it with its currency. The mage is more secure at low level, but the thrill of survival of the classic mage is gone, which I find regrettable, especially because we can arrive at the players' desired power level within the classic rules, but we can't go the other way with the new ones.
To be fair, an at-will attack cantrip that does a flat d? damage (IOW, no stat/caster level bonus) equivalent to a light ranged weapon isn't going to be a game breaker. Heck, even with a stat bonus, it wouldn't be.
And while I agree that there is something lost in that spell-hoarding paradigm from 1Ed- where I got my start*- the game's assumptions about HPs have changed enough that cantrips like this really don't change the style of play.
* in fact, in my first ever adventure, I was playing a fighter alongside a MU with a single MM left as the lone party survivors, when we encountered a Purple Worm...
And while I agree that there is something lost in that spell-hoarding paradigm from 1Ed- where I got my start*- the game's assumptions about HPs have changed enough that cantrips like this really don't change the style of play.
* in fact, in my first ever adventure, I was playing a fighter alongside a MU with a single MM left as the lone party survivors, when we encountered a Purple Worm...
I really don't see the problem with at-will attack spells for the Wizard, especially when they are as weak as in 5e. That they are called "cantrips" is maybe a bit misleading, but that's mostly semantics and will basically have to impact on gameplay.
... On the other hand, I don't think there should be 20-30 at will attack spells for the Wizard. The spells are meant as backup, not something you can build your character around. Btw, I love how 5e really limits the amount of spells you get in 5e, making even high level Wizards be careful with their spells.
... On the other hand, I don't think there should be 20-30 at will attack spells for the Wizard. The spells are meant as backup, not something you can build your character around. Btw, I love how 5e really limits the amount of spells you get in 5e, making even high level Wizards be careful with their spells.
I have to say that I'm shocked at the amount of love for crossbows in this tread.
Nothing kills the archetype of the wizard for me than seeing all low level
wizards trained in the use of a sophisticated martial weapon like the
crossbow. At-will attacks at least make sense that people who study magic
single-mindedly would have some minor offensive capabilities with it.
If you are a dyed in the wool Vancian who doesn't like at-will magic, fine.
Juice up the power of the few spells they have to make them worthwhile and
interesting, so over the course of the play session they are still contributing.
But don't keep a few dumpy spells and turn them into Genoese mercenaries
when they aren't casting them so that they can survive and contribute.
As for the original topic of the thread, I think a neat at will cantrip would
be to avoid the next successful attack through precognitive divination. It would
mimic the cleric's sanctuary spell, and make divination a school worth specializing in.
Nothing kills the archetype of the wizard for me than seeing all low level
wizards trained in the use of a sophisticated martial weapon like the
crossbow. At-will attacks at least make sense that people who study magic
single-mindedly would have some minor offensive capabilities with it.
If you are a dyed in the wool Vancian who doesn't like at-will magic, fine.
Juice up the power of the few spells they have to make them worthwhile and
interesting, so over the course of the play session they are still contributing.
But don't keep a few dumpy spells and turn them into Genoese mercenaries
when they aren't casting them so that they can survive and contribute.
As for the original topic of the thread, I think a neat at will cantrip would
be to avoid the next successful attack through precognitive divination. It would
mimic the cleric's sanctuary spell, and make divination a school worth specializing in.
Crossbows do require training, to be sure, but not as much as a standard bow, which is why they became so popular with the military.
But, FWIW, I'm also OK with wizards being proficient with daggers & staves only.
Sure, if he was clumsy at it. But the crossbow wielding wizard of 3e fires off round after round with precision, every six seconds, tirelessly. With a good enough dex, he might even be better at it at low levels than some melee-oriented fighting men. Heck, since basic NPC's of the warrior class tend to have average stats, there is a good chance that they would be better than using a crossbow than 1st level warrior crossbowmen. Why are magical academies turning out these low level mercenary crossbowmen?
At least with an at-will spell, it fits with the fact that the spellcaster is a student of magic.
Now there is nothing wrong with the battlemage archetype, or even a swordmage. But it damages the pure and classic D&D archetype of the wizard to have them all proficient in crossbows.
Heck, even an arquebus proficiency would be more archetype friendly, since gunpowder could at lest be connected to alchemy.
At least with an at-will spell, it fits with the fact that the spellcaster is a student of magic.
Now there is nothing wrong with the battlemage archetype, or even a swordmage. But it damages the pure and classic D&D archetype of the wizard to have them all proficient in crossbows.
Heck, even an arquebus proficiency would be more archetype friendly, since gunpowder could at lest be connected to alchemy.
The Human Target
Adventurer
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Oh sweet Jesus...you had to go and say something like that. Now this will turn into yet another debate about the Great Weapon Fighting Damage-On-A-Miss option
If it's the Vancian part that bothers you, you could always limit Cantrip use to max used at intelligence mod, renewed each short rest
If you just don't want them using offensive spells as cantrips but are OK with non-offensive ones, that's a pretty easy houserule to adopt - just ban the few offensive spells from the list.
Last edited:
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
First off, 1d8 damage isn't guaranteed to kill anybody, not even a "common man." You're just as likely to do 1 damage as 8. Second, any peasant with a light crossbow is just as deadly as a low level wizard with ray of frost. As for higher level wizards, well, common men should rightly fear them, just as they should rightly fear any higher level character.
So what if they're "not magic"? Being magic is purely a stylistic difference. I've already pointed out how attack cantrips are balanced with simple weapons. So why is it such an issue that the mage happens to be attacking with, *gasp*, magic? Why is shooting a crossbow for the same damage just fine, but if that attack is in the form of a ray of frost, it suddenly somehow ruins the game?
According to who? The dictionary.com definition of "cantrip" is "a magic spell; a trick by sorcery." Attack cantrips absolutely fit that definition.
Not everyone thinks it's fun to play a wizard that can only perform magic a couple of times per day.
Similar Threads
