D&D 5E OP Cantrip?

[Dausuul]

Compare it to True Strike. Also a cantrip, but uses an Action. Your next attack is at advantage. Only affects a single attack and just for you.

Well, to be fair, true strike is a wretchedly bad cantrip which no one should ever take. But still.

You know, I was going to compare this revised cantrip to Shield Master.

Come on! A feat is a HUGE opportunity cost. Unless you are variant human or level 12+, you are sacrificing +2 to your primary stat to get those benefits. That affects all of your attack rolls, save DCs, and (depending on class and subclass) your damage rolls as well. Not to mention your skills. You should be getting a serious boost in exchange. A cantrip that is good enough to even consider comparing to a feat is a cantrip that is way, way too powerful.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Let's take another look at it from a different direction:

If you allowed this cantrip (in whatever variation you want to use) in your game, you can use it against the PCs as well. So, ask your players how much they want it used against them and if they think it would be "fair"?

If their answer is "No" then don't use it. If they answer "Sure" then try it out. I think that is the best way to determine if something is OP for your table or not.

 

[Dausuul]

If you allowed this cantrip (in whatever variation you want to use) in your game, you can use it against the PCs as well. So, ask your players how much they want it used against them and if they think it would be "fair"?

This makes even less sense than comparing a cantrip to a feat. If a player comes to me and requests an extra attack after each enemy's action, am I supposed to say yes because I use legendary monsters?

 

[toucanbuzz]

As others have pointed out, when it comes to spell balance, we look to other spells and see if we've exceeded the utility of spells of the same level. My Take: very overpowered.

1. It's duplicating the effects of the 2nd level spell Blindness, and even better, it's a bonus action (and I don't know why DEX vs. CON, which is what all other blindness effects use). Duration isn't really an issue as the Cantrip can be reapplied without losing a slot, and Blindness might only last 1 round before the save is made. It's that one round of condition that can change the game.
2. Blindness is a 2nd level spell because the incapacity is brutal. It's 3 effects in one: can't target (and hence can't make attacks of opportunity), disadvantage to attack everyone, advantage on everyone's attacks against target.
3. Compare the cantrip Light. In AD&D, it could be cast on a creature (as a 1st level spell), causing blindness, leading it to be abusive as spells to blind were normally 3rd level. In 3rd edition, as well as 5th, this was nerfed to objects only. No more casting it on someone's eyeballs. Historically, we had a basic spell that originally blinded and was nerfed. This should be instructive.
4. Compare the Xanathar spell Pyrotechnics, a 2nd level spell. It can create one of two effects, including blindness for anyone within 10' of the fire for 1 round, and as a CON save.
5. Cantrips are supposed to be minor effect spells, capable of, at best, 1-2 features (e.g. damage, sensory effect, target more than one). Hence, True Strike is restricted to attack advantage for YOU. Chill Touch imposes disadvantage only on undead attacks and only against you, not everyone. Creating a spell that has 3 major effects, targets a save many monsters are poor at, and with no drawback (you can simply reapply it every round and get to use it with an Action!!!) allows it to duplicate and likely exceed the utility of a 2nd level spell without losing a prized spell slot. That's not minor, it's major.

 

[NotAYakk]

Well, to be fair, true strike is a wretchedly bad cantrip which no one should ever take. But still.

There are good reasons to use true strike.

(a) As a utility cantrip, to win archery competitions and similar stunts.
(b) In theory, you want to cast a 9th level spell with a single attack roll. Burning an action to ensure advantage could be worth it.

And that's about it.

Come on! A feat is a HUGE opportunity cost. Unless you are variant human or level 12+, you are sacrificing +2 to your primary stat to get those benefits. That affects all of your attack rolls, save DCs, and (depending on class and subclass) your damage rolls as well. Not to mention your skills. You should be getting a serious boost in exchange. A cantrip that is good enough to even consider comparing to a feat is a cantrip that is way, way too powerful.

Note that "feat to gain a cantrip" is sometimes optimal, as it can let you give up an entire stat.

Like, Shillelagh -- lets you make a melee build that dumps dex and str.

Or a rogue using booming blade to upgrade their primary attack.

The thing is both of those are pretty narrow, build-specific quirks, so aren't general power ups. "I get advantage" isn't.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This makes even less sense than comparing a cantrip to a feat. If a player comes to me and requests an extra attack after each enemy's action, am I supposed to say yes because I use legendary monsters?

PCs are not monsters or NPCs. The DM can give a feature, even this cantrip, to an NPC and not give a fig if the PCs can do it. But, if PCs can do something, the DM is completely within his right to grant the same feature to opponents if he wishes.

Are PCs ever surprised if an opponent has a feature they have? No.
Why? Because they must assume, in some fashion, they have levels or the equivalent to allow it.

Do players complain when monster do stuff they can't? Sometimes, you bet. But that is the nature of 5E.

 

[Zardnaar]

As others have pointed out, when it comes to spell balance, we look to other spells and see if we've exceeded the utility of spells of the same level. My Take: very overpowered.

1. It's duplicating the effects of the 2nd level spell Blindness, and even better, it's a bonus action (and I don't know why DEX vs. CON, which is what all other blindness effects use). Duration isn't really an issue as the Cantrip can be reapplied without losing a slot, and Blindness might only last 1 round before the save is made. It's that one round of condition that can change the game.
2. Blindness is a 2nd level spell because the incapacity is brutal. It's 3 effects in one: can't target (and hence can't make attacks of opportunity), disadvantage to attack everyone, advantage on everyone's attacks against target.
3. Compare the cantrip Light. In AD&D, it could be cast on a creature (as a 1st level spell), causing blindness, leading it to be abusive as spells to blind were normally 3rd level. In 3rd edition, as well as 5th, this was nerfed to objects only. No more casting it on someone's eyeballs. Historically, we had a basic spell that originally blinded and was nerfed. This should be instructive.
4. Compare the Xanathar spell Pyrotechnics, a 2nd level spell. It can create one of two effects, including blindness for anyone within 10' of the fire for 1 round, and as a CON save.
5. Cantrips are supposed to be minor effect spells, capable of, at best, 1-2 features (e.g. damage, sensory effect, target more than one). Hence, True Strike is restricted to attack advantage for YOU. Chill Touch imposes disadvantage only on undead attacks and only against you, not everyone. Creating a spell that has 3 major effects, targets a save many monsters are poor at, and with no drawback (you can simply reapply it every round and get to use it with an Action!!!) allows it to duplicate and likely exceed the utility of a 2nd level spell without losing a prized spell slot. That's not minor, it's major.

It's Dex based because it's a puff of smoke into the eyes flavour text wise.

 

[Dausuul]

(a) As a utility cantrip, to win archery competitions and similar stunts.

Well, okay, if you're willing to go to that extreme, there are reasons to use any spell you can name. You could be playing a wizard who idolizes Mordenkainen, and that would be a fair argument for learning Mordenkainen's sword. But that doesn't make Mordenkainen's sword a good or even a mediocre spell.

(b) In theory, you want to cast a 9th level spell with a single attack roll. Burning an action to ensure advantage could be worth it.

This would be a tolerable reason to take true strike, if there were any 9th-level spells with a single attack roll. Or 8th-level spells. Or 7th. Or 6th.

 

[MarkB]

And so what if allows you to try to escape or hide? The target would still get an OA even if with disadvantage (so it doesn't nullify OAs as you seem to think).

Quoting from the Player's Handbook, with added emphasis:

Opportunity Attacks
In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for a chance to strike an enemy who is fleeing or passing by. Such a strike is called an opportunity attack.
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Quoting from the Player's Handbook, with added emphasis:

Yeah, @NotAYakk already pointed that out. We've been playing with it as disadvantage for the OA since the beginning (unless you are also deafened, then no OA) so I forgot the official ruling as no OA when blind.