D&D (2024) Playtest 8: Cantrips

[Weiley31]

Why do we have attack cantrips in the first place? I mean, 5e is built so that your Wizard could throw darts or plunk things with crossbows just as effectively as anyone else with proficiency and a decent stat to use them. And it's not like Dexterity isn't something most Wizards want.

They exist, primarily, so that players of spellcasters can feel like they're doing magic stuff all the time. By giving the player a "spell attack" that's as effective as using a weapon, or a "spell torch" that's as effective as a real light source, it sells the class fantasy.

I could hold a torch or lantern in one hand as a Wizard because I don't normally need to use both hands to walk around and cast magic. But that doesn't sell the bit, it doesn't make me feel as much a Wizard as being able to go "behold, rubes! You with your primitive burning sticks! Witness my power, that allows me to create a superior light source that is infinitely renewable and hands free!".

So enter a cantrip that lets you make weapon attacks. Why would you use it over a spell attack, which doesn't require any gold investment or inventory space, if there wasn't some advantage to using it?

I never want to ever go back to Wizards using Crossbows once they run out of Spell Slots.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I never want to ever go back to Wizards using Crossbows once they run out of Spell Slots.

Agreed, it should not be required. But I do like that True Strike better allows a player to do so, if that is what they want to do.

 

[OB1]

Produce Flame I'm trying to figure out when this being a bonus action might be useful, but it still takes an action to attack with it so...I don't know. The increased area of the lighting aspect is a slight upgrade but it remains a niche cantrip. It would be way better if it only did 1d4 damage but you could cast and attack with it as a bonus action.

The utility of a bonus action to create light in a 40' radius and that doesn't cost concentration is pretty good, since every other way to create a light source mid-combat takes a full action (and dancing lights eats concentration as well). You also get to choose whether to throw it the same round you cast it (thus going back to darkness) or cast another cantrip and keep the light going.

 

[Scott Christian]

Friends - Please for god's sake tell us whether this is meant to have bad effects when it wears off so we don't have a situation where 50% of DMs think it does because TRADITION!!! and 50% of DMs don't think it does because it doesn't specifically say so.

Friends: Add, "When the spell ends, the creature knows you charmed it. Its reaction depends on how you treated it while it was Charmed."

It should not be any more specific than what it is. You are talking about a random NPC that it is being cast upon. A person that has their own likes, dislikes, fears, family, personality, friends, habits, culture, quirks, etc. How can you possibly give explicit information regarding a person this complex? This doesn't even take into account how the target was treated and had been treated by the caster and the caster's friends.

This seems like a DM issue, not a rule issue.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

The utility of a bonus action to create light in a 40' radius and that doesn't cost concentration is pretty good, since every other way to create a light source mid-combat takes a full action (and dancing lights eats concentration as well). You also get to choose whether to throw it the same round you cast it (thus going back to darkness) or cast another cantrip and keep the light going.

Throwing the flame does not extinguish the light in your hand. It remains.

 

[Yaarel]

It should not be any more specific than what it is. You are talking about a random NPC that it is being cast upon. A person that has their own likes, dislikes, fears, family, personality, friends, habits, culture, quirks, etc. How can you possibly give explicit information regarding a person this complex? This doesn't even take into account how the target was treated and had been treated by the caster and the caster's friends.

This seems like a DM issue, not a rule issue.

I agree this is a narrative situation that belongs to the DM to adjudicate. That said, it is worth reminding the player, Charm isnt mind control, the target knows exactly that it is Charmed even while being Charmed, and that after the Charm wears off, the target remembers this.

 

[OB1]

Throwing the flame does not extinguish the light in your hand. It remains.

Oh wow, read that wrong. So a Druid could cast this, wildshape, and have the option to hit at range from it's beast form, yes?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Oh wow, read that wrong. So a Druid could cast this, wildshape, and have the option to hit at range from it's beast form, yes?

I as a DM would rule that a wildshaped druid could produce "a flame that emits no heat and ignites nothing" with their paw (instead of a hand) that they can throw as a Magic action. It's a spell attack that uses Wis, not a Dex or Str ranged attack that needs humanoid arm muscles.

I've always been cool with refluffing spell effects (like magic missiles that are unique to a caster), so why can't that wildshaped druid hold "a flame that emits no heat and ignites nothing" in their mouth, or at the tip of their tail? And use their spell attack to "spit" or "flick" that produced flame at their opponents? Holding the flame in their hand isn't a balance requirement thing, because nothing prevents that hand from holding a weapon alongside holding an immaterial flame.

A wolf or bear whose mouth slavers with fire? Or a great cat with a flickering flame at the tip of their dancing tail? Sounds pretty freaking cool to me.

 

[Incenjucar]

Soo.... fox fire.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Since Yuan-Ti Player Characters get Poison Spray as a free cantrip, and Poison Spray is an attack roll now. I certainly picture a Yuan-Ti casting Poison Spray by spitting at their opponents.