D&D 5E Potent Cantrip is still dumb, btw

[Gargoyle]

I'm not going to have very many house rules for 5e, but Potent Cantrip annoys me because it's obvious that the last minute removal of damage on a miss impacted the ability in ways there were unintended. I don't think evokers should prefer to use non-evocation cantrips, and I don't feel that damage on a miss for spells is a bad thing, as it can be described in the same way as save for half damage spells, the target can only partially evade the spell effect, due to the increased effectiveness of the evoker's version of the spell. (the firebolt and ray of frost are mini-cones instead of rays, the shock grasp arcs to hit the target)

Potent Cantrip: p117 Add the following text: Creatures also take half damage even if you miss your attack roll with a cantrip. Potent Cantrip only affects evocation cantrips.

Now of course, with this you can't use Potent Cantrip with any cantrips currently published that save for half damage, and it limits you to using it with firebolt, ray of frost, or shocking grasp, but that's fine with me. Eventually there will be more evocation cantrips to choose from.

Another approach would be to change the evocation cantrips so that the target saves for half damage, but I rather like how they are currently written, and it seems that the save for half damage mechanic makes more sense when reserved for spells that affect more than one target.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well the thing is in the playtest that is how Potent Cantrip worked, although it might have specified Evocation Cantrips back then. Also back then Great Weapon Fighting style did damage on a miss. Both were changed because people complained about Great Weapon Fighting style giving Fighters, and Paladins and Rangers, the ability to deal damage on a miss.

Funny how the complaint was only with GWFing, but both got changed.

So both features were changed and Mearls has said it was because dealing damage on a miss with Potent Cantrip was "too confusing" for people in the playtest.

Really, the source of the confusion is that spell attacks, can use either an attack roll vs AC by the attacker, or a save vs a specific stat by the defender. That makes anything that could affect a spell's success clumsy. Something that makes a spell more likely to succeed has to grant Advantage to the caster for spells that use attack rolls, but impose disadvantage on the defender for spells that use saves. Imposing blanket half damage for a whole class of spells, as Potent Cantrip does, then has to be on a miss or successful save - or the feature doesn't make sense, because it fails to impact certain spells for what is essentially a mechanical difference. That's doubly the case here: it doesn't exactly make sense that an Evoker feature doesn't work with Evocation spells.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I don't really like attack cantrips that have saving throws. I prefer to roll my own at-will attacks rather than having the DM roll every time. It's just more fun for me (and probably easier for the DM too). So it's a bit disappointing to play an evoker and not have the satisfaction of rolling for my own attacks.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I actually think it's pretty stark and easily defined.

Acid splash and poison spray (and other damaging conjurations) create physical substances (acid and poison). Evocations shoot energy at people.

If there are spells that break this rule, those are the ones you should complain about for muddying the waters.

No, no, no. The whole point of difference is that conjuration spells STEAL objects and creatures from somewhere else. So every time you cast Acid Splash there's a poor, hapless monster out there who suddenly gets indigestion from a tasty adventurer. Meanies.
.

 

[Joe Liker]

I don't really like attack cantrips that have saving throws. I prefer to roll my own at-will attacks rather than having the DM roll every time. It's just more fun for me (and probably easier for the DM too). So it's a bit disappointing to play an evoker and not have the satisfaction of rolling for my own attacks.

I completely agree with that. The feature should be rewritten as "half damage on a miss with evocation cantrips," and everything would fall beautifully into place.