Potent Cantrip: To "fix" or not to fix?

[Dausuul]

Swapping (permanently, not on a need-basis during the game) a spell's damage type does not alter the game balance, as long as the damage type is in the same category of usefulness (this may sound a bit vague, but the game designers have given hints based on how many monsters have immunity/resistance to various damage types, that at least you should not swap elemental damage with force or radiance because there are few monsters in the game that can resist these two damage types).

I did some analysis of damage types here. Summary: Poison is by far the weakest; then fire, lightning, and cold are clustered together; then acid and necrotic; and the other damage types are almost unresisted.

On the subject of Potent Cantrip: Mechanically, it got a lot better in Xanathar's, since the most powerful damaging cantrip is now toll the dead (decent range, d12 damage in most cases and falls back to a still-respectable d8, Wisdom save, necrotic damage). So it's now a pretty useful ability. But flavor-wise, it's kind of a fail since toll the dead is necromancy. The go-to evocation cantrip is fire bolt, which doesn't benefit.

Potent Cantrip is roughly equivalent to +3 on spell attack rolls. (Assuming targets have a 70% chance to fail their save, half damage on a successful save means the cantrip averages 85% of its base damage. 70% to 85% is what you get from a +3 on an attack roll.) So I'd consider rewriting it like this:

Potent Cantrip
Starting at 6th level, your evocation cantrips affect even creatures that avoid the brunt of the effect. When a creature succeeds on a saving throw against your evocation cantrip, the creature takes half the cantrip’s damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect from the cantrip. In addition, you get +3 on spell attack rolls with evocation cantrips.

So, rather than pushing you toward cantrips which grant saves, it now pushes you toward cantrips in your school.

 

[Li Shenron]

Potent Cantrip
Starting at 6th level, your evocation cantrips affect even creatures that avoid the brunt of the effect. When a creature succeeds on a saving throw against your evocation cantrip, the creature takes half the cantrip’s damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect from the cantrip. In addition, you get +3 on spell attack rolls with evocation cantrips.

Well, if I really had to house rule it, they why not just having the same effect on both:

Potent Cantrip
Starting at 6th level, your cantrips affect even creatures that avoid the brunt of the effect. When a creature succeeds on a saving throw against your cantrip, or you fail your attack roll to hit with your cantrip, the creature takes half the cantrip’s damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect from the cantrip.

I actually think this is close to the RAI. Maybe they just dropped attack-based cantrips from it because the ability sounded like the controversial "damage on a miss", but this is magic, and Potent Cantrip could represent the fact that your cantrips are somewhat "larger" than usual (works also for Acid Splash, maybe not with Poison Spray) so they always catch their target at least a bit. You know, like area spells do...

 

[Dausuul]

I actually think this is close to the RAI. Maybe they just dropped attack-based cantrips from it because the ability sounded like the controversial "damage on a miss", but this is magic, and Potent Cantrip could represent the fact that your cantrips are somewhat "larger" than usual (works also for Acid Splash, maybe not with Poison Spray) so they always catch their target at least a bit. You know, like area spells do...

I share the dislike of "damage on a miss," and without going into all the reasons why, "it's magic" does nothing to address my concerns. So I prefer a bonus on the attack roll.

As far as balance and mechanical function, however, either one would work fine.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I share the dislike of "damage on a miss," and without going into all the reasons why, "it's magic" does nothing to address my concerns. So I prefer a bonus on the attack roll.

...nod... it's a slippery slope: let some cantrips get DoaM, and, someday, down the line, some Monk Ki power might get it, then some BM maneuver might get it, then some combat style even a Champion Fighter could take...

Instead, how about:

Potent Cantrip
Starting at 6th level, your cantrips affect even creatures that avoid the brunt of the effect. When a creature succeeds on a saving throw against your Evocation cantrip, the creature takes half the cantrip’s damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect from the cantrip. In addition, when you use an Evocation cantrip that normally requires an attack roll, you can instead choose to impose a save on the target, the save is DEX for cantrips that inflict acid, fire, lightning, thunder, or force damage; CON for those that inflict Cold or Poison damage; and WIS if psychic damage is inflicted.

 

[Li Shenron]

I share the dislike of "damage on a miss," and without going into all the reasons why, "it's magic" does nothing to address my concerns. So I prefer a bonus on the attack roll.

As far as balance and mechanical function, however, either one would work fine.

Yeah I am not a fan of it either.

On the other hand, area spells have been effectively "damage on a miss" for a very long time. The rationale has always been that they don't target directly but "splash" over an area so you can't completely avoid them.

Now the situation is that Fire Bolt is designed as an attack spell so we hate to give it damage on a miss. But had they designed it in 5e as a 5ft-square area spell, we would not have had any problem.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Now the situation is that Fire Bolt is designed as an attack spell so we hate to give it damage on a miss. But had they designed it in 5e as a 5ft-square area spell, we would not have had any problem.

Guess they need to bring back Scorching Burst.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It would be pretty trivial to create appropriate spells based off of 'sacred flame', except that you run the risk of making poison spray redundant... which is almost ok, since poison spray is such an awful spell.

Radiant should be getting a damage reduction for being radiant (which is resisted by almost nothing, and has bonus effects against tons of things). So most other damage types should be a d10, and poison should be a d12 without losing most of it's range.

 

[Wyvern]

Potent Cantrip is roughly equivalent to +3 on spell attack rolls. (Assuming targets have a 70% chance to fail their save, half damage on a successful save means the cantrip averages 85% of its base damage. 70% to 85% is what you get from a +3 on an attack roll.) So I'd consider rewriting it like this:

Potent Cantrip
Starting at 6th level, your evocation cantrips affect even creatures that avoid the brunt of the effect. When a creature succeeds on a saving throw against your evocation cantrip, the creature takes half the cantrip’s damage (if any) but suffers no additional effect from the cantrip. In addition, you get +3 on spell attack rolls with evocation cantrips.

I'm curious how you came up with the 70% figure. In any case, given 5e's design philosophy of doing away with as many fiddly little modifiers as possible, I think I'd opt for advantage over a +3 bonus. Statistically, my understanding is that advantage gives roughly a +5 increase to the average outcome of the roll, so it might seem slightly better, but that's assuming that your estimate of 70% is accurate. It's also offset by the fact that it doesn't increase the maximum roll possible.

I definitely have no objection to limiting the benefit to evocation cantrips.

Wyvern

 

[Wyvern]

While I appreciate the suggestions for fixes, don't forget that I specifically asked for feedback from people who've had actual experience playing evokers, with or without house-ruling Potent Cantrip, and what your conclusions are regarding the effectiveness of the rule (either as written, or modified). Hypothetical solutions are all well and good, but only playtesting can tell whether they actually achieve the desired result.

Wyvern

 

[Dausuul]

I'm curious how you came up with the 70% figure.

It's been my default assumption when estimating damage: 70% to hit, 70% target fails its save. After a bit of number-crunching, however, I may have to rethink it. It looks like something more in the 60-65% range is more appropriate.

In any case, given 5e's design philosophy of doing away with as many fiddly little modifiers as possible, I think I'd opt for advantage over a +3 bonus.

In general, I'd agree, but this is a case where the modifier is less fiddly than advantage. It's like the Archery fighting style: When you get a universal bonus to a certain class of attacks, you can just factor it into your attack bonus and forget about it. With advantage, you have to roll two dice on every single cantrip attack. It would significantly slow down the game.