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

[ClaytonCross]

So, apparently, "the target gains no advantage from cover for this saving throw" has been ninja-errataed to "the target gains no advantage from cover at all." Last I checked, you picked your target for a spell before any saves got rolled, and you can't target something behind total cover.

I love the game that Jeremy Crawford helped create, but I wish he'd get someone with a little less creativity and a little more (a lot more) rigor to do Sage Advice.

...Not that that's really relevant to this thread, I suppose.

Well its relevant to the respect of it being an evocation cantrip spell with two qualities that make it stand out for being a good choice for Potent Cantrip and as a result making it worth using.

Its also not really an errata. Its rules as intended from the beginning, he stated that you must see it and the intent was always that it comes down behind cover as if from the sky voiding any blockage between you and it. So seeing a target behind wall of force or through a tiny crack in the wall with full cover is in fact what the spell was made for from the beginning. He did mention in the same spill that this is commonly over looked and he wishes he had clarified it more particularly for those who might not speak English as their first language and might miss the nuance. I speak English as a first language and I missed until it was pointed out by another player at my table.

"Flame-like radiance descends on a creature that you can see within range. The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 radiant damage. The target gains no benefit from cover for this saving throw.

 

[Wyvern]

Fighters have a potential slight boost at levels six and seven because they get their second ASI sooner so can hit 20 at level six in a standard array/point buy environment.

Not that it really matters to this discussion, but standard array/point buy scores max out at 15 (17 with racial bonus).

If you only get one re-roll it's less, even less the smaller the die, but it's a pretty minor benefit compared to DoaSS/DoaM.

DoaSS? DoaM?

I house-ruled this some time ago.

Evoker's Cantrip

When rolling to hit with an evocation cantrip, you get +2 to hit.

And how has that been working out for you?

 

[Tony Vargas]

DoaSS? DoaM?
?

Damage on a Successful Save, a time honored, functional, D&D mechanic common in 5e, including, in an amazingly limited way, the Potent Cantrip feature.
Damage on a Miss, a freakish 4e/playtest dissociated mechanic that briefly threatened to destroy D&D As We Know It, but was swiftly put down. Theoretically could be used to fairly neatly make the Evoker feature in question work with PH evocation cantrips.

They are abbreviated DoaSS and DoaM in discussions championing the sanctity of the one and anathema of the other.

They are also mathematically identical.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If you can come up with a reasonable way of estimating "chances of running into a monster with it," I'll happily apply that to my calculations.

I meant no disparagement. Major kudos for doing that analysis in the first place.
I was just explaining to Jaelis why "most common" might not mean the same thing for both of you.

 

[jaelis]

Thunderclap and Sacred Fame are also evocation and disadvantage from frostbit is lost per the ability we are talking about so its irrelevant to the topic unless you need 1/2 cold damage for some reason (you likely don't). If your saying your ignoring the ability and taking your favorite cantrip... sure take it too, its not like you only get one cantrip so taking thunderclap and sacred flame gives you the option when its relevant and will be far more effective at that time. That's the point of taking multiple combat can trips. Cold damage has a lot of immunity and resistance too but I will agree that GMs tend to lean on undead as unsympathetic evil which tends to make necrotic resistance more common. Truth be told Toll the dead is the most damaging single target spell with a range over 10ft and poison spray is not only shorter range but poison resistance and immunity is actually more common than necrotic. If your stuck on the secondary effect of frostbite that's fine...But that's also a bit off topic because your taking with disregard to the ability being discussed instead of including it. (Unless your agreement it that Potent Cantrip sucks because its not useful with "the best" evocation spell that qualifies.)

My only point was that IMO, the extra effect of frostbite (on a failed save) is going to be more useful in the long run than the extra damage from toll the dead, even when the extra extra damage resulting from potent cantrip is taken into account. But of course I agree that having both is best; use the spell that best fits the situation.

I would argue that if you want a single target EVOCATION spell that it not as likely to be resisted and is good with Potent Cantrip... Lighting Lure d8 with 15ft range is actually better since it does half damage on scaling d8 lighting damage and pulling an enemy 10ft toward you from 15ft away then moving 30ft away means you can free an ally to move out of combat range and move out of combat range yourself which so a melee opponent has zero chance of hitting either of you. It also uses strength save instead of constitution save which will make it far more effective because dex fighters/rogues are likely to dump strength but NO ONE wants to dump constitution so potent can trip is going to trigger less but be more effective when it does. (I sill prefer Toll the dead to stand further back and do damage but if you want evocation...)

It seems clear that you are much more willing to get your evoker into melee range than I am. Kudos to that, just a question of different styles.

Also, Jeremy Crawford comments Sacred Flame here http://media.wizards.com/2017/podcasts/dnd/DnDPodcast_01_19_2017.mp3 @ 36:20 after explaining line of sight and invisible wall interactions he specifically states that Scared Flame can attack players in full cover HOWEVER you have to see them so you can hit a target behind wall of force, windows / invisible creatures, or any other barrier that would stop spells traveling from the caster to a target but you can see through. If there is a little crack and you see the target but its still considered enough to be considered in full cover you CAN target it and hit it with sacred flame without any penalty where no other spell can.

Interesting,I wouldn't have read it that way, but I will keep this in mind for when we have a combat in the midst of a bunch of windows that you can see through but that provide total cover.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Interesting,I wouldn't have read it that way, but I will keep this in mind for when we have a combat in the midst of a bunch of windows that you can see through but that provide total cover.

lol, well I get that its not supper common but if there is even a tiny crack between crates or you can see there cloak blowing in the wind you cant target them. Its good for "well GM, I know they are hiding behind the tree and have full cover... is there any chance I see them sticking there noise around the corner to peek out?" If the answer is yes.... "I CAST SACRED FLAME!!"

 

[Caliburn101]

And how has that been working out for you?

Very good I have to say. My players were happy with it being balanced with the Archery fighting style bonus, and liked that it was thematically more appropriate.

 

[Li Shenron]

They are also mathematically identical.

They are also narratively different.

The outrage for DoaM was more about the image of swinging or thrusting a small weapon (don't know how far it went, but could have included also shooting an arrow or a rock with a sling) and still be guaranteed to hurt the target even on a miss.

There is no outrage for DoaSS because the narration of area spells is always that they entirely fill an area, making them impossible to avoid completely. If anything, there has been some occasional outrage in the past for the Rogue's ability to fully avoid a Fireball damage even when in an enclosed space.

It's never been really about the math.

 

[Tony Vargas]

They are also narratively different.

The outrage for DoaM was more about the image of swinging or thrusting a small weapon (don't know how far it went, but could have included also shooting an arrow or a rock with a sling) and still be guaranteed to hurt the target even on a miss.

The specific DoaM feature was for Greatweapon Style, so you're talking a particularly skillfull weilder swinging a large weapon in arcs that could conceivably sweep through areas comparable to an old school burning hands (example chosen because I remember 6' and 120 degrees). But the idea was apparently more to do with armor causing a 'miss' and the abstraction of hps.

There is no outrage for DoaSS because the narration of area spells is always that they entirely fill an area, making them impossible to avoid completely

Depends on the spell and the ed. Fireballs are notoriously space-filling, the afore-mentioned burning hands or cantrips, not so much.

The difference is mainly magic. Using a mathematically equivalent mechanic adds complexity, but creates an aesthetic distinction.

If anything, there has been some occasional outrage in the past for the Rogue's ability to fully avoid a Fireball damage even when in an enclosed space.

But none for a globe of invulnerablility stopping one cold, because magic.

It's never been really about the math.

Obviously not, are there'd be no impetus towards the needless complexity of resolving attacks by having the attacker roll, some, but the defender roll others.

 

[Kali_357]

Can anyone explain to me what I am missing with this please

My wizzards cantrip's that would apply already give me half damage on a successful save.