Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
What it has to do with it is that shield proficiency gives you the same benefit that this hypothetical cantrip would give, and doesn’t cost a reaction to use. So, if you think shield proficiency is fair for a wizard to be able to access, why would you not think this hypothetical cantrip would be fair for a wizard to be able to access as well?There are plenty of ways for a wizard to get shield proffeciency with RAW, and I'm fine with all of them. I'm also fine with house-ruling, if you feel like it. But I still really don't understand what any of that has to do with a cantrip that either shields the caster to increase ac, or as I suggested; blinds an enemy to reduce his attack value
I don’t know why the OP wants to make such a cantrip either, but it doesn’t much matter. If it’s something someone wants in their game, fine. You seem to be hung up on it “doing too much” for a cantrip, which was the point of my comparison to shield proficiency. It’s evidently not “doing too much” for a shield to give +2 AC at-will, so why does the fact that it’s a cantrip make it too much?First of all I don't see any reason for that cantrip when Shield already exists. It's already a super good spell that fills it role. Second, though I agree there could be more choices when it comes to cantrips that use reactions or bonus actions I also think they should be relativly limited in their power, so there is still a choice that has to be made and not push other options out the window. They are also going to be pretty much free at lower levels, as far as action-economy is concerned, so you can almost always expect a wizard to pop this cantrip every round below lvl 5. That's just to much, I think, unless you are also going to think up a a whole bunch of special martial techniques that give the poor fighters\ monks and barbs some more options.
Last edited: