D&D 5E Would making powerful enemies immune to cantrips make the game more or less fun?

[BookTenTiger]

I was thinking about how, in older editions, demons / devils and other powerful enemies might have immunity to spells of a certain level. If this was ported over to 5e, do you think it would make the game more or less fun?

I imagine implementing this house rule would mean powerful enemies of certain types would have "cantrip immunity." For example, dragons, demons and devils, celestials, and maybe powerful undead would have it. The idea would be that "common magic" no longer effects these powerful beings.

Obviously this would be a big blow to warlocks, who rely most on cantrips out of any spellcasters. For wizards, clerics, and other spellcasters, it would mean having to burn spell slots instead of using cantrips. This could be tough at the end of an "adventuring day" in which they have used a lot of spell slots!

What do you think? Would this house rule make D&D more fun or less fun for you?

(NOTE: I'm not planning on actually implementing this house rule. I'm just having fun thinking of new ideas.)

 

[payn]

I'd have fun with it, but I like these limits on occasion. They make the party fall back on their heels and think outside the box.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Nes. Yo. Naybe?

Immunity to cantrips means spellcasters return to the older style "either/or" gameplay. Either they drop full spells, which can do some hefty effects, or they do...basically nothing.

Certainly, it would emphasize the damage coming from classes that use melee attacks. Pretty hefty nerf to Warlock, given its specialization in eldritch blast and being rather weaker in spellcasting other than that. Might be worth giving eldritch blast a special exception.

 

[FrogReaver]

I was thinking about how, in older editions, demons / devils and other powerful enemies might have immunity to spells of a certain level. If this was ported over to 5e, do you think it would make the game more or less fun?

I imagine implementing this house rule would mean powerful enemies of certain types would have "cantrip immunity." For example, dragons, demons and devils, celestials, and maybe powerful undead would have it. The idea would be that "common magic" no longer effects these powerful beings.

Obviously this would be a big blow to warlocks, who rely most on cantrips out of any spellcasters. For wizards, clerics, and other spellcasters, it would mean having to burn spell slots instead of using cantrips. This could be tough at the end of an "adventuring day" in which they have used a lot of spell slots!

What do you think? Would this house rule make D&D more fun or less fun for you?

(NOTE: I'm not planning on actually implementing this house rule. I'm just having fun thinking of new ideas.)

It's a cool option. Seems like it would be a good toggle to shift the game toward different genres and settings.

Also, resistance to cantrips could be another cool addition. EB probably should bypass immunity or at least treat immunity like resistance.

 

[the Jester]

Rakshasa have this already. And I don't actually recall other fiends having anything like this, except maybe 1e/2e daemons/yugoloths where their magic resistance varied with the level of the spell as well as the caster (IIRC).

Is it fun? Once in a great while. But at will cantrips is a massive part of how 5e balances spellcasters vs. martial characters. Take them away, and you've really disadvantaged casters. Is that okay? Again, once in a great while. I'd absolutely hate it if even 1 fiend in 10 had something like this, though.

 

[Remathilis]

I see no value in it, unless you think 15 minute work days are too long and 5 minutes are more your speed.

Of all the effects a caster can bring to bear, 5dx is the least scary one.

 

[MNblockhead]

Rakshasa are fun, so...yes? But I wouldn't say all creatures above CR XX are immune or that all creatures with legendary actions are. I would reserve it for specific monsters, like the Rakshasa. You could have weaker fiends or other magical creatures that are immune to lower level spells. But I would not make it a common occurance. It should be something that makes certain enemies special.

 

[Oofta]

I want my player's PCs to be effective even if I've pushed them past the point of having leveled spells. In previous editions the wizard was fairly pointless at lower levels and after a few levels you could fall back on scrolls and wands. It would feel like a step backwards to make cantrips ineffective.

 

[FrogReaver]

Rakshasa have this already. And I don't actually recall other fiends having anything like this, except maybe 1e/2e daemons/yugoloths where their magic resistance varied with the level of the spell as well as the caster (IIRC).

Is it fun? Once in a great while. But at will cantrips is a massive part of how 5e balances spellcasters vs. martial characters. Take them away, and you've really disadvantaged casters. Is that okay? Again, once in a great while. I'd absolutely hate it if even 1 fiend in 10 had something like this, though.

IMO, flying enemies are already nearly immune to melee weapons and melee weapon users have extremely limited backup options. It's not fun for them in that situation, but it happens and there's a notion that if enemy mechanics can bypass those character mechanics, then casters shouldn't really be exempt from enemy mechanics bypass their abilities either.

Personally, I think balance makes a more enjoyable and fun game overall even if at the moment it's a bit less fun for a particular player. Though I do tend to dislike outright immunities as the default. Resistance would tend to be my preference and seems like it would closer mimic a str fighter swapping to a bow (being less effective but still being able to hurt the flyer/ranged enemy).

 

[BookTenTiger]

I want my player's PCs to be effective even if I've pushed them past the point of having leveled spells. In previous editions the wizard was fairly pointless at lower levels and after a few levels you could fall back on scrolls and wands. It would feel like a step backwards to make cantrips ineffective.

I think it would be interesting to see how this kind of house rule would impact character choice. If you know that there will be certain enemies that are immune to cantrips, will you still play a Warlock? Will you still choose combat cantrips?

This would definitely be something decided at Session 0.