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

[aco175]

I am generally against it. Most of the higher level baddies have magic resistance already or give them immunity to things like fire or polymorph. I feel the cantrip serves the purpose of not having the mage pull out a crossbow when he is low on spells.

 

[Stormonu]

As stated above, Rhakashas already have extraordinary resistances.

With werewolves having immunity to normal weapons, I think cantrip immunity is fine as a game construct. I've even made a few homebrew monsters who have complete spell immunity (against anything that has a save, at least). As long as they are rarely used, and if meant to be fought PCs have other methods to defeat them, I feel it's fine. Not every monster should be something that can be taken head-on.

 

[ad_hoc]

Definitely less fun.

If the party is out of spell slots and abilities and down to their last and throw out one final try with the cantrips they have...only to be completely ineffective that isn't fun.

But finishing off the big boss with a cantrip would be a lot of fun.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Less fun. If a high level non-warlock spellcaster is spending their action casting a cantrip at a major enemy it's because something is already going wrong. Either they lack the right spell, lack the spell slots, are maintaining concentration and lack another non-concentration option, or are stalling until their next turn for some reason. Needing to spend their action just casting a cantrip in a high level fight is already a bummer without making it a complete waste.

It also really disproportionately screws over warlocks. I'm generally okay with screwing over warlocks, but this seems punitive.

And it eliminates the possibility of the bard slaying a dragon with an insult, which is just a shame.

 

[Remathilis]

I've read this three times now and can't figure out what you're saying.

I think that they're saying that it will exacerbate the 15 minute work day rather than solving it.
Out of all the reasons that spellcasters are problematic in 5e, their cantrip damage is rarely an issue.

Kobold has it right. It just encourages casters to go nova and rest quickly, since they will burn through spell slots quicker if their options become cast a spell or do nothing of value.

 

[Grantypants]

I see this as being roughly equivalent to requiring martial characters to use silvered or cold iron weapons in certain situations. Which is perfectly fine, as long as those characters have a way to get the right weapons eventually or have something else important they can do in a fight.
If you're going to do this, I'd suggest you also give the PCs a way around it. Maybe PCs that use particular spellcasting implements have their spells do full damage?

 

[Baron Opal II]

I think it's a great idea, one I have used in fact.

While it doesn't help with cantrips, when I've had creatures immune to 2nd level spells, for example, upcasting magic missile to a 3rd level spell allows for the protection to be bypassed. I also endeavour to have creatures with this immunity rare.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Used for some special monsters, I would like it.

I think the warlock won't have eldritch blast as cantrip for much longer, and instead have an equivalent class ability

So yes. Go all for it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Less fun. Making it strictly at the Cantrip level makes me think it's more about DMs who just don't like cantrip magic because they want "low magic" campaigns than it is about any sort of worthwhile immunity.

If I'm going to make a new monster immune to spells, then I'm going the Rakshasa route and start at like 3rd level and down or 4th level and down. "Cantrips only" just feels more cheesy to me than anything else.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not a fan of flat immunity to anything, except in extreme cases, tbh.