Wizards and Weapons

[Demonic Spoon]

One of the reasons cited for infinite use cantrips was that in prior editions, some people didn't like that a wizard had to fall back to using a crossbow or some other mundane weapon when they were out of spells.

However, that seems to have created the opposite problem that there is zero reason beyond level 5 to think about using a weapon as a dedicated caster. If you aren't a gish with other features for weapon use, you'll just use cantrips. Personally, I kind of like the idea of mages and other casters falling back to weapon attacks rather than infinite damage cantrips, or at least having the option.


Has anyone come up with a mechanism that could make weapon attacks at mid-higher level a viable option for casters alongside cantrip use without overshadowing it?

[Giant2005]

There are things you could do. You could:
1. Have them use a sword or crossbow or whatever and just have it use the Cantrip's damage and ability.
2. Give them some kind of ability to use magic to enhance their weapon attacks. With any 1h or versatile weapon, they can use their spellcasting ability for attack rolls (But not damage) and magically gain a second attack at level 5, a third at 11 and a fourth at 17. Due to the magical nature of this ability, it doesn't function well with already magical items and the extra attacks ability does not function.
3. Give them a magic ability where they can use their spellcasting ability for both attack and damage rolls and gain extra attacks at levels 5,11 and 17 but each turn they use that ability requires sacrificing two levels worth of spell slots per attack (2 spell slots for one attack, four for two attacks, six for three attacks and 8 for four attacks).

Only the third option has any serious mechanical advantage over just using a cantrip but it also comes at a cost which imo prevents them from rendering Fighters obsolete.

[SharkForce]

create a wizard path that is the equivalent of the eldritch knight but more focused on spellcasting. bard and warlock already have weapon-using archetypes, druids and clerics sort of do as well, and sorcerer probably doesn't really have enough room for much in their paths but you could try.

[ghost_warlock]

A good chunk of it boils down to what the players are looking to play and what they think will be fun. Most players who play casters want to actually cast spells. If they wanted to muck about with mundane weapons, they'd play a non-caster class or a hybrid class like the eldritch knight or blade pact warlock.

That said, in order to make mundane weapons attractive to casters, you first need to five them a way around multiple-ability dependency. This is easier for some classes than others and not as bad in 5e, where Dex can be used for attacks with a large number of melee weapons, as it was in previous editions where characters were forced to use Strength.

So what you're looking for is probably something like the shillelagh cantrip. Even then, though, I don't know why they'd bother if they had access to something like shocking grasp.

Otherwise, you'd be looking at having them spend their ability increases on feats to make their weapon-use competitive. Again, if that's the sort of character they wanted to play then they wouldn't be playing a caster class in the first place.

[Demonic Spoon]

There are things you could do. You could:
1. Have them use a sword or crossbow or whatever and just have it use the Cantrip's damage and ability.
2. Give them some kind of ability to use magic to enhance their weapon attacks. With any 1h or versatile weapon, they can use their spellcasting ability for attack rolls (But not damage) and magically gain a second attack at level 5, a third at 11 and a fourth at 17. Due to the magical nature of this ability, it doesn't function well with already magical items and the extra attacks ability does not function.
3. Give them a magic ability where they can use their spellcasting ability for both attack and damage rolls and gain extra attacks at levels 5,11 and 17 but each turn they use that ability requires sacrificing two levels worth of spell slots per attack (2 spell slots for one attack, four for two attacks, six for three attacks and 8 for four attacks).


1. This works for flavor, though I'd like the weapon to actually act like a weapon mechanically.

2 and 3 have the problem of defeating the purpose of cantrips. These attacks need to not come at the cost of spell slots or anything like it, or the wizard might as well just be using spells.


create a wizard path that is the equivalent of the eldritch knight but more focused on spellcasting. bard and warlock already have weapon-using archetypes, druids and clerics sort of do as well, and sorcerer probably doesn't really have enough room for much in their paths but you could try.


A subclass would replace other subclass features, and so the new martial abilities would need to be much more powerful than cantrips in order to make it a balanced and useful choice.

[Giant2005]

2 and 3 have the problem of defeating the purpose of cantrips. These attacks need to not come at the cost of spell slots or anything like it, or the wizard might as well just be using spells.

I didn't intend option 2 to come with a cost - it would function just like a Cantrip.

[SharkForce]

A subclass would replace other subclass features, and so the new martial abilities would need to be much more powerful than cantrips in order to make it a balanced and useful choice.

yes. they'd have to be powerful enough to replace other subclass abilities. that's the whole point of the subclass.

conveniently, unless you have some sort of class-based booster for cantrips, even making 2 attacks with no other bonuses whatsoever is better than the stronger cantrips (4d10 fire damage from firebolt vs 4d6 + 10 damage from a greatsword favours the greatsword with two attacks) even before feats, combat styles, etc are factored in. so if you give weapon proficiency, light armour (putting medium armour and shield one feat away, but not as part of the class), and a second attack at some point, you're already pretty close in strength if not superior. let them treat their weapons as being an extra +1 enhancement and allow a fighting style of their choice within reason (the one that lets them shield an ally would not be appropriate for a class that doesn't get shield proficiency as a base, for example) and maybe allow them to pick up shillelagh or a similar spell as a cantrip or possibly as a class ability (so that bards can't swipe it, if you want to give them weapons that are caster-stat based other than clubs and quarterstaffs), and you've pretty much got the whole thing covered. their damage will be equal or superior to their cantrips, as well as being more reliable (you're giving them a magic weapon and +1 to hit, plus a weapon style, after all), and it scales considerably better with feats.

if you feel like that still isn't equal to a wizard subclass, feel free to add a bit more, just don't go too crazy. you're probably overall already stronger than most melees when you look at the combination of full wizard spellcasting abilities plus what I've listed. you may not be stronger than other wizards, but then, it's not like wizards need to be made stronger anyways.

[Ashrym]

If a player wants to rely on weapons on a caster then bards, clerics, and warlocks already have weapon options. Bard and cleric cantrips don't do much damage to start with. Someone who wants a spellcaster who uses weapons can select one of those options.

It's not required to take damage cantrips and weapon use is a choice, and a person needs to keep in mind that two weapon fighting and large weapons plus ability modifiers still do more than or similar damage to cantrips at 5th level. There is also a range advantage in using a ranged weapon over a cantrip.

With feats, it's still worthwhile to use weapons at 11th level. A 3d8 cantrip for 13.5 damage or 3d10 cantrip for 16.5 damage isn't necessarily better than pole arm master plus ability modifier and less effective if it's on a cleric using divine strikes or the staff is magical.

Even at 17th level, if the choices are 4d8 for 18 damage or 4d10 for 22 damage a couple of good magical weapons and feats is competitive with cantrips. That cleric with a +2 staff and pole arm master is doing much more damage than cantrip damage. A sorcerer or wizard needs more investment but with good weapons, ability modifier, and feats still exceeds cantrip damage for most wizard traditions.

I don't see the point in creating change over using existing options if a person wants a weapon using spell caster. Cantrip damage is so poor for most classes that only wizards and sorcerers need a lot of investment and they can cover the archtype with a blade warlock, or make the investment.

This looks like unnecessary attempts for a incentive to cover something that already exists.

[Eslin]

If a player wants to rely on weapons on a caster then bards, clerics, and warlocks already have weapon options. Bard and cleric cantrips don't do much damage to start with. Someone who wants a spellcaster who uses weapons can select one of those options.

It's not required to take damage cantrips and weapon use is a choice, and a person needs to keep in mind that two weapon fighting and large weapons plus ability modifiers still do more than or similar damage to cantrips at 5th level. There is also a range advantage in using a ranged weapon over a cantrip.

With feats, it's still worthwhile to use weapons at 11th level. A 3d8 cantrip for 13.5 damage or 3d10 cantrip for 16.5 damage isn't necessarily better than pole arm master plus ability modifier and less effective if it's on a cleric using divine strikes or the staff is magical.

Even at 17th level, if the choices are 4d8 for 18 damage or 4d10 for 22 damage a couple of good magical weapons and feats is competitive with cantrips. That cleric with a +2 staff and pole arm master is doing much more damage than cantrip damage. A sorcerer or wizard needs more investment but with good weapons, ability modifier, and feats still exceeds cantrip damage for most wizard traditions.

I don't see the point in creating change over using existing options if a person wants a weapon using spell caster. Cantrip damage is so poor for most classes that only wizards and sorcerers need a lot of investment and they can cover the archtype with a blade warlock, or make the investment.

This looks like unnecessary attempts for a incentive to cover something that already exists.

At 11th level a cleric needs two feats and both actions to be doing 21.5 damage in melee, while he could be doing 3 or so damage less at range with no feats necessary.

[Forrestfire]

There's always the option of importing the RAI on crossbow expert (https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/crossbow-expert-ranged-spell/) to let the wizard use both cantrips and a crossbow in the same round.

[Ashrym]

At 11th level a cleric needs two feats and both actions to be doing 21.5 damage in melee, while he could be doing 3 or so damage less at range with no feats necessary.

At level 11 a cleric does 13.5 damage with the only cantrip available.

If the cantrip did 21.5 damage at 11th level it might be more meaningful.

At level 8 that cleric could be STR based, 18 STR, polearm master, divine strikes, and do 4.5+2.5+4+4+4.5 for 19.5 average damage using a staff normal staff and no buffs for a single feat.

Using a +2 halberd and 20 STR and better divine strikes at 14th level brings that up to 31 damage and still only one feat. 4d8 damage from sacred flame at 17th level is only 18 damage and competing with the 8th level weapon user. Potent spellcasting turns the cantrip into 23 damage and loses 9 damage from divine strikes, and the halberd for 21 damage. Even then the weapon is competitive until 17th level and still a better option with buffs applied to weapon attacks.

What numbers do you get on sacred flame and how are you getting them?

[Malifice]

One of the reasons cited for infinite use cantrips was that in prior editions, some people didn't like that a wizard had to fall back to using a crossbow or some other mundane weapon when they were out of spells.

However, that seems to have created the opposite problem that there is zero reason beyond level 5 to think about using a weapon as a dedicated caster. If you aren't a gish with other features for weapon use, you'll just use cantrips. Personally, I kind of like the idea of mages and other casters falling back to weapon attacks rather than infinite damage cantrips, or at least having the option.


Has anyone come up with a mechanism that could make weapon attacks at mid-higher level a viable option for casters alongside cantrip use without overshadowing it?

Give casters 3+(casting stat) 'cantrip slots' that recover on a short rest. Or a long rest if youre feeling mean.

[Giant2005]

There's always the option of importing the RAI on crossbow expert (https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/crossbow-expert-ranged-spell/) to let the wizard use both cantrips and a crossbow in the same round.

That isn't what that ruling is talking about. Crossbow Expert does specify the attack action with respect to the bonus attack. The part of that feat that applies to ranged spell attacks is the ability to attack within 5' without suffering from disadvantage.

[BW022]

I fail to see the reason why folks are trying to 'force' casters to use weapons. Yes, spells and cantrips are simply a better option for most wizards and sorcerers given enough levels. They have spent their lives learning to use magic, most have extremely limited weapon choices, and yes... that means using weapons is general sub-optimal to them. Adding mechanical bonuses is also just silly. There is no need for it.

There are certainly roleplaying and adventure specific reasons why casters might fall back on weapons. Magic is outlawed or heavily restricted, they have been captured and stripped of material components, fighting in an anti-magic field, need to be stealthy (nor verbal components), need to kill someone in a way which they won't be suspected, may wish to disguise the fact they are a spellcaster at the beginning of combat, fighting underwater, etc. or specific roleplaying reasons -- an elven wizard with a bow.

Most parties can face a number of these cases during their adventuring careers and can be fun and interesting challenges to casters. However, it isn't something a DM should continually force characters into -- anymore than always having fights in water such that armored-types can't wear armor or use heavy weapons. Eventually, players simply see it is an intentional nerf against them and try going elsewhere.

[Demonic Spoon]

I fail to see the reason why folks are trying to 'force' casters to use weapons. Yes, spells and cantrips are simply a better option for most wizards and sorcerers given enough levels. They have spent their lives learning to use magic, most have extremely limited weapon choices, and yes... that means using weapons is general sub-optimal to them. Adding mechanical bonuses is also just silly. There is no need for it.


Because we prefer it thematically? The only reason that it is the way it is now is because other people prefer to have casters only ever use spells. Which is fine, but is not strictly better than the alternative.

[Mitchellnotes]

So while there are several gishy characters, there isn't an archetype that uses a "channel" mechanic with weapons yet. I could see making an archetype for sorc or wizard that pulled themes from the 3.5 duskblade class. Light (possibly medium) armor prof, ability to channel touch spells, maybe some other interesting abilities including perhaps a reaction defensive bonus that used spell slots. The touch spells that exist so far dont seem like theyd be overpowered when compared to either an aoe, high damage spell, or multiple attacks.

To balance this out even more, limiting the channelled spell to 1 attack or requiring the bonus action to setup the channel could alleviate some of the balance concerns. The difficulty would be balancing it to the eldritch knight. More spells but less attacks.

[SharkForce]

I fail to see the reason why folks are trying to 'force' casters to use weapons.

who's forcing?

from the OP:

"Personally, I kind of like the idea of mages and other casters falling back to weapon attacks rather than infinite damage cantrips, or at least having the option.


Has anyone come up with a mechanism that could make weapon attacks at mid-higher level a viable option for casters alongside cantrip use without overshadowing it? "

if that's forcing anyone to do anything, then that's the least forceful force i've ever seen.

[Demonic Spoon]

Hm. What about:

Martial Training
Optional wizard/sorcerer feature, taken in place of one cantrip. At level 5, the caster can add an additional damage die to any weapon attack made using the Attack action. At level 11, this becomes two extra damage dice. At level 17, this becomes three extra damage dice.

It takes the place of a cantrip, so there's a cost to taking it.

It lets the wizard add his STR/DEX mod to damage at the cost of a reduced attack bonus (as his dex/str is probably going to be less than his int)

[Forrestfire]

That isn't what that ruling is talking about. Crossbow Expert does specify the attack action with respect to the bonus attack. The part of that feat that applies to ranged spell attacks is the ability to attack within 5' without suffering from disadvantage.

Ah. Darn. :smallsigh:

[Person_Man]

The premise of the thread is mostly correct, but there are a few exceptions.

If a Wizard or similar full caster gets a magical weapon, then it could be worth using, even with just one attack per round.

There are multiple ways to force an enemy to move away from you and trigger an Opportunity Attack (or multiple OA, if multiple PCs threaten). So in theory its always worthwhile to at least carry a good weapon.

There are various spell buffs that could make weilding a weapon worth it (though in most cases its almost always a better idea to buff an ally with Extra Attack instead).

I would also say that in most cases, classes with Extra Attack have superior at-will damage compared to those that don't, especially if the DM introduces magic weapons. Which is as it should be, because full casters like the Wizard shouldn't be awesome at everything. So I personally would be opposed to a house rule that buffed Wizards further. Not every class should be able to do every thing well.

[Demonic Spoon]

It's unlikely that a wizard will ever get a magic weapon worth using his one attack per round with given that, as mentioned, it's better to give it to a martial.

Forcing opponents away from you does not trigger opportunity attacks. They have to move away of their own volition.

Nothing anyone has suggested would give casters superior at-will damage to what they already have. The purpose of this thread is to effectively take something wizards already have (mediocre but reliable at-will damage for when they don't want to blow spell slots) and giving it a more martial-y flavor.

[SharkForce]

Hm. What about:

Martial Training
Optional wizard/sorcerer feature, taken in place of one cantrip. At level 5, the caster can add an additional damage die to any weapon attack they make. At level 11, this becomes two extra damage dice. At level 17, this becomes three extra damage dice.

It takes the place of a cantrip, so there's a cost to taking it.

It lets the wizard add his STR/DEX mod to damage at the cost of a reduced attack bonus (as his dex/str is probably going to be less than his int)

can't say that i like it. for starters, that gives them insane opportunity attacks, and will let them completely wreck the place with polearm mastery (never mind a sorcerer who splashes 3 warlock levels for tome pact and gets shilellagh as a warlock cantrip). for another, it's very easy to get a magical weapon and be able to harm basically anything. for yet another reason, it's easier to modify weapon attacks to make them bigger, or to gain more of them.

you've got to make it cost a lot imo. not so much because the damage is going to break the game, mind you, but mostly because dealing lots of combat damage is basically the only thing certain classes do, and this hands it out for practically nothing.

[Demonic Spoon]

I edited the wording such that it doesn't apply to OAs or other bonus attacks.

Dipping warlock 3 for shillelagh is straight up worse than dipping warlock 2 for eldritch blast + agonizing blast. Also, doesn't shillelagh specifically require you to use your WIS mod, which for a wizard/sorcerer, is going to be bad?


you've got to make it cost a lot imo. not so much because the damage is going to break the game, mind you, but mostly because dealing lots of combat damage is basically the only thing certain classes do, and this hands it out for practically nothing.


But wizards already do this much damage. In fact, I would argue that most damage cantrips are outright superior to what I outlined.

[Dalebert]

Dipping warlock 3 for shillelagh is straight up worse than dipping warlock 2 for eldritch blast + agonizing blast. Also, doesn't shillelagh specifically require you to use your WIS mod, which for a wizard/sorcerer, is going to be bad?

No. It specifies your main casting stat. I guess it occurred to them some people would access it occasionally other than druids. So if you used warlock to get it, it would be CHA. The problem remains though. If you're primarily a wizard, CHA is not your primary.

[RealCheese]

Also, doesn't shillelagh specifically require you to use your WIS mod, which for a wizard/sorcerer, is going to be bad?
It is worded as using your caster stat, not specifically wisdom. If you get it from the magic initiate feat it uses wisdom however. If a bard or tome warlock gets it, it uses charisma.

[Urpriest]

Because we prefer it thematically? The only reason that it is the way it is now is because other people prefer to have casters only ever use spells. Which is fine, but is not strictly better than the alternative.

Could you clarify why? What do you find thematically attractive about it?

[Frenth Alunril]

Maybe I'm strange. ...okay I'm strange.

Shouldn't these vain & boasting casters actually think that some threats are worth less than magic?

I kinda think making cantrips so awesome robs the warlock, historically, but the new warlock is a machine of a different type.

I'd leave it as is. With proficiency in longsword, most elvish casters are going to be pretty competent with the thing anyway. Considering they should end up with some ridiculous magic weapon anyway, it kinda fits.

[Ashrym]

It's unlikely that a wizard will ever get a magic weapon worth using his one attack per round with given that, as mentioned, it's better to give it to a martial.

Forcing opponents away from you does not trigger opportunity attacks. They have to move away of their own volition.

Nothing anyone has suggested would give casters superior at-will damage to what they already have. The purpose of this thread is to effectively take something wizards already have (mediocre but reliable at-will damage for when they don't want to blow spell slots) and giving it a more martial-y flavor.

I don't think you see the full picture.

Hand-me-down weapons can still become available as the fighter gets better weapons, attacks of opportunity still exist regardless, the game isn't all levels 17+, and the assumption is made that the wizard wants to use weapons instead of cantrips therefore investment into weapons is reasonable.

It's normal to use a weapon for opportunity attacks, range beyond spells, and before the cantrip damage exceeds the weapon damage at any given level.

The cantrips to keep ahead of are shocking grasp or poison spray in melee range, or firebolt at range as far as damage matters.

It takes virtually no investment to exceed cantrip damage for the first 4 levels. Some DEX and dual-wielding covers it. It takes little investment to exceed poison spray at 5th level simply by using a staff and pole arm master, or a large weapon with suitable feat, dual-wielding with a group buff that applies to both attacks, possibly a good magical weapon but I agree that's unlikely; however, +1 weapons in the levels 5-10 range are reasonable to see.

If a wizard wants to use weapons it can be done without much consideration up until that third die of damage becomes available. That third die tends to clinch it over regular attacks but at that point cantrip attacks are less frequently applied with more spell slots, and weapons are still needed for greater range and opportunity attacks.

If a wizard really wants to use weapons over cantrips regularly, it's possible to make the ability score investment in STR and use feats or race or MC for AC (or hold out for spell mastery and shield). A +1 staff with 18 STR and pole arm mastery plus a group using crusader's mantle is still slightly more damage than poison spray or shocking grasp.

It takes significant investment for weapons on a wizard to compete with 4 dice cantrips at 17th level, or significant weapons and buffing, or both, but it's still possible. Generally, I would say it's easier to MC a level of fighter, cleric, or 2 levels of paladin because that inherently provides better combat options. Polearm master with a +2 halberd, 20 STR, and crusader's mantle in a group is 27 average damage before accuracy on a pure wizard and doable, compared to 26 from poison spray, 25.5 from flame bolt, or 20.5 from shocking grasp in the same circumstances. The weapon advantage increases with additional buffs, a better magic weapon, and possibly from multiclass dipping.

I would MC war cleric 1, personally, with variant human, to build more of a weapon-user out of a wizard, but I would also be more inclined to simply play a valor bard, pact blade warlock, or war cleric for a spellcasting weapon-user / magic-user. Pact blade warlock is the closest thing to a wizard in arcane flavor, imo.

Back on point, long range or opportunity attacks are always reasons for weapons even if that's situational. Using weapons instead of cantrips for the first 10 levels of the game is easily justifiable in melee with just basic magic weapons and a group buff. Before 5th level weapons are still normally standard unless it's the secondary effects sought after.

Higher levels do not create equality in weapons and cantrips so it takes investment and consideration that this is really the path a player really wants to take. Ashrym's seal of opinion is that it's better to select a different class or MC to match the concept than it is to force the concept into the class.

No matter how a person looks at it, there are reasons for a wizard to carry and use weapons, particularly at low levels, and situationally as levels increase.

Bards and clerics, otoh, would be silly to rely on cantrips and not carry weapons, but might be a side topic.

[themaque]

If you are wanting to use martial weapons regularly over magic why don't you make a gish like character? or limit the number of attack cantrips you have in the campaign? I find it funny that there are so many Martial Vs. Magic debates and now a thread that wants more martial in your magic. :-)

Not saying you're wrong, I just find it amusing.

Perhaps a cantrip that acts as a minor buff to a weapon attack?
A feat that allows you to channel something like shocking grasp through your weapon?

[Demonic Spoon]

Could you clarify why? What do you find thematically attractive about it?


Mostly the idea that magic isn't infinite and that wizards/sorcerers can't just sling magic all day forever (even though they technically can with cantrips). Also I like the idea of playing "gish"-like with a greater emphasis on the magic (as opposed to EK with a greater emphasis on martial combat, or a traditional gish that uses spells to augment melee attacks).


Maybe I'm strange. ...okay I'm strange.

Shouldn't these vain & boasting casters actually think that some threats are worth less than magic?

I kinda think making cantrips so awesome robs the warlock, historically, but the new warlock is a machine of a different type.

I'd leave it as is. With proficiency in longsword, most elvish casters are going to be pretty competent with the thing anyway. Considering they should end up with some ridiculous magic weapon anyway, it kinda fits.


Not all casters are vain/boasting casters. Depends on the character.

The longsword is awful in the hands of even an elvish caster. Assuming the caster puts 14 in strength, even up to level 5 he's barely breaking even damage-wise with cantrips (when inferior attack bonus is factored in). It starts losing handily to cantrips at level 5, at which point the 14 strength invested is worthless.




It takes virtually no investment to exceed cantrip damage for the first 4 levels. Some DEX and dual-wielding covers it. It takes little investment to exceed poison spray at 5th level simply by using a staff and pole arm master, or a large weapon with suitable feat, dual-wielding with a group buff that applies to both attacks, possibly a good magical weapon but I agree that's unlikely; however, +1 weapons in the levels 5-10 range are reasonable to see.

If a wizard wants to use weapons it can be done without much consideration up until that third die of damage becomes available. That third die tends to clinch it over regular attacks but at that point cantrip attacks are less frequently applied with more spell slots, and weapons are still needed for greater range and opportunity attacks.

If a wizard really wants to use weapons over cantrips regularly, it's possible to make the ability score investment in STR and use feats or race or MC for AC (or hold out for spell mastery and shield). A +1 staff with 18 STR and pole arm mastery plus a group using crusader's mantle is still slightly more damage than poison spray or shocking grasp.

It takes significant investment for weapons on a wizard to compete with 4 dice cantrips at 17th level, or significant weapons and buffing, or both, but it's still possible. Generally, I would say it's easier to MC a level of fighter, cleric, or 2 levels of paladin because that inherently provides better combat options. Polearm master with a +2 halberd, 20 STR, and crusader's mantle in a group is 27 average damage before accuracy on a pure wizard and doable, compared to 26 from poison spray, 25.5 from flame bolt, or 20.5 from shocking grasp in the same circumstances. The weapon advantage increases with additional buffs, a better magic weapon, and possibly from multiclass dipping.



If I'm going to take polearm master, 18 STR, or otherwise invest so many character resources into it then I might as well just be a fight/wizard and get Extra Attack, Action Surge, and all the other goodness. That's not the point of this thread.

In practice, it's only reasonable to use weapons for the first 4 levels, which is why my suggested homebrew solution kicks in at level 5.


If you are wanting to use martial weapons regularly over magic why don't you make a gish like character? or limit the number of attack cantrips you have in the campaign? I find it funny that there are so many Martial Vs. Magic debates and now a thread that wants more martial in your magic. :-)

Not saying you're wrong, I just find it amusing.

Perhaps a cantrip that acts as a minor buff to a weapon attack?
A feat that allows you to channel something like shocking grasp through your weapon?


That was generally the thinking behind this:


Martial Training
Optional wizard/sorcerer feature, taken in place of one cantrip. At wizard/sorcerer level 5, the caster can add an additional damage die to any weapon attack made using the Attack action. At wizard/sorcerer level 11, this becomes two extra damage dice. At wizard/sorcerer level 17, this becomes three extra damage dice. The extra damage can only be applied once per turn.

[themaque]

That was generally the thinking behind this:

How does that make you compare to a straight melee character? Is it pretty prone to abuse with an actual gish character?

[Demonic Spoon]

How does that make you compare to a straight melee character? Is it pretty prone to abuse with an actual gish character?


Compared to straight melee, pretty bad. It's similar to cantrip damage, with the downside that you aren't using your casting stat, but with the upside that you can add whatever STR/DEX mod you do have to damage. Net it's probably a little worse than just using cantrips.

I edited it to clarify that it functions on one weapon attack per round to prevent stacking with martial class levels.

[themaque]

Seems well thought out to me. Go Glamdring on their buts.

[SharkForce]

weapon damage in this edition is largely superior to any other type of damage, provided you can make it count as a magical weapon.

i'm inclined to say it is definitely stronger than a regular cantrip. but whatever.

[Ashrym]

It does take a lot of investment at high levels for a wizard or sorcerer to rely on weapons but my point was that weapons always have some relevance for them, are the standard at lower levels, and can be done if a person insists on weapons at higher levels on a pure wizard or sorcerer.

All weapon users require investment into weapons so that they exceed cantrip damage so if you are looking for an easy way for weapons and spells on a wizard I would not support that position. Clerics, bards, and blade pact warlocks need to split focus and make the investment so there is no reason a wizard shouldn't.


There's more reason a wizard should given the the other benefits of the class. If you want weapons over spells and more magic than an eldritch knight then a bard with the right spell selection and background matches that concept.

[Demonic Spoon]

It does take a lot of investment at high levels for a wizard or sorcerer to rely on weapons but my point was that weapons always have some relevance for them, are the standard at lower levels, and can be done if a person insists on weapons at higher levels on a pure wizard or sorcerer.


They are not the standard at lower levels. They can be slightly better depending on what your STR/DEX is, but the superiority of your casting stat makes cantrips competitive.

At level 5+, cantrips are outright superior.

It "can be done" in the same way that you could make a great weapon barbarian with 8 strength. You can, but you're gimping yourself in a big way.

Opportunity attacks are nice, but rarely relevant, especially for ranged weapons.


All weapon users require investment into weapons so that they exceed cantrip damage so if you are looking for an easy way for weapons and spells on a wizard I would not support that position. Clerics, bards, and blade pact warlocks need to split focus and make the investment so there is no reason a wizard shouldn't.


you're missing the core point, though - this does not exceed cantrip damage. As mentioned above, it's actually usually going to be worse than using a damage cantrip. Clerics, bards, and warlocks need investment because their melee attacks are substantially better than regular cantrips - otherwise, why would any of them use weapons when they could just use cantrips?



weapon damage in this edition is largely superior to any other type of damage, provided you can make it count as a magical weapon.

i'm inclined to say it is definitely stronger than a regular cantrip. but whatever.

Ability to ignore resistance is an interesting point, though it is loot dependent. Do you think that's the primary reason why it's stronger than a normal cantrip?

[Ashrym]

Your solution would give 4d weapon attacks with nothing stopping the character from making the same additional investments mentioned for far more damage than cantrips do. You would be better off to simply let the wizard have access to the shillelagh cantrip for something more reasonable.

Cantrips don't do much damage at 5th level either. If you want to dispute that please explain how you are coming to that conclusion because I explained how easy it is to exceed 2 dice of damage earlier.

Cantrips are limited in number known and most casters are taking one damage cantrip at range. Most cantrips run 2d8 for a save or an attack, for 9 average damage, or ranged attack to attack for 2d10 (11) but are at disadvantage in melee for poor damage and saves DC's are 45% to 70% fail rate for the most part at those levels. The only way to get better is with poison spray and it's a fairly common resistance or immunity for 13 average damage that gives up range.

Any dwarf or elf using dual-wielding does competitive damage, any variant human who spent an applicable feat does better damage, any with a magical weapon does competitive or better damage, and dual-wielding with group buffs that might be available does competitive damage. For example, a dwarf wizard dual-wielding +1 hand axes with a 14 STR and crusader's mantle is on the group is better off with his 16 average damage is better off in melee combat than 9, or 11 at disadvantage, or 13; without crusader's mantle it's still better with the weapons if bless is up or advantage is available in attacks.

Your proposition only encourages the investments I mentioned earlier that already compare with cantrip damage but would be a much better investment at that point.

I will propose something differently that I am contemplating that might work better and want to look at more details first. What doesn't work is replacing a cantrip with 4[W] damage plus the current opportunities to add to weapon damage. A simple 1 level fighter dip for better weapons and fighting style to go with a magical weapon drives that up.

[Demonic Spoon]

Your solution would give 4d weapon attacks with nothing stopping the character from making the same additional investments mentioned for far more damage than cantrips do. You would be better off to simply let the wizard have access to the shillelagh cantrip for something more reasonable.


The shillelagh cantrip is widely considered to be worthless later on compared to damage cantrips without multiclassing for extra attack.


Cantrips don't do much damage at 5th level either. If you want to dispute that please explain how you are coming to that conclusion because I explained how easy it is to exceed 2 dice of damage earlier.


Sure. You're level 5, your casting stat is 18 (Assuming 16 to start and a casting stat ASI, a fair assumption for a full caster). Let's say you went fairly heavily into Dex for a caster and have a 14.

Your cantrip is Fire Bolt, for 2d10 damage. You're hitting at a +7 (+4 bonus from casting stat, +3 from proficiency) for 11 average damage.

Your weapon is a light crossbow, for 2d8+2 damage. You're hitting at a +5 bonus for that same 11 average damage.

Against a target of AC 10-25 (Virtually everything in the game), the firebolt is doing 1.15 expected damage more per round than the crossbow. As a percentage, the firebolt is more of an improvement at low ACs than high ACs.


Any dwarf or elf using dual-wielding does competitive damage, any variant human who spent an applicable feat does better damage, any with a magical weapon does competitive or better damage, and dual-wielding with group buffs that might be available does competitive damage. For example, a dwarf wizard dual-wielding +1 hand axes with a 14 STR and crusader's mantle is on the group is better off with his 16 average damage is better off in melee combat than 9, or 11 at disadvantage, or 13; without crusader's mantle it's still better with the weapons if bless is up or advantage is available in attacks.


With the stats above, a dwarf dual-wielding is 2d6+2 =9 damage average at a +5 bonus. Even if you're dual-wielding +1 hand-axes (As absurd as it is to assume multiple magic weapons when discussing this kind of balance), that only brings you up to 11 average damage and +6 bonus, still worse.

Crusader's mantle is exclusively a Paladin spell which comes online at level 9. There are two levels where crusader's mantle is an option before level 11, at which point cantrips get another die and a single basic weapon attack becomes even worse.

Bless affects any kind of attack roll, so it doesn't disproportionately benefit weapon attacks over spell attacks.


Your proposition only encourages the investments I mentioned earlier that already compare with cantrip damage but would be a much better investment at that point.

I will propose something differently that I am contemplating that might work better and want to look at more details first. What doesn't work is replacing a cantrip with 4[W] damage plus the current opportunities to add to weapon damage. A simple 1 level fighter dip for better weapons and fighting style to go with a magical weapon drives that up.


If you're making investments in feats and other stuff that make you a worse caster (taking Polearm master in lieu of +2 int constitutes making you worse), it stands to reason that it should make you more powerful in other ways. That actually seems like a plus of my approach - it would be cool if you could have something like an eldritch knight, but with the emphasis on casting rather than fighting, trading some casting power to be able to fight martially in a pinch.

That said, I'd like to see what you come up with - that is why I created the thread.

[Ashrym]

The weapon doesn't have to be a light crossbow with nothing else and would be my concern with the previous example.




I was thinking of largely just transposing some suitable existing abilities from other similar classes with some modifications.


Tradition (subject to whatever anyone chooses to name it) - Special you may not take this tradition if you have taken any cantrips that inflict damage, and cannot take any cantrips that inflict damage after having taken this tradition.

Level 2:
Gain proficiency with martial weapons.
Weapon bond as per the eldritch knight feature. You may bond only one weapon at any given time. You may use your bonded weapon as an arcane focus. You use STR or DEX for your weapon attacks normally.
Arcane Strike; Treat your bonded weapon as a magical weapon. Once on your turn, when you successfully hit with your bonded weapon you may spend a 1st level spell slot to add 1d6 damage of a damage type of your choice to the attack.

Level 6:
Select one fighting style from archery, duelist, or great weapon fighting. You may use this fighting style with your bonded weapon. You may spend a one week in practice and ritual to change your fighting style if you change your bonded weapon.
Improved Arcane Strike; Once on your turn, when you successfully hit with your bonded weapon you may spend a spell slot of 3rd level or lower to add 1d6 damage per spell level spent of a damage type of your choice to the attack.

Level 10:
Greater Arcane Strike; Once on your turn, when you successfully hit with your bonded weapon you may spend a spell slot of 5th level or lower to add 1d6 damage per spell level spent of a damage type of your choice to the attack. Additionally, the target cannot take a reaction and is reduced to half movement until the end of your next turn.

Level 14:
Channeling Strike; Once on your turn, you can make a channeling strike instead of an arcane strike. You can spend 1 spell of any level when you successfully hit a target. Apply damage normally and you may spend an additional spell slot for damage per greater arcane strike. After applying damage, cast the spell used for channeling as if you had originally cast it at that target including any necessary attack rolls or saving throws.


There is a high damage potential but it's fueled by spells similar to smiting. Weapon attacks still run out of juice and that's the reason for the special restriction on the tradition; it defeats the purpose of a weapon focused wizard if damage cantrips will still be used. This system allows for higher damage earlier as a burst, and can greatly increase range because it can be applied to missile weapons. The system is less prone to abuse with multiple attacks and MC issues in it's structure but still works with additional weapon options for decent weapon damage.

I played around with it a bit to get to where it looks useful and comfortable on a resource burn system that can still be effective. I like the option of casting spells or using them for burst weapon damage and that's some added versatility gained over giving up guaranteed cantrip damage that doesn't require extra investment.

It's also open to critique because I miss things too. :D

[Knaight]

Hm. What about:

Martial Training
Optional wizard/sorcerer feature, taken in place of one cantrip. At level 5, the caster can add an additional damage die to any weapon attack made using the Attack action. At level 11, this becomes two extra damage dice. At level 17, this becomes three extra damage dice.

It takes the place of a cantrip, so there's a cost to taking it.

It lets the wizard add his STR/DEX mod to damage at the cost of a reduced attack bonus (as his dex/str is probably going to be less than his int)

This is extremely abusable. Basically, take a martial class, and multiclass for one level in wizard or sorcerer. Suddenly, you're getting another die per attack, which will scale with extra attack. If you're going for a more gish type, take five levels instead, sprinkled around. This will eventually get up to six bonus dice per round easily. A fighter could get twelve.