Cantrip damage house rule

[Tanarii]

Considering a cantrip house-rule for a mini-campaign which will allow MC & Feats, and start at level 11. I expect most players to MC. Rule is: Cantrip damage is determined by total combined caster level, including Warlock levels as caster levels for this purpose.

Want opinions and insight. Tell me why it sucks. Talk me out of it, or into it. Y'all in the forum get to be my proxy players in the campaign for this discussion. Do you hate it, like it, etc?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The Warlock 2 dip is most effective for sorcerers and bards, which this doesn't touch. It mostly makes niche builds less viable. What are you trying to accomplish?

Also, what counts as a caster for this purpose?

[Submortimer]

So, total combined caster levels instead of just character level?

I'm assuming you mean to prevent a wiz 1/Ftr 19 from casting 4d10 firebolts, since the rules currently allow this exact thing.

[Kane0]

Its alright, but i do feel bad for EKs and ATs.

[Tanarii]

So, total combined caster levels instead of just character level?

I'm assuming you mean to prevent a wiz 1/Ftr 19 from casting 4d10 firebolts, since the rules currently allow this exact thing.Yes. And Caster (1-2) / Fighter 9 given the level 11 start, but yeah that's the point. OTOH ...


The Warlock 2 dip is most effective for sorcerers and bards, which this doesn't touch. It mostly makes niche builds less viable. What are you trying to accomplish?

Also, what counts as a caster for this purpose?Standard multiclassing rules for determining spell slot, plus Warlock levels. OTOH maybe I'll just make it the standard multiclassing rules for spell slots and leave it at that. Not sure I want Sorc/Bard Warlock 2 dips either.



General comment:
The main disadvantage I can see for this rule is it really hurts EKs and ATs. OTOH those are by far the two most common archetypes I see for Fighters and Rogues in my huge campaign, which doesn't allow multiclassing. So I can probably live with that.

[Zman]

What are you trying to accomplish, I don't really see a point for this rule. It doesn't address issues like Eldritch Blast, and a Firebolt Scaling to 4d10 thanks to character level instead of caster level certainly isn't breaking anything.

[Blue Lantern]

Its alright, but i do feel bad for EKs and ATs.

This, you should put an exception for 1/2 and 1/3 caster class when not multiclassing.

[brainface]

Cantrips scale because otherwise it's just not worth your action to use them. If you're say, a high elf fighter with fire bolt as a cantrip, spending your action to deal 1d10 fire damage at 20th level is absolutely not worth the cost. Frankly, it's often not worth your action to even used the scaled cantrip as opposed to weapon attacks if you have extra attacks. Changing these to scale by caster level is incredibly damaging to a build that has extra attack and picked up a damage cantrip for the fun of it.

The thing that "breaks" this is eldritch blast with agonizing blast invocation--2 warlock levels gives you a very high damage at will cantrip. If you have an issue with this I'd very much suggest houseruling agonizing blast or eldritch blast to scale with warlock level, so you're not punishing a black dragonborn thief that wants to throw around magic initiate granted acid blasts for gigglies, or a high elf five elements monk that picked up fire bolt because it fit their character concept and they wanted to shore up a relatively weak subclass a little bit.

[Blue Lantern]

The main disadvantage I can see for this rule is it really hurts EKs and ATs. OTOH those are by far the two most common archetypes I see for Fighters and Rogues in my huge campaign, which doesn't allow multiclassing. So I can probably live with that.

Wait, if you don't allow multiclassing, what is the point of this change in the first place?
You just want to nerf those subclasses?

[Tanarii]

What are you trying to accomplish, I don't really see a point for this rule.To make caster dips on non-casters, or 1/2 casters, for an at-will ranged magical attack less effective.


It doesn't address issues like Eldritch Blast,It doesn't on full casters. Provided I count Warlock as full caster levels of course. but it would for Warlock 2 / Pally X (for example). That'd count as level 6 at level 11, so it'd only do 2 d10 blasts instead of 3.


and a Firebolt Scaling to 4d10 thanks to character level instead of caster level certainly isn't breaking anything.It's an ammunition free at-will ranged spell attack. Trying to keep that as something magical characters get to do, not anyone with a magical dip.

[Takewo]

I think it's another campaign where he doesn't allow multiclassing.

[Tanarii]

This, you should put an exception for 1/2 and 1/3 caster class when not multiclassing.


Wait, if you don't allow multiclassing, what is the point of this change in the first place?
You just want to nerf those subclasses?This is a separate campaign, that will allow multi-classing, will run for a limited time until the campaign goal is accomplished (possibly all the way to 20, but that depends on the players involved). It'll have a few groups (probably 2-3) active in it at the same time, but not a few dozen active and semi-active players the other campaign has, so I'm willing to play around with the rules a bit for it.

I don't really expect any single class EKs or ATs. And something that may encourage more Champion/Battle Master/Thief/Assassin use isn't necessarily bad, since I don't see them very often in the single class only campaign.

[Tanarii]

Cantrips scale because otherwise it's just not worth your action to use them. If you're say, a high elf fighter with fire bolt as a cantrip, spending your action to deal 1d10 fire damage at 20th level is absolutely not worth the cost. Frankly, it's often not worth your action to even used the scaled cantrip as opposed to weapon attacks if you have extra attacks. Changing these to scale by caster level is incredibly damaging to a build that has extra attack and picked up a damage cantrip for the fun of it.

The thing that "breaks" this is eldritch blast with agonizing blast invocation--2 warlock levels gives you a very high damage at will cantrip. If you have an issue with this I'd very much suggest houseruling agonizing blast or eldritch blast to scale with warlock level, so you're not punishing a black dragonborn thief that wants to throw around magic initiate granted acid blasts for gigglies, or a high elf five elements monk that picked up fire bolt because it fit their character concept and they wanted to shore up a relatively weak subclass a little bit.Okay those are some very good points. I'll take them into consideration. Thanks!

[Biggstick]

To make caster dips on non-casters, or 1/2 casters, for an at-will ranged magical attack less effective.

It's an ammunition free at-will ranged spell attack. Trying to keep that as something magical characters get to do, not anyone with a magical dip.

The non-caster might gain access to the free at-will ranged spell attack, but they're probably not going to have the stats to back it up. A martial character isn't likely to max a casting stat over a martial one. This martial character will also likely have to have a free hand to perform somatic components to cast said ranged magical attack. They're also not likely to want to maintain the ranged attack, as they're a primary martial who will want to close the gap and be in range.

A Fighter or a Paladin at level 11 have so many reasons to prefer being in melee range already (3 attacks for a Fighter, 2 attacks with the 1d8 radiant damage for the Paladin). Why would you punish them by reducing the effectiveness of their already weak ranged game as it is?

[Blue Lantern]

I don't really expect any single class EKs or ATs. And something that may encourage more Champion/Battle Master/Thief/Assassin use isn't necessarily bad, since I don't see them very often in the single class only campaign.

I don't like this approach honestly, is seems a bit passive aggressive, if you don't want specific subclasses or dips, I think the best solution is being straightforward with your players and asking them not to use them.

[Zman]

To make caster dips on non-casters, or 1/2 casters, for an at-will ranged magical attack less effective.

It doesn't on full casters. Provided I count Warlock as full caster levels of course. but it would for Warlock 2 / Pally X (for example). That'd count as level 6 at level 11, so it'd only do 2 d10 blasts instead of 3.

It's an ammunition free at-will ranged spell attack. Trying to keep that as something magical characters get to do, not anyone with a magical dip.

The problem is that they are not that effective, for at will damage a 4d10 Firebolt isn't much. It is the bare minimum to be relevant at that level.

I find counting caster and partial casters to be problematic, and as stated before a standard scaling firebolt isn't a problem from a balance perspective. Sure, it may have broke immersion a bit, but they had to have some kind of magical talent to get it in the first place, may as well keep it relevant for them.

It is a free at-will attack, but is limited to 120', and the 4d10 damage is not a lot for scaling classes. The fighter at 20 can do 4x(D8+5) etc. The cantrip scaling off of character level not class level is meant to keep the ability usable the entire game, otherwise after 5th level and definitely by 11th level using your action to cast a D10 cantrip is a waste, averaging like 4 damage a round...

IMO Fix the EB Warlock dip problem and leave cantrip scaling alone.

[Tanarii]

A Fighter or a Paladin at level 11 have so many reasons to prefer being in melee range already (3 attacks for a Fighter, 2 attacks with the 1d8 radiant damage for the Paladin). Why would you punish them by reducing the effectiveness of their already weak ranged game as it is?Remember, my main campaign is single class only. So compared to Paladins in that game, I see a 2d10 (or whatever) at a long range (60+ ft) at caster level 6 for a Caster 1 / Pally 10 as a significant BOOST in terms of a ranged attack. 3 damage dice seems uncalled for.

But I'm starting to think, if I'm going to allow multiclassing, I may just have to accept all the dips it'll bring. It's not just going to be cantrips that this is done for. I'm going to see a ton of dips for Expertise, or Armor/Weapons, I'm sure.

[Tanarii]

I don't like this approach honestly, is seems a bit passive aggressive, if you don't want specific subclasses or dips, I think the best solution is being straightforward with your players and asking them not to use them.It's only passive -aggressive if that's the reason I'm trying to make the house rule. It's not. It'd be a side-effect consequence of it, which doesn't particularly bother me for the stated reasons.

Also, passive-aggressive doesn't mean avoidance. It means aggressively fighting back by being passive. Common use error for the term though, so it might as well mean avoidance at this point. It "literally" annoys me to see it being used wrong. :smalltongue:


IMO Fix the EB Warlock dip problem and leave cantrip scaling alone.Yep. Starting to lean towards leaving cantrip scaling alone. Except maybe EB.

[DracoKnight]

Remember, my main campaign is single class only. So compared to Paladins in that game, I see a 2d10 (or whatever) at a long range (60+ ft) at caster level 6 for a Caster 1 / Pally 10 as a significant BOOST in terms of a ranged attack. 3 damage dice seems uncalled for.

But I'm starting to think, if I'm going to allow multiclassing, I may just have to accept all the dips it'll bring. It's not just going to be cantrips that this is done for. I'm going to see a ton of dips for Expertise, or Armor/Weapons, I'm sure.

This. I think people are starting to understand that damage isn't what unbalances 5e. And as a DM I applaud players who figure out how to deal enough damage to trivialize my encounter. I've allowed Multiclassing and UA in all of my games, and honestly, I haven't really had a problem with my players dealing too much damage. "So you guys killed the archmage... as you look around green mist starts to creep out of his mouth and nostrils, as his completed phylactery resurrects him as a lich." Players abusing things like wish is what unbalances the game - and if it unbalances the game, that's on the DM as wish is just about one of the most DM dependent spells out there. The Barbarian dipping 1 level of Rogue to grab Expertise Athletics for grappling - that can unbalance things. Damage itself... *shrugs* Roll with it (no pun intended) and have the world react to your players. They go around killing monsters and NPCs with ease? More powerful NPCs will send their minions to kill them before they become too big a problem.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Remember, my main campaign is single class only. So compared to Paladins in that game, I see a 2d10 (or whatever) at a long range (60+ ft) at caster level 6 for a Caster 1 / Pally 10 as a significant BOOST in terms of a ranged attack. 3 damage dice seems uncalled for.
Um, not really? 2d10 is an average of 11 damage. 3d10 only ups that to 16.5. A single attack at level 5 will probably deal 8.5 (bow) or 7.5 (javelin). Now double that for Extra Attack- 17 or 15. Now add on the potential for things like Sharpshooter and per-attack effects. It's at best a tiny increase, and quite likely inferior.

Even the dreaded Eldrich Blast is a pretty "meh" ranged weapon. Yes, two levels of Warlock make it about as good as a Fighter (with less range, and again no Sharpshooter or Archery combat style), but... Two levels for a generally decent ranged attack seems like a fair trade.

[DracoKnight]

Um, not really? 2d10 is an average of 11 damage. 3d10 only ups that to 16.5. A single attack at level 5 will probably deal 8.5 (bow) or 7.5 (javelin). Now double that for Extra Attack- 17 or 15. Now add on the potential for things like Sharpshooter and per-attack effects. It's at best a tiny increase, and quite likely inferior.

Even the dreaded Eldrich Blast is a pretty "meh" ranged weapon. Yes, two levels of Warlock make it about as good as a Fighter (with less range, and again no Sharpshooter or Archery combat style), but... Two levels for a generally decent ranged attack seems like a fair trade.

I'm with Grod. EB isn't OP, it's on par with an archery-based fighter with a heavy crossbow.

[Tanarii]

Javelin has a 30ft effective range though. And a single classed Pally or Barbarian isn't typically using a Bow effectively IMX.

OTOH I sat and thought about this. I *do* see plenty of Str-based EKs using Cantrips for ranged attacks already. And it's definitely not broken. Better than a Javelin, which is why it gets used. But definitely not broken. If it's not broken for an EK, there's no reason I should worry about it with Pally, Barbs, Monks etc. (Edit: especially since they're sacrificing levels to make it happen.)

So okay, consider me sold on keeping cantrips at full level. Except ... possibly I may do something to restrict EB a bit. I'll put some more thought into that specifically. Maybe slap a level requirement on Agonizing Blast or something.

[Grod_The_Giant]

My preference there is to make EB a Warlock class feature instead of a cantrip. Blammo, Warlocks get their primary offense, and dippers don't.

[Zman]

Javelin has a 30ft effective range though. And a single classed Pally or Barbarian isn't typically using a Bow effectively IMX.

OTOH I sat and thought about this. I *do* see plenty of Str-based EKs using Cantrips for ranged attacks already. And it's definitely not broken. Better than a Javelin, which is why it gets used. But definitely not broken. If it's not broken for an EK, there's no reason I should worry about it with Pally, Barbs, Monks etc. (Edit: especially since they're sacrificing levels to make it happen.)

So okay, consider me sold on keeping cantrips at full level. Except ... possibly I may do something to restrict EB a bit. I'll put some more thought into that specifically. Maybe slap a level requirement on Agonizing Blast or something.

I think that is the right call.

My change for Eldritch Blast is for Agonizing Blast and Repelling Blast. Make them only affect each target once, for Agonizing Blast at Warlock level 11 it can affect each target a second time. Still the best attack cantrip in the game, but not nearly as good of a Dip as Dipping doesn't put it past say Evoker or Draconic Sorcerer for Cantrip Damage unless they devote 11 levels in Warlock to it.

[DracoKnight]

unless they devote 11 levels in Warlock to it.

Which means it's no longer a dip :smallwink:

[Zman]

Which means it's no longer a dip :smallwink:

That is kind of the point, haha. :smallwink:

[DracoKnight]

That is kind of the point, haha. :smallwink:

But of course! :smallbiggrin:

[JoeJ]

Considering a cantrip house-rule for a mini-campaign which will allow MC & Feats, and start at level 11. I expect most players to MC. Rule is: Cantrip damage is determined by total combined caster level, including Warlock levels as caster levels for this purpose.

Want opinions and insight. Tell me why it sucks. Talk me out of it, or into it. Y'all in the forum get to be my proxy players in the campaign for this discussion. Do you hate it, like it, etc?

What if they don't have any caster levels? Are you making it so that, for example, a single class battle master simply can't take a damaging cantrip as a racial ability or with a feat?

[Gtdead]

With this change you are going to leave classes that benefit from this the most untouched, and make it a pointless build for those that sacrifice too much to get it.
A lvl 11 dex EK can do 34 dpr with this CE handbow at +2 hit from archery.
If he decides to dip warlock, it's better to do it for Devil's Sight + Darkness.

There is no scenario where using EB instead of CE+SS is worth it. Not even against abnormally high AC.

[krugaan]

basically, the 1 wiz / 19 fighter is going to have a terrible time hitting with his shiny cantrip anyway, since the attack is going to be keyed off int, which he undoubtedly dumped. He'd be better off throwing daggers or javelins or whatever.

Ditto for every other attack cantrip gained by dipping levels or magic initiate. It's likely going to be -5 to hit over regular attacks or (+5 save, which is even worse, really).

Again, mechanically, cantrips are a terrible use of action for a non-caster class, unless those cantrips are utility ones, in which case the point is moot anyway.

[Demonic Spoon]

This is problematic for a number of reasons as stated in the thread.

The main "optimized" use case for dipping a class to get scaling cantrips is a warlock 2/3 dip. So, why don't you just make Eldritch Blast a class feature of Warlocks rather than a cantrip they select and have that feature scale with class level? Now warlock dips aren't as attractive and you don't mess with Magic Initiate cantrips.

[Malifice]

Remember, my main campaign is single class only. So compared to Paladins in that game, I see a 2d10 (or whatever) at a long range (60+ ft) at caster level 6 for a Caster 1 / Pally 10 as a significant BOOST in terms of a ranged attack.

The same Paladin is missing out on improved divine smite. Its an arguably slightly better ranged attack (he could simply throw two javelins for 2d8+10 damage) for a massive nerf in his core role.

The houserule is unecessary. It adds a (slight) layer of complexity and doesnt add anything meaningful to the game for mine. It nerfs classes like EK for no reason (war magic).

At 11th level, 3d10 damage cantrips instead of 2d10 damage cantrips are the least of your problems. Most classes are simply better off going 11 levels in their class anyway. Heck the 11th level class features on all classes are pretty darn amazing. Warlocks get 3 spells per SR now (plus a 6th level invocation), Fighters get a third attack, Paladins get improved divine smite, spellcasters get 6th level spells known, Rogues get 'any d20 roll of less than 10 is a 10' etc.

An extra couple of points of damage on a cantrip is the least of your problems also. I say the hassle isnt worth it, and its an unnecesary nerf.

Finally, if you players are taking EK and AT all the time, its because youre not giving them enough encounters per day. Sounds like theyre being drawn to 'long rest' classes like spellcasters, barbarians and paladins. I suggest increasing the number of encoutners per AD in this new campaign, so you can see how it turns out as opposed to your other campaign (or use the longer rest variant instead).

[nicova]

The article is very good, I like it very much.Here I learned a lot, then I will pay more attention to you.I am impressed by the quality of information on this website .

[Tanarii]

Most classes are simply better off going 11 levels in their class anyway. Heck the 11th level class features on all classes are pretty darn amazing. Warlocks get 3 spells per SR now (plus a 6th level invocation), Fighters get a third attack, Paladins get improved divine smite, spellcasters get 6th level spells known, Rogues get 'any d20 roll of less than 10 is a 10' etc.An interesting point. I was planning to start at level eleven because it's the start of the third tier of play. But I want to encourage multiclassing. Partially because several players have expressed interest, but also because my main campaign doesn't. I may need to pick a different starting level if it's likely to have a large negative impact on the choice.

[Kane0]

Level 6-8 is a good starting point. Just enough for one to get both an ASI and a 2 level dip.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

An interesting point. I was planning to start at level eleven because it's the start of the third tier of play. But I want to encourage multiclassing. Partially because several players have expressed interest, but also because my main campaign doesn't. I may need to pick a different starting level if it's likely to have a large negative impact on the choice.As long as you're not starting there and staying forever, it should be fine. The level 11 features tend to be more significant*, sure, but multiclassed characters are going to be behind on high level features their entire career.

*Exception being the full casters, who basically break that same kind of ground every odd level.

[Malifice]

As long as you're not starting there and staying forever, it should be fine. The level 11 features tend to be more significant*, sure, but multiclassed characters are going to be behind on high level features their entire career.

*Exception being the full casters, who basically break that same kind of ground every odd level.

The full casters breaking into the 6th level spell tiers are hitting the '1 day' power spells. They're markedly more potent and reality altering than those of 5th and lower.

[djreynolds]

Considering a cantrip house-rule for a mini-campaign which will allow MC & Feats, and start at level 11. I expect most players to MC. Rule is: Cantrip damage is determined by total combined caster level, including Warlock levels as caster levels for this purpose.

Want opinions and insight. Tell me why it sucks. Talk me out of it, or into it. Y'all in the forum get to be my proxy players in the campaign for this discussion. Do you hate it, like it, etc?

If you are tired of people dipping warlock, just make warlock a class that cannot be multiclassed.

I value concept. A paladin/warlock sounds cool, but I need something organic. I need a real why? Some classes just don't feel right multiclassed. If player can combine classes, there needs to be something more.

11th level characters should show a real investment. For instance, I'm playing a cleric right now 4th level. I would love to grab a level of fighter, but I cannot do it because my party right now needs that 3rd level spell. And when we have advanced, the party will need the next 4th spell just as badly. Our ranger is waiting on that 5th level of ranger, and I am as well. We are getting whooped in Borovia.

Its okay to start at 11th level, but make people really justify why they multiclassed at this at this level. Make them make you believe that though they are 11th level, they have lived those previous levels.

Why are you a 2nd level paladin and 9th level warlock? How? How did you survive level 3? I mean is taking resilient con at 4th level anything anyone is really considering? My cleric put his ASI in wisdom, so I've lost a few spells when my concentration broke? So I got paralyzed at 2nd level by ghouls? I rolled a 3 for a con save, resilient con at 2nd level would've been a +2 bonus. I would've failed regardless.

Try doing some quick mini expeditions to quickly level everyone up and see then what choices they make, one battle, one social, some exploration then level, and if the guy who wants to play a paladin/sorcerer/warlock survives okay. And leave the cantrips as they are. If you found they barely scrapped by, then use your original cantrip idea.

[Xetheral]

Its okay to start at 11th level, but make people really justify why they multiclassed at this at this level.

We have very different views of multiclassing. I don't require my players to justify which level is which class even when they level in play, let alone when starting at higher level. From my standpoint, they were always an X/Y or an X/Y/Z and the requirement that classes be taken in discrete units is a purely OOC one that has little bearing on the IC characterization.

[Grod_The_Giant]

We have very different views of multiclassing. I don't require my players to justify which level is which class even when they level in play, let alone when starting at higher level. From my standpoint, they were always an X/Y or an X/Y/Z and the requirement that classes be taken in discrete units is a purely OOC one that has little bearing on the IC characterization.
I agree. While it's fine to use the fluff in the book, that's by no means the only way to play a character. As long as you're appropriate for the setting, it really doesn't matter what's written in the "class" section of your sheet. The rules are about what you can do-- who you are should be up to you, not Monte Cook.

[Arial Black]

My first 5E PC was a single class human fighter, played from 1st to 7th in HotDQ.

His 1st level feat was Magic Initiate, and ray of frost was one of his cantrips. At 5th level, it did 2d8 instead of 1d8, and if I'd made it to 11th it would have done 3d8.

What would it have done under your variant? Just 1d8? Zero d8, on the grounds that he doesn't have any levels in a spellcasting class?

In previous editions 'caster level' was a game mechanic; it was simply the number of levels you had in the class which allowed you to cast that particular spell, perhaps modified by feats or domains or what have you. What's the range of that spell? Oh, 100 feet plus 100 feet per caster level. How much damage? 1d6 per caster level, to a maximum of 10d6. How much healing? 2d8, plus 1 point per caster level to a maximum of +10.

But...5E has completely eliminated 'caster level' as a game mechanic! There is no effect in the game which has 'caster level' as part of the calculation. The multiclass rules require you to work out the total number of levels in spellcasting classes to determine the number of slots you have (with modifiers for half and third classes), but this is never referred to as 'caster level' and it is never used during the game to calculate anything about the spell you just cast.

The only thing which comes close in 5E are damage cantrips, and they very definitely do not use 'caster level' but instead use 'character level', and that was a deliberate (and wise) design choice.

[saeval]

See, my solution to Warlock "dip" is generally "So it's ok if your imp is just an aspect of a greater demon and everything you are trying to accomplish has only furthered his dark goals, to the point of invalidating any good that has come of your existence, right?"

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The full casters breaking into the 6th level spell tiers are hitting the '1 day' power spells. They're markedly more potent and reality altering than those of 5th and lower.6th level spells are indeed delightful, but other spell levels seem just as important to me. Just look at 4th level spells: Divination, Polymorph, Dimension Door, the Conjure line, and moneymaking utility like Stone Shape and Fabricate start showing up. They're not as powerful as the 6th level spells, of course, but the relative jump in reality-altering ability seems similar.

Also, if access to a single 6th level spell slot qualifies as an unprecedented jump in power, surely the same could be said for 7th and 8th level spells. So while I believe it happens earlier, at the very least after 11th level, each odd level is just as earth-shattering.

[Drackolus]

Feels like it's fixing a non-issue. The only cantrips a non-full caster would use are gfb and bb, and this essentially removes them. Cantrips are sub-par to ranged weapons for martials, even paladins, who do have a few spells that work for them.