Another "What if?" thread : Cantrips

[DanyBallon]

Disclaimer: this thread is only for the sake of discussion on a "What if?" scenario, and is in no mean a fix or a houserule looking to be enforced.

While I understand, the reason behind scaling attack cantrips, that they are a mean for spellcasters to still contribute to a fight when all their spells are gone, yet, I find that they are a little bit too good. I feel that they are keeping too close with the damage output of martials at higher level. Martials should be best at providing good DPS round after round, while I believe caster shine more when doing massive damage spike, but are limited in their ability to do so by spell slots. With attack cantrip as is, they are almost as reliable as martials.

So...

What if attack cantrips didn't scale but allowed the caster to add his spellcasting modifier to the damage roll? That way, attack cantrips would be similar to firing a range weapon, but in addition they are magical, and often have a rider effect.

This proposition work well with the PHB attack cantrips, but no so much with the ones from SCAG though.

What do you think? Could it work? Is too much a nerf?

All opinion are welcome, but please be constructive when answering.

[ProphetSword]

It could work, but the end result would be that as the casters went up in level, they would stop using cantrips. If that's the intention, then congrats.

My question is, why do you care if the damage keeps pace with the martials (which is the point of the scaling in the first place)? Why can't casters contribute and save their spells? Who says they have to be left to do minimal damage all the time? That's how it worked in previous editions, I guess, but most players find 5th Edition's way of handling it more fun. Being that it's a game, fun should be the bottom line.

So, can you clarify what bothers you so much about it?

EDIT:
I also want to add that monsters in 5e have way more hit points than in previous editions, especially as you go up in levels. So it makes sense that everyone should contribute.

[DanyBallon]

It could work, but the end result would be that as the casters went up in level, they would stop using cantrips. If that's the intention, then congrats.

My question is, why do you care if the damage keeps pace with the martials (which is the point of the scaling in the first place)? Why can't casters contribute and save their spells? Who says they have to be left to do minimal damage all the time? That's how it worked in previous editions, I guess, but most players find 5th Edition's way of handling it more fun. Being that it's a game, fun should be the bottom line.

So, can you clarify what bothers you so much about it?

Well cantrip should be an alternative to bows and crossbows for casters.
Except for fighters, no other classes can make more than 2 attacks per round, so at high level their base damage is less than what a cantrip can provide. Paladins can boost their damage output to the cost of spell slots. Rangers can add damage via hunter's mark as some other abilities, but those are situational, Barbarian have a limited ressource called rage, etc. Spellcasters already outshine martials with their damage output from spells, and I'm fine with it. But in addition being able to fallback on a more (percieved) reliable source of damage for free round after round is what makes casters above martials in term of power.

By removing the scaling, the damage output is as good as your good ol' bow (crossbow), but more versatile as all damage are magical and often have a rider effect.

Again, this is just an hypothetical scenario. I use personal pronoun for sake of discussion (it feel less formal), but it does not mean that it really bother me in actual play

edit:

I also want to add that monsters in 5e have way more hit points than in previous editions, especially as you go up in levels. So it makes sense that everyone should contribute.
But what about Paladin that have burned through all their spell slots? what about barbarian without rage left? what about a ranger that attack a creature that is not is mark? what about a rogue that can't get sneak attack conditions? They have nothing to fall back and won't able to contribute as much...

[Addaran]

Disclaimer: this thread is only for the sake of discussion on a "What if?" scenario, and is in no mean a fix or a houserule looking to be enforced.

While I understand, the reason behind scaling attack cantrips, that they are a mean for spellcasters to still contribute to a fight when all their spells are gone, yet, I find that they are a little bit too good. I feel that they are keeping too close with the damage output of martials at higher level. Martials should be best at providing good DPS round after round, while I believe caster shine more when doing massive damage spike, but are limited in their ability to do so by spell slots. With attack cantrip as is, they are almost as reliable as martials.

So...

What if attack cantrips didn't scale but allowed the caster to add his spellcasting modifier to the damage roll? That way, attack cantrips would be similar to firing a range weapon, but in addition they are magical, and often have a rider effect.

This proposition work well with the PHB attack cantrips, but no so much with the ones from SCAG though.

What do you think? Could it work? Is too much a nerf?

All opinion are welcome, but please be constructive when answering.

If i remember right, someone did calculations and casters only using cantrips were far from martial damage output. (not counting warlock with the multiple +cha to attack)

Your change would be fun for caster at low level and possibly when the cantrip only have 2 dice (1d8+5 gives better average then 2d8 for ray of frost). But after that, or if you use cantrips with bigger dice ( d10 or d12) then it's a not so fun nerf.

[Astofel]

Well for starters it'd hurt warlocks a lot, as well as the archetypes for other casters that allow you to add ability modifiers to certain damage types, although not as much. I agree that martials using weapons should have a better DPR than casters using cantrips, but I don't think this is the way to do it. In fact, I'd argue that the martials are already significantly better in this regard.

For comparison of martial weapons vs caster cantrips, let's compare a fighter with a longsword to a wizard casting Fire Bolt. If the fighter is using the longsword two-handed, he can match FB's damage dice and number of them up until 17th level, where FB becomes 4d10, while the fighter has to wait to 20th level to pick up his final extra attack. Of course, by two-handing the longsword the fighter forgoes a shield and +2 AC, while the wizard still has a free hand to do whatever he wants. The fighter can add his STR mod to his damage, and he can hit or miss some or all of his extra attacks and divide them up among enemies as he wishes. For the wizard, he just gets 4d10 flat against a single target, and if he misses his attack roll that's it, he has no other chances to do damage.

I haven't done the math, but all in all I'd say that the fighter wins here in terms of DPR, assuming the wizard does nothing but cast Fire Bolt. If the fighter is wielding a greatsword or maul, then he blows the wizard out of the water with a potential 8d6+20 damage. And that's just the fighter. There's the rogue with its sneak attacks, monks with flurry of blows, and of course paladin smites, which all help keep our martial buddies in line with those pesky cantrips. I do have an issue with the whole 'take two levels in warlock for Agonizing Blast on a CHA caster and have great DPR forever" thing that often happens, but that's easily solved by tying EB to warlock levels.

Edit:


But what about Paladin that have burned through all their spell slots? what about barbarian without rage left? what about a ranger that attack a creature that is not is mark? what about a rogue that can't get sneak attack conditions? They have nothing to fall back and won't able to contribute as much...
This is why resource management is key. IME, though, if the paladin runs out of slots a long rest is imminent, I've never seen a barbarian run out of rage past the early levels, and getting sneak attack is often easier than not getting it. As long as you target something your buddy is standing next to, you're golden.

[Addaran]

But what about Paladin that have burned through all their spell slots? what about barbarian without rage left? what about a ranger that attack a creature that is not is mark? what about a rogue that can't get sneak attack conditions? They have nothing to fall back and won't able to contribute as much...

Don't forget that in most games, martials have feats that boost their damage. GWM, SS, PAM, Crossbow expert. Even some things like sentinel or shield master will up the DPS.

And most martials have other bonus as well as just the attack. Barbarian can always use reckless attack, a bunch of them have fighting styles, rogue is designed to "always" have sneak attack conditions (way easier then before), rangers got hunter's special bonus or a pet, etc.

[DanyBallon]

This is why resource management is key.

You're right, this goes as well for casters. Can't they manage their spells so they don't rely on cantrip the same as other classes need to manage their limited ressources? I'm just trying to figure out why it's ok for casters to have a backup plan when they have no more spell slots, but martials are doing it wrong if they don't do ressource management...

[ProphetSword]

Personally, I think the system is fine.

But if you crave a change, I think a better fix would be to drop all damage die down one category. Instead of doing 3d10 for Fire Bolt at 11th level, make it 3d8. That way, the wizard stays competitive but doesn't outshine the martials by too much.

Without the scaling, you run the risk of making them far too weak, requiring them to burn their spells much quicker. That's a vicious cycle that will then require resting more often so that spellcasters can get back their good spells in order to keep up with everyone else.

[DanyBallon]

Like I said, this is only a "what if?" scenario, I'm not looking to fix cantrip, I don't mind how it work in gameplay.

Downgrading the damage die could be an effective way to answer to distance martials from casters as requiered in the scenario.

Would changing the level at which cantrip scales do the same?

[Astofel]

You're right, this goes as well for casters. Can't they manage their spells so they don't rely on cantrip the same as other classes need to manage their limited ressources? I'm just trying to figure out why it's ok for casters to have a backup plan when they have no more spell slots, but martials are doing it wrong if they don't do ressource management...

Because if martials don't do resource management, they can still swing a weapon pretty effectively. Although you bring up a good point, most martials only get 1 extra attack outside of their expendable features. Maybe cantrips could stop halfway, at 2dx instead of 4, and the 'archetype casters' (wizard and cleric) are allowed to go to 4dx. Although that also makes sorcerers even more inferior to wizards...

[DanyBallon]

Because if martials don't do resource management, they can still swing a weapon pretty effectively. Although you bring up a good point, most martials only get 1 extra attack outside of their expendable features. Maybe cantrips could stop halfway, at 2dx instead of 4, and the 'archetype casters' (wizard and cleric) are allowed to go to 4dx. Although that also makes sorcerers even more inferior to wizards...

But cantrip are as reliable as swinging a weapon. Those with range or melee attack are exactly as effective as a weapon attack. And usually those with a save DC have a nice rider that add versatility over a weapon attack. Unless I missing something...?

In older editions, being caught without spell slots, meant that you needed to fall back using a weapon, but the weapon list available to casters was quite limited. 5e use cantrip to prevent this effect and weapon restriction is gone as well.

I like the limit to 2dx, but why would you still allow 4dx for clerics and wizards?

[Astofel]

But cantrip are as reliable as swinging a weapon. Those with range or melee attack are exactly as effective as a weapon attack. And usually those with a save DC have a nice rider that add versatility over a weapon attack. Unless I missing something...?

My whole point was that cantrips are as reliable as swinging a weapon. When the wizard runs out of spells, he can shoot a Fire Bolt, and when the barbarian runs out of rage he can swing his greatsword a couple of times. I agree than the riders of cantrips do skew things in their favour, as does the fact that most martials can only attack twice and do 2dx+2*STR/DEX (4d6 if greatsword/maul) as opposed to the 4dx of a cantrip.

[Hrugner]

This is a good breakdown of auto-attack damage by class for DPR comparison. http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/80333/weapon-attacks-compared-with-damaging-cantrips

Wizard is right near the bottom there. Why tip them lower?

[BW022]

[I]
I feel that they are keeping too close with the damage output of martials at higher level.


I don't. At low levels they are about 40% less damage than a martial. Say 1d10 (5.5) vs. 1d8+3 (7.5). Factor in that most martials have additional ways of adding damage (sneak attack, feats, fighting styles, rage, monk bonus attacks, hunter's mark, ranger styles, etc.), the ability to use TWF, longer ranges, ability to switch melee/ranged weapons (say a ranger switching from longbow to rapier and not get disadvantage in melee), drawing opportunity attacks, poison, etc. and it is likely more in the 60% more range. You also have that casters can easily be hit by silence or face damage resistance. The only exception is a warlock, with agonizing blast and possibly hex.

At higher levels the split becomes much worse. At 11th, you might do 3d10 (16.5) with a firebolt. A ranger could easily have sharpshooter, a +1 bow, archery style, and flaming arrows. That could easily be 2d8+12+20+2d6 (48) damage an probably hitting as often. It is now nearly 200% more damage. And none of that includes horde breaker, volley or other abilities -- nor hunter's mark. Rogues with TWF and high sneak attack, fighters with three attacks and a great sword, etc. and likely to have similar or greater damage. Again, only a warlock can likely even keep up.

Further, by 11th... it is hard to imagine any cantrip caster (other than the warlock) wasting times against CR 11 monsters to do 16.5hp of damage vs. casting a spell.


Even *if* you thought this was a problem, math definitely says no...

Adding ability bonus at the start simply means that the cantrip becomes too good at low levels and useless at higher levels.

IMO, doing 1/3 or less damage than a reasonable martial is not a sign you need to lower their damage potential.

[ProphetSword]

This is a good breakdown of auto-attack damage by class for DPR comparison. http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/80333/weapon-attacks-compared-with-damaging-cantrips

Wizard is right near the bottom there. Why tip them lower?

This was eye-opening. Thanks for the link. This just cements in my mind what I already thought...that the game is balanced fine with cantrips just as they are.

[DanyBallon]

This is a good breakdown of auto-attack damage by class for DPR comparison. http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/80333/weapon-attacks-compared-with-damaging-cantrips

Wizard is right near the bottom there. Why tip them lower?

I see a flaw only comparing cantrip vs weapon damage, is that it doesn't take into accounts that damage from cantrips are magical and that can overcome b/s/p resistance, that the ray of frost rider will slow a creature and can prenvent it from reaching a friend, or that vicious mockery give disadvantage on the next roll, or that acid splash damage two target, etc.
Also it doesn't consider that damage from spells are far superior to a fighter landing all his attack. In the end, spellcasters are already outclassing martials as far as damage output goes. Allowing them to have cantrip that give them a reliable source of damage when out of spells is adding to their arsenal, is what lead to the perception that it's too much.
Finally, the math doesn't factor that the scenario is adding spellcasting modifier to cantrip damage.

I understand what you are trying to demonstrate, but we can't just consider one aspect vs another, classes are working as a whole. Even I made a mistake myself when I forgot that barbarian can still use Reckless Attack even if they already used all their rage and I probably missed many more as it is complex to evaluate classes as a whole.

[SharkForce]

I see a flaw only comparing cantrip vs weapon damage, as it doesn't consider that damage from spells are far superior to a fighter landing all his attack. In the end, spellcasters are already outclassing martials as far as damage output goes. Allowing them to have cantrip that give them a reliable source of damage when out of spells is adding to their arsenal, is what lead to the perception that it's too much. Also, the math doesn't factor that the scenario is adding spellcasting modifier to cantrip damage.

I understand what you are trying to demonstrate, but we can't just consider one aspect vs another, classes are working as a whole. Like someone already said, I made a mistake myself when I forgot that barbarian can still use Reckless Attack even if they already used all their rage.

nothing about cantrip damage is superior to fighters making attacks. if spellcasters are outclassing martials in damage output, it is because the martials are doing something horribly wrong (or the spellcaster is a warlock and pays for their at-will damage by being much less impressive as a full caster), unless we're talking burst damage only (and even then, the right martial can probably out-burst a caster if they really want to).

[DanyBallon]

nothing about cantrip damage is superior to fighters making attacks. if spellcasters are outclassing martials in damage output, it is because the martials are doing something horribly wrong (or the spellcaster is a warlock and pays for their at-will damage by being much less impressive as a full caster), unless we're talking burst damage only (and even then, the right martial can probably out-burst a caster if they really want to).

I'm talking about spells, not cantrip when I say that they outclass martial damage. i.e a 5th level wizard can cast a fireball doing 8d6 (4d6 on a successful save) fire damage to anyone in a 20ft radius, while at 5th level a barbarian can attack twice with advantage and if successfully hit can deal about 4d6+10 against a single target. True, the 5th level wizard has only a single 3rd level slots, be as he get into higher level he gets more, but the barbarian won't have more attacks...

This is what I mean by casters being able to outclass martials damage wise. Yes it is outburst damage, yet if it kills more baddies than the martial, then he is outshining the martials.

And I'm fine in them doing more damage with their spells as it is a limited ressources, and I'm thankful that they have cantrip to be able to contribute when the expend their last spell slot, or when saving a spell for the right moment, but do we need the cantrip to be close to the damage output a martial can do in addition to their main feature that are spells?

[Iamcreative]

I see a flaw only comparing cantrip vs weapon damage, is that it doesn't take into accounts that damage from cantrips are magical and that can overcome b/s/p resistance, that the ray of frost rider will slow a creature and can prenvent it from reaching a friend, or that vicious mockery give disadvantage on the next roll, or that acid splash damage two target, etc.
Also it doesn't consider that damage from spells are far superior to a fighter landing all his attack. In the end, spellcasters are already outclassing martials as far as damage output goes. Allowing them to have cantrip that give them a reliable source of damage when out of spells is adding to their arsenal, is what lead to the perception that it's too much.
Finally, the math doesn't factor that the scenario is adding spellcasting modifier to cantrip damage.

I understand what you are trying to demonstrate, but we can't just consider one aspect vs another, classes are working as a whole. Even I made a mistake myself when I forgot that barbarian can still use Reckless Attack even if they already used all their rage and I probably missed many more as it is complex to evaluate classes as a whole.

Right but were simply comparing backup plans in combat to do damage, to compare entire class kits in order to decide whats reasonable for a cantrip seems a little to much. When a matrial is all out of resources what do they do? Basic attack+whatever at will bonus they have (be it martial arts or a fighters 4 attacks or even just a fighting style). A casters fall back plan is cantrips, which is noticably worse than a martial. But its made up for in bursts via spell casting.

If we want to bring up full spell casting we should be comparing it to a fighter with action surge or a raging barbarian or a monk stunning and fob'ing. Which is a entire other discussion.

Edit: uoon rereading what you said i think i misunderstood. Whoops! Sorry about that, but I think Ill leave it up for now.

[Dalebert]

I feel like you haven't actually played many games if you can come away from the table feeling like casters are keeping up with martials in damage, especially just cantrip damage. I think you're assuming things based on failing to take all factors into consideration. I've played lots of casters and cantrips are just a way to sort of feel like you're contributing but you still feel outclassed on damage, and that's okay because casters contribute in other ways.

[Deleted]

Disclaimer: this thread is only for the sake of discussion on a "What if?" scenario, and is in no mean a fix or a houserule looking to be enforced.

While I understand, the reason behind scaling attack cantrips, that they are a mean for spellcasters to still contribute to a fight when all their spells are gone, yet, I find that they are a little bit too good. I feel that they are keeping too close with the damage output of martials at higher level. Martials should be best at providing good DPS round after round, while I believe caster shine more when doing massive damage spike, but are limited in their ability to do so by spell slots. With attack cantrip as is, they are almost as reliable as martials.

So...

What if attack cantrips didn't scale but allowed the caster to add his spellcasting modifier to the damage roll? That way, attack cantrips would be similar to firing a range weapon, but in addition they are magical, and often have a rider effect.

This proposition work well with the PHB attack cantrips, but no so much with the ones from SCAG though.

What do you think? Could it work? Is too much a nerf?

All opinion are welcome, but please be constructive when answering.


Honestly, just get rid of damaging cantrips all together and make it where each caster has a basic ability to do xyz where xyz is something like "push 5'", grant advantage, cause the target to not be able to heal for 1 round, reduce the target's speed.

They can still contribute, at will, to battle but they dont step on the ONE thing martials have (as much).

Keep it vague / very general. Give 3each caster a few different options.

[SharkForce]

I feel like you haven't actually played many games if you can come away from the table feeling like casters are keeping up with martials in damage, especially just cantrip damage. I think you're assuming things based on failing to take all factors into consideration. I've played lots of casters and cantrips are just a way to sort of feel like you're contributing but you still feel outclassed on damage, and that's okay because casters contribute in other ways.

yeah, this exactly.

cantrip damage *isn't* close to at-will melee damage, except for warlocks (who, as noted, are not quite as ridiculous in the spellcasting department to make up for it). it gets somewhat closer in a no-feat game for most martials, but even the more utility/less damage martials (monk and rogue) should have considerably higher damage unless they're doing something weird.

[Hrugner]

I see a flaw only comparing cantrip vs weapon damage, is that it doesn't take into accounts that damage from cantrips are magical and that can overcome b/s/p resistance, that the ray of frost rider will slow a creature and can prenvent it from reaching a friend, or that vicious mockery give disadvantage on the next roll, or that acid splash damage two target, etc.
Also it doesn't consider that damage from spells are far superior to a fighter landing all his attack. In the end, spellcasters are already outclassing martials as far as damage output goes. Allowing them to have cantrip that give them a reliable source of damage when out of spells is adding to their arsenal, is what lead to the perception that it's too much.
Finally, the math doesn't factor that the scenario is adding spellcasting modifier to cantrip damage.

I understand what you are trying to demonstrate, but we can't just consider one aspect vs another, classes are working as a whole. Even I made a mistake myself when I forgot that barbarian can still use Reckless Attack even if they already used all their rage and I probably missed many more as it is complex to evaluate classes as a whole.

The more damaging cantrips are also those that will be more commonly resisted. Considering resistance/immunity, force and magic weapons are tied for tops so we can assume that the resistance equation comes down in favor of martials if magic weapons, or the spell magic weapon, are available. That chart is assuming firebolt, the second most commonly resisted element, so it's already pretty generous. Using something with a saving throw, like vicious mockery or sacred flame, reduces the damage output even further. Being unable to utilize the advantage/disadvantage system and generally using a worse curve for hitting make them a poor choice all around.

The riders available to cantrips come at the cost of damage, so we can reduce the caster's place on that chart further. Each casting reduces something for one round, but are typically not useful. Many produce rounding errors of impediment which would only matter on a battle map. Of all the cantrips, I think chill touch is the only one that produces a valuable effect. The other spells aren't useless, I just wouldn't expect their value to come up often enough to be a worth the rather scarce cantrip slots given out. I'd expect most casters to take at most one damaging cantrip if any. All that said it's easy enough to test, give players the option of a force version of their cantrips with no debuff rider and see what they prefer.

Casters aren't bad or anything, as you note the rest of their real kit is worth being nearly useless after they've spent their spells, but they are half damage to melee options when they are spent. That's more than enough of a reduction. Bards are in a bad spot when they're spent though.

[Sigreid]

Don't forget that in most games, martials have feats that boost their damage. GWM, SS, PAM, Crossbow expert. Even some things like sentinel or shield master will up the DPS.

And most martials have other bonus as well as just the attack. Barbarian can always use reckless attack, a bunch of them have fighting styles, rogue is designed to "always" have sneak attack conditions (way easier then before), rangers got hunter's special bonus or a pet, etc.

Also most of the martials get some kind of damage rider as they level up. Yes, the paladin only gets 2 attacks, but he also gets 1d8 and then 2d8 radiant damage as a rider on every attack, even when not smiting eventually.

[Sigreid]

Honestly, just get rid of damaging cantrips all together and make it where each caster has a basic ability to do xyz where xyz is something like "push 5'", grant advantage, cause the target to not be able to heal for 1 round, reduce the target's speed.

They can still contribute, at will, to battle but they dont step on the ONE thing martials have (as much).

Keep it vague / very general. Give 3each caster a few different options.

Yeah, I still hate nearly every idea of yours I've read about improving the game. Different tastes I guess.

[rollingForInit]

Also most of the martials get some kind of damage rider as they level up. Yes, the paladin only gets 2 attacks, but he also gets 1d8 and then 2d8 radiant damage as a rider on every attack, even when not smiting eventually.

We should also not forget fighting styles. Rerolling damage dice, or getting +2 to ranged attacks, or a flat +2 bonus when using a one-handed weapon, is nothing to scoff at.

[Lombra]

A 17th level caster flings a 4d10 firebolt for 22 average damage per round (which could be twinned, or get an ability mod bump) while a monk can reliably make 3d10+3×DEX (with the option to flurry for another d10+DEX) and possibly magic weapons modifiers. Fighter could even do 5d8+5×STR + magic weapon bonus. A rogue is likely to sneak attack every round for 1d8+9d6+DEX. Cantrips (agonizing eldritch blast aside, which is how it should be) do way less damage than an average martial's combat round. Plus, as a member of the party, I'm very happy to see that even if a caster has no slots left he can still contribute to the fight.

That said, feats such as sharpshooter, polearm master and great weapon master all increase the effective damage of a martial class.

[Cybren]

Yeah, I still hate nearly every idea of yours I've read about improving the game. Different tastes I guess.

I like that idea conceptually but I'm not sure how it would play or if the spells would have any sensible resonance, but I also kinda nmiss the days of wizards carrying a crossbow

[Logosloki]

I like that idea conceptually but I'm not sure how it would play or if the spells would have any sensible resonance, but I also kinda nmiss the days of wizards carrying a crossbow

Darts were my weapon of choice for wizard, Crossbow was my choice for sorcerers. I think spawnofmorbo (was that their name?) came up with a novel idea where a cantrip was actually a focus so instead of having a fire bolt cantrip you would have a fire bolt focus.

[Deleted]

Yeah, I still hate nearly every idea of yours I've read about improving the game. Different tastes I guess.

Eh, oh well?

The issue here is that so many people want Martials to have something, anything, but no one wants to give it to them. Casters just have to have everything at all times or else the game aparently explodes or whatever.

Casters don't need at-will damage to feel or be magical.

Having a flexible minor spell that has rules that allows it to be flexible (but no damage) would help magic in the long run and stop magic from stepping on the toes of martials.

The three best damage dealing classes are the Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard. Not because they can do the highest numbers but because they can do good/great daily damage AND back it up with other options. Plus they get good/great at-will damage too.

But I originally come from 2e where the casters were casters and the martials were martials, so while I like hybrid classes... I like having a distinction between martials and casters.

What I proposed was actually an old 2e and 3e houserule.

In 5e terms... It would be like putting the "cast a spell action" and "attack action" on the same playing field. You can use them to do specific things BUT you can also give up those more powerful things in order to have good less damaging effects.

When you use the "Cast a spell action" you may replace a spell with one of the following features (insert list of non-damage dealing cantrips). You do not expend a spell slot when you do so.

When using a variation, of what I proposed above, back when we were playing 2e, 3e, and 4e... Well it made casters feel more magical than D&D has ever allowed them to feel. We have been thinking of breaking them up and giving each magic class their own list... But the array of options from these cantrips have not been an issue when you just give them to all. Even the damaging cantrip's secondary effects work well for this (though if you add those in, you should break up the options based on a class by class scenario).

Though recently I've been enamored by Numenera which characters can be made to allow this type of setup without needing to houseful anything.

[DanyBallon]

I feel like you haven't actually played many games if you can come away from the table feeling like casters are keeping up with martials in damage, especially just cantrip damage. I think you're assuming things based on failing to take all factors into consideration. I've played lots of casters and cantrips are just a way to sort of feel like you're contributing but you still feel outclassed on damage, and that's okay because casters contribute in other ways.

This is an hypothetical scenario, and it's not based on actual play (I definitely need to rewrite my opening post so it's more clear). One more time, I'm fine as cantrips are and they play well. The idea behind this "What if?" scenario is because many perceive caster to be far superior to melee, in versatility and damage output. And scaling cantrip is one of the component that lead to this perception. Hence the discussion we have now.
I'm not trying to have a me vs everyone type of discussion either, but when someone provide an argument I try to find a counter argument, I order to validate the solidity of this argument.

So far we got some pretty solid argument comparing the DPR output of cantrips to weapons attacks. There's still some area that could still be contested, but not enough to demonstrate that cantrip are too good and help overshadowing martials.

[Addaran]

This is an hypothetical scenario, and it's not based on actual play (I definitely need to rewrite my opening post so it's more clear). One more time, I'm fine as cantrips are and they play well. The idea behind this "What if?" scenario is because many perceive caster to be far superior to melee, in versatility and damage output. And scaling cantrip is one of the component that lead to this perception. Hence the discussion we have now.
I'm not trying to have a me vs everyone type of discussion either, but when someone provide an argument I try to find a counter argument, I order to validate the solidity of this argument.

So far we got some pretty solid argument comparing the DPR output of cantrips to weapons attacks. There's still some area that could still be contested, but not enough to demonstrate that cantrip are too good and help overshadowing martials.

In that scenario, i just wouldn't play casters, even if i love them. I'd go pure martial or something like EK, where your cantrips aren't there for damage anyway.

I've played martials and casters, and in 5e, i've never felt like martials were inferior. Aside from the cheating warlock, martials do way more damage and they usually aren't "all or nothing" like casters.

[Steampunkette]

So... depending on the AC of the target, a cantrip's damage will generally fluctuate wildly relative to a fighter's four attacks, or a monk's five.

Cantrip against an enemy with lower AC? They'll probably do really nice damage, but less crits. (One d20 roll vs Four)

Someone with a high AC? One chance to do all your damage, or nothing. While the character with multiple attacks is more likely to do at least some damage, if not full.

There are two Cantrips that get around this simple balancing structure: Eldritch Blast and Green Flame Blade.

EB allows for multiple attack rolls because the Warlock lacks many spell slots used for lower damage, but better than cantrip, effects over the course of the adventuring day. Greenn Flame Blade, on the other hand, rewards your increased damage taking risk while in melee range with the ability to attack a lower AC target and still damage a high AC target.

Cantrips are pretty great, in 5e... Martials just need more they can do without resource spending.

Pop open the DM and hand your martial characters the combat options section, though, and it should be great.

[Deleted]

yeah, this exactly.

cantrip damage *isn't* close to at-will melee damage, except for warlocks (who, as noted, are not quite as ridiculous in the spellcasting department to make up for it). it gets somewhat closer in a no-feat game for most martials, but even the more utility/less damage martials (monk and rogue) should have considerably higher damage unless they're doing something weird.

It isn't that they keep up with martials, it's that they keep up with game expectations on an at-will basis.

You don't have to out run the fighter, you just have to out run the dragon chasing both of you. (Though, if you cast Hold Person on the fighter it makes it easier for you to get away).

Everyone always compares each of the classes against each other as if that's the goal. That isn't the goal. The goal isn't to do more damage than your ally, the goal of HP damage is to put a creature at 0.

With all the defenses, running around, hiding (maybe while invisible), and tricks casters get... Spending one or two more rounds doing at-will damage isn't going to hurt you all that much. Especially with how easy AC is to come by in this game.

Unless you are in a featureless room or something, that "extra round" (or two) is not all that bad (especially since you have allies 90+% of the time).


Besides, if HP damage is the only win condition you come up against... That sounds like a boring game and you might as well go play videogames with voice chat.

[Sir cryosin]

I see a flaw only comparing cantrip vs weapon damage, is that it doesn't take into accounts that damage from cantrips are magical and that can overcome b/s/p resistance, that the ray of frost rider will slow a creature and can prenvent it from reaching a friend, or that vicious mockery give disadvantage on the next roll, or that acid splash damage two target, etc.
Also it doesn't consider that damage from spells are far superior to a fighter landing all his attack. In the end, spellcasters are already outclassing martials as far as damage output goes. Allowing them to have cantrip that give them a reliable source of damage when out of spells is adding to their arsenal, is what lead to the perception that it's too much.
Finally, the math doesn't factor that the scenario is adding spellcasting modifier to cantrip damage.

I understand what you are trying to demonstrate, but we can't just consider one aspect vs another, classes are working as a whole. Even I made a mistake myself when I forgot that barbarian can still use Reckless Attack even if they already used all their rage and I probably missed many more as it is complex to evaluate classes as a whole.

How can you say that when your hole "What if" is been about scaling down the damage a cantrip does. I've played spellcasters and when I ran out of spell slots. I felt useless when using cantrips. Yes cantrips follow weapons damage dice but the many factor is martials add there moddfier. Or have abilitys that add to damage like Superior smite (I can't remember what it called AFB), barbarians rage damage, rangers Colossus Slayer, dueling fighting style, hell bladelock have life drinker. When it comes to at will substained damage martials are out putting more damage the casters cantrips. If Im in a party with a spellcaster and we are nearing the end of a long fight or dungeon crawl. And he has only cantrips and his only doing 1d10/8/6. I'll be a little peeved that I got to pick up the slack. It's not his fault and he probably felling frustrated as well because he's not contributing as much as he would like. Yes cantrips do magical damage and most martials don't have a way to make there damage magical. Except for Paladin's, monks, bladelocks, rangers, Eldridge Knight, Valor bards, Arcane Trickster all have access to the spell magic weapon or have a ability to make there weapons magical to over come resistance to non-magical. Then for the ones that don't talk to your party spellcaster to keep one handy for you when y'all get into a situation for where that calls for it. There is no good benefit or Reason to Nerf the cantrips damage. They are not out damaging martials and spellcasters are not relying on then all the time. So what's the point? If it ain't broke don't fix it. It'll just make the casters feel incompetent and infiltrated when they have to rely on there cantrips. People didn't like that a caster had to pull a crossbow out when he used up his spells. Then they decided to have the cantrips scale so your not hitting the digger monsters with a grain of sand in later levels.


Do you want to fighting a dragon and you used up all your spellslots and your only doing 1d10 which average is only 6. Or your using ray of frost so you doing 1d8 average 5 and it slowed by 10ft. That's cool but the dragons movement is more then yours so it really not hindering it too much.

[Deleted]

How can you say that when your hole "What if" is been about scaling down the damage a cantrip does. I've played spellcasters and when I ran out of spell slots. I felt useless when using cantrips. Yes cantrips follow weapons damage dice but the many factor is martials add there moddfier. Or have abilitys that add to damage like Superior smite (I can't remember what it called AFB), barbarians rage damage, rangers Colossus Slayer, dueling fighting style, hell bladelock have life drinker. When it comes to at will substained damage martials are out putting more damage the casters cantrips. If Im in a party with a spellcaster and we are nearing the end of a long fight or dungeon crawl. And he has only cantrips and his only doing 1d10/8/6. I'll be a little peeved that I got to pick up the slack. It's not his fault and he probably felling frustrated as well because he's not contributing as much as he would like. Yes cantrips do magical damage and most martials don't have a way to make there damage magical. Except for Paladin's, monks, bladelocks, rangers, Eldridge Knight, Valor bards, Arcane Trickster all have access to the spell magic weapon or have a ability to make there weapons magical to over come resistance to non-magical. Then for the ones that don't talk to your party spellcaster to keep one handy for you when y'all get into a situation for where that calls for it. There is no good benefit or Reason to Nerf the cantrips damage. They are not out damaging martials and spellcasters are not relying on then all the time. So what's the point? If it ain't broke don't fix it. It'll just make the casters feel incompetent and infiltrated when they have to rely on there cantrips. People didn't like that a caster had to pull a crossbow out when he used up his spells. Then they decided to have the cantrips scale so your not hitting the digger monsters with a grain of sand in later levels.


Do you want to fighting a dragon and you used up all your spellslots and your only doing 1d10 which average is only 6. Or your using ray of frost so you doing 1d8 average 5 and it slowed by 10ft. That's cool but the dragons movement is more then yours so it really not hindering it too much.

You say most martials do magic damage and then you don't list a martial class. You are listing partial casters or magic-users (monks aren't martial, ki is specifically spelled out as magic).

A martial is a class that doesn't have access to magic from its core features. An Eldritch Knight is a type of Fighter but isn't a martial any longer.

[Sir cryosin]

This is an hypothetical scenario, and it's not based on actual play (I definitely need to rewrite my opening post so it's more clear). One more time, I'm fine as cantrips are and they play well. The idea behind this "What if?" scenario is because many perceive caster to be far superior to melee, in versatility and damage output. And scaling cantrip is one of the component that lead to this perception. Hence the discussion we have now.
I'm not trying to have a me vs everyone type of discussion either, but when someone provide an argument I try to find a counter argument, I order to validate the solidity of this argument.

So far we got some pretty solid argument comparing the DPR output of cantrips to weapons attacks. There's still some area that could still be contested, but not enough to demonstrate that cantrip are too good and help overshadowing martials.

How is cantrips part of how people think spellcasters are way to powerful. It's not the cantrips martials could care less about cantrips scalding because it don't out pace them or even keep up with them. We're people fell casters are op is when they can buff them self up to were they can do the same thing martials can do. Or were a blaster can have flaming sphere up then fireball all in one turn. It magic itself that's make martials feel they are op. It's magic vast versatility and with the right set up can replace them and still have room to play the caster. Just look at people's opinions on casters from older edition's were cantrips didn't have any damgeing ones to 5th edition we're people are a bit more happy. With concentration being brought down to only one spell at a time. They no longer have to rely on a crossbow for at will damage when they have no more spell slots. That martial damage has gone up a bit. These are fixes that were made that people for the most party happily with because it help balance the power scale with casters and martials.

[Sir cryosin]

You say most martials do magic damage and then you don't list a martial class. You are listing partial casters or magic-users (monks aren't martial, ki is specifically spelled out as magic).

A martial is a class that doesn't have access to magic from its core features. An Eldritch Knight is a type of Fighter but isn't a martial any longer.
So you're saying only a champion fighter a Battlemaster fighter, frenzy barbarian, battlerager barbarian, Rogue Thief ,Rogue assassin, Rogue swashbuckler, Rogue Mastermind are the only martials. First the monks ki abilities are not Magic. Next if Paladin is not a martial class then what is it? Then an Eldritch Knight is a martial class because its Base Class is a fighter which is the martial same for Arcane Trickster. My point was it's not that hard to over come resistance to non-magical damage.

[Deleted]

So you're saying only a champion fighter a Battlemaster fighter, frenzy barbarian, battlerager barbarian, Rogue Thief ,Rogue assassin, Rogue swashbuckler, Rogue Mastermind are the only martials. First the monks ki abilities are not Magic. Next if Paladin is not a martial class then what is it? Then an Eldritch Knight is a martial class because its Base Class is a fighter which is the martial same for Arcane Trickster. My point was it's not that hard to over come resistance to non-magical damage.

Yes.

There really aren't that many "pure martials" classes in D&D right now. There are plenty full casters and partial casters, but pure martials?

Barbarian (Frenzy)
Fighter (Champion)
Fighter (Battle Master)
Rogue (Assassin)
Rogue (Thief)

That's all we get from the martial side.

Partial casters, hybrid classes, like the Paladin, Ranger, and Monk that mix magic and martial abilities are their own thing.

Full Casters get 9th level spells. Or the equivalent, though Bards and Warlocks are weird in this case as a Bard is a supercharged hybrid and the Warlock isn't even a spell caster (they use Pact Magic and are weird).

Calling the core class of Paladin and Fighter the same thing is very disingenuous as the Paladin relies on spells and magic whereas the fighter does not.

[Steampunkette]

Yes.

There really aren't that many "pure martials" classes in D&D right now. There are plenty full casters and partial casters, but pure martials?

Barbarian (Frenzy)
Fighter (Champion)
Fighter (Battle Master)
Rogue (Assassin)
Rogue (Thief)

That's all we get from the martial side.

Partial casters, hybrid classes, like the Paladin, Ranger, and Monk that mix magic and martial abilities are their own thing.

Full Casters get 9th level spells. Or the equivalent, though Bards and Warlocks are weird in this case as a Bard is a supercharged hybrid and the Warlock isn't even a spell caster (they use Pact Magic and are weird).

Calling the core class of Paladin and Fighter the same thing is very disingenuous as the Paladin relies on spells and magic whereas the fighter does not.

You don't consider a Totem Barbarian to be a Martial Character?

[Typhon]

So... depending on the AC of the target, a cantrip's damage will generally fluctuate wildly relative to a fighter's four attacks, or a monk's five.

Hate to start a potential in thread argument, but monk's only get 4 attacks at best. 1 att + 1 extra att + 2 flurry of blows as a bonus or +1 unarmed attack as a bonus. They do not get 2 bonus actions.

Just clarifying that little bit. Otherwise I am staying out of the overall argument.

[Steampunkette]

Hate to start a potential in thread argument, but monk's only get 4 attacks at best. 1 att + 1 extra att + 2 flurry of blows as a bonus or +1 unarmed attack as a bonus. They do not get 2 bonus actions.

Just clarifying that little bit. Otherwise I am staying out of the overall argument.

RIGHT! Right. Derp.

I derped.

[Typhon]

RIGHT! Right. Derp.

I derped.

That is quite alright. Happens to all of us.

[Sir cryosin]

Yes.

There really aren't that many "pure martials" classes in D&D right now. There are plenty full casters and partial casters, but pure martials?

Barbarian (Frenzy)
Fighter (Champion)
Fighter (Battle Master)
Rogue (Assassin)
Rogue (Thief)

That's all we get from the martial side.

Partial casters, hybrid classes, like the Paladin, Ranger, and Monk that mix magic and martial abilities are their own thing.

Full Casters get 9th level spells. Or the equivalent, though Bards and Warlocks are weird in this case as a Bard is a supercharged hybrid and the Warlock isn't even a spell caster (they use Pact Magic and are weird).

Calling the core class of Paladin and Fighter the same thing is very disingenuous as the Paladin relies on spells and magic whereas the fighter does not.

Well then my friend we are going to have to agree to disagree. And get back on topic.

[ProphetSword]

I guess I don't understand the "spellcasters get everything" stance. In my 30+ years of D&D, I've rarely played a spellcaster. I've never felt as though I've suffered because other classes got something I didn't get.

I think that's because I have always viewed D&D as a cooperative team experience instead of a me vs everyone competitive experience. If I'm the fighter and the wizard weakens the monsters with a fireball, I don't feel jealous. I feel glad that the wizard made my life easier and that the team's chance of success just went up. I don't care if someone is doing more damage; because there are ways to contribute that don't include damage (knocking something down, disarming an enemy, keeping a target busy while the rogue gets in position, etc). Pure damage doesn't tell the whole story and never will.

Denying a spellcaster his cantrip damage on the basis that others might not like that the caster can do that is not healthy for the team dynamic. If the game were real-life, you might be envious that your wizard friend could throw fire from his fingertips at-will (that's only natural), but during a life-or-death situation, you'll be glad he can do that and will probably encourage him to do it whenever it's helpful.

[Strill]

I guess I don't understand the "spellcasters get everything" stance. In my 30+ years of D&D, I've rarely played a spellcaster. I've never felt as though I've suffered because other classes got something I didn't get.

That's not what this is about at all. The problem is in someone getting everything you get, plus more. I.e. if spellcasters get spells, as well as at-will DPR on-par with martials, then partials have no niche. That's not the case, but it's what OP was asking about.

[Socratov]

The more damaging cantrips are also those that will be more commonly resisted. Considering resistance/immunity, force and magic weapons are tied for tops so we can assume that the resistance equation comes down in favor of martials if magic weapons, or the spell magic weapon, are available. That chart is assuming firebolt, the second most commonly resisted element, so it's already pretty generous. Using something with a saving throw, like vicious mockery or sacred flame, reduces the damage output even further. Being unable to utilize the advantage/disadvantage system and generally using a worse curve for hitting make them a poor choice all around.

The riders available to cantrips come at the cost of damage, so we can reduce the caster's place on that chart further. Each casting reduces something for one round, but are typically not useful. Many produce rounding errors of impediment which would only matter on a battle map. Of all the cantrips, I think chill touch is the only one that produces a valuable effect. The other spells aren't useless, I just wouldn't expect their value to come up often enough to be a worth the rather scarce cantrip slots given out. I'd expect most casters to take at most one damaging cantrip if any. All that said it's easy enough to test, give players the option of a force version of their cantrips with no debuff rider and see what they prefer.

Casters aren't bad or anything, as you note the rest of their real kit is worth being nearly useless after they've spent their spells, but they are half damage to melee options when they are spent. That's more than enough of a reduction. Bards are in a bad spot when they're spent though.

Lorebards are, but they get to gimp enemies and get rather strong features in out of combat situations in return (stellar social and skills? sure, that is significant). Valor bards seem shafted, until you remember that they get medium armour, martial weapons proficiencies and the option of stealing either Swift Quiver (attack number buff that allows great damage), or elemental weapon (a great buff which not only boosts damage by elemental type, but boosts to-hit as well enabling more of that -5/+10 goodness). that is if they have somehow blundered and not taken Vicious Mockery which is maybe not so useful for the damage, but very useful for disabeling opponents trying to turn your friends into Steak Tartare. Besides, bards get access to GFB and BB so if a valor bard would want to wade into melee with his martial weapon and be somewhat useful, take BB or GFB and go to town.

[Asmotherion]

Many classes have specific features to add their spellcasting mod to cantrip damage.

Besides, I don't believe they need to be nerfed; Melee still has a bit more damage, wile the at-will damage a spellcaster deals keeps it relevant to the CR he faces.

An other way to view cantrips is as the Spellcaster's main weapon. What you say about cantrips being "the ability to deal damage of a spellcaster when he's out of spell slots" might be true for some classes/builds such as a Wizard, but it is also a way to make spell-slot economy, and even the default attack option for some Builds.

For example, a Sorlock will use his Eldritch Blast as a Weapon, and I have used Sorlocks who only had Attack Cantrips and Fireball as aggressive spells, using utility/buff/debuff spells with their spell slots. A cleric might prefer not to Melee, and use his Sacred Flame round after round when nobody is hurt and he has set up his concentration/long duration spell. An Arcane Trickster adds more damage to his Sneack Attack by using Scag cantrips.

Relativelly to 3.5e, spellcasters have much less spellslots to use, which means they must have a more ecconomic resource managment reguarding spell slots, and cantrips allow just that.

Personally, the first thing that convinced me to trancend into 5e from 3.5e was the way cantrips Worked.

[Dr. Cliché]

I felt useless when using cantrips.

Warlock notwithstanding, this sums up my experiences perfectly. Whenever I've used cantrips - even relatively strong cantrips - I've found them pathetic compared to the damage dealt by martials. And that's if they even hit - since you're putting all your eggs into one attack, and don't have the various bonuses martials tend to acquire.

Cantrips are a nice thing to have but they're very much a weapon of last resort - and for good reason.

Warlocks are the exception, obviously, but then they're more akin to Eldritch Archers anyway. :smallwink:


In terms of whether casters should have cantrips, I feel it worth mentioning that they've already lost a significant number of spell slots (especially at higher levels). What's more, the addition of Concentration and the huge decrease in the duration of many spells means that most spells simply can't be stretched as far as they could be in 3.5 (hence, they're more likely to either run out of spells or else cast far fewer in general). With that in mind, I think it's pretty reasonable for casters to have a few at-will spells (including damage spells).

[Hrugner]

Lorebards are, but they get to gimp enemies and get rather strong features in out of combat situations in return (stellar social and skills? sure, that is significant). Valor bards seem shafted, until you remember that they get medium armour, martial weapons proficiencies and the option of stealing either Swift Quiver (attack number buff that allows great damage), or elemental weapon (a great buff which not only boosts damage by elemental type, but boosts to-hit as well enabling more of that -5/+10 goodness). that is if they have somehow blundered and not taken Vicious Mockery which is maybe not so useful for the damage, but very useful for disabeling opponents trying to turn your friends into Steak Tartare. Besides, bards get access to GFB and BB so if a valor bard would want to wade into melee with his martial weapon and be somewhat useful, take BB or GFB and go to town.

Aren't BB and GFB Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard? Do valor bards get cross class cantrips as well (don't have my books on me, sorry)?

That aside, if the discussion is about how classes play when they're out of or conserving resources. Valor bard is pretty much trash in that regard.

[SharkForce]

It isn't that they keep up with martials, it's that they keep up with game expectations on an at-will basis.

You don't have to out run the fighter, you just have to out run the dragon chasing both of you. (Though, if you cast Hold Person on the fighter it makes it easier for you to get away).

Everyone always compares each of the classes against each other as if that's the goal. That isn't the goal. The goal isn't to do more damage than your ally, the goal of HP damage is to put a creature at 0.

With all the defenses, running around, hiding (maybe while invisible), and tricks casters get... Spending one or two more rounds doing at-will damage isn't going to hurt you all that much. Especially with how easy AC is to come by in this game.

Unless you are in a featureless room or something, that "extra round" (or two) is not all that bad (especially since you have allies 90+% of the time).


Besides, if HP damage is the only win condition you come up against... That sounds like a boring game and you might as well go play videogames with voice chat.

*shrug* if there were decent CC-oriented cantrips, i would totally use them. i'd prefer using them over cantrips whenever possible. i prefer control casters over nuking casters by a significant margin.

having said that... casters aren't really keeping up with the game's expectations in terms of damage. their damage is absolutely terrible, unless they spend slots, and if they're spending slots trying to keep up with damage you're going to very quickly find that you're not keeping up with the game's expectations in sustainability, because after 2 or 3 fights you're going to be running on empty.

and, in addition to that, just because i prefer control-oriented casters doesn't mean nobody else should be allowed to play nuking casters that are not a total joke.

a cantrip is something you do when spending spell slots would be a waste, or because you don't have anything better to do. it is basically a filler action. it doesn't need to suck more than it does, because it already sucks if you have to resort to using them. i've played plenty of 2nd edition myself, and my experience with casters is that when i'm out of spells or a spell is not called for in the current situation, unless we're still at very low levels, i don't do anything at all. i just sit there and wait. maybe there's someone who needs to be stabilized, or maybe the party needs a door opened and everyone else has their hands full (literally and figuratively), but generally speaking, i'm just waiting for the right opportunity to do something, and the rest of the time i basically do nothing. i don't even bother throwing darts or anything, because with my THAC0 and lack of bonuses to hit and damage, i'm not going to do anything (i will sometimes get into melee with a quarterstaff if i'm out of spells and the situation is looking particularly dire so i can soak up a hit or two for the melees, but even that i don't do often because "out of spells" typically means "my AC is complete and utter trash").

the current state of cantrips is not the problem. the lack of world-altering power for martials at high levels is where martials fall massively behind (again, their damage is not the problem, martial damage is fine where it is), and for whatever reason as far as i can tell, they're all perfectly delighted to do so. i think they're nuts, i've tried suggesting changes to the game to fix that, and what i've learned is that nobody who plays fighters or barbarians or other martial classes seems to want it fixed. so, ultimately, this is a problem that is best solved by doing absolutely nothing as far as i can tell.

[DanyBallon]

An other way to view cantrips is as the Spellcaster's main weapon. What you say about cantrips being "the ability to deal damage of a spellcaster when he's out of spell slots" might be true for some classes/builds such as a Wizard, but it is also a way to make spell-slot economy, and even the default attack option for some Builds.

You bring an interesting point of view to the discussion. Personally, I never thought of cantrips being the spellcasters main weapon. It's something new I need to think about a bit more. Thanks

I've always perceived cantrips as a backup plan that was added to the game to help spellcasters contribute when not using precious spell slots, without having them to rely on one of the few weapon available to them (darts and blowgun of old, I'm looking at you :smallbiggrin:). In such way they are a welcomed addition to the game since they let spellcasters feel magical even without using spell slots, and on top of that they are more useful that regular weapon by being magical and having rider effects.

[Haldir]

Disclaimer: this thread is only for the sake of discussion on a "What if?" scenario, and is in no mean a fix or a houserule looking to be enforced.

While I understand, the reason behind scaling attack cantrips, that they are a mean for spellcasters to still contribute to a fight when all their spells are gone, yet, I find that they are a little bit too good. I feel that they are keeping too close with the damage output of martials at higher level. Martials should be best at providing good DPS round after round, while I believe caster shine more when doing massive damage spike, but are limited in their ability to do so by spell slots. With attack cantrip as is, they are almost as reliable as martials.

So...

What if attack cantrips didn't scale but allowed the caster to add his spellcasting modifier to the damage roll? That way, attack cantrips would be similar to firing a range weapon, but in addition they are magical, and often have a rider effect.

This proposition work well with the PHB attack cantrips, but no so much with the ones from SCAG though.

What do you think? Could it work? Is too much a nerf?

All opinion are welcome, but please be constructive when answering.

I fervently disagree with your assessment of martial characters vrs. casters in terms of damage. It breaks the consistency of the game to say that magical characters shouldn't be able to consistently use their abilities simply because we want martial characters to have some strength relatively. It's a metagame consideration rather than a story or character consideration, and I don't like those.

Is it too much of a nerf? In the 5e system, probably. You could get away with it, but the limitations with concentration for buffs and the vast gulf in power between the different damage spells that aren't cantrips would make casters pretty much pure utility and they've got some limitations on that already.

[Socratov]

Aren't BB and GFB Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard? Do valor bards get cross class cantrips as well (don't have my books on me, sorry)?

That aside, if the discussion is about how classes play when they're out of or conserving resources. Valor bard is pretty much trash in that regard.

They don't get them in their base class and while Lorebard gets the opportunity at lvl 6 to get cross class spells (and please note that spells are cantrips as well), both lore and valor bard get the opportunity to get cross class spells at lvl 10 (as it is a bardic class ability and not a subclass ability, even so that it stops them from gaining spells that level except through magical secrets).

that said, valor bard is indeed a not so powerful class and when it comes to bardic archetypes lorebard does indeed take the cake.

[cZak]

This is a good breakdown of auto-attack damage by class for DPR comparison. http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/80333/weapon-attacks-compared-with-damaging-cantrips

Wizard is right near the bottom there. Why tip them lower?

This demonstrates the mechanical/mathematical relation. And is very good.

Personally, over several years & multiple campaigns, seems to me that the martials out perform casters in consistent damage output at the tables I've been.