Clerics have a severe lack of attack cantrips what do you think of this.

[Sir cryosin]

I know most of the clerics use wepons as at will damage. But clerics like the light only have sacred flame and if they pass the save it does nothing and it's a popular save (Dex). How would you think this cantrip would effect clerics if added.

Lance of Light
Evocation cantrip
Casting time: 1 action
Range: 120ft
Components: V,S
Duration: instantaneous
Description
A spear of light forms in your empty hand. You throw the spear of light at a target within ranger. Making a ranger spell attack. On a hit you deal 1d6 of radiant damage. At 5th level you form another spear. Than another one at 11th and 17th level.

How about this edited version

Lance of Light
Evocation cantrip
Casting time: 1 action
Range: 120ft
Components: V,S
Duration: instantaneous
Description
A spear of light forms in your empty hand. You throw the spear of light at a target within ranger. Making a ranger spell attack. On a hit you deal 1d6 of radiant damage. At 5th level you form another spear. At 11th level each spear deal a extra 1d4. Then at 17th the extra 1d4 turns into a 1d6.

[nickl_2000]

It's a radiant version of Eldritch Blast that does 1d8 vs 1d10. It would be hard to argue that it was overpowered. I'd let it in.

[Wilb]

Unearthed Arcana: Starter Spells also has Hand of Radiance, that targets Constitution and Toll the Dead, that targets Wisdom and is one of the stronger Cantrips.

[MrStabby]

Lack of attack cantrips is a cleric weakness, but a class can't be good at everything. Arcana cleric does offer more options.

The lance is a bit good - I think (hope) you missed that the wis to damage on cantrip ability would boost this massively. Getting warlock level cantrips on a cleric is a bit over the top.

[Sir cryosin]

Unearthed Arcana: Starter Spells also has Hand of Radiance, that targets Constitution and Toll the Dead, that targets Wisdom and is one of the stronger Cantrips.

Yes but they are saving throws.

[DivisibleByZero]

Not having a bunch of attack cantrips is a feature, not a bug.
They get medium armor (at least) and simple weapons (at least) and shields and most have a weapon attack damage boost at level 8. They aren't meant to spam attack cantrips. They're generally meant to fight in melee when they want to do consistent at-will damage without using a spell slot.
The fact that their weapon damage is lower, and that they don't get extra attack, are once again intended. They aren't meant to be full casters and full melee combatants. They're meant to be full casters who use weapons when needed.
Their magical offense is intentionally weaker than arcane casters.

[Gryndle]

the fact that cleric cantrips are still saving throws instead of attack rolls seems like design intent, afterall, the cleric does have access to better weapon options than wiz or sorc and better HD

I think your suggested cantrip is ok balance wise, as long as you inserted a line somewhere that it didn't stack with anything else. Otherwise I think its too strong for the cleric class. That said, in my world I would just say no, as I prefer the cleric's offensive spell ability to be less than that of the arcane classes.

2nd edit: on second thought, after looking at it again, even on an arcane caster I think I would either reduce damage to d6 OR reduce range by half, or completely get rid of the multiple attack progression and give it the normal extra damage progression.

[strangebloke]

overpowered and unneccesary.

There is absolutely zero reason that a cleric should by default be good at sustained blasting.

[mgshamster]

Not having a bunch of attack cantrips is a feature, not a bug.
They get medium armor (at least) and simple weapons (at least) and shields and most have a weapon attack damage boost at level 8. They aren't meant to spam attack cantrips. They're generally meant to fight in melee when they want to do consistent at-will damage without using a spell slot.
The fact that their weapon damage is lower, and that they don't get extra attack, are once again intended. They aren't meant to be full casters and full melee combatants. They're meant to be full casters who use weapons when needed.
Their magical offense is intentionally weaker than arcane casters.

I agree with this. Clerics are strong enough as it is.

[solidork]

I think giving anyone something similar to Eldritch Blast is a mistake.

Edit: Half of the subclasses are supposed to use cantrips for at will damage. If you don't get heavy armor, you get to add your Wis to cantrip damage at 8.

[nickl_2000]

Apparently I'm out voted, so tough luck. Use your sacred flame and like it!

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Lack of attack cantrips is a cleric weakness, but a class can't be good at everything. Arcana cleric does offer more options.

The lance is a bit good - I think (hope) you missed that the wis to damage on cantrip ability would boost this massively. Getting warlock level cantrips on a cleric is a bit over the top.Nature also gives you another chance to pick up a different attack cantrip since you get one of the druid cantrips. Druid attack cantrips aren't great as a rule (they're mostly relatively short range with Thorn Whip and Produce Flame capping out at 30 ft. and create Bonfire taking concentration) but they're at least a few more options.

I might consider allowing something like Lance of Light in a game I run, but I don't think I would let it target multiple creatures/create multiple lances. The clerics who would want this are probably the ones who are in wisdom-to-cantrip-damage domains so this ends up representing way too big an improvement over Sacred Flame. Without the mulit-target feature, the damage could maybe increase to 1d10 instead of 1d8, but in my experience when in doubt it's usually better to start out homebrewed stuff underpowered rather than overpowered. (Adding power later feels good for a player who benefits from it. Nerfing someone's favorite toy doesn't.)

[Moosoculars]

I would allow it but I would change it so that you do not get an extra lance at 5th but the damage of the single lance increases by 1d6.

This way it can't be abused by abilities which apply per hit (hex etc.) so make it more like fire bolt than eldrich blast.

[Sir cryosin]

How about dropping it to a d6? Or just refluff firebolt and make it a cleric cantrip. Because Light cleric is getting shafted for there 8lv ability. Only able to use sacred flame and nothing else. There's the arcane cleric to but every other cleric gets to add the weapons. Maybe knowledge domain?

[DivisibleByZero]

Wait for X's Guide to Everything.
It might have some new cantrips. I'm pretty sure it will have some new spells (I seem to remember reading that somewhere).

[Beelzebubba]

Unearthed Arcana: Starter Spells also has Hand of Radiance, that targets Constitution and Toll the Dead, that targets Wisdom and is one of the stronger Cantrips.

I dunno, that whole set of spells feels significantly overpowered.

'Guiding Hand' is basically 'why the hell do we need a Ranger anyway' as a 1st level spell.

'Primal Savagery' should be renamed 'Shillelagh really is a total joke, y'all'.

'Cause Fear' is 'Save with Disadvantage or do EVERYTHING at Disadvantage.'

It's one of the few I've seen that obsolete spells in the PHB.

[Sir cryosin]

Ok how about this?

Lance of Light
Evocation cantrip
Casting time: 1 action
Range: 120ft
Components: V,S
Duration: instantaneous
Description
A spear of light forms in your empty hand. You throw the spear of light at a target within ranger. Making a ranger spell attack. On a hit you deal 1d6 of radiant damage. At 5th level you form another spear. At 11th level each spear deal a extra 1d4. Then at 17th the extra 1d4 turns into a 1d6.


So on average at 17th level your doing 26. We're on average sacred flame is doing 25

[DivisibleByZero]

Still better with one-and-done.
I understand that you're trying to create a ranged cantrip for a cleric that can take advantage of potent spellcasting multiple times.... but that's kind of the problem.

[Sir cryosin]

Still better with one-and-done.
I understand that you're trying to create a ranged cantrip for a cleric that can take advantage of potent spellcasting multiple times.... but that's kind of the problem.

So what if it slightly better. It's not op it's not a must pick. Sacred flame still has things going for it like hitting people behind cover. A Arcane cleric would still be tempted to pick firebolt average damage is 29. I can understand be afrade of things like hex or a +x wand. Hex will only give you 1d6 extra and your working for that d6. By wasting a feat to get it once per day or multiclass and multiclass has a bigger cost. Abard or Tomelock could pick it up. but why pick that when EB is a better damage type and higher damage dice. A druid might be tempted to pick it up through feat or multiclass. But in terms of damage it's still no better than Thorn whip. Yes it hat a longer range but Thorn whip have a control pull effect.So I think it's a find cantrip.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's still significantly weaker than Eldritch Blast. At 5th level, we're talking around 5 DPR for the Cleric vs 12 for the Warlock; at 11th, it's more like 16 vs 20. And this is before Hex adds another ~4-7 DPR, and Repelling Blast adds control. I don't think we really need to be too concerned about overshadowing the premiere magic-archer.

If you're really worried, though, Moosocular and Sir cryosin's suggestions of dropping it to a single-roll attack isn't a bad one. Another possibility is to specify in the Cantrip text that Potent Spellcasting only applies to the first lance. That would let you crank the damage die up a bit, making lower-levels a bit easier to deal with.

[solidork]

Yeah, some kind of attack roll based cantrip is fine. Just not one that lets you make multiple attacks.

[coolAlias]

I don't think adding more attack cantrips really fits the default cleric class flavor and, if you are playing a cleric that feels like they need more, you can usually take a 1-2 level dip in one of the arcane caster classes or take either Magic Initiate or Spell Sniper to get your hands on one.

However, if you really want an attack-roll based cantrip on the default cleric spell list in your game, I agree with some of the other posters that it should be a single attack roll at all levels, more like firebolt than eldritch blast.

[Foxhound438]

Because Light cleric is getting shafted for there 8lv ability.

they really aren't though. There's no downside to using SF point blank, it immidiately does the same damage of better type than if you chose a divine strike domain (2d8+mod), and most importantly you're SAD as you can be. Clerics get medium armor, so you can set dex to +2 and boost wis+con for all of your ASI's. A DS cleric needs to have a 16 in STR or DEX out the gate to compete in damage, and then to keep up they have to choose to neglect their actual power stat in their ASI's, and then still fall behind when cantrip damage scales at 11 + 17. The only thing going for DS clerics is SCAG cantrips, and those come at a high opportunity cost no matter how you go about it.

[jaappleton]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Lance of Faith a Cleric cantrip in the D&D NEXT playtest material at one point?

I'd seen it mentioned before, though I can't actually find it anywhere.

[Foxhound438]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Lance of Faith a Cleric cantrip in the D&D NEXT playtest material at one point?

I'd seen it mentioned before, though I can't actually find it anywhere.

by some googling, yes. and sacred flame seems to be strictly better now than how lance was in Next, and the 2 posts I found on that were that it was crazy overpowered or off flavor or whatever. strange that now we're talking about whether or not a stronger power is strong enough on its own.

[Sir cryosin]

by some googling, yes. and sacred flame seems to be strictly better now than how lance was in Next, and the 2 posts I found on that were that it was crazy overpowered or off flavor or whatever. strange that now we're talking about whether or not a stronger power is strong enough on its own.

I didn't know there was a spell called that lol.

[Sir cryosin]

they really aren't though. There's no downside to using SF point blank, it immidiately does the same damage of better type than if you chose a divine strike domain (2d8+mod), and most importantly you're SAD as you can be. Clerics get medium armor, so you can set dex to +2 and boost wis+con for all of your ASI's. A DS cleric needs to have a 16 in STR or DEX out the gate to compete in damage, and then to keep up they have to choose to neglect their actual power stat in their ASI's, and then still fall behind when cantrip damage scales at 11 + 17. The only thing going for DS clerics is SCAG cantrips, and those come at a high opportunity cost no matter how you go about it.

Your no more mad then any other class. Also you get the weapon dice with Divine strike. So with a s&b set up it's 3d8+mod and you have feat support like gwm, ss, sm, and MI (for gfb & bb). Getting gfb & bb is a easyer to do then a caster cleric to get a good attack cantrip. Yes they can grad a druid cantrip. But what's the point you can't use potent spell because it's not a cleric cantrip. Also you can get +X weapons. You can't get any wands or staffs or any other magic item that give +X to sacred flame attack. So should caster clerics only get one attack cantrip option. I maybe wrong but there is nothing Resistance to magical slashing bludgeoning and piercing damage.

[Orvir]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Lance of Faith a Cleric cantrip in the D&D NEXT playtest material at one point?

I'd seen it mentioned before, though I can't actually find it anywhere.

Lance of Faith was an evo. cantrip, dex save, radiant damage, with a 50yd range. I think it was replaced in early 2013 with Sacred Flame.

[Zaq]

Still better with one-and-done.
I understand that you're trying to create a ranged cantrip for a cleric that can take advantage of potent spellcasting multiple times.... but that's kind of the problem.

Why is that so awful? That's a very 5e sentiment, though at least it's not trying to impose a punitive daily limit on the topic at hand (which would, admittedly, make it even more 5e).

A Cleric casting a cantrip is a Cleric who isn't casting a real spell. Is it so bad that the cantrip not be totally ignorable? It's not doing anything other than damage anyway, so it's already boring.

Plus, you know, the max you can add from Potent Spellcasting is 5. So (with a theoretical four-bolt cantrip) 15 more than Sacred Flame. At level 17. With four points of failure, so it's far from free (and the actual damage bonus is likely to be less, because you're likely to miss at least once). What's average monster HP at level 17? I really don't see why you find this so threatening.

[Saiga]

4 chances to hit and do some damage is MUCH better than one save being the difference between all or nothing. That's half of why Eldritch Blast works the way it does.

Why should Clerics have a cantrip that is most closely comparable to the cantrip designed to be a class' main damage feature? Why should they have a cantrip so much better than a Wizard or Sorceror, even Evocation and Dragon Sorcerors?

More cantrip options for Clerics, I understand. Creating an attack roll based Cantrip to give a different option, I can also understand. Giving them a large buff to their at-will damage by basing it off Eldritch Blast? Sorry, no, that's silly and completely unneeded.

It may not be as potent as a levelled spell, but the whole point of those is you can't rely on them all day. Giving them such a powerful at-will option is definitely a big buff, regardless of how it compares to their levelled spells.

[Coidzor]

I feel there should probably at least be one attack-based and one save-based offensive cantrip, with each doing a different damage type.

That's just part of my personal preference for all spellcasters that get attack cantrips, since I think players should have a choice between having the opportunity to get crits but having potential issues if an enemy gets into melee with them vs. the generally safer saving throw-based ones that cannot crit but also don't care about enemies being in melee range(unless I missed something).

[Kane0]

The only problem i see is that its not called Lance of Faith

[jaappleton]

I feel there should probably at least be one attack-based and one save-based offensive cantrip, with each doing a different damage type.

That's just part of my personal preference for all spellcasters that get attack cantrips, since I think players should have a choice between having the opportunity to get crits but having potential issues if an enemy gets into melee with them vs. the generally safer saving throw-based ones that cannot crit but also don't care about enemies being in melee range(unless I missed something).

I, too, am very much in favor of an attack roll cantrip for Clerics. There isn't one, not even from the Starter Spells UA...

[Unoriginal]

There is a reason why Clerics don't have attack roll cantrips.

If they ever give an attack roll cantrip to Clerics, it'd have to be weak as hell, to the point people would wonder why it exists at all.



That's just part of my personal preference for all spellcasters that get attack cantrips, since I think players should have a choice between having the opportunity to get crits but having potential issues if an enemy gets into melee with them vs. the generally safer saving throw-based ones that cannot crit but also don't care about enemies being in melee range(unless I missed something).

Why should all the casters have that choice, even those who got decent armor and melee options without spending spells ? There got to be limits to what they can do.

[DivisibleByZero]

Why is that so awful?
Saiga just answered for me.

4 chances to hit and do some damage is MUCH better than one save being the difference between all or nothing. That's half of why Eldritch Blast works the way it does.

Why should Clerics have a cantrip that is most closely comparable to the cantrip designed to be a class' main damage feature? Why should they have a cantrip so much better than a Wizard or Sorceror, even Evocation and Dragon Sorcerors?

More cantrip options for Clerics, I understand. Creating an attack roll based Cantrip to give a different option, I can also understand. Giving them a large buff to their at-will damage by basing it off Eldritch Blast? Sorry, no, that's silly and completely unneeded.

It may not be as potent as a levelled spell, but the whole point of those is you can't rely on them all day. Giving them such a powerful at-will option is definitely a big buff, regardless of how it compares to their levelled spells.

[Sir cryosin]

There is a reason why Clerics don't have attack roll cantrips.

If they ever give an attack roll cantrip to Clerics, it'd have to be weak as hell, to the point people would wonder why it exists at all.



Why should all the casters have that choice, even those who got decent armor and melee options without spending spells ? There got to be limits to what they can do.

What reason is that? Why should it be weak? Because the caster cleric only have one choice SF. We're other cleric domains get weapons, heavy armor making them able to stand were they want with a ok at will damage with options (aka feats, magic weapons, bigger weapon dice). What does a caster cleric get 8th level potent spellcasting with only one choice and it's a save or suck.

[Sir cryosin]

Saiga just answered for me.

So let just copy a different class cantrip (aka firebolt) ok cool sure. I edited it to not have 4 Spears.

[Dalebert]

Their magical offense is intentionally weaker than arcane casters.

This.

You could say the same about any class and it would sound just as weird. "Rogues have a severe lack of attack cantrips." Because clerics have other stuph instead. Would you say "Wizards have a severe lack of armor options," since clerics get great armor and wizards don't?

[Unoriginal]

What reason is that? Why should it be weak?

Because the Cleric not having attack cantrips is part of how the conceptors balanced the class.



What does a caster cleric get 8th level potent spellcasting with only one choice and it's a save or suck.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?

[Sir cryosin]

Because the Cleric not having attack cantrips is part of how the conceptors balanced the class.



Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?

Arcane, knowledge, and light domain clerics are caster focus domains and there 8th level ability named potent spell-casting allows you to add you wisdom moddfier to the damage of any cleric cantrip. But there is only one cleric cantrip that deals damage SF. We're the other domains have options with different weapons.

[Slipperychicken]

I think clerics do just fine with just sacred flame. They already have so much else going for them. Like others said, that's an intentional design choice because clerics aren't meant to put out tons of spell damage at will.

Besides, putting out multiple cantrips that do radiant damage in slightly different ways not only risks cluttering the design space and burdening players' decision-making with an excess of redundant options, but it also risks power creep or trap options as some will inevitably be stronger or weaker than others.

[strangebloke]

Should they have more options? Sure. Options are cool. I really think the tempest domain cleric should be able to get shocking grasp, for instance.

But it should be mechanically weaker than wizard/sorcerer cantrips

That's a concious design decision.

Now if you wanted to make a cleric archetype that had access to better cantrips, that would be something else.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why is that so awful? That's a very 5e sentiment, though at least it's not trying to impose a punitive daily limit on the topic at hand (which would, admittedly, make it even more 5e).
You don't understand, Zaq, it's a change. We can't go around changing things, 5e is perfect in every way just the way it is! Didn't you know that the designers spend 534562 years on a mountaintop carefully crafting the most intricately balanced, thoroughly thought-out system ever written? We can't play god like this!


4 chances to hit and do some damage is MUCH better than one save being the difference between all or nothing. That's half of why Eldritch Blast works the way it does.

Why should Clerics have a cantrip that is most closely comparable to the cantrip designed to be a class' main damage feature? Why should they have a cantrip so much better than a Wizard or Sorceror, even Evocation and Dragon Sorcerors?

More cantrip options for Clerics, I understand. Creating an attack roll based Cantrip to give a different option, I can also understand. Giving them a large buff to their at-will damage by basing it off Eldritch Blast? Sorry, no, that's silly and completely unneeded.

It may not be as potent as a levelled spell, but the whole point of those is you can't rely on them all day. Giving them such a powerful at-will option is definitely a big buff, regardless of how it compares to their levelled spells.
At 8th level, a Potent Spellcasting guy will do 2*(d6+5)*.65=11 DPR. A Divine Strike guy will do, allowing for more MAD and depending on setup, (2d8+3)*.65=8 DPR to (2d6+d8+4)=10 DPR. At 14th level, we're talking 3*(d6+5)*6.5=16.5 DPR for the blaster, verses (3d8+4)*.65=11 DPR to (2d6+2d8+5)*.65= 13.5. So the caster winds up with a slight (read: practically-speaking, insignificant) edge... provided the melee guy isn't doing anything to balance that. Like, saying, being a Nature Cleric with Shelleligh, or a War cleric with Divine Favor or War Priest. Or spending a feat to grab a melee cantrip, or Polearm Master, or Sharpshooter or something. And again, not counting that the Divine Strike guys get heavy armor, while Potent Spellcasting guys don't.

It's almost like there's a tradeoff involved.


Because the Cleric not having attack cantrips is part of how the conceptors balanced the class.
In that case, why the hell do half the Cleric subclasses have a feature that makes their attack cantrips do more damage? It sounds to me an awful lot like they meant for a bunch of clerics to be primary casters, as opposed to face-smashers.

[DivisibleByZero]

Now if you wanted to make a cleric archetype that had access to better cantrips, that would be something else.

They already made one. It's called Arcane domain, it's in SCAG, and it's official.
And hey, guess what? It's still one-and-done on its attack. Just like every single other cantrip in existence save for EB (which is intentional).

[MeeposFire]

I think people making the case of clerics being balanced by having only one attack cantrip are making the same mistake that some people think that rogue weapons are more about balance rather than theme and the same for monks not wearing armor.

That being said while I think there is design space for more cleric cantrips they probably should not be like EB. Rather they should deal mediocre damage and preferably give a boost to an ally (since I find clerics tend towards boosting others quite a bit). Now I could see having a domain designed around damage that could be given an EB like ability as one of its domain properties but that would be a specific exception.

Also I do not have my book on me but we have all seen that the tendency in official rulings is to be very discerning on how abilities are worded so depending on how the ability is worded potent casting may not work on each hit even if you had an EB like spell. Remember it works for agonizing blast because the ability specifically states per hit rather than per spell or some other term. So depending on the exact terms used potent casting may only work once on a spell just like the sorc ability.

[strangebloke]

They already made one. It's called Arcane domain, it's in SCAG, and it's official.
And hey, guess what? It's still one-and-done on its attack. Just like every single other cantrip in existence save for EB (which is intentional).

That was sort of my point.

If something is going to be far and away better than every default option, and better than comparable 'benefits' that you get from chosing an archetype, that's poorly balanced homebrew.

Now, that said, the arcana cleric has other things going for it. I was more talking about making a pure lazer cleric. The closest we have to that is the light domain.

That said, all of this presupposes that we want a blaster cleric. Personally, I don't.

[Thrudd]

I think clerics have too many attack cantrips, already. I don't know why they need any, at all. Especially not one that ignores cover.

[Sir cryosin]

They already made one. It's called Arcane domain, it's in SCAG, and it's official.
And hey, guess what? It's still one-and-done on its attack. Just like every single other cantrip in existence save for EB (which is intentional).

Do you not play spellcasters, FB, SG, RoF, GFB, BB, TW, CT, MS, PF, those are all attack roll cantrips

There are 9 saving throw cantrips and and 11 attack roll cantrips.

[Sir cryosin]

I think clerics have too many attack cantrips, already. I don't know why they need any, at all. Especially not one that ignores cover.

Clerics only have one damaging cantrip.

[JNAProductions]

Do you not play spellcasters, FB, SG, RoF, GFB, BB, TW, CT, MS, PF, those are all attack roll cantrips

There are 9 saving throw cantrips and and 11 attack roll cantrips.

The point they were making was that (excepting Eldritch Blast) every cantrip is a one and done. You get one roll, not multiple.

[Gryndle]

I think using Eldritch Blast as template for design is a mistake. Personally I think EB was a huge mistake. Trying to build on that is a foundation for imbalance.

I'm ok with caster clerics having different options. But I would use one of the more balanced cantrips as a starting point. I also prefer the K.I.S.S. method. I like simplicity in rules and abilities. The more complex you make it, the greater the opportunity for abuse, misunderstanding, confusion and argument at the table.

Disclaimer: please excuse typos and whatnot. I am interested in the discussion, but also heavily medicated.

[Sir cryosin]

The point they were making was that (excepting Eldritch Blast) every cantrip is a one and done. You get one roll, not multiple.

Yes but every damaging cantrip that's under a d10 damage has a rider effect. So why can't a d6 cantrip have multiple hits. All of y'all are saying no it op. Provide a counter argument to show how it's Op. Y'all I heard so far is
1. Can't have multiple hits
2. It can be more powerful them SF
3. Clerics arnt ment to have at will damage
4. It don't fit the clerics image that's not what they do.

1. Inform us how it's not good mechanically.
2. Inform us why it wouldn't work fluff wise.

Thank you

[Dudu]

I think clerics should have a weapon atk cantrip, yes. Their version of Green Flame Blade.

Right now, some clerics have divine strike, but not too much incentive to capitalize on it. I think their version of GFB should be weaker though.

Something like

Guiding Arrow
Evocation cantrip
Casting time: 1 action
Range: 120ft
Components: V,S
Duration: instantaneous
Description

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a ranged attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and a burst of light shines from the creature hit. The next attack against the hit creature has advantage.

This spell's damage increases when you reach higher levels. At 5th level, the ranged attack deals an extra 1d6 radiant damage to the target. That damage further increases by 1d6 at 11th level and 17th level.

------------

Retributive Strike
Evocation cantrip
Casting time: 1 action
Range: 5ft
Components: V,S
Duration: instantaneous
Description

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range that damaged you after your previous turn, but before your current one, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and a blast of sound punishes the creature hit, doing extra 1d8 thunder damage.

This spell's damage increases when you reach higher levels. At 5th level, the ranged attack deals an extra 1d8 thunder damage to the target. That damage further increases by 1d8 at 11th level and 17th level.


What you guys think? Still trying to make the Retributive Strike more convincing (it was inspired in St Cuthbert)

[Coidzor]

There is a reason why Clerics don't have attack roll cantrips.

Okay, what is this secret reason?


If they ever give an attack roll cantrip to Clerics, it'd have to be weak as hell, to the point people would wonder why it exists at all.

Why?

Cantrips are already weak relative to a character focused on dealing damage, it would only need to be balanced against other cantrips and there is no inherent need for Clerics to have less damaging attack roll cantrips than Wizards.


Why should all the casters have that choice, even those who got decent armor and melee options without spending spells ? There got to be limits to what they can do.

There is no inherent need for a limitation of Clerics to only having one ranged attack option that is based off of their casting stat instead of going for either throwing or shooting using Str or Dex.

Why on earth do you think melee options are even relevant to ranged attack cantrips? If you want to talk about cantrips and melee options, the only ones that are relevant to that subject are the melee AoE cantrip from Starter Spells, Booming Blade, Shocking Grasp, and Green Flame Blade. None of those are really relevant to the current context of a basic ranged attack option for casters that's magic flavored and has at least some weak scaling.

Since you brought up melee weapons, though, there is definitely a thematic place for holy warriors to have an analog to Green Flame Blade or Booming Blade.


Because the Cleric not having attack cantrips is part of how the conceptors balanced the class.

Please never use "conceptors" again. :smalleek:

Also, that's how they made it. Unless you have an actual argument to make, that doesn't indicate anything about whether that is actually a balance point, let alone an important one.

[JNAProductions]

Yes but every damaging cantrip that's under a d10 damage has a rider effect. So why can't a d6 cantrip have multiple hits. All of y'all are saying no it op. Provide a counter argument to show how it's Op. Y'all I heard so far is
1. Can't have multiple hits
2. It can be more powerful them SF
3. Clerics arnt ment to have at will damage
4. It don't fit the clerics image that's not what they do.

1. Inform us how it's not good mechanically.
2. Inform us why it wouldn't work fluff wise.

Thank you

Okay, let's compare Sacred Flame (SF) versus a 1d6 multi-hit cantrip (MH), at levels 8, 11, and 17. (It would be weaker at levels 7 and lower, or for Clerics that don't get a cantrip boost. Unless you Magic Initiate Hex or something.)

Level 8
SF: 2d8+Wis modifier damage, usually 14
MH: 2d6+2*Wis modifier damage, usually 17

Level 11
SF: 3d8+Wis modifier damage, usually 18.5
MH: 3d6+3*Wis modifier damage, usually 25.5

Level 17
SF: 4d8+Wis modifier damage, usually 23
MH: 4d6+4*Wis modifier damage, usually 34

It starts a little better, but quickly becomes a LOT better. Like, 40-50% better. Toss on Magic Initiate (Warlock) or a one-level Ranger or Warlock dip, and you can up that by 3.5 per tier.

In addition, it's more consistent. It might not achieve its max damage as often, but it will consistently deal some damage far more often.

Not to mention, it lets you hit multiple targets. If you're facing 40 goblins solo, for some reason, it'll take you 40 turns to kill them with Sacred Flame (minimum) but only 10 (minimum) for a multi-hit cantrip, if level 17+. (13.33 at level 11+, 20 at level 5+.)

[Unoriginal]

Let's imagine something: what would happen if the Cleric had access to the same cantrips than the Wizard? Not Eldritch Blast, but all the Wizard ones, working like they do for the Wizard.


-Would it significantly increase the versatility of the Cleric?

-Would it make the Cleric significantly better at dealing damage?

-Would it make the Cleric upstage the Wizard at low level?

[Sir cryosin]

Let's imagine something: what would happen if the Cleric had access to the same cantrips than the Wizard? Not Eldritch Blast, but all the Wizard ones, working like they do for the Wizard.


-Would it significantly increase the versatility of the Cleric?

-Would it make the Cleric significantly better at dealing damage?

-Would it make the Cleric upstage the Wizard at low level?

Just look at the Arcane domain cleric. You get 2 wizard cantrips that are cleric cantrip now and it get potent spell-casting. Having played both no a cleric with wizard cantrip does not upstaged a wizard. At low levels a wizard using a cantrip from there school is doing more with that cantrip then a cleric can. On cleric side only thing effecting cantrips it the 8th level abilitys potent spellcasting.
Evo wiz makes save or suck cantrips better to use then attack one because it make the creature's take half damage on a successful save. From the illusion School of wizards you can use sound and visual at the same time. Only cleric that does something with cantrips it the death domain in DMG it let's you attack a second target within 5ft of each other with necromaney cantrips.


Also keep in mind clerics get less cantrips then a wizard.

[Unoriginal]

Just look at the Arcane domain cleric. You get 2 wizard cantrips that are cleric cantrip now and it get potent spell-casting. Having played both no a cleric with wizard cantrip does not upstaged a wizard. At low levels a wizard using a cantrip from there school is doing more with that cantrip then a cleric can. On cleric side only thing effecting cantrips it the 8th level abilitys potent spellcasting.
Evo wiz makes save or suck cantrips better to use then attack one because it make the creature's take half damage on a successful save. From the illusion School of wizards you can use sound and visual at the same time. Only cleric that does something with cantrips it the death domain in DMG it let's you attack a second target within 5ft of each other with necromaney cantrips.


Also keep in mind clerics get less cantrips then a wizard.

But the 2 cantrips for the Arcane domain is their subclass feature, no? I'm talking about what would happen if you took the Cleric and just authorized them to select their cantrips from the Wizard list, without costing them anything.

[Sir cryosin]

But the 2 cantrips for the Arcane domain is their subclass feature, no? I'm talking about what would happen if you took the Cleric and just authorized them to select their cantrips from the Wizard list, without costing them anything.

Why? Would they count as cleric spells? And what the difference from that and a Arcane cleric? Other then the Arcane cleric getting 2 more cantrips.

[Unoriginal]

Why?

It's a thought experiment.


Would they count as cleric spells?

Yes.

[QUOTE=Sir cryosin;22174229]And what the difference from that and a Arcane cleric? Other then the Arcane cleric getting 2 more cantrips.

The difference is that any Cleric could select any of their cantrips from the Wizard list, though they would still be limited to their normal number of cantrip. It would make the Arcane cleric feature a bit redundant, yes, but let's put that issue on hold for now.

[Coidzor]

Let's imagine something: what would happen if the Cleric had access to the same cantrips than the Wizard? Not Eldritch Blast, but all the Wizard ones, working like they do for the Wizard.


-Would it significantly increase the versatility of the Cleric?

-Would it make the Cleric significantly better at dealing damage?

-Would it make the Cleric upstage the Wizard at low level?

Yes, but mostly because of Minor Illusion, Dancing Lights, Message, and Prestidigitation, which aren't really relevant to the subject at hand, so you shouldn't have added them in.

The attack cantrips give them another form of ranged attack, which is much less versatility than merely having the Guidance cantrip. Remember that Sacred Flame already ignores cover, so attack-wise all they're getting are either A. getting to make an attack roll for a melee cantrip, B. getting to make an attack roll for a ranged cantrip, or C. Frostbite and getting to potentially impose Disadvantage on an enemy's first attack next turn they take. If they try to grab all of those, then they lose out on things like Guidance, which significantly lowers a Cleric's versatility by taking away from their utility.

Better at dealing damage? With Greenflame Blade in Melee, yeah, they'll be able to be solidly second tier melee contributors if they're Tempest Clerics or otherwise have a rider effect on their melee weapon attacks. At ranged? No, only marginally better due to the ability to crit 5% of the time.

No, the Cleric would not upstage the Wizard, why would you even think that or ask?

[Kane0]

Dude, if nobody at your table ibjects and everyone is enjoying themselves then you're all good (except for the fact tthat you're not calling it Lance of Faith, thats just a sin).

Naysayers gonna naysay.

[Beelzebubba]

Yes but every damaging cantrip that's under a d10 damage has a rider effect. So why can't a d6 cantrip have multiple hits. All of y'all are saying no it op. Provide a counter argument to show how it's Op. Y'all I heard so far is
1. Can't have multiple hits
2. It can be more powerful them SF
3. Clerics arnt ment to have at will damage
4. It don't fit the clerics image that's not what they do.

1. Inform us how it's not good mechanically.
2. Inform us why it wouldn't work fluff wise.

Thank you

People have answered all of your questions already, in multiple ways.

You keep coming back forcing people to prove it to you with a bar that gets higher every time.

Face it. You just want it, and you don't want to be convinced.

Give it to Clerics at your table already, nobody will stop you. Just don't expect people to keep arguing with you about it, because after a certain point, they will have better things to do.