INT and Cantrips

[Max_Killjoy]

Are Cantrips powerful enough, or the added versatility unbalancing enough, that giving characters with Cantrips an added number equal to their INT bonus would blow things up?


(Probably has been asked before at some point, but I'm not finding it and the idea hit me tonight.)

[Trustypeaches]

Are you suggesting that you give a Wizard extra cantrips equal to his INT modifier? Would the other spellcasters get extra cantrips equal to their spellcasting modifier too?

Personally, I don't think this would be too imbalancing but it would remove some of the meaningful choice players make when picking cantrips. I'd instead find ways to give players access to those cantrips in other ways, possibly through Wondrous magic items, as free usage of a mediocre non-combat cantrip such as Shape Water or Mold Earth is an excellent effect for a magic item.

[Max_Killjoy]

Are you suggesting that you give a Wizard extra cantrips equal to his INT modifier? Would the other spellcasters get extra cantrips equal to their spellcasting modifier too?

Personally, I don't think this would be too imbalancing but it would remove some of the meaningful choice players make when picking cantrips. I'd instead find ways to give players access to those cantrips in other ways, possibly through Wondrous magic items, as free usage of a mediocre non-combat cantrip such as Shape Water or Mold Earth is an excellent effect for a magic item.

Yes, sorry, expand it to every class that gets cantrips, based on their casting attribute modifier.

I think I focused on INT because INT seems to have been deflated a bit from prior editions, with the loss of added languages and/or skills.

The cantrip lists might be too short for it to be workable.

[JoeJ]

Would non-spellcasters get something as well?

[Max_Killjoy]

Would non-spellcasters get something as well?

I think that falls under the concern of it being an unbalancing amount of added versatility to those classes with Cantrips. (Can't be a raw power balance issue, can it, with only one cast per turn... and they're still Cantrips?)

The alternative would be something like, say, "you get to added a number of skills, languages, and/or cantrips equal to your INT modifier", maybe? But that favors Wizards (and those optional INT-locks) over other Cantrip-having classes, doesn't it?

[ad_hoc]

I think that falls under the concern of it being an unbalancing amount of added versatility to those classes with Cantrips. (Can't be a raw power balance issue, can it, with only one cast per turn... and they're still Cantrips?)


Having many options is powerful.

Cantrips are very limited and tend to cost quite a bit to gain (High Elf, feat, pact, etc.). They're also part of class identity.

Most

Sorcerer
Cleric, Wizard
Bard, Druid, Warlock

Least

[Dungeon-noob]

To answer your question: yes, i'd be bad. Cantrips can be very powerfull, as they're some of the only at-will abilities in the game. No longer being restricted in your choice would mean every caster is way more powerfull. Not to mention this massuvely buffs either just wizards or all casters, even if you give the martials the bonus too. Unevenly buffing classes is a great way to break the balance.

[Sigreid]

Considering the only reason I've considered multi-classing my wizard is I really want more cantrips, I think it would be giving way too much.

[LudicSavant]

Yes, sorry, expand it to every class that gets cantrips, based on their casting attribute modifier.

I think I focused on INT because INT seems to have been deflated a bit from prior editions, with the loss of added languages and/or skills.

The cantrip lists might be too short for it to be workable.

You're probably just going to end up buffing Wizards again instead of encouraging people who were dumping Int to invest in it. Getting extra cantrips known just isn't as good as investing more in your main stats, while for Wizards it's just more free stuff.

This is one of the main obstacles with fixing Int in 5e; Wizards are already high on the power curve in 5e and you want to be cautious about buffing them.

[Laserlight]

Leaving out multiclassing, there aren't enough cantrips that it will make a huge difference. Yeah, if you have Firebolt and Eldritch Blast and Toll the Dead, there may still be the odd occasion when you prefer Chill Touch, but not often.

Multi class...maybe you get the INTmod number of cantrips instead of the number you'd ordinarily get from the second class.

Do martians and half casters get cantrips too? Half INT or such?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Let's look at this numerically. The first number after the class is the number of cantrips granted at max level by the class. The number after the slash is the total on the PHB list. The third number is the total including XGtE.

Bard: 4 / 11 / 12
Cleric: 5 / 7 / 9
Druid: 4 / 8 / 18
Sorcerer: 6 / 16 / 24
Warlock: 4 / 9 / 15
Wizard: 5 (EK 3 / AT 4) / 16 / 25

Adding +SPELLMOD cantrips to the known list means that a 1st level cleric with +4 WIS knows all his cantrips. Note that Xanathar's didn't help, since it expanded the cleric list by only 2 cantrips.

And then accounting for the fact that several of these options are just garbage (true strike), you'd end up with everyone having the strong cantrips. Clerics get left out, as usual.

[Ventruenox]

Why not? While you are at it, use a Deck of Many Things for every poker game being played at every bar the PCs visit.

Sarcasm aside, magical at-will abilities can present instant scenario solutions to most things a DM will throw at the PCs. If you want a high magic game, go for it. Just expect your DM plan accordingly; more PC power makes the job more difficult.

[Dungeon-noob]

Sarcasm aside, magical at-will abilities can present instant scenario solutions to most things a DM will throw at the PCs. If you want a high magic game, go for it. Just expect your DM plan accordingly; more PC power makes the job more difficult.
^ that is why i think it's dangerous, not because more people get fire bolt (although that might be more annoying then some people think). Mending, minor illusion, pregestigation, etc. are all at will abilities that greatly help in problem solving, moreso out of combat. Which is the really scary thing, a party with that many cantrips is going to be minor superheroes even without class features simply through at-wills.

[Wildarm]

Making cantrips more plentiful would make many race choices sub-optimal. V-Human becomes even more appealing. Pure martial characters would suffer too. Probably need to give them a free feat to compensate.

It can be done, it's just raising the power level of the group a notch. Similar to if you provide a feat to everyone at level 1 or allow a higher point buy start.

If you want to though, go for it. It's your game. I'd would fluff it into magical training colleges that drill students in the basics of spellcraft. Maybe have a military bent to the nation who must always be ready to fend off threats. Similar to giving every able bodied citizen a rifle and training in how to use it.

[Vogie]

In a high-magic setting, I could see if you wanted to pair it with non-combat cantrips. Things like Light, Mending, Message, Thaumaturgy, Prestidigitation, Minor Illusion, Druidcraft, Dancing Lights, Control Lights, et cetera.

I'd also make a collection of other minor magic that would incorporate the world:

Load/Unload
Locate North
Color Cloth
Produce Tea
Auto-Dictate
Keep Time
Till Soil
Sweep (Animate Broom?)
Fast Harvest
Shuffle
Produce Ball
Folding

[Keravath]

The main issue with giving out more cantrips is that the caster no longer has a decision to make about which damage type to do.

Cantrips divide into utility and damage generally with a few other useful or mixed effect ones (create bonfire for example).

Just off the top of my head

Damage:
Firebolt - fire
Chill touch/toll the dead - necrotic
Shocking grasp - lightning, melee range
Eldritch blast - force
Ray of Frost - cold
Poison Spray - poison, d12 but short range
Acid Splash - acid

Utility
Prestidigitation
Mage Hand
Minor Illusion
Light
Friends
Message
Dancing Lights
Mending

Increasing the number of cantrips either significantly increases at-will utility so that you will have a cantrip for almost every situation OR it will make it much more likely that you have a cantrip that works in melee or does damage that won't be resisted (or might even be vulnerable). The increase in versatility is extremely useful. One of the nicest features of multiclasses is the increased number of cantrips (sorcerer/warlock ... which is good for other reasons ... will have at least 6).

P.S. It probably won't break the game though ...

[Pelle]

Adding +SPELLMOD cantrips to the known list means that a 1st level cleric with +4 WIS knows all his cantrips. Note that Xanathar's didn't help, since it expanded the cleric list by only 2 cantrips.


It wasn't +SPELLMOD, it was +INT as far as I can understand.

I think it's a bad idea. It's only boosting Wizards. Yes, Int is a "dump stat", but so what? We don't need to balance the abilities. If you want more emphasis on the ability, just call for Int() checks more often. In addition to investigations and passive lore checks, I use it all the time for downtime activities like trading, crafting and training.

Edit: Yeah, if it is changed to +SPELLMOD for all classes, it's not as a buff to Int as ability. But what's the point of arbitrary increasing the number of cantrips known? Everyone has about the same value in their casting stat, and this only serve to make it even more important. The number of cantrips known is set at a number the designers deemed "the most fun" for the game, so what is the need for increasing that? You could change the number of cantrips known from say 4 to 1+SPELLMOD, but why?

[Legendairy]

Do martians and half casters get cantrips too? Half INT or such?

I chuckled a bit.

[Max_Killjoy]

The "thinking out loud" started out with the intersection of INT's deflated utility when it doesn't give extra Skills or Languages in 5e... and the lack of any way to learn/know more Cantrips other than adding levels... and then expanded to include anyone with Cantrips getting their INT/CHA/WIS modifier to their Cantrip count.

These are the kinds of things that go through my head when I'm trying to learn 5e and stat out a character from concept late at night after a long day of frustrating nonsense (errors by others at work that only I can put the fixes together for, and horrible icy weather, ruining what was supposed to be a day off with my parents in town for the day).

[Pelle]

Getting more cantrips or not can be fine, but it depends on why you want more. If it ain't broken, don't fix it etc. At least decide on what you want to get out of it. If you think spellcasters have too few options, and want more special abilities, sure go ahead. But tying it to +spellmod is unnecessary fiddly IMO.

[Max_Killjoy]

So, more broadly, then, how would you make INT less of a "wizards only" stat? And less of a tempting "dump stat"?

(General "you", not just directed at Pelle. :smallsmile: )

[Pelle]

(I already had some suggestions above for downtime applications, but in general, just make the Intelligence ability more relevant for the game play through adventure design. Character Int can be a bit tricky, because it competes with player skill, and players rarely realize what they are missing out on when the character fail an Int check. It can help to be more explicit about what the DC is, and hint about what they may learn if they succeed.)

[Ventruenox]

I'm not sure if we ever saw an example of that.. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html)

[Prince Vine]

So, more broadly, then, how would you make INT less of a "wizards only" stat? And less of a tempting "dump stat"?

(General "you", not just directed at Pelle. :smallsmile: )

The biggest fixes I've seen so far include:
Use Int for initiative instead of Dex.
Add languages and/or proficiencies equal to Int mod.
Use Str for damage on finesse weapons
Make knowledge skills more relevant (requires a good bit of stat overhaul for monsters).

[Dungeon-noob]

So, more broadly, then, how would you make INT less of a "wizards only" stat? And less of a tempting "dump stat"?

(General "you", not just directed at Pelle. :smallsmile: )
A few simpe ways are to just include more INT checks, like in a more lore/knowledge focused campaign, make memory more important (riddles/puzzles?), bring in some monsters or casters that target INT saves (mind flayers or Xanatar spells, yay). If you're fighting an opponent who likes complex and nefarious magical sigils and rituals, you're happy to be making those arcana checks (think mad scientist bomber/preparation for master plan, but a wizard instead of a scientist, or a sorceror with custom spells a lá the old days in Greyhawk, being able to figure out what spells do before he uses them, or how to identify them afterwards or counter the effects, all of those are really handy to not lose).

[Man_Over_Game]

So, more broadly, then, how would you make INT less of a "wizards only" stat? And less of a tempting "dump stat"?

(General "you", not just directed at Pelle. :smallsmile: )

I made a solution or two that addresses concerns like that with the Prestige Options link in my Signature. It adds a couple of options for more Intelligence-based builds that still use the same mechanics and normal classes, just shifts around the modifier used for class features while adding a few requirements to avoid overpowered multiclassing.

Other than that, a few things you could do could be:

Use Sanity rules, using Intelligence Saving Throws.
Have every enemy's statblock have a particular "knowledge" skill that reveals information about them if your passive value in that skill is high enough. For example, having a high enough passive Intelligence (Religion) means you know how Devas work and what they're weak to.
Illusion-based traps/more Investigation checks.
More Psychic damage spells.

[Guy Lombard-O]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?568474-When-is-Passive-Investigation-used&highlight=investigation+check

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?568474-When-is-Passive-Investigation-used&highlight=investigation+check

Use more Investigation checks, active and passive.

[JoeJ]

So, more broadly, then, how would you make INT less of a "wizards only" stat? And less of a tempting "dump stat"?

(General "you", not just directed at Pelle. :smallsmile: )

The easiest and least manipulative way to keep players from dumping anything is to set a minimum for that stat at character creation. But why would you want to do that? If you allow point buy, you should expect that most players will go lower in some stats ("dump," if you want to use that term) in order to buy higher scores in others. Why would you want to control which stats they dump?

[Misterwhisper]

The biggest fixes I've seen so far include:
Use Int for initiative instead of Dex.
Add languages and/or proficiencies equal to Int mod.
Use Str for damage on finesse weapons
Make knowledge skills more relevant (requires a good bit of stat overhaul for monsters).

Most of those are horrible ideas.

Using Int for initiative instead of dex does not make int more useful it just gravely hurts dex users.
Adding languages is ok but very rarely will it matter, adding proficiencies is WAY too powerful considering how hard it is to get them normally.
Using Str for damage to finesse weapons has nothing to do with INT at all.

All these things do is sabotage dex builds, like badly.

Making skills more relevant is great but knowledge skills always have a noose on them, because it all just comes down to how important the DM makes the info and how game altering it is.
Will making a nature check to figure out that a certain kind of lizard is highly poisonous, be helpful, sure but you could also just assume that and be fine, or if you miss it, it won't be a HUGE deal.
However, if you fail the arcana check to deactivate the magic mcguffin, that could be HUGE.
But, is the DM going to leave the hanging point of the game on a skill check?

Don't try to make one stat better by making another stat worse.

[Man_Over_Game]

To be fair, though, it's not like Dexterity needs any kind of favors.

Strength options:

Cleric: 50%
Fighter: 50%
Paladin
Barbarian



Dexterity options:

Druid
Monk
Fighter: 50%
Cleric: 50%
Sorcerer
Wizard
Warlock
Bard
Ranger
Rogue



For every 1 Strength-using class option, there are 3 that use Dexterity.

[Max_Killjoy]

To be fair, though, it's not like Dexterity needs any kind of favors.

Strength options:

Cleric: 50%
Fighter: 50%
Paladin
Barbarian



Dexterity options:

Druid
Monk
Fighter: 50%
Cleric: 50%
Sorcerer
Wizard
Warlock
Bard
Ranger
Rogue



For every 1 Strength-using class option, there are 3 that use Dexterity.

How many use CHA, WIS, and INT respectively?

[Man_Over_Game]

Wisdom:

Cleric
Monk
Ranger
Druid
Fighter (5%)
Rogue (10%)



Charisma:

Warlock
Sorcerer
Paladin
Barbarian (5%)
Bard
Fighter (5%)
Rogue (10%)



Intelligence:

Fighter (30%)
Rogue (30%)
Wizard



Wisdom: 4.2
Charisma: 4.2
Intelligence: 1.6

Needless to say, Intelligence is used less than half as often as Wisdom or Charisma.

(I tallied up any odd minor features I could think of for obscure class features that rely on a special modifier, such as the Berserker's Barbarian Fear shout, treating them as 5-10%)

[Max_Killjoy]

BTW, sorry for all the odd questions and "but what..." comments I post in this forum... this is unfortunately how my brain works when I try to gain understanding of a system, by picking at the edges and poking the soft spots and seeing how it breaks.

[Grey Watcher]

I can't remember how well it worked (in part because it was an All Wizards game and in part because we started out with DnD Next, so we were running off a non-finalized version), but one variant we tried was that Wizards (and presumably other preparation-based casters) can prepare a number of cantrips equal to the entry on the table. Cantrips from other sources (like my Magic Initiate) were fixed, but as for the basic Wizard class cantrips, we could reconfigure those with a good night's sleep just like the main spells. It's a boost for those classes, but it doesn't affect their overall power curve within the adventuring day itself.

[Thrudd]

For me, at this point, INT seems to primarily be an attribute "tax" that you need to pay in order to have access to the best spellcasting class. Choosing to be a wizard or a subclass that depends on INT means you will need to accept a lower score in one of the stats that are used more often in ability checks and saving throws. It's a sort of balance, maybe - IE, you possibly get spells or cantrips that can accomplish the things you would otherwise use those ability checks to do. I've resigned to the idea that intelligence in D&D just means you are good at being a wizard. I believe it is designed such that what your character knows and can do is more defined by your choice of class than it is by the ability scores. All characters have a baseline competence in everything adventurers do, regardless of ability scores. Your race, class and background give you a specialty. There is no need for treating the intelligence score as the actual intelligence of the character, in the way intelligence is normally defined. It reflects how good they are at the mental gymnastics required to learn wizard spells, which incidentally has limited utility in other areas of life.

Dex and Con are the most targeted abilities for saving throws, Wis next after them. Strength doesn't call for a lot of saving throws but is used in a number of contests with monsters and grappling that could make it close to wisdom in the defensive category. Int and Cha are barely targeted at all, by monster abilities or spells. However, Cha ability checks can be expected to have significant general utility in social encounters. So, it makes sense for most classes to put their lowest score in intelligence, and maybe that's by design, since mechanizing the intelligence of a character is something that is somewhat problematic in a game that is about players thinking and figuring things out for themselves, in large part.

In general, in return for investing in a wizard's casting ability, you sacrifice a bit in another ability that would boost your defenses or social utility.

In order to bring intelligence in line with the other casting stats in terms of utility, you might take some of the charisma and wisdom proficiencies and either change them to INT as default or explicitly allow Int to be used in place of the other stat. This is already permitted by the rules, the DM can call for any sort of ability check with any proficiency they think is relevant to the situation - So the DM could make intelligence more useful in their game just by deciding it will be, and asking for intelligence checks for things like survival, or persuasion, or lock picking, or whatever. But actually listing INT as one of the abilities that accompany those skills would encourage players to see it as being more useful than it is currently. Along the same lines, divide those spells and abilities which target wisdom and give half of them to intelligence instead. Or, allow players to choose either wisdom or intelligence as their saving throw ability in cases where they are mentally targeted.

The problem with using intelligence for languages is the same problem with mechanizing intelligence in general - it is completely dependent on the DM and the way they run the game. A DM may be very strict about languages, and have creatures speaking different languages and severely limit communication without the required language skill, and impose realistic consequences for failing to invest in language skills. Most often, however, it is completely forgotten and there is either little need for communicating (players just kill everything in a string of pre-planned battles), or almost everything worth communicating with speaks a common language so all the players can participate in social scenarios regardless of their skill investments.

The problem with most RPGs is that you really need to know how the GM runs their games to know what is worth investing in and what isn't, unless the game is more tightly designed than most.
Intelligence, and to a lesser extent Charisma and Wisdom, are those abilities in D&D. They might possibly be extremely relevant and represent a meaningful choice in character creation compared to the other stats - but they also might turn out to be almost completely useless apart from allowing you to be a competent spell caster and their position as saving throws. So, as a player coming into a game blind (which isn't common for me, but might be for a lot of people doing Adventure League or online games), it's safest to just consider the impact abilities have on combat and spells, and not to assume that skill proficiencies will ever be used in a meaningful/consequential way.