Cantrip question/thought

[KyleG]

It always bother me that you can do a dip in late game and boom, high level cantrips at your disposal.
What would be the consequence of having spell caster gained cantrips be caster level and only racial cantrips at character level?

[JackPhoenix]

2 level warlock dips will become less appealing. EK and AT will be broken, because there's no "caster level" in 5e. And you failed to account for all the feats that grant cantrips.

[Shadean207]

It always bother me that you can do a dip in late game and boom, high level cantrips at your disposal.
What would be the consequence of having spell caster gained cantrips be caster level and only racial cantrips at character level?

Think about it this way: A dip into a casting class is something you almost only do when you start off with a martial class, or perhaps a half-caster like Ranger or Paladin. Now, the one level into the casting class means
- you don't get the capstone of your main class, which may be a significant factor in character strength.
- you may miss out on attacks because cantrips cost an action (especially risky for multiattacking fighters or monks)
- cantrips may use a modifier/save you're not great with, depending on starting class and dip class
- you get worse hit dice in many cases, and probably not many useful proficiencies/skills for your main class
- you only get the most basic spellcasting abilities
- you need to carry a magic focus (though not for all spells/cantrips) which might collide with weapon use (i.e. actions/bonus actions needed to switch from a weapon to the focus)

So it's always a little cost-vs-benefit calculation you have to do.

I do agree, from a roleplaying viewpoint, with the weird feeling of cantrips scaling with total level. So, as you stated, I could take 1 level of Sorcerer for example, and get 4 free damage cantrips with it, all on a level of 4d8 "free" damage. Again, those do cost an action, so as a tradeoff, the Rogue for example would miss out on a possible sneak attack for numerically worse damage.

One thing that might be houserule-worthy is ruling cantrip scaling with total character levels AFTER gaining the cantrip. That would, in my opinion, not break anything, and make sense in a storytelling way, seeing as your character might very well train with their magic during their adventures.



A side point, the scaling thing, as far as I can remember, only applies to damaging cantrips, so a dip into a caster for utility purposes would be the same either way.

[KyleG]

2 level warlock dips will become less appealing. EK and AT will be broken, because there's no "caster level" in 5e. And you failed to account for all the feats that grant cantrips.
Well I would assume EK and ET would max our at level 17 caster level. and magic initiate would only get you one level of cantrip. So without max cantrips are EK and AT really that broken?

[Chronos]

Personally, I would make increased cantrip damage a class feature of the full-spellcasting classes. Have that many levels in an appropriate class? Then all of your cantrips, including those gained by feats or race, do more damage. Warlock 4 / bard 4 / sorcerer 4? You get as many attacks with your Eldritch Blast as a fighter 4 / barbarian 4 / ranger 4 gets with their sword.

[stoutstien]

which cantrips scale in a way that cause issues? When looking at adjusting game mechanics you need some pretty strong reasoning. especially with a massive overall like this that will add multiple layers of new stuff to factor. Might be easier to adjust 1-2 than the whole subsystem.

Cantrips scale by PC level because it's just simple and 5e strives for simple.

[x3n0n]

EK and AT will be broken, because there's no "caster level" in 5e.


Well I would assume EK and ET would max our at level 17 caster level. [...] So without max cantrips are EK and AT really that broken?

I *think* he means "broken" as in "undefined". (Or maybe just "really bad"? See below.)

If you were to give a definition, I think the obvious one is the one in the multiclassing rules for spellcasting: Fighter/Rogue level divided by three (rounded down), if you're willing to say that they don't get their scale-up until level 15.

Edit: the version I describe above also implies that Artificers wouldn't scale up until level 9, and the new cantrip fighting styles for Paladin/Ranger until level 10.

Edit edit: this is probably acceptable (although crappy) for most EK/AT, who have ways to deal tier-appropriate weapon damage. It's pretty bad for Alchemists and Artillerists (edit #3, and for Booming Blade users other than full-class Wizard, Sorc, Warlock, and Arcana Cleric).

[Amnestic]

Cantrips scale by PC level because it's just simple and 5e strives for simple.

Cantrips scaling by class level is no more or less simple than scaling by PC level.

[Rukelnikov]

It always bother me that you can do a dip in late game and boom, high level cantrips at your disposal.
What would be the consequence of having spell caster gained cantrips be caster level and only racial cantrips at character level?

What dips do you feel would benefit "unfarily" from this?

I do think EB is too strong, but most builds that are gonna make the most of it (mainly Sorlock) wanna get it really early on.

[stoutstien]

Cantrips scaling by class level is no more or less simple than scaling by PC level.

It becomes more complicated once you factor in multi-classing and have to reintroduce caster levels.

There is also no reason for a EK to have weaker cantrips than a wizard. If anything they should have stronger evoker cantrip effects seeing how they focus on only two schools.

[Amnestic]

It becomes more complicated once you factor in multi-classing and have to reintroduce caster levels.

You got a cantrip from [x] class, it scales with levels from [x] class, not with [y] class or [z] class.

Is a monk's ki points not advancing when they multiclass also "too complicated"? How about a barbarian's rage damage/uses? Rogue sneak attack? No, of course not. They're very simple. A cantrip's damage scaling by the level of the class it's tied to is no more complicated than that.

Dislike the idea for balance, theme, or whatever, but rejecting it for because 5e likes to keep things "simple" just doesn't make any sense to me.

[JackPhoenix]

I *think* he means "broken" as in "undefined". (Or maybe just "really bad"? See below.).

The former. Neither class relies on cantrips for their damage. For EK, casting cantrips is a good option for about 6 levels (3-4 and 7-10), assuming BB/GFB is available, otherwise, Extra Attack is better. For AT, it depends. When you only have 1 attack like AT, there's no reason NOT to use BB/GFB, but then you're missing out on TWF (important for another chance for Sneak Attack) or being ranged (generally better option anyway).


You got a cantrip from [x] class, it scales with levels from [x] class, not with [y] class or [z] class.

Is a monk's ki points not advancing when they multiclass also "too complicated"? How about a barbarian's rage damage/uses? Rogue sneak attack? No, of course not. They're very simple. A cantrip's damage scaling by the level of the class it's tied to is no more complicated than that.

Dislike the idea for balance, theme, or whatever, but rejecting it for because 5e likes to keep things "simple" just doesn't make any sense to me.

I wasn't aware you can get ki, rage or sneak attack from a race, multiple classes (or subclasses) and feats, and even magic items and other sources on a single character.

[Amnestic]

I wasn't aware you can get ki, rage or sneak attack from a race, multiple classes (or subclasses) and feats, and even magic items and other sources on a single character.

Not really relevant when the bugbear is 'complexity' is it? I mentioned ki/rage/sneak attack to show that there's a bunch of class features that scale off class levels in 5e. That's not something they have a problem with from a design perspective.

Is a cantrip scaling with class level any more complex or simple than with character level? No. It's not.

[x3n0n]

Is a cantrip scaling with class level any more complex or simple than with character level? No. It's not.

If you receive a cantrip from any source other than the spellcasting/pact magic class feature, what level does it cast at? The fact that you need to answer that question at all is a source of complexity, I think.

[Amnestic]

If you receive a cantrip from any source other than the spellcasting/pact magic class feature, what level does it cast at? The fact that you need to answer that question at all is a source of complexity, I think.

I mean, not really. In so much as you'd have to make the decision before the game but not during actual play. The OP's even suggested a solution: Racial cantrips scale with character level.

What other sources are there? Magic Initiate? The feat that specifies what class you get the cantrip from? Magic Initiate: Wizard would scale with wizard levels. Magic Initiate: Druid would scale with druid levels. That's as simple as could be.

[stoutstien]

You got a cantrip from [x] class, it scales with levels from [x] class, not with [y] class or [z] class.

Is a monk's ki points not advancing when they multiclass also "too complicated"? How about a barbarian's rage damage/uses? Rogue sneak attack? No, of course not. They're very simple. A cantrip's damage scaling by the level of the class it's tied to is no more complicated than that.

Dislike the idea for balance, theme, or whatever, but rejecting it for because 5e likes to keep things "simple" just doesn't make any sense to me.

All your examples are of single source mechanics. Rage is rage. If you want to see an example of having multiple pools using similar mechanics but not quite the same mechanics look at the new PK fighter and PK rogue.

We are talking about adding new conditions to cantrips. It doesn't matter how little you add it will always going to be more complex. It would be like Making each classes' spell slot pool separate like warlocks.

[clash]

So I have done this myself except I didn't have canaries scale automatically at all. Instead I gave spellcasting classes an improved cantrips ability. Then ek and at didn't really need to be behind. And it is super simple to keep track of. If the attack action doesn't scale automatically why should attack cantrips?

[x3n0n]

I mean, not really. In so much as you'd have to make the decision before the game but not during actual play. The OP's even suggested a solution: Racial cantrips scale with character level.

What other sources are there? Magic Initiate? The feat that specifies what class you get the cantrip from? Magic Initiate: Wizard would scale with wizard levels. Magic Initiate: Druid would scale with druid levels. That's as simple as could be.

If you have a Wiz 1, AT 3, with MI: Wiz, what level do which cantrips cast at?

RAW: char level (4).

Any other system: figure it out. There may be simple rules, but they're clearly not as simple as RAW.

Edit: I'm not claiming that RAW is the best system, but it certainly seems like the simplest one among those proposed so far.

[Amnestic]

All your examples are of single source mechanics. Rage is rage. If you want to see an example of having multiple pools using similar mechanics but not quite the same mechanics look at the new PK fighter and PK rogue.

We are talking about adding new conditions to cantrips. It doesn't matter how little you add it will always going to be more complex. It would be like Making each classes' spell slot pool separate like warlocks.

Metamagic Adept and its sorcery points.
Martial Adept and its superiority die size.

Both of these are feats of class features that do not scale, unless you have the appropriate class.

Arguing that 5e wouldn't do this with cantrips when they do it with other stuff doesn't work. They've already done it. Both at release with the PHB and with the latest book. They have features that scale with class level, with proficiency bonus, with character level and more.


If you have a Wiz 1, AT 3, with MI: Wiz, what level do which cantrips cast at?

RAW: char level (4).

Any other system: figure it out. There may be simple rules, but they're clearly not as simple as RAW.

Edit: I'm not claiming that RAW is the best system, but it certainly seems like the simplest one among those proposed so far.

1 for the Wizard cantrips, 3 for the AT cantrips. How is that hard?

Should all spells only cast off of one ability modifier too, because casting off of int/wis/cha depending on source is "too complex"? Or is tracking which cantrip came from which class actually fine when it comes to spellcasting modifiers but not for level scaling?

[LtPowers]

It always bother me that you can do a dip in late game and boom, high level cantrips at your disposal.

Why? What problem are you trying to solve? Why make a level 16 character who dips into wizard have useless cantrips?


Powers &8^]

[x3n0n]

1 for the Wizard cantrips, 3 for the AT cantrips. How is that hard?

I agree that it is *almost* as simple as RAW.

Now I'm not sure if you're making it as actual proposal. If so, I disagree with it. An AT/EK who invests in Wizard levels should clearly get better at his wizard cantrips that were acquired as a 1/3 caster.

I think the "fairest" system probably looks vaguely like the multiclassing rules, except explicitly tagging partial caster classes to their "parent" class for cantrip progression. It's not simple, though, and leads to mild weirdness around Artificers and Paladins with the Blessed Warrior fighting style.

Edit: by the way, I am sympathetic to the concept. Nerfing Eldritch Blast and the Bladetrips would make the Extra Attack classes relatively better (and would be an implicit buff for Shillelagh and Magic Stone), which I think would be a balance improvement in general.

[PhantomSoul]

One of my groups has been running that your level for a cantrip includes only the levels since you first got that cantrip or (if it's part of a class) when you got class levels for the cantrip's class. Your cantrips are therefore better if you took the "hit" to get the class sooner (since we start campaigns at low levels normally, your getting cantrip power compensating for being behind in levels). It's pretty intuitive and seems to reduce the stupidity of being sudden experts (not that it eliminates it; it's pretty much baked into 5e).

Not perfect, but it works well and I'm apparently a sadist in 5e's eyes, e.g. I'd be happy to have your spell save DC and your spell attack bonus only include levels in that class (especially with the proficiency bonus being in that class table after all eh!) or based on your spellcaster level (following the multiclassing section where yes, you are directly given a spellcasting level to "calculate" separately from your class levels if you multiclass). But I was introduced to D&D through video games based on 3.5, even if I never played D&D itself before 5e, and I appreciate complexity and trade-offs, so I'm not exactly the default audience for 5e.

[Rukelnikov]

I mean, not really. In so much as you'd have to make the decision before the game but not during actual play. The OP's even suggested a solution: Racial cantrips scale with character level.

What other sources are there? Magic Initiate? The feat that specifies what class you get the cantrip from? Magic Initiate: Wizard would scale with wizard levels. Magic Initiate: Druid would scale with druid levels. That's as simple as could be.

And if you get MI(Wizard)without wizard level? I assume lvl 1?

And classes that get spell from other lists? Are they added together? Wiz and EK for instance.

Why are we pooling spell slots and not cantrips?

I still don't understand why this needs to be a thing. The only cantrip thats kinda egregious with MC is EB in a SorX/Lock2. Outside of that are cantrips breaking anything? The only scaling cantrips are the damage ones, and the only class I can think of that gets a noticeable buff from them is Rogue with the Bladetrips, and even then they are sacrificing dual wielding AND have to go melee AND have to spend a feat or delay progression for at least a level.

[Amnestic]

And if you get MI(Wizard)without wizard level? I assume lvl 1?

Yes, because cantrips don't have a level 0 version.



And classes that get spell from other lists? Are they added together? Wiz and EK for instance.

I wouldn't personally, if I were making this change. I could see it both ways.



I still don't understand why this needs to be a thing. The only cantrip thats kinda egregious with MC is EB in a SorX/Lock2. Outside of that are cantrips breaking anything? The only scaling cantrips are the damage ones, and the only class I can think of that gets a noticeable buff from them is Rogue with the Bladetrips, and even then they are sacrificing dual wielding AND have to go melee AND have to spend a feat or delay progression for at least a level.

Well going off the OP they don't like that you can dip and instantly get caster at-will damage progression. It doesn't need to be broken for them to not like it. Theoretical example, but would you feel any different if we had a Martial Initiate feat that gave you proficiency in one weapon and fighter Extra Attack progression while using it? Or an Oathbound Initiate feat that gave you a 1/day Smite, plus extra attack at 5th, plus Improved Divine Smite at 11th?

Personally, I wouldn't like that. And because I don't like that, I can understand why they might want to look at cantrip scaling on character level.

[JNAProductions]

Well going off the OP they don't like that you can dip and instantly get caster at-will damage progression. It doesn't need to be broken for them to not like it. Theoretical example, but would you feel any different if we had a Martial Initiate feat that gave you proficiency in one weapon and fighter Extra Attack progression while using it? Or an Oathbound Initiate feat that gave you a 1/day Smite, plus extra attack at 5th, plus Improved Divine Smite at 11th?

Personally, I wouldn't like that. And because I don't like that, I can understand why they might want to look at cantrip scaling on character level.

A difference there is that cantrips are a MINOR part of a caster's kit. Whereas Extra Attack and whatnot is a much larger part of a Martial's kit.

[The_Jette]

It always bother me that you can do a dip in late game and boom, high level cantrips at your disposal.
What would be the consequence of having spell caster gained cantrips be caster level and only racial cantrips at character level?

I think the bigger question, and the one that I always ask before trying to change something, is why you feel that the cantrips need to be changed. Assuming we look at the most non-caster of non-casters, the barbarian, if I took one from level 1 to 19 then picked up a level of Wizard in order to gain the ability to cast Firebolt, is the Firebolt doing 4d10 damage really that powerful? I mean, having a cantrip at level 20 that only does 1d10 is pretty useless, honestly, since most of your enemies are going to have so many hp that 1d10 isn't going to scrape them. And, I'm giving up the barbarian's capstone ability, which I actually think is a pretty nice capstone, just so that I can cast some cantrips and level 1 spells.
So, why do you feel that it needs to be changed? Do you think it's OP for some reason? Or, do you just think it doesn't make any sense? If that's the case, I would steer away from changing it, because it will just open up a can of worms. There are a lot of things in D&D that are there for simplicity's sake, or for balance, or many other reasons, that don't make sense in the long run. Just my 2cp.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A non-agonizing EB cantrip is at best, with class support, roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of a martial's at-will, no resource damage. With all the scaling. And a dip for a cantrip means you're using a secondary or tertiary stat at best. So your attack mod/save DC is gonna be sub-par.

And changing this makes high elves lose a feature (or forces them all to take a non-damage cantrip). And it's even worse for all the other races that grant fixed cantrips.

I don't see the issue here.

[stoutstien]

Metamagic Adept and its sorcery points.
Martial Adept and its superiority die size.

Both of these are feats of class features that do not scale, unless you have the appropriate class.

Arguing that 5e wouldn't do this with cantrips when they do it with other stuff doesn't work. They've already done it. Both at release with the PHB and with the latest book. They have features that scale with class level, with proficiency bonus, with character level and more.


Both MM and SD and the related feats/fighter style are still treated as single pool even if the die size might be different. Adding isn't really an issue where having potential 3+ cantrip scaling groups due to racial and multi-classing just seems like a waste of mental space.

I don't think anyone is saying it is too complex but it is more complex with no apparent return.

The only classes that lean on damage cantrips aren't full casters. Trying to maintain that while slowing scaling seems like a loss cause. For example you can just gut damage cantrips from a wizard and it's annoying but do it for half the artificer subclasses and you practically gut the chassis. You would end up having to go back and readjust or remodel half the classes. At that point you were better off just removing cantrips from everyone but wizards and giving each class a unique at-will magic category.

[Mellack]

I think it is a bad idea because it takes away a useful option that is not overpowered as it is. Casting still takes the same action cost regardless. If a level 20 fighter takes MI, they have a casting option that probably is less than their martial attack, but may have some use. If they are instead casting just at level one, there is virtually no chance they would ever use a combat cantrip. That option is no longer a rational choice, and the game becomes lesser because of it.

Short version, as it is now works and gives more possible character builds.

[Rukelnikov]

Yes, because cantrips don't have a level 0 version.

I wouldn't personally, if I were making this change. I could see it both ways.

Ok, I can understand that. You didn't answer the most important question though, why are we pooling spell slots and not cantrips? And how does that make it simpler than just pooling everything?


Well going off the OP they don't like that you can dip and instantly get caster at-will damage progression. It doesn't need to be broken for them to not like it. Theoretical example, but would you feel any different if we had a Martial Initiate feat that gave you proficiency in one weapon and fighter Extra Attack progression while using it? Or an Oathbound Initiate feat that gave you a 1/day Smite, plus extra attack at 5th, plus Improved Divine Smite at 11th?

Personally, I wouldn't like that. And because I don't like that, I can understand why they might want to look at cantrip scaling on character level.

I don't think the examples you are giving are really comparable, the closest I can think of is, if i had an artificer infusion feat (which I would definitely allow if a player asked for one), would it increase in effectivity at CL 10? And yeah, definitely. The feat gives you access to the infusion, the infusion is ruled by its own description, it says when you get to level 10 your infused weapon goes to +2.

The "instant mastery" is present all over 5e, lets say you are a Dex 8 Fighter 16 no proficiency in acrobatics, dip 1 level in rogue, get expertise, damn, suddenly you are at +11, capable of achieving near impossible feats of acrobacy!

Its also present in other feats, Defensive Duelist for instance, or even simpler yet, weapon proficiencies. Should a Bladesinger 6 that takes a 1 lvl dip in Fighter not be able to apply its Extra Attack with a greatsword cause he became proficient in it just now? Its not a weapon a Bladesinger can be proficient with by class alone.

Its not broken, its all over the place, and its simpler this way.

[Tanarii]

It'd take some tracking, but maybe just cast as character level 1 when you gain it, +1 per level gained after?

That'd encourage taking scaling cantrips over non-scaling ones early on though, even for a full caster.

[KyleG]

It'd take some tracking, but maybe just cast as character level 1 when you gain it, +1 per level gained after?

That'd encourage taking scaling cantrips over non-scaling ones early on though, even for a full caster.

This seems the simplest and most relevant to what I actually had in mind.

This was never about nerfing. It was about story. It doesn't make sense for a fighter to take a level in wizard at 17 and get the full power of the cantrip, he has only just now learned how to cast the spell.

I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of dnd 5e, but I cant think of another feature that scales up the instant you get it. A wizard taking a level of fighter at 17 doesn't get to multi attack, nor a level in rogue granting massive sneak attack. It doesnt happen mechanically and it makes no sense in the story.

[Kane0]

Cantrips can be obtained multiple ways:
- Race
- Class
- Subclass
- Feat

Which ones do you propose scale? Is it multiclassing you want to target or more specifically dipping? Even more specifically, Warlock dips?

Edit: any other thing that scales as soon as you get it? Anything that scales by proficiency bonus.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Cantrips can be obtained multiple ways:
- Race
- Class
- Subclass
- Feat

Which ones do you propose scale? Is it multiclassing you want to target or more specifically dipping? Even more specifically, Warlock dips?

Edit: any other thing that scales as soon as you get it? Anything that scales by proficiency bonus.

Also, multiclassing is a variant rule. It's absolutely not the default, at least when the PHB was written. So cantrips scaling by character level and class level are basically the same, with a simpler pattern for the exceptional (as it was deemed then) case of multiclassing.

Separating it by class level just means that if you pick up a cantrip from something else, it can't be a combat one (because it will be useless entirely, all the time). Which is fine, but kinda reduces the scope of those features.

[KyleG]

Cantrips can be obtained multiple ways:
- Race
- Class
- Subclass
- Feat

Which ones do you propose scale? Is it multiclassing you want to target or more specifically dipping? Even more specifically, Warlock dips?

Edit: any other thing that scales as soon as you get it? Anything that scales by proficiency bonus.

Im not targeting multiclassing or dipping. Clearly they are affected, I get that, what im considering is the narrative of getting these abilities.
And you're correct, prof. Is another thing that could upscale new skills instantly and I can't see a simple solution for that but cantrips I can.

[quindraco]

This seems the simplest and most relevant to what I actually had in mind.

This was never about nerfing. It was about story. It doesn't make sense for a fighter to take a level in wizard at 17 and get the full power of the cantrip, he has only just now learned how to cast the spell.

I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of dnd 5e, but I cant think of another feature that scales up the instant you get it. A wizard taking a level of fighter at 17 doesn't get to multi attack, nor a level in rogue granting massive sneak attack. It doesnt happen mechanically and it makes no sense in the story.

Many features scale up the instant you take them that aren't cantrips - here are three flavors:

1) Anything that never scales anyway, so whatever you get, you have it as good as anyone else. An example of this is any of the Fighting Styles, which have no growth. A level 19 Wizard who takes a level in Fighter to pick up Blind Fighting is as good at Blind Fighting as a level 20 Fighter.
2) Anything that scales with proficiency bonus, like being a Peace Cleric, or a genielock's wrath damage.
3) Anything that scales with number of spell slots, like Font of Magic (e.g. an Order cleric with a sorcerer dip can freely eat the high-level slots generated by multiclassing for points to make level 1 spell slots for making the domain power go).

[The_Jette]

Im not targeting multiclassing or dipping. Clearly they are affected, I get that, what im considering is the narrative of getting these abilities.
And you're correct, prof. Is another thing that could upscale new skills instantly and I can't see a simple solution for that but cantrips I can.

I'm certainly not one to tell someone how to play their game. That being said, and since you're asking people, it seems like your reason for wanting to change cantrips isn't sufficient for actually changing them. There have been examples given of other things that can be gained late game that provide abnormally large benefits. For instance, a character with an Int of 8 and no proficiency with Arcana has a -1 to Arcana. If, at 19 they swap their ASI for a feat and take the one that grants proficiency and expertise in one skill, choosing Arcana, they now have a +11 in Arcana, because of double proficiency bonus. From -1 to 11 all for a feat. That doesn't make sense from a narrative perspective either.
There's an old rule that when rules and story compete, story wins. But, in this case, I can only caution against what you're recommending. I've seen what house ruling like this can lead to and it's not pretty.

[KyleG]

I'm certainly not one to tell someone how to play their game. That being said, and since you're asking people, it seems like your reason for wanting to change cantrips isn't sufficient for actually changing them. There have been examples given of other things that can be gained late game that provide abnormally large benefits. For instance, a character with an Int of 8 and no proficiency with Arcana has a -1 to Arcana. If, at 19 they swap their ASI for a feat and take the one that grants proficiency and expertise in one skill, choosing Arcana, they now have a +11 in Arcana, because of double proficiency bonus. From -1 to 11 all for a feat. That doesn't make sense from a narrative perspective either.
There's an old rule that when rules and story compete, story wins. But, in this case, I can only caution against what you're recommending. I've seen what house ruling like this can lead to and it's not pretty.

That's fair. I was not here to start an argument merely to ask what the consequences would be should a change like this to be implemented.

[KyleG]

Many features scale up the instant you take them that aren't cantrips - here are three flavors:

1) Anything that never scales anyway, so whatever you get, you have it as good as anyone else. An example of this is any of the Fighting Styles, which have no growth. A level 19 Wizard who takes a level in Fighter to pick up Blind Fighting is as good at Blind Fighting as a level 20 Fighter.
2) Anything that scales with proficiency bonus, like being a Peace Cleric, or a genielock's wrath damage.
3) Anything that scales with number of spell slots, like Font of Magic (e.g. an Order cleric with a sorcerer dip can freely eat the high-level slots generated by multiclassing for points to make level 1 spell slots for making the domain power go).

I think your first is an example of what new skills SHOULD be. Only as good as trained. Your second I completely concur with, prof. has the same effect which I don't have any ideas on. And your third example im less familiar with as I prefer spell points.

Again this was a thought exercise so that I could better understand what might be the flow on affect of such a change for a better more natural story/ability progression. Im not yet convinced its that big a deal but I do feel I may be making more work for myself and players and only tackling one of many such progression issues. Got me thinking that's for sure.

[Segev]

The reason cantrips scale with character level is the same reason proficiency bonuses scale with character level. They're meant to be useful at whatever level you're playing.

Making caster classes less special than martial classes by locking up the ability to get extra attacks behind class levels is a move that diminishes, not enhances, caster supremacy. Making casting classes require lots of levels to have cantrips worth using just means you're pushing people harder to specialize in casting rather than trying to make a martial character who might like a little casting on the side.

[KyleG]

The reason cantrips scale with character level is the same reason proficiency bonuses scale with character level. They're meant to be useful at whatever level you're playing.

Making caster classes less special than martial classes by locking up the ability to get extra attacks behind class levels is a move that diminishes, not enhances, caster supremacy. Making casting classes require lots of levels to have cantrips worth using just means you're pushing people harder to specialize in casting rather than trying to make a martial character who might like a little casting on the side.

Proficiency makes sense narratively too, as you do it more (level) you become better at it (proficiency). Multiclassing throws a spanner in that somewhat, as do some feats.

Ultimately it means do I need to decide whether the narrative is better with sudden explosions of power in all cases or just some.

Touching on feats, well i believe this can be controlled somewhat from the outset setting expectations that they fit narratively, likewise multiclassing itself but as cantrips are baked into spellcasters its harder to control without disallowing multiclassing or the change we are considering here.

[Kane0]

What im considering is the narrative of getting these abilities.

Okay, so what narrative do you want to promote?

[KyleG]

Okay, so what narrative do you want to promote?

Its the progression narrative. Im considering the progression of abilities and i may well be trying to include too much real world in my fantasy game but i thought it was worth considering how this one aspect COULD be managed to fit a more natural progression.

[The_Jette]

The reason cantrips scale with character level is the same reason proficiency bonuses scale with character level. They're meant to be useful at whatever level you're playing.

Making caster classes less special than martial classes by locking up the ability to get extra attacks behind class levels is a move that diminishes, not enhances, caster supremacy. Making casting classes require lots of levels to have cantrips worth using just means you're pushing people harder to specialize in casting rather than trying to make a martial character who might like a little casting on the side.

Really all it does is punish the player who wants to make a martial character with a little casting on the side, rather than push players to be single classed casters. People already have plenty of reason to go full caster. They have little reason to go full martial, since casters end up so much more powerful than martial characters. It's not going to hurt caster classes by making it harder for a martial class to gain a little bit of spell casting so that they can compete.

[Tanarii]

Proficiency makes sense narratively too, as you do it more (level) you become better at it (proficiency). Multiclassing throws a spanner in that somewhat, as do some feats.
Feats and Multiclassing are both optional rules tacked on to the system. They have all sorts of rough edges. You don't have to add them to your game as written.

Technically you don't have to allow anything in your game, but in the case of feats or multiclassing you're adding something to the rules, not removing it. Add it in whatever form you like.

There are very few ways to get cantrips or skill proficiencies after level 3 without those two optional rules.

[Rukelnikov]

Its the progression narrative. Im considering the progression of abilities and i may well be trying to include too much real world in my fantasy game but i thought it was worth considering how this one aspect COULD be managed to fit a more natural progression.

Well, the last campaign I DMed, I tried to do a more natural progression of characters, but it required almost a complete overhaul of the leveleing system. No XP for starters, the PCs get stuff when something merits it, and they would get abilities by piecemeal, like I gave them 1 lvl 3 slot after they were lvl 4 for a while, then I would let them get another class feature, maybe 1 level ahead may be 2, it can get very muddy unless you have a good grasp on they system. The main problem you may run into is not being able to guide yourself by creature CR anymore, but if you think you can more or less gauge your party's capabilities it could may be work for you.


There's an old rule that when rules and story compete, story wins. But, in this case, I can only caution against what you're recommending. I've seen what house ruling like this can lead to and it's not pretty.

Also this, I 100% back Story > Rules all day everyday, after all rules were crafted to serve as a tool for storytelling, if they get in the way they are not fulfilling their purpose well.

However, there's another side to this, most people who play RPGs do it to have a good time (some may say have fun, but a story may be really sad and still be a good time, like watching a sad movie), and so the rules should not interfere with the story, but also neither rules nor story should interfere with having a good time. Think about that :smallwink:.

[Kane0]

Its the progression narrative. Im considering the progression of abilities and i may well be trying to include too much real world in my fantasy game but i thought it was worth considering how this one aspect COULD be managed to fit a more natural progression.

OK well let's have a look at those sources of cantrips then:

Race: You start race from level 1 and progress from there so no issue here unless you're reincarnated. I could see an in-game solution for that edge case being you start at tier 1 cantrip power which rises gradually as you get more accustomed to your new body

Class: No problem with single-classing, as you start at lowest strength and build from there. Multiclassing is potentially a problem after tier 1 cantrip strength (so levels 5+). One way you can look at this is that the character is giving up continuing along one path to take up another, but at the same time there are at least some things that they would already know from prior experience (prof bonus replicates this in a universal fashion). So someone multiclassing into say Wizard isn't getting their first ever exposure to magic and spells as they are already established with a background and prior class levels, they are actively seeking and working on that and bringing former knowledge and experience to bear. If this is really late in the character's career I might consider the same sort of ruling as a reincarnated character, starting with the base and rising over a period of time and practice so it isn't so 'sudden'.
In some cases the growth might be intentionally unnatural, and thematically appropriate even. Clerics, Sorcerers and Warlocks often don't learn and grow in their spellcasting prowess by their own merit but rather by having it handed to them from some external source. I don't see a problem with the character's overall power being a factor in the power of their cantrips as a result.

Subclass: Normally occurs a few levels into your class, so there is progression there. Exception being warlocks and sorcerers who subclass at level 1, see above.

Feat: All feats are sudden, and have the same thematic disconnect as the levelling up process. This comes down to how your game handles levelling up. Are the aspects of levelling and obtaining feats part of downtime, happening in the background, training montages, etc? Is there a literal *DING* sound and everyone feels a supernatural surge of strength and power? As long as everyone at the table is happy with how it happens, and it's happening on equal terms to everyone, I personally don't consider it a problem.

So all in all I wouldn't say a sweeping change is the best approach as the occasions it isn't a problem outweigh the occasions it might be. In those cases there are ways you can ease a character into it rather than stripping them of the ability entirely which is what I would opt for myself.

[Rukelnikov]

Also, regarding MC casters, If the combination of my knowledge of magic with my devotion towards a greater being allow me to cast more powerful spells, why wouldn't those two combine into more powerful cantrips too?

[KyleG]

Thats's a great answer Kane0, although i disagree that feats are sudden. They can be roleplayed in proceeding levels as they learn the skills. Those feats that have built in proficiency factors or cantrips are even more increased and that's the slightly harder bit to explain. I like the rapid advancement post feat or multiclass, a level per tier maybe.

[Mellack]

Even if you do not use feats or multiclassing, casters get more cantrips as they level. Do you really want them to be less effective with the cantrip they learned at 10th level because they have not had it as long as those they got at 1st?

[Kane0]

They can be roleplayed in proceeding levels as they learn the skills.
Yeah that's what I meant as part of the feat/levelup section, sorry if that was a little unclear. Ideally what you want is that dovetail where there is roleplay behind the mechanical progression, as long as there is some effort put into the description there I don't see much of a problem between 1d10 and 3d10 fire damage the same as applying extra attack to a new weapon you just became proficient in.

If a player is picking up a scaling (damage) cantrip as part of multiclassing or a feat or whatever, presumably it's with the intent of using it. If you as DM deliberately reduce its effectiveness the player won't want to use it, thematics or no. It may feel jarring for your immersion for a session or two but you're probably doing more harm than good in the long run by signalling to the player 'that was a poor decision' and could lead to fewer players making big character-turning changes mid-game, which is something I find 5e to be very friendly towards compared to other editions that encouraged you planning out your build far in advance (5e still totally does this, but not nearly as much).


Even if you do not use feats or multiclassing, casters get more cantrips as they level.
Ah crap I knew I was forgetting a big one.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Even if you do not use feats or multiclassing, casters get more cantrips as they level. Do you really want them to be less effective with the cantrip they learned at 10th level because they have not had it as long as those they got at 1st?

Yeah. And tracking that on a cantrip-by-cantrip basis would be obnoxious. "Let's see, I picked up firebolt at level 1, so it's a 3d10 cantrip, but I just picked up shocking grasp, so it's only a 1d8..."

[KyleG]

Yeah. And tracking that on a cantrip-by-cantrip basis would be obnoxious. "Let's see, I picked up firebolt at level 1, so it's a 3d10 cantrip, but I just picked up shocking grasp, so it's only a 1d8..."

I think like with weapons gaining extra attack even if never used this is a function of skill and understanding of magic. Just as i spellcaster multiclassing with another spellcaster i think their "proficiency" which is being able to do more damage with it is a function of being a spellcaster not the specific cantrip.

[KyleG]

Yeah that's what I meant as part of the feat/levelup section, sorry if that was a little unclear. Ideally what you want is that dovetail where there is roleplay behind the mechanical progression, as long as there is some effort put into the description there I don't see much of a problem between 1d10 and 3d10 fire damage the same as applying extra attack to a new weapon you just became proficient in.

If a player is picking up a scaling (damage) cantrip as part of multiclassing or a feat or whatever, presumably it's with the intent of using it. If you as DM deliberately reduce its effectiveness the player won't want to use it, thematics or no. It may feel jarring for your immersion for a session or two but you're probably doing more harm than good in the long run by signalling to the player 'that was a poor decision' and could lead to fewer players making big character-turning changes mid-game, which is something I find 5e to be very friendly towards compared to other editions that encouraged you planning out your build far in advance (5e still totally does this, but not nearly as much).


I also think this is where discussing this idea pre campaign is important. Then the players understand the intent and can build towards it or not.

[Kane0]

How would you approach the opposite, a player who doesn't have something in mind and intends to have the character evolve as the campaign progresses?

Say a monk that turns heavily into religion (and cleric levels) after witnessing a fellow party member die, or an aging fighter sells his soul (with warlock levels) to preserve his failing body, or a ranger banished to spend an extended period of time in a wild magic zone developing his own sorcerous powers?

I think that sort of thing should be rewarded, it shows an enhanced level of investment and interaction with the game compared to a planned character build.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Sounds like you're playing a wrong game. Pick a classless system instead.

[Rukelnikov]

Sounds like you're playing a wrong game. Pick a classless system instead.

I played many of those too, as I said many times I like how 5e resolves its mechanics (att vs ac, saves, skill checks, etc), I don't like how characters evolve.

[Sigreid]

To get access to a cantrip takes a significant investment in one form or another. I don't see the point in making it useless when it was likely taken to give just a little second rate combat versatility.

[Segev]

I played many of those too, as I said many times I like how 5e resolves its mechanics (att vs ac, saves, skill checks, etc), I don't like how characters evolve.

The things you listed as things you like exist in 3.5, as well. I bring this up because BESM d20 might serve your character advancement desires well, but it currently only exists for 3e. Well, "d20." Which uses 3e's core mechanical system.

They are, I think, Kickstarting a BESM 5e, but I have to admit my reaction to that was, "...why?"

Still, I suggest hunting down BESM d20; I think you'll like it.

You might also like Mutants & Masterminds 3e; it uses the d20 system with hefty modification, not the least being a very piecemeal advancement structure with each level just being a lump of character points for buying more powers and stuff.

[Rukelnikov]

The things you listed as things you like exist in 3.5, as well. I bring this up because BESM d20 might serve your character advancement desires well, but it currently only exists for 3e. Well, "d20." Which uses 3e's core mechanical system.

They are, I think, Kickstarting a BESM 5e, but I have to admit my reaction to that was, "...why?"

Still, I suggest hunting down BESM d20; I think you'll like it.

Thanks! I have heard of BESM before, but I can't remember what it was, even if there isn't a 5e version I'll try to find the 3e one too, my fondest memories of roleplaying were made in that edition.

EDIT: Oh "Big Eyes, Small Mouth", yeah, I checked it shortly before playing M&M 2e, both games sounded similar, and we ended up trying M&M maybe I should give it a read and see if my group is interested in trying it.


You might also like Mutants & Masterminds 3e; it uses the d20 system with hefty modification, not the least being a very piecemeal advancement structure with each level just being a lump of character points for buying more powers and stuff.

I played M&M 2e, I liked it. Does 3e differ much from it?

[Segev]

I played M&M 2e, I liked it. Does 3e differ much from it?

It seems to, to me, but I don't know 2e M&M well enough to be 100% sure. M&M 3e is almost entirely a points-based chargen system that just uses levels for capping certain values, and to dole out character points in fixed amounts for advancement. I don't know if some of the other differences from d20 base rules are in 2e M&M or not, sorry. It handles damage in a rather unique way, for example. When injured, you make a save (specifics are something I've forgotten), and if you fail, you become "more injured" on a status progression chart. No hp, and you just keep making these saves as you get damaged until you fail one that KOs you. I think the most you can jump is two ranks on the chart with an extremely bad failure, but I could again be misremembering.

In terms of sticking to genre conventions, it has a very nice if somewhat obscure rule. The super-strength stat directly subtracts from the rating of the fall height from which somebody is falling for determining damage, if the person with the super-strength catches them. In other words, Superman catching Lois Lane three inches off the sidewalk after she fell out of an airplane can still negate all of the damage she would take from falling because he's that strong.

[Rukelnikov]

It seems to, to me, but I don't know 2e M&M well enough to be 100% sure. M&M 3e is almost entirely a points-based chargen system that just uses levels for capping certain values, and to dole out character points in fixed amounts for advancement. I don't know if some of the other differences from d20 base rules are in 2e M&M or not, sorry. It handles damage in a rather unique way, for example. When injured, you make a save (specifics are something I've forgotten), and if you fail, you become "more injured" on a status progression chart. No hp, and you just keep making these saves as you get damaged until you fail one that KOs you. I think the most you can jump is two ranks on the chart with an extremely bad failure, but I could again be misremembering.

In terms of sticking to genre conventions, it has a very nice if somewhat obscure rule. The super-strength stat directly subtracts from the rating of the fall height from which somebody is falling for determining damage, if the person with the super-strength catches them. In other words, Superman catching Lois Lane three inches off the sidewalk after she fell out of an airplane can still negate all of the damage she would take from falling because he's that strong.

Yeah, 2e functions pretty much like that, roll saves when injured to determine the level of injury. That's one aspect I liked, no hp and it worked.