What would break if spell attacks added the modifier to damage by default?

[PhoenixPhyre]

And, of course, the features that conditionally add them were retooled to do something else/removed?

Why am I thinking of this?
It's been a repeated observation while teaching new players that they get horribly confused about spell damage, in particular. They get in the habit of thinking that attacks add the modifier to damage (like weapon attacks do), but then come to attack cantrips (especially) and get confused.

And really, I can't think of a good reason why not, other than tradition and inertia. Back when only STR was added to weapon attacks, it made a bit more sense--you can't INT the firebolt harder, but you can swing the sword harder. But now with CHA to attack/damage abilities and especially finesse, the lines have blurred enough that I'm not sure the difference is worth keeping around.

Maybe your firebolt is hotter because you can focus the flames better by holding the pattern tighter in your mind. Or whatever.

What would change?
1. all attacks, whether spell or not, would add the modifier used for the attack unless a feature said otherwise.
2. Agonizing Blast gets modified to do something else. Ideally, EB gets turned into a class feature, but that's mostly for other reasons.
3. Maybe reduce the base damage of things like inflict wounds, guiding bolt, and scorching ray so that overall they stay mostly the same. All that really means is cutting 1d6 off of most. Maybe turn inflict wounds into 4d8 (+ mod), which makes it 1 damage (average) weaker until your mod is +4 and then the same or 1 point better once it's +5.

What about save spells?
Meh. I could see doing it for cantrips just so they don't fall behind even more, but not for AoE effects. Those are already different enough that the value proposition of streamlining things just isn't there.

Do I plan on doing this?
Not sure yet.

[stoutstien]

From a design standpoint it makes perfect sense to have all attacks follow the same method but it might be to far outside the barn doors to make this change not as they have found 101 ways to practically get to the same results but would stack with this change. Lot of rewrites.

[Unoriginal]

What would break?

The martials. Unless you're boosting them to compensate.



And really, I can't think of a good reason why not, other than tradition and inertia.

The good reason is making so that casters can't do reliable damage, especially at-will damage, without a cost (cost varying form class to class).

[Skrum]

What would break?

The martials. Unless you're boosting them to compensate.



The good reason is making so that casters can't do reliable damage, especially at-will damage, without a cost (cost varying form class to class).

Well if we're in the realm of adding modifiers, it would be simple enough to give other classes something similar. Personally, I think there's all kinds of scaling things that can/should be added to the Extra Attack feature. And I agree with the overall point; why is one formula used in some places, and it's different in another. Frankly, after all this time of playing, I still get thrown off when I encounter listed weapon damage - it doesn't say +str or dex, the reader just has to know that.

[RogueJK]

Note that with Arcana Clerics, who can gain Wizard attack roll cantrips as Cleric cantrips, you would be reducing the effect of their Level 6 Potent Spellcasting subclass feature. Unless you're going to allow them to add their modifier twice, or force them to take Blessed Strikes instead.

Similar with Draconic Sorcerers and their 6th level Elemental Affinity.

It would also make all Warlocks stronger, since it would grant all of them Agonizing Blast, without costing an Invocation.


It would boost Sorcerers/Warlock/Wizards much more than Druids/Clerics, who have fewer attack roll spells or cantrips that would benefit from this, or especially Bards, who have exactly one (Mordenkainen's Sword, which is a terrible use of a 7th level spell slot).

And Sorcerers/Warlocks/Wizards don't need a boost to their spell damage.

[JNAProductions]

What would break?

The martials. Unless you're boosting them to compensate.

The good reason is making so that casters can't do reliable damage, especially at-will damage, without a cost (cost varying form class to class).

This is what I was gonna say.

It's pretty much a flat boost to the builds that need it least. And, for what it's worth, I've never had trouble with players adding mods when they shouldn't be, or vice versa. It's a difference... But it's a really easy one to do, since you just write on your sheet "Dagger: +4, 1d4+2" and "Firebolt: +5, 1d10".

[Velaryon]

It's a buff to the classes that need it least.

In other words:


What would break?

The martials. Unless you're boosting them to compensate.



The good reason is making so that casters can't do reliable damage, especially at-will damage, without a cost (cost varying form class to class).

Adding ability scores to spell attack damage would be a power buff relative to weapon attacks. Making it balanced would necessitate giving a corresponding buff to weapon attacks. Any ideas on what that would might like?

[PhoenixPhyre]

What would break?

The martials. Unless you're boosting them to compensate.



The good reason is making so that casters can't do reliable damage, especially at-will damage, without a cost (cost varying form class to class).


This is what I was gonna say.

It's pretty much a flat boost to the builds that need it least. And, for what it's worth, I've never had trouble with players adding mods when they shouldn't be, or vice versa. It's a difference... But it's a really easy one to do, since you just write on your sheet "Dagger: +4, 1d4+2" and "Firebolt: +5, 1d10".

I'm not sure that firebolt damage is really that meaningful. The builds that actually want to be using cantrips already get features that do this, and it's absolutely not intended to stack with such features. All this does is make cantrips increase from absolute crap (worse than a light crossbow in T1, equal to one in T2, and only slightly better in T3+) to on-par with a light crossbow without SS or CBE (4d10+5 with a single attack << 8d6+4*mod with 4 attacks or 4d6+2d8+2*mod with two attacks for fighter/paladin respectively). I'd be totally ok (in this hypothetical world) dropping the cantrip die one size, but not sure it really matters one way or another.

As for other attack spells (which there aren't many of), that's why I said to reduce the damage dice of those ones up front. So scorching ray becomes N*(1d6+mod), which is a trivial difference (less variation, but also lower cap), guiding bolt becomes 3d6 + mod, inflict wounds becomes 4d8+mod, etc.

[Unoriginal]

It's a buff to the classes that need it least.

In other words:



Adding ability scores to spell attack damage would be a power buff relative to weapon attacks. Making it balanced would necessitate giving a corresponding buff to weapon attacks. Any ideas on what that would might like?

Weapon damage dice that scales with martial class levels? Like a lvl 6 Fighter does 2d10+STR with a longsword, 4d6+STR with a greatsword, etc?


I'm not sure that firebolt damage is really that meaningful.

If it is not meaningful, then there is no meaningful reason to change it, either.

The only reason to change is if it is meaningful in some way.



The builds that actually want to be using cantrips already get features that do this, and it's absolutely not intended to stack with such features.

PhoenixPhyre, making what a specialized build wants available for everyone is just a class-wide power boost.

It's like, if a build is specialized to make 5 attacks per round at lvl 5, it is because that specialty is desirable.

Making everyone have 5 attacks per round at lvl 5 means that now the "ground level" default floor is at the height of what was previously only available to a specialist investing into it.


All this does is make cantrips increase from absolute crap [...] to on-par with a light crossbow without SS or CBE

Which is bad.



As for other attack spells (which there aren't many of), that's why I said to reduce the damage dice of those ones up front. So scorching ray becomes N*(1d6+mod), which is a trivial difference (less variation, but also lower cap), guiding bolt becomes 3d6 + mod, inflict wounds becomes 4d8+mod, etc.

Reducing the damage dice but giving a set +X bonus makes the damage more reliable than if it was just left to the dice result.

So the spells would still get buffed. And they don't need that, far from it.

[Mastikator]

Draconic sorcerer suddenly got too good. I mean twinned firebolt for 2d10 + 10 on two targets is better than martials.

[Psyren]

You're right that it would be more intuitive/frictionless if this were universal, but at the end of the day it still raises the floor for casters. In particular, the ones that aren't supposed to be as good at blasting or direct damage, like enchanters or shepherd druids, get a more reliable damage option that either spikes their existing damage output or bolsters their control and support. So I wouldn't recommend this honestly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ok, I guess the game isn't worth the candle.

Not all thoughts are worth implementing.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm going to buck the trend and say its not actually going to change nearly as much as people worry about. Yes, it raises the damage a little bit, but its not going to be as impactful as people seem to think. The reason Agonizing Blast is such an amazing option is because its tied to a cantrip that basically gives you the Fighter's Extra Attack.

Consider the Cleric's ability. It lets you add your wisdom modifier to cantrip damage. And while its considered nice, its not game breaking by any means. The reason Agonizing Blast is considered powerful is because Eldritch Blast basically gives you Extra Attack in cantrip form.

Consider Potent Spellcasting. It adds your Wisdom Modifier to your Cantrips, and while it is nice, its hardly game breaking. It doesn't feel as powerful as Agonizing Blast, despite technically beng better than Agonizing Blast since it applies to all Cleric Cantrips instead of a specific cantrip. Why? Because none of the Cleric cantrips work like Eldritch Blast. 3d10+15 from Agonizing Blast/Eldritch Blast is simply better than the other 3d10+5 from an Arcana Cleric's Fitebolt.

Most spells only make a single attack roll, make a single save, or they're an AoE. I can only think of three spells that allow you to make multiple attack rolls with a single action, and those spells are:

- Eldritch Blast
- Scorching Ray
- Steel Wind Strike

Outside of that, they're all one big hit or an AoE. So most spells are going to be like a Firebolt from an Arcana Cleric with Potent Spellcasting. Nice, but not broken by any means.

[Unoriginal]

I'm going to buck the trend and say its not actually going to change nearly as much as people worry about. Yes, it raises the damage a little bit, but its not going to be as impactful as people seem to think. The reason Agonizing Blast is such an amazing option is because its tied to a cantrip that basically gives you the Fighter's Extra Attack.

Consider the Cleric's ability. It lets you add your wisdom modifier to cantrip damage. And while its considered nice, its not game breaking by any means. The reason Agonizing Blast is considered powerful is because Eldritch Blast basically gives you Extra Attack in cantrip form.

Consider Potent Spellcasting. It adds your Wisdom Modifier to your Cantrips, and while it is nice, its hardly game breaking. It doesn't feel as powerful as Agonizing Blast, despite technically beng better than Agonizing Blast since it applies to all Cleric Cantrips instead of a specific cantrip. Why? Because none of the Cleric cantrips work like Eldritch Blast. 3d10+15 from Agonizing Blast/Eldritch Blast is simply better than the other 3d10+5 from an Arcana Cleric's Fitebolt.

Most spells only make a single attack roll, make a single save, or they're an AoE. I can only think of three spells that allow you to make multiple attack rolls with a single action, and those spells are:

- Eldritch Blast
- Scorching Ray
- Steel Wind Strike

Outside of that, they're all one big hit or an AoE. So most spells are going to be like a Firebolt from an Arcana Cleric with Potent Spellcasting. Nice, but not broken by any means.

All those features and builds you mention work because there are costs/investments required to do get those perks.

Agonizing Blast is not game breaking. Giving all Warlocks Agonizing Blast at no cost and letting apply to their other spells as well is a significant buff in damage reliability, and since they don't have to invest in AB ever they gain versatility and power by selecting another invocation instead.

Or look at the Sorcerer. You take one of the nicest features of the Draconic Sorcerer, you give it to all Sorcerers, and you apply it to *all* damage types. That is significant.

Heck, to use your example: you take Arcana Cleric with Potent Spellcasting, and now you make that a baseline Cleric ability, except it works for all spells. That means that now all Clerics get to do that plus their respective subclass abilities plus their regular spellcasting.

More power without any choice to make or cost to pay is not a good thing to give to casters. Especially when it raises the floor of their reliable damage like that, which a martial niche.

So it's not game breaking as in "the game is now unplayable", but it is making the game worse for everyone.

[Sorinth]

The reasoning behind it is probably more a question of balance where the idea is that levelled spells are better then a regular martial attack action and so the regular magic user cantrip is worse so that balance is found by being better some times and worse others. Obviously in practice it probably didn't quite work out that way for many tables.

I think overall it makes sense to streamline things so that attack roll spells are also add the modifier, a few damage dice probably should change, and you'd probably want to add some attack roll cantrips to the Cleric list. Also opens up more design space for the abilities that were doing that since those were kind of boring abilities to begin with.

[Psyren]

If it was just cantrips I could see it working, provided you also eliminated Potent Spellcasting / Blessed Strikes / Elemental Fury and the like so they wouldn't get to double-dip. But even then you'd still be adding extra damage to Bards and Illusionists and the like who are supposed to be weaker at direct magical offense, at least somewhat.

Adding it to leveled spells though is a problem. For starters, many of those spells are strong enough as it is. For two, banning it from AoE isn't enough either - you'd need to make sure you identify every non-AoE spell on a caster's list that could apply this damage bonus multiple times (to multiple targets or the same target) like Magic Missile and Chain Lightning, also.

[Amechra]

So, people are kinda overstating how much things would break if you did this (though Scorching Ray should be enough to make you go "wait, is this a good idea?"), but this does butt up against one of the interesting unspoken design things that the 2014 core had going on. Namely, martial characters got more out of high ability scores, combat-wise.



For the vast majority of martial classes, the stat you use for attacking things also adds to your AC, meaning that spending an ASI on boosting your offense also theoretically boosts your defense. The main exception being the Barbarian, of course, which tries to make up for it with the hilarious amount of bulk built into the class.
For martial characters, both their ASIs and their offensive magic items add to both their chance of success (+X to attack rolls!) and their degree of success (damage dealt), while spellcasters only get an increase to their chance of success.
One thing that gets glossed over by DPR calculations is that martial characters have a much higher damage floor than spellcasters, both in terms of getting multiple chances to deal damage (Extra Attack! TWF!), but also because a lot of their damage comes from a flat damage bonus. Your 18 Str S&B Fighter knows that any of their attacks that hit must deal at least 7 damage, and can plan accordingly.


There's a reason why casters getting to do the "martial character thing" and add a stat to damage was either a niche cantrip on a class with terrible AC or a class feature that comes online in Tier 2. Unfortunately, the way that the martial classes were set up didn't really let them capitalize on this¹, while resource expenditure ended up apparently being balanced against the game being way grindier than most people go for (which, of course, buffs spellcasters quite a bit).

¹ This is a repeated issue with D&D, honestly — a great example is that the Fighter is theoretically amazing as a target for buffs, but most of the really good/synergistic buffs are self-only. On the one hand, they did get rid of the problematic buff-stacking that you'd see in 3.5 (which I miss a lot), but on the other hand they murdered a whole set of playstyles.


Honestly, it'd be pretty interesting to see an alternate version of 5e that leaned way harder into this kind of design. There's no reason why, say, "add your Constitution modifier to the amount of HP you recover from rolling a hit-die" has to be a universal rule and not something that's mostly a martial character thing.

(Though, personally, I'd be interested to see a form of Modern D&D that didn't end up running into the "spellcasters vs. followers of the Saints Slashley and Stabitha" dichotomy).

[Dr.Samurai]

A fire bolt at level 5 would deal 2d10+4, which is 15 damage on a hit. That’s more than TWF but only needing one hit and not using your bonus action. It’s also nearly longsword damage without Dueling (15 vs 17) and you have to hit twice with the longsword.

I’d say it’s too much.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm going to buck the trend and say its not actually going to change nearly as much as people worry about. Yes, it raises the damage a little bit, but its not going to be as impactful as people seem to think. The reason Agonizing Blast is such an amazing option is because its tied to a cantrip that basically gives you the Fighter's Extra Attack.

Consider the Cleric's ability. It lets you add your wisdom modifier to cantrip damage. And while its considered nice, its not game breaking by any means. The reason Agonizing Blast is considered powerful is because Eldritch Blast basically gives you Extra Attack in cantrip form.

Consider Potent Spellcasting. It adds your Wisdom Modifier to your Cantrips, and while it is nice, its hardly game breaking. It doesn't feel as powerful as Agonizing Blast, despite technically beng better than Agonizing Blast since it applies to all Cleric Cantrips instead of a specific cantrip. Why? Because none of the Cleric cantrips work like Eldritch Blast. 3d10+15 from Agonizing Blast/Eldritch Blast is simply better than the other 3d10+5 from an Arcana Cleric's Fitebolt.


This is a false comparison, Cleric's don't benefit as much because they don't have attack-based cantrips and their cantrip damage in general is weaker because they have weapon proficiencies. But this is just Clerics, who without further changes would be able to double dip damage boosts, there's absolutely no reason to float cantrip damage as a whole and certainly not spell damage.

- Thorn Whip is a good battlefield control cantrip with the unique benefit of being ranged but considered melee. Add mod and suddenly it's also competent damage.
- Guiding Bolt is already good single target damage with an effective rider, mod is basically a free upcast.
- Scorching Ray becomes pretty devastating at 3rd level and upcasts very compellingly, especially with damage-swapping features.
- Warlocks gain an invocation for free, gaining either flexibility or straight power from the change. It becomes a lot easier to justify grabbing both the push and slow invocations when you get AB for free.
- Bladetrips are even more of a mess if they qualify

Etc. etc.

The main thing here is that +mod abilities already exist, but they don't come online until Tier 2 and they consume (sub)class design space. The only way this becomes somewhat sensical is if weapon attacks are buffed in a comparable way, which then means either monsters get trivialised or their HP gets buffed as well and suddenly the numbers are bigger but nothing has changed.

Casters in general aren't meant to have the kind of damage adding mod provides unless there is a feature in play, the game's design is pretty clear about that and even with crazy power creep that's actually stayed somewhat consistent.



¹ This is a repeated issue with D&D, honestly — a great example is that the Fighter is theoretically amazing as a target for buffs, but most of the really good/synergistic buffs are self-only. On the one hand, they did get rid of the problematic buff-stacking that you'd see in 3.5 (which I miss a lot), but on the other hand they murdered a whole set of playstyles.


Eh, there's still a good amount of buffs to impart on others, for example: Haste, Bless, Shield of Faith, Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Mage Armor, Heroism etc. but in my experience the only ones that see notable use are Haste and Bless. I think players would be more inclined to seek buffs if control was weaker, stuff like Hypnotic Pattern and Slow are obscene in 5e and are attractive for concentration and slots.

I'd love to see squisher casters though to address the overall balance. imo you could easily do that by scaling down their Hit Dice (making Wizard and Druid d4, Sorc and the rest d6), yanking medium armor and shields from Druids, and making it harder to just pick up shield/armor prof.

[Telok]

Its fine. Celestial warlock gets +cha on radiant & fire damage once a spell to one target. Ooh, sacred flame or create bonfire at 2d8+5 when the fighter throws down 2x 1d8+5. And honestly, even warlock agonizing blast isn't amaze-balls. Its fairly reliable but also the absolute minimum a mundane with a weapon should be doing. And giving warlocks another first level hooya by making agonizing blast inherent isn't any big deal either. The first level invocations aren't exactly killer apps or anything.

Of course I assume the GM isn't being a dip and nuking the various damage enhancers the mundanes need to surpass baseline eldrich blast damage. Make sure the mundanes are noticably and significantly more than just mediocre damage pumps.

[Amechra]

Eh, there's still a good amount of buffs to impart on others, for example: Haste, Bless, Shield of Faith, Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Mage Armor, Heroism etc. but in my experience the only ones that see notable use are Haste and Bless. I think players would be more inclined to seek buffs if control was weaker, stuff like Hypnotic Pattern and Slow are obscene in 5e and are attractive for concentration and slots.

The thing is that I'd argue that, while control being great is definitely a contributing factor... there's also the fact that most of those buffs are pretty marginal (you could probably drop the two weapon spells by a level without breaking anything). Bless sees regular use because you can hit most of the party with it, while Haste sees use because it's really strong.

Contrast this with a lot of self-only buffs, which tend to offer chunkier benefits (contrast something like Spirit Shroud with Elemental Weapon) with better action economy (because a lot of them are bonus actions to use).

...

I also think that it's a bit of a shame that D&D has decided that buffs should be a "magic" thing. Like, Inspiring Leader is cool and all, but why do I need to be a spellcaster to offer my allies a boost? Why can't my Monk help prepare the party for fighting fear-causing monsters by running them through some breathing exercises, or my Rogue help make the rest of the party stealthier by tweaking their equipment?

[Skrum]

I also think that it's a bit of a shame that D&D has decided that buffs should be a "magic" thing. Like, Inspiring Leader is cool and all, but why do I need to be a spellcaster to offer my allies a boost? Why can't my Monk help prepare the party for fighting fear-causing monsters by running them through some breathing exercises, or my Rogue help make the rest of the party stealthier by tweaking their equipment?

This is like the original sin of martial vs magic. Martial, for whatever reason, is not allowed to exceed the mechanics and flavor of "hit stuff with a stick." In almost any capacity. Virtually everything else is magic, and thus belongs to other classes.

IMO, the two best-designed classes in the game are paladin and artificer, and they notable both break this "rule." Paladins get lay on hands, aura of protection, smite, channel divinity, etc etc etc. Artificers get flash of genius and ALL of the subclasses offer a nice array of non-spell abilities. Paladin I think they stumbled in to, but my guess is Artificer was fairly intentional (as that class came later).

I mean, if the intention was to largely stop the stacking of buffs and the resulting mathematical headache that plagued 3e, I can see the reasoning behind making most buffs spells - it's easier to control keeping spells behind concentration and the like. But as you note, it leaves very little for non-spellcasters to do besides hit stuff.

[Witty Username]

I would recommend removing damage dealing cantrips if this change is implemented.

Casters are supposed to have poor at will damage, which this messes with. Adding this as a buff to existing attack spells would probably compensate for the damage loss from removing cantrips at higher levels.

[Unoriginal]

Its fine. Celestial warlock gets +cha on radiant & fire damage once a spell to one target.

They get that at lvl 6. Subclasses grant only a limited number of perks, and this is one of them for the Celestisl Warlock And as you said it is limited to one target, once per spell, and two damage types.

I don't see how giving all casters a lvl 6 subclass-ability-but-better at lvl 1, without costing anything to the casters, would be fine.

[Amnestic]

It definitely sucks rolling a '1' on your singular damage dice early on with a cantrip.

I think the only way to make this work would be if you were to drop the damage dice down drastically. No more d8s, d10s or d12s, you'd be down in the d4+Mod (Firebolt), d2+Mod, 1+Mod sort of area. It'd be 'consistent' but it would never be impressive and ultimately probably a nerf to later game damage.

If you want a higher damage dice, well, the martials are there for you.

[Telok]

They get that at lvl 6. Subclasses grant only a limited number of perks, and this is one of them for the Celestisl Warlock And as you said it is limited to one target, once per spell, and two damage types.

I don't see how giving all casters a lvl 6 subclass-ability-but-better at lvl 1, without costing anything to the casters, would be fine.

And it still does basically nothing. Unless you're facing a vulnerability there's no reason to shoot a single 2d10+4 over two 1d10+4. The only way this matters is if you're worried about the non-casters keeping up in damage, and that's only a problem if you're keeping them down at cantrip damage levels without interesting riders or anything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And it still does basically nothing. Unless you're facing a vulnerability there's no reason to shoot a single 2d10+4 over two 1d10+4. The only way this matters is if you're worried about the non-casters keeping up in damage, and that's only a problem if you're keeping them down at cantrip damage levels without interesting riders or anything.

Yeah. That's my thinking. The delta between cantrips even with the bonus damage and even just a normal extra attack with nothing extra is huge. 30-40% at most levels. And cantrips make up a tiny percentage of all spells cast at those levels.

I should be clear--I've given up on this particular idea.

--------

This might be heretical, but I'd be much more in favor of doing away with the whole "spellcasters can only do real damage if they spend resources, and in exchange they have undreamed of power when they do spend resources" model. First, I see no reason why it should be spell-casters vs non-spell-casters on that front. Let there be spiky martials and consistent casters, consistent martials and spiky casters. Second, balancing between party members based on resource expenditure[1] has consistently been a failure in every edition of D&D. Sure, it worked in a war game, where casters were artillery (few shots, heavy damage). D&D hasn't been a war game for two full generations of players now. It departed from its wargame roots within the first months, if not the first year or two of its existence. And this whole "but casters are supposed to run out of gas real fast, so they should be able to break the game while they have resources!" model has caused nothing but issues. If a power is too powerful to be used consistently, it shouldn't exist or should be toned down to where it is balanced even assuming it will be used every significant fight. WotC (and players) have drastically over-estimated how much "at-will" vs "costs resource" matters.

The other option would be to dramatically restrict caster resources. Like...you have 3 leveled spells per day, no matter what level you are. Period. Full stop. Then I could see resource-based balancing working. But that wouldn't be very fun either.

Thesis: The game would be better if everyone had reasonable at-wills AND some ability to nova. The exact values don't have to be the same, but if (say), at wills were X +- 15% and novas were 2X +- 30% (numbers pulled mostly from thin air), rather than caster at-wills being ~0.4X and DPR-oriented martials at-wills being X but paladin novas being OMG*X and caster leveled spells being NaN*X (being able to do things that don't even fit on the same scale). Everyone should have some non-trivial amount of each of the following, even if the exact amounts vary between build/class.
* at will damage
* resource-expenditure damage ("nova")
* ability to provide control (debuffs, applying negative conditions, etc)
* ability to provide support (buffs, healing, removing conditions, being sticky, etc)
* ability to survive being targeted (whether by having lots of HP, high AC, defensive abilities, etc)
* ability to contribute meaningfully in any circumstance they choose to out of combat (aka "utility")

On a scale from 1-10, no one should be a 1 OR a 10 in any of these categories. And 2s and 9s should be considered carefully.

/rant

[1] Balancing the entire adventuring day on resource expenditure including HP works, basically. Because you're balancing the party against the enemies, not balancing party members against each other.

[Psyren]

Hey, yeah - every class regardless of type could have a suite of at-wills, and then we could call the spiky powers "encounter powers," and the handful that really nova can be called "dailies!" sorry couldn't resist

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hey, yeah - every class regardless of type could have a suite of at-wills, and then we could call the spiky powers "encounter powers," and the handful that really nova can be called "dailies!" sorry couldn't resist

Heh. I knew that response was coming. Glad I saw the white text, my other response was going to be a bit more biting.

But really, there's some value in constraining (NOT eliminating) variation. I'm fine with, say, fighters staying with mostly (at the base class level) weapon attacks, so they have a stronger at-will damage and less variation in damage than some others. But having resources to do other things (like action surge, imposing conditions, etc) makes a difference. What I don't want is

1. The idea that casters should be 99% resource-based and 1% at will while martials are the other way around. If it's more like 60-40 in each direction and some casters are 60% at will/40% resource and some martials are 60% resource and 40% at-will, that's fine. And we've already seen breaks in that paradigm--the warlock is mostly at-will or rapid-refresh already but is indisputably a caster, not a martial. And the paladin[1] is similar just in the other direction. Their at-wills are decent (aura + improved DS) but they also have good (single-target) burst.

2. The idea that "I spent a resource on it, so it can be OMG WTF broken". Game elements have to be planned around having them available whenever they're meaningfully useful. Because players, given any kind of freedom, will engineer it to be so. The persistence of the 5MWD has shown that.

3. The idea that "it's at will, so if it's strong at all it'd be broken". Which is the flip side to #2. WotC has always been overly-cautious with at-wills while drastically over-estimating how much of a balancing factor limited uses are. Which leads to leveled spells being bonkers while anything at-will or on an "encounter-ish" recharge rate ends up being undertuned badly (both by comparison to the bonkers leveled spells and to the actual challenges).

[1] which is in the running for "best designed class of 5e", personally. Some tweaks are probably useful, but overall it's solid.

[Dr.Samurai]

But really, there's some value in constraining (NOT eliminating) variation. I'm fine with, say, fighters staying with mostly (at the base class level) weapon attacks, so they have a stronger at-will damage and less variation in damage than some others.
I feel like 4E kind of tried this (IIRC). Fighters had those stances at increased their at-wills by 1[W]. Barbarian rages were basically daily stances. Wardens also had daily transformation powers.

4.5 obviously leaned more heavily into augmenting the at-will power.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ok, I guess the game isn't worth the candle.

Not all thoughts are worth implementing. Correct.

I would recommend removing damage dealing cantrips if this change is implemented.

Casters are supposed to have poor at will damage, which this messes with. Adding this as a buff to existing attack spells would probably compensate for the damage loss from removing cantrips at higher levels. Cantrips keep the short attention span caster players from complaining about being bored ... so they need to be more than utility.

[Theodoxus]

It definitely sucks rolling a '1' on your singular damage dice early on with a cantrip.

I think the only way to make this work would be if you were to drop the damage dice down drastically. No more d8s, d10s or d12s, you'd be down in the d4+Mod (Firebolt), d2+Mod, 1+Mod sort of area. It'd be 'consistent' but it would never be impressive and ultimately probably a nerf to later game damage.

If you want a higher damage dice, well, the martials are there for you.


Hey, yeah - every class regardless of type could have a suite of at-wills, and then we could call the spiky powers "encounter powers," and the handful that really nova can be called "dailies!" sorry couldn't resist

How's this for theoretical?

All cantrips behave like EB - when you gain an extra die, you gain an extra attack instead. If the issue is the 2d10+mod is apparently far too strong, but 1d10+mod & 1d10+mod isn't, then making everything work that way is the way to go. I don't think adding the +mod at 1st level is the correct choice though. Either grant it as a feat (which then modifies any similar options for class/subclass abilities that do the same) or provide it universally at 6th level - which other than Cleric seems to be the common spot.

Then, since we're talking about 4th Ed without mentioning 4th Ed, to keep martials on par, reimplement the +[W] concept, changing any abilities that offer a static die (like Colossus Slayer) and simply have it deal extra weapon damage instead. Something like Maneuvers, where instead of the superiority die increases, the number of dice increase instead, all based on the weapon used for the maneuver. I'm sure it'd break something though.

[Psyren]

1d10+mod+1d10+mod is fine because it's attached to the worst "full caster" chassis in the game. Giving them the best damage cantrip and functionally turning them into side-gig-archers is therefore fine. Doing the same for a wizard or cleric isn't.

And before you bring it up - yes, I do want straight-classed Warlocks to be the only ones who can get a fully-scaling EB.

[Theodoxus]

So, in your determination, because the rest of the Warlock chassis doesn't measure up to other [full] casters, their having multiple attacks a round with their cantrip is ok. Other casters having the same ability, not fine, because better casting? Just trying to determine what the factor is.

Would it help if no other cantrip did more than a d8?

What if SCAGtrips worked the same way... would giving up to 4 attacks on a non-Fighter be broken? Even if the damage was pretty meh, and in order to work the casting party would probably need to move away from their victim(s) thus potentially proccing OAs?

[JNAProductions]

1) So, in your determination, because the rest of the Warlock chassis doesn't measure up to other [full] casters, their having multiple attacks a round with their cantrip is ok. Other casters having the same ability, not fine, because better casting? Just trying to determine what the factor is.

2) Would it help if no other cantrip did more than a d8?

3) What if SCAGtrips worked the same way... would giving up to 4 attacks on a non-Fighter be broken? Even if the damage was pretty meh, and in order to work the casting party would probably need to move away from their victim(s) thus potentially proccing OAs?

1) Yes? That doesn't seem radical to me at all. If your resource usage is more powerful, your at-will baseline should be weaker. Conversely, limited resource abilities means you should have a stronger baseline.

2) Not really-the difference between d8 and d10 is 1 point of damage on average. Really, making multiple attacks without adding ability modifiers to them is only a minor boost over one big attack. But if you add your ability mod to each one, then you're quickly ramping damage up.

3) That'd give anyone with a weapon-cantrip available the bulk of the Fighter class. Not the whole thing... But a good chunk of it.
Arcane Tricksters especially would be very happy-four chances to land Sneak Attack means that they'd basically always get it, and even without Sneak Attack, their damage would be just fine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What if SCAGtrips worked the same way... would giving up to 4 attacks on a non-Fighter be broken? Even if the damage was pretty meh, and in order to work the casting party would probably need to move away from their victim(s) thus potentially proccing OAs?

Personally, I think the SCAGtrips were a mistake, looking back. Too easy to get, too much scaling when combined with all the other ways to get fancy things on weapon attacks. By themselves, only a minor mistake. When you add in the Bladesinger's fancy Extra Attack[1]...

[1] why do Bladesingers get a better weapon attack + cantrip than Eldritch Knights? Wizards of the Coast...

[Psyren]

So, in your determination, because the rest of the Warlock chassis doesn't measure up to other [full] casters, their having multiple attacks a round with their cantrip is ok. Other casters having the same ability, not fine, because better casting? Just trying to determine what the factor is.

In a word, yes.


Would it help if no other cantrip did more than a d8?

No. 20 > 4. (24 > 4 also.)


What if SCAGtrips worked the same way... would giving up to 4 attacks on a non-Fighter be broken? Even if the damage was pretty meh, and in order to work the casting party would probably need to move away from their victim(s) thus potentially proccing OAs?

I don't want SCAGtrips to scale up in number of attacks either.



[1] why do Bladesingers get a better weapon attack + cantrip than Eldritch Knights? Wizards of the Coast...

Wizards of the Coast is fixing that.

[sithlordnergal]

Personally, I think the SCAGtrips were a mistake, looking back. Too easy to get, too much scaling when combined with all the other ways to get fancy things on weapon attacks. By themselves, only a minor mistake. When you add in the Bladesinger's fancy Extra Attack[1]...

[1] why do Bladesingers get a better weapon attack + cantrip than Eldritch Knights? Wizards of the Coast...

Eh, I think they are perfectly fine on their own. They only get powerful when they get added to something like a Sorcadin's Quicken Spell or the Bladesinger.

Speaking of the Bladesinger, I suspect it was an attempt to "fix" the Eldritch Knight. WotC realized that EK missed the mark when it came to being a proper gish. In fact, there are a few subclasses that do this. Bladesinger is the better version of the Eldritch Knight, Swords Bard is a better version of the Valor Bard, and Hexblade is what Pact of the Blade should have been.

I also don't think the Eldritch Knight should be looked at as some kind of golden standard for a gish, its not. It kind of sucks as a gish. I think the best gish you could have with just the PHB is a Paladin/Sorcerer thanks to Quicken Spell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Eh, I think they are perfectly fine on their own. They only get powerful when they get added to something like a Sorcadin's Quicken Spell or the Bladesinger.

Speaking of the Bladesinger, I suspect it was an attempt to "fix" the Eldritch Knight. WotC realized that EK missed the mark when it came to being a proper gish. In fact, there are a few subclasses that do this. Bladesinger is the better version of the Eldritch Knight, Swords Bard is a better version of the Valor Bard, and Hexblade is what Pact of the Blade should have been.

I also don't think the Eldritch Knight should be looked at as some kind of golden standard for a gish, its not. It kind of sucks as a gish. I think the best gish you could have with just the PHB is a Paladin/Sorcerer thanks to Quicken Spell.

My problem with them is that it's one more "everything a martial can do, a spellcaster can do, and better" piece. Spells need hard boundaries, and I think "making weapon attacks" should be one of them. It should cost actual class features to gish, not a cheap, easy, auto-scaling cantrip.

As for "fixing" the old classes by making better ones...that method sucks. And stapling that "fix" for EK into wizard adds insult to injury. They should have bitten the bullet and actually printed an optional replacement for the EK (like they did the Beastmaster). No caster should be a better martial (in this case making better weapon attacks) than a martial.

And leaning on multiclassing just makes that not-designed-well subsystem more of a necessary crutch and a detriment to actually producing good subclasses.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that a gish should be designed as such from the ground up. You want to mix spells and swords? Sure. But you're going to pay with a full class + subclass for it. And you'll be a half-caster at best. No, a few levels of paladin on a sorcerer shouldn't make you better at smiting than a full paladin.

The best "divine gish" should be a straight paladin.
The best "primal gish" should be a straight ranger.
The best "arcane gish" (redundant?) should be a...well...got to be a new class.

Hexblade was a mistake. Swords bard was a mistake. Bladesinger took a mistake and doubled down on it. Full casters shouldn't get to gish.

[Slipjig]

So, in your determination, because the rest of the Warlock chassis doesn't measure up to other [full] casters, their having multiple attacks a round with their cantrip is ok.

Yes, that was the stated intent of the Warlock class going all the way to it's first appearance in 2004: Superior at-will blasting, with the drawback of being relatively limited for anything else (including leveled damage spells) vs. a full caster.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

What would break?

The martials. Unless you're boosting them to compensate.



The good reason is making so that casters can't do reliable damage, especially at-will damage, without a cost (cost varying form class to class).

The martials (non-magicals) are already broken. Might as well just let them be busted at this point.

Heck, there's only 2 classes that can rightfully be considered non-magical anymore. I'm surprised OneDND doesn't turn the Rogue into an Arcane Trickster or Beguiler as a base class.

Edit:

Though, to be fair, direct damage is the least broken thing about classes and by far the easiest thing to mitigate as a DM. There's just so many options to get around direct damage.

Concealment, cover, resistance, immunity, tactics, flying versus melee, actually using the ranged rules correctly and counting allies as half cover for the targets on the other side of them...

[Amechra]

WotC has always been overly-cautious with at-wills while drastically over-estimating how much of a balancing factor limited uses are.

Honestly, the issue isn't the limited uses — it's that WotC giving casters too many of them (because they balanced around longer, grindier adventuring days than many groups are actually interested in).

...

The funny thing is that I'm pretty sure that you could mechanically satisfy the Wizard FantasyTM by just doing something like:



You get cantrips and rituals as your bread-and-butter.
You get minor spell slots that auto-solve a minor problem when you spend them (so your [I]Knock or Levitate equivalents)
You get two major spell slots — one of which recharges on a short rest, while the other recharges on a long rest. These are your Fireballs, your summoning spells, your mass debuffs, etc. What major spells you get access to is probably tied to your subclass.


Sure, it's going to be less powerful, but you're still going to be slinging magic around, smugly going "oh yeah, I've got a weirdly niche spell that can solve that" out of combat, and casting a big, fight-shifting spell (or two, if warranted) in combat (followed up by plinking away with firebolt or whatever). It'd also leave way more space for other spellcasters to be more distinct, because suddenly the Wizard class doesn't need dozens of pages of spells in order to be feature-complete. I'd rattle off some ideas for how you could structure other spellcasters, but it is 3am and I have work tomorrow. :p

[noob]

This is like the original sin of martial vs magic. Martial, for whatever reason, is not allowed to exceed the mechanics and flavor of "hit stuff with a stick." In almost any capacity. Virtually everything else is magic, and thus belongs to other classes.

IMO, the two best-designed classes in the game are paladin and artificer, and they notable both break this "rule." Paladins get lay on hands, aura of protection, smite, channel divinity, etc etc etc. Artificers get flash of genius and ALL of the subclasses offer a nice array of non-spell abilities. Paladin I think they stumbled in to, but my guess is Artificer was fairly intentional (as that class came later).

I mean, if the intention was to largely stop the stacking of buffs and the resulting mathematical headache that plagued 3e, I can see the reasoning behind making most buffs spells - it's easier to control keeping spells behind concentration and the like. But as you note, it leaves very little for non-spellcasters to do besides hit stuff.

Those two classes are not breaking the rule at all, they are officially casters and even stacks with other casting classes for spell slot acquisition.

[Witty Username]

Cantrips keep the short attention span caster players from complaining about being bored ... so they need to be more than utility.
Eh, in my mind that is what crossbows are for (or slings depending on edition).


[1] why do Bladesingers get a better weapon attack + cantrip than Eldritch Knights? Wizards of the Coast...
I have two thoughts on this:
One the PHB came out in what 2017, wotc wanting to tinker with smoother play mechanics after awhile makes sense.
Two, their are mechanics in play that make bladesinger's extra attack potentially too much on an EK. It would allow EK to use the fighter attack section while casting, and EKs version comes with an upgrade to the feature to cast a leveled spell with it instead:

3 attacks, into a fireball, each attack gives disadvantage on the fireball save, then 3 more attacks into a banishment, also at disadvantage.
And no one else has even had a turn yet.

This isn't much of a concern for me, I want martials to be a bit ridiculous. But I could see a game design team having a different perspective than that.

[Psyren]

Hexblade was a mistake. Swords bard was a mistake. Bladesinger took a mistake and doubled down on it. Full casters shouldn't get to gish.

I'm fine with full caster gishes as long as they're faced with tradeoffs. Hexblade is the worst of the bunch because nearly all of theirs are eliminated without even needing to multiclass. I'm honestly fine with the rest, including Bladesinger since it actually prevents you from going above light armor unlike other wizards.


Eh, in my mind that is what crossbows are for (or slings depending on edition).

Casters forced to whip out the crossbow is just boring. I'm really happy that cantrips scale in this edition, and that we had things like at-wills and reserve feats in the editions prior to prevent us needing to do that.

[Dr.Samurai]

The reverse is true for martials as well. Having very few options more complex than "basic attack" is boring.

[Witty Username]

The full caster gish wouldn't be a problem if extra attack wasn't the only feature of the martial.

Two Martials having a conversation:
"Wesa being robbed and crunched" -Jar Jar
"Not likely, but we have nothing of value, that's our problem" - Qui Gon

[Psyren]

The reverse is true for martials as well. Having very few options more complex than "basic attack" is boring.

I totally agree, which is why our group (a) uses the combat options in the PHB and DMG like grappling, shoving/shoving aside, disarming, tumbling, marking and overrunning, and (b) are looking forward to the Weapon Mastery rules in 2024. We also utilize improvised actions and contests, especially using our surroundings.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

I totally agree, which is why our group (a) uses the combat options in the PHB and DMG like grappling, shoving/shoving aside, disarming, tumbling, marking and overrunning, and (b) are looking forward to the Weapon Mastery rules in 2024. We also utilize improvised actions and contests, especially using our surroundings.

Weapon Masteries remind me of Fighter Bonus Feats.

Yeah, Fighters get options, but they're bare bones and anyone can pick them up (Weapon Mastery Feat in the PHB 24 say whaaaat). So the feature is less what you get and just "I get this early" which... Uh... Yay?

Masteries really need to be part of the class and need to grow to be valid options for non-magical classes. The way they have them now is actually fine for half-magicals or magical classes. It's like picking up cantrips (though less painful as at least Dex is useful for everyone).

Can't get the higher level masteries unless you are a Fighter or Rogue.

It's kinda funny how many of the masteries feel like they should be full blown class features (like Sentinel).

[Psyren]

Yeah, Fighters get options, but they're bare bones and anyone can pick them up (Weapon Mastery Feat in the PHB 24 say whaaaat). So the feature is less what you get and just "I get this early" which... Uh... Yay?

The feat gives you a single mastery option per long rest, while Fighters start at three (going up to six) and can later mix and match them onto different weapons.


It's kinda funny how many of the masteries feel like they should be full blown class features (like Sentinel).

Did you mean feats here? Sentinel is a feat, not a mastery.

Crawford has said that they consider feats to be "classless class features" internally.

[Kane0]

If youre already reworking a whole system it wouldnt be a big deal for everyone's basic attack action to deal the same die + stat damage (die scaling by level even, if you wanted to).
You'd just have to account for it when factoring the other stuff like range, damage types, rider effects and other options that compete against the standard attack.

[Skrum]

Those two classes are not breaking the rule at all, they are officially casters and even stacks with other casting classes for spell slot acquisition.

Yeah they get spells but I'm saying they also get very notable abilities that aren't within the spellcasting system and aren't "hit stuff with a stick." Paladin and Artificer are the best examples of well-rounded classes that 1) have a niche in the party, 2) are very good at the things they're supposed to be good at, 3) aren't useless outside of their area of expertise, and 4) aren't so overtuned as to overshadow other classes or mess up the meta of the game.

[noob]

Yeah they get spells but I'm saying they also get very notable abilities that aren't within the spellcasting system and aren't "hit stuff with a stick." Paladin and Artificer are the best examples of well-rounded classes that 1) have a niche in the party, 2) are very good at the things they're supposed to be good at, 3) aren't useless outside of their area of expertise, and 4) aren't so overtuned as to overshadow other classes or mess up the meta of the game.

If you look at casting classes, they tend to get significantly better non spell class features too.
For example non spell flight is available on two different casting classes.
The rule is just "if you did not get magic, you can not have the coolest stuff".
The "is useless outside of their area of expertise" trait is only a issue for some specific fighter or barbarian subclasses.

[Slipjig]

I'm honestly fine with the rest, including Bladesinger since it actually prevents you from going above light armor unlike other wizards.

IDK, that +Int to AC is a heck of a boost. 12 for Studded +5 Int +2 Dex already puts a Bladesinger just one point below someone in full plate. Or it equals Full Plate if they use Mage Armor instead of Studded.

AND they can go higher if they choose to pump Dex. AND they don't need the high strength required to wear Heavy Armor.

[Mastikator]

The feat gives you a single mastery option per long rest, while Fighters start at three (going up to six) and can later mix and match them onto different weapons.


I get what you're saying, but player characters don't use three different weapons. Martial might use two, gish very rarely use more than one in my experience.

[noob]

I get what you're saying, but player characters don't use three different weapons. Martial might use two, gish very rarely use more than one in my experience.
If you play without feats nor those new weapon thingie, the only things that limits the variety of the weapons a fighter uses is the carry limit.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

If you play without feats nor those new weapon thingie, the only things that limits the variety of the weapons a fighter uses is the carry limit.

I've been DMing/playing since 2e, all across the U.S.

It's pretty rare to see a weapon user who doesn't have a specific image in mind for their weapon user. Be it a really big sword, dual weapons, a bow master, a barbarian who only uses an axe, a paladin with a shield n sword...

Feats or no feats, having those extra weapon options mean nothing if the player is playing a specific image.

Even Weapon Masteries won't change that.

[noob]

I've been DMing/playing since 2e, all across the U.S.

It's pretty rare to see a weapon user who doesn't have a specific image in mind for their weapon user. Be it a really big sword, dual weapons, a bow master, a barbarian who only uses an axe, a paladin with a shield n sword...

Feats or no feats, having those extra weapon options mean nothing if the player is playing a specific image.

Even Weapon Masteries won't change that.

I am too used to playing in a 3.5 table where the barbarians uses the "golf bag of situationally appropriate weapons" (with stuff like halberds(can be propped up for a boost against charging people), two handed swords, a big blunt weapon, a bunch of ranged options and so on) as soon as they enter an antimagic zone and can not use their highest enchanted weapon.

[Mastikator]

If you play without feats nor those new weapon thingie, the only things that limits the variety of the weapons a fighter uses is the carry limit.

Until they find a cool magic weapon. Which they ought to IMO

[Psyren]

I get what you're saying, but player characters don't use three different weapons. Martial might use two, gish very rarely use more than one in my experience.

If you're a TWF fighter with a ranged option, three can come in handy. I agree that 6 per long rest is probably overkill though.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Until they find a cool magic weapon. Which they ought to IMO

I don't know how many times I've seen this happen.

You find a +5 Greatsword!

Cool, how much can I sell that for?

[Ignimortis]

Not much. It is, at best, a decent DPR increase at lower levels and an almost unnoticeable one at higher ones. The most egregious cases already get to do that anyways.

However, don't ya folks think that if giving a spellcaster +3-5 damage per turn breaks martials, the issue here is that martials just...don't do enough? Not necessarily damage-wise, even. But if their core purpose is to do damage, and yet a spellcaster who just does "cantrip+4" damage instead of "cantrip" damage catches up noticeably, there seems to be something wrong, at least to me.

[Psyren]

"Martials need more, therefore lets buff casters" seems like an odd approach.

[Kane0]

"Martials need more, therefore lets buff casters" seems like an odd approach.

Yeah of course, if we give casters everything they could possibly need or want they'll pass it along to the martials

[Ignimortis]

"Martials need more, therefore lets buff casters" seems like an odd approach.
If an honestly rather minor buff exposes just how little it takes for casters to catch up to martials in yet another thing they're supposed to do better, well...

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Yeah of course, if we give casters everything they could possibly need or want they'll pass it along to the martials

Trickle Down Vancianomics?

[Psyren]

Trickle Down Vancianomics?

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:


If an honestly rather minor buff exposes just how little it takes for casters to catch up to martials in yet another thing they're supposed to do better, well...

I don't think it makes them "catch up" in at-will/resourceless damage, but that doesn't make it necessary or even desirable either.

[Telok]

However, don't ya folks think that if giving a spellcaster +3-5 damage per turn breaks martials, the issue here is that martials just...don't do enough? Not necessarily damage-wise, even. But if their core purpose is to do damage, and yet a spellcaster who just does "cantrip+4" damage instead of "cantrip" damage catches up noticeably, there seems to be something wrong, at least to me.

Fighter: "oh noes! clerics an droods an wizzos get +3 dpr! loks can haz detect majik wit no spel slot! i am teh suxxor! nerf teh castor! it do damage liek mah longbow! op! nerf! nerf!"

Wizard: "well maybe you should have chosen a career whose primary contribution to the party was more than 'i can haz hit points'?"

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Players:
"well maybe you should have chosen a career whose primary contribution to the party was more than 'i can haz hit points'?"


WotC: Lol, that's rough buddy.

[Amechra]

Not much. It is, at best, a decent DPR increase at lower levels and an almost unnoticeable one at higher ones. The most egregious cases already get to do that anyways.

I'm not sure that this squares with how much of a monster this would be with something like Scorching Ray, where it's anywhere from a ~45% increase to a ~70% increase in damage depending on your stat.


However, don't ya folks think that if giving a spellcaster +3-5 damage per turn breaks martials, the issue here is that martials just...don't do enough? Not necessarily damage-wise, even. But if their core purpose is to do damage, and yet a spellcaster who just does "cantrip+4" damage instead of "cantrip" damage catches up noticeably, there seems to be something wrong, at least to me.

Cantrip + Stat damage doesn't really catch up unless you're doing absolutely nothing to increase your damage past Extra Attack and bumping up Str/Dex. If you slap on the damage buffs that the various martial classes get by default, they casually beat Cantrip + Stat damage. The only exceptions to this are, of the top of my head:



Warlocks with Eldritch Blast, but that's because they're basically borrowing Extra Attack from the Fighter and Hunter's Mark from the Ranger. Then again, you could argue that this doesn't count, since the Warlock is basically a "martial" class that spams a cantrip instead of the Attack action.
The SCAGtrips, but that's because they get to steal the damage boosts that weapon users get.
Spamming stuff with Illusionist's Bracers, but that needed you to break the action economy to get there.


If you ignore optimization, the Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger are all clearly designed to be tanks — they have better AC and HP than anyone else and deal enough damage that monsters can't just ignore them. Whether or not they achieve this goal... well...

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure that this squares with how much of a monster this would be with something like Scorching Ray, where it's anywhere from a ~45% increase to a ~70% increase in damage depending on your stat.


There is the fact that I specifically called out scorching ray (and other leveled attack spells) as needing adjustment in the OP. My suggestion was to cut it back to 1d6 + mod per ray, which is a minor buff at INT 4-5 (0.5-1.5 damage per ray on average) and a minor loss (-0.5 damage per ray) at INT +3. Similarly for things like guiding bolt (3d6+mod instead of 4d6), inflict wounds (4d8 + mod instead of 4d10). All would be slightly more reliable for damage (lower variance) but the averages wouldn't change much.

The intent was to slightly buff cantrips but leave leveled spells mostly the same (+- a small amount not really worth worrying about, or so I thought).

To be clear, I've abandoned this idea for several reasons. But that was the intent stated in the OP.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Been reading all this and thinking about a few things and...

Cantrips should be taken away from classes and made into specific items, you know, like weapons.

These items could be orbs, staves, or wands. Each needing a specific number of hands to hold on to them in order to cast the cantrip. The weapon based cantrips can be applied to weapons themselves.

What this does is even the playing field, so to speak. Any buff to cantrips is a general buff to everyone (potentially).

A Rogue that focuses on Int can grab a Wand of Firebolt. Just like a Wizard can pick up a longsword. Sure neither will be great at it without subclass or other support, but it still will be a general buff.

Call them something like "Implements" or whatever. Yes I know implements are already a thing but like, no one really pays attention to them enough.

You can pull these implements into the proficiency system.

Weapon Masteries already do this sort of thing, so there's precedent for this sort of system.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The intent was to slightly buff cantrips but leave leveled spells mostly the same (+- a small amount not really worth worrying about, or so I thought).
I'm inclined to say your first instinct was correct. There's so much natural variance at play in a game like D&D that I really don't think it's worth sweating the small stuff. A decent ability modifier is roughly equivalent to a damage die; nothing really changes if you swap them around.

You also wouldn't really see a change if you boosted cantrip damage by ~1 damage die. In tier 1, you can do the exact same sort of damage with a light crossbow. In tier 2, you're well below an un-modified Extra Attack (2d+stat vs 3d+2*stat). Once you hit tier 3, you'll be on par with that vanilla Extra Attack...but no-one who cares about fighting is making vanilla Extra Attacks--they're doing things like attacking three times, adding a d8 of radiant damage to each hit, or dropping 6d6 sneak attacks. And you don't care either, because your new 6th level spells are much, much shiner.

[Ignimortis]

I don't think it makes them "catch up" in at-will/resourceless damage, but that doesn't make it necessary or even desirable either.
Neither do I (at least, with a martial properly using their class features plus GWM/SS, otherwise you can get very similar performance at something circa 11-12 for some less decently scaling martials like Barb), but apparently a lot of people do think that the gap is small enough for that change to be noticeable and therefore undesirable. Which does bring to mind whether everything is actually fine with martial damage if a +3 to +5 to DPR (more like +2 to +3 based on hit rate, even) shortens that gap enough to trouble people.


Fighter: "oh noes! clerics an droods an wizzos get +3 dpr! loks can haz detect majik wit no spel slot! i am teh suxxor! nerf teh castor! it do damage liek mah longbow! op! nerf! nerf!"

Wizard: "well maybe you should have chosen a career whose primary contribution to the party was more than 'i can haz hit points'?"
Well, I wouldn't put it like that, but yes, that was kind of the point. :smallsmile: IME, Fighters are much worse at actually keeping those hitpoints anyway.


I'm not sure that this squares with how much of a monster this would be with something like Scorching Ray, where it's anywhere from a ~45% increase to a ~70% increase in damage depending on your stat.
Considering the nerf mentioned in the OP, it'd just make things more stable (but also less exciting on a crit).



Cantrip + Stat damage doesn't really catch up unless you're doing absolutely nothing to increase your damage past Extra Attack and bumping up Str/Dex. If you slap on the damage buffs that the various martial classes get by default, they casually beat Cantrip + Stat damage.
There's an interesting stretch in progression, namely levels 11 to 19, where something like 3d8+5 or 4d8+5 is certainly not beating martial damage, but also is rather close to some less well-designed martial damage. Like a Barbarian without GWM (4d6+16/18), or a Hunter Ranger who doesn't have Hunter's Mark up (3d8+10).

The idea behind my post was that several people in the thread consider this change to "break" martials, and I wanted to poke a bit at the idea that giving spellcasters a slight damage buff (and it is slight, IMO) is enough to do so.



If you ignore optimization, the Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger are all clearly designed to be tanks — they have better AC and HP than anyone else and deal enough damage that monsters can't just ignore them. Whether or not they achieve this goal... well...
If we ignore optimization, then Fighter and Ranger (or Rogue, for that matter) can't really hang in melee at higher levels without losing HP basically every turn at a rapid rate (since enemy to-hit increases way faster than their AC, and they often lack other good defensive measures against default slaps to the face). Paladin and Barbarian can take it better, though.



Cantrips should be taken away from classes and made into specific items, you know, like weapons.

These items could be orbs, staves, or wands. Each needing a specific number of hands to hold on to them in order to cast the cantrip. The weapon based cantrips can be applied to weapons themselves.

That's pretty cool, mechanically speaking. Also lets something like Arcane Trickster do silly stuff like sneak attacking someone with a lightling blast and in general focusing on INT instead of DEX.


I'm inclined to say your first instinct was correct. There's so much natural variance at play in a game like D&D that I really don't think it's worth sweating the small stuff. A decent ability modifier is roughly equivalent to a damage die; nothing really changes if you swap them around.
Agree with this, beeteedubs.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't think it "breaks" martials; martials will continue performing as before.

But it does bring the damage too close for my tastes, but I already hate how easy it is for casters to get weapon/armor proficiencies and extra attack, so this would just be another sore spot. I prefer niches over the fantasy of "my character is a one-person adventuring party that can do everything needed in a D&D game", so shortening the gap between classes/roles is not really for me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think it "breaks" martials; martials will continue performing as before.

But it does bring the damage too close for my tastes, but I already hate how easy it is for casters to get weapon/armor proficiencies and extra attack, so this would just be another sore spot. I prefer niches over the fantasy of "my character is a one-person adventuring party that can do everything needed in a D&D game", so shortening the gap between classes/roles is not really for me.

I agree about homogenization of classes and preferring niches.

If I were (I'm not, but if I were) going to implement this in my WIP system, it'd be less of a concern because it's much harder to get those other things, but I've also (largely) abandoned the whole "martials have strong at-will but weak resources and casters are the reverse" paradigm. Everyone has a mix of at-will and resource-based output that differs mostly in what resources allow you to do. Martials are closer to at-will for their big things, since they mostly rely on Stamina (a shallow-pool SR resource) while casters mostly rely on Aether (a deeper LR resource), but there's overlap. Effectively, one of my major objectives is to bring up the floor and bring down the (damage and control) ceiling. Fewer "I nova for all the damages" abilities, late-game spells[1] are less of "I win" buttons. But more "I do cool thing regularly" abilities. For example, rangers get a scaling, non-spell Steel Wind Strike except with different effects for ranged and melee weapons at level 9 and then subclasses enhance it in different ways at level 11. Fighters get a stacking boost when they hit the same target more than once over a short time, letting them spend it for conditions or extra damage. Things like that.

[1] 6+th level spells (or their equivalents) become 1/day Legendary Effects, and a given character might know 3-4 of them total. Most of the "utility" spells are now Invocations that anyone can use, assuming they find a Ritual Scroll[2].
[2] the necessary catalyst, like a spell scroll that doesn't get consumed. A few classes get specific Incantations "free" without needing a Ritual Scroll, but they still pay the other costs.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

That's pretty cool, mechanically speaking. Also lets something like Arcane Trickster do silly stuff like sneak attacking someone with a lightling blast and in general focusing on INT instead of DEX.



I haven't put a lot of thought into it in terms of 5e/5.5e but if you separate at-will damage sources from all the classes, then that's one less thing you need to balance the classes with.

Weapons (weapon masteries) and Implements (cantrips) are basically the same principal, at-will damage with minor rider effects.

So, now everyone is ""equal"" in terms of at-will damage (now you have to worry about ranged versus melee but one thing at a time) we can build classes without worrying about at-will damage at mind.

Especially if we have Extra Attack and the Cantrip Improvement feature built into one feature that everyone gets (either one or the other or both depending on the class? Like Wizards shouldn't get Extra Attack but a Spellblade should get both).

So, I feel that combat is 100% required of every class. So, every class should have some baseline combat options. The class doesn't have to be the best at combat, just keep up with the game and perhaps have a niche that makes them fun to play. Give everyone some sort burst options. Fighters can choose when they crit, wizards can drop a really fiery fireball, clerics can ask their deity to pimp slap an enemy... That sort of thing.

Beyond that you then need to balance two other factors of a class. Something that every class should have some sort of features with. Exploration and Social.

Druids have Wildshape so that's an easy one for Exploration, the class has the Sylvan so that helps in some social situations involving Fey (plus being a Druid holds some weight). So you have HIGH exploration and mild social.

Have Warlocks gain a feature where making deals is magically enforced. If you enter a deal with a Warlock, you must uphold your end or else suffer the consequences (the Warlock must too). Give Warlock legalese as a ribbon language (they can't be confused by written meaning).

[KorvinStarmast]

Personally, I think the SCAGtrips were a mistake, looking back. Too easy to get, too much scaling when combined with all the other ways to get fancy things on weapon attacks. By themselves, only a minor mistake. When you add in the Bladesinger's fancy Extra Attack[1]...

[1] why do Bladesingers get a better weapon attack + cantrip than Eldritch Knights? Wizards of the Coast... The extra attack was a poor idea.


Wizards of the Coast is fixing that. No, they didn't fix it, they only made it worse in Tasha's. D&Done doesn't count.

Trickle Down Vancianomics? Oh, Bravo.

Wizard: "well maybe you should have chosen a career whose primary contribution to the party was more than 'i can haz hit points'?" That's what's been wrong with WotCD&D since about the year 2000.

The intent was to slightly buff cantrips They don't need buffing.

[Psyren]

Neither do I (at least, with a martial properly using their class features plus GWM/SS, otherwise you can get very similar performance at something circa 11-12 for some less decently scaling martials like Barb), but apparently a lot of people do think that the gap is small enough for that change to be noticeable and therefore undesirable.

Yes, it is noticeable - which is why it's usually a subclass feature, like Potent Cantrip or Arcane Firearm. Why is that not reason enough to not want it across the board?



No, they didn't fix it, they only made it worse in Tasha's. D&Done doesn't count.

You're the one who used past tense, not me. I say again, they're in the process of fixing it.

[Snowbluff]

I think it would be fine for most cantrips at least. Most of my caster players don't play optimally to begin with, cantrips aren't really the height of a caster's power by any means, and bumping up the off turns probably wouldn't hurt much. I'd probably offer the bonus generically rather than tying it to class. If a fire genasi fighter has a firebolt cantrip as their filler ranged option, I'm not sweating them having 2 or 3 more damage.


I totally agree, which is why our group (a) uses the combat options in the PHB and DMG like grappling, shoving/shoving aside, disarming, tumbling, marking and overrunning, and (b) are looking forward to the Weapon Mastery rules in 2024. We also utilize improvised actions and contests, especially using our surroundings.

The first and probably most popular character made by one of my regulars is a rogue/battlemaster with athletics expertise and shield master. They simply had a lot of extra options interacting with the battlefield. I'm excited to see what a similar build could do with the new rogue and weapon mastery rules. I think in general 5e's value as a tactical game is often underrated, especially given that a bunch of other subclasses like swarmkeeper and ancestral barb exist.

[Theodoxus]

I think in general 5e's value as a tactical game is often underrated, especially given that a bunch of other subclasses like swarmkeeper and ancestral barb exist.

It was a purposeful decision out of the gate to distance it from the overly tactical 4th edition. And then people left and others joined and more tactical options made their way in... I highly suspect that had swarmkeeper and ancestral barb been in the D&D Next playtest, they would have died like most of the more tactical things... like maneuvers being base fighter.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree about homogenization of classes and preferring niches.

If I were (I'm not, but if I were) going to implement this in my WIP system, it'd be less of a concern because it's much harder to get those other things, but I've also (largely) abandoned the whole "martials have strong at-will but weak resources and casters are the reverse" paradigm. Everyone has a mix of at-will and resource-based output that differs mostly in what resources allow you to do. Martials are closer to at-will for their big things, since they mostly rely on Stamina (a shallow-pool SR resource) while casters mostly rely on Aether (a deeper LR resource), but there's overlap. Effectively, one of my major objectives is to bring up the floor and bring down the (damage and control) ceiling. Fewer "I nova for all the damages" abilities, late-game spells[1] are less of "I win" buttons. But more "I do cool thing regularly" abilities. For example, rangers get a scaling, non-spell Steel Wind Strike except with different effects for ranged and melee weapons at level 9 and then subclasses enhance it in different ways at level 11. Fighters get a stacking boost when they hit the same target more than once over a short time, letting them spend it for conditions or extra damage. Things like that.

[1] 6+th level spells (or their equivalents) become 1/day Legendary Effects, and a given character might know 3-4 of them total. Most of the "utility" spells are now Invocations that anyone can use, assuming they find a Ritual Scroll[2].
[2] the necessary catalyst, like a spell scroll that doesn't get consumed. A few classes get specific Incantations "free" without needing a Ritual Scroll, but they still pay the other costs.
That makes sense; your system is aiming to fix a lot of things, so I can see the case that this would have less of that "more of the same thing" impact I'm concerned about.

[Rerem115]

I'm guessing part of the reason why you don't add a modifier to cantrips by default is so that there's actually a meaningful reason to use weapons early.

Firebolt with modifier is straight up better than a longbow until 5th level. Drop the die down a size, and it's still better than a shortbow. Drop it much farther, and the spellcasters are gonna start to complain, especially if you keep the current die scaling.

[Goobahfish]

I am still wobbling backwards and forwards on this juncture.

Presumably, maxim #1 (simplicity => everything works the same) is strongly at play here. It would be 'more elegant' if spell attacks worked just like regular attacks. Which is completely sane.

I think the 'balance' arguments are moot. Just nerf the spells back in line. D12 => D8-ish etc. Small overhaul of cantrips and a few levelled spells.

I think 'cantrip' vs 'levelled' spells is where the apparent simplicity hits the complexity wall. What is 'simpler', 8D6 or 7D6+Int? Now for me, that is not even a real question, but for many players, that is one bit of cognitive overhead too many.

So, the original 'line' is martial/spellcaster. Spells don't add stats unless 'bonus rules' say they do.

---

What do we gain here? Well, there is a small amount of cantrip scaling (i.e., going from +3/4 to +5 over a career) which is nice. Although cantrips already scale pretty well compared to regular attacks (though only really from 11 onwards).

Yeah, I can see why you've abandoned it for 5e++.