Cantrips exist to mitigate the resource burden of simple magical spells for spellcasters. These can largely be categorised into utility (druidcraft, light, mage hand, etc) and offense (firebolt, thorn whip, sacred flame).
This resource constraint is mainly felt at low levels when the casters have very limited spell slots and it would be crippling to expect them to expend precious slots on basic utility spells. The offensive cantrips also give them a weapon substitute they can reliably use in combat once they've burned their big powerful spells, assuming the 6 encounter adventuring day.
All good and balanced so far.
The question I have is: in modern D&D, do offensive cantrips need to scale?
It's accepted that outside of dungeons, very rarely is the 6 encounter adventuring day held to, and they're not necessarily all combat encounters, so spell slot use is less than designed for.
By mid tier every spell casting class has enough spell slots to last a fight and recover spell slots between (Arcane recovery, Font of Magic, Wild Resurgence, etc), or they have alternate resources they're spending (Channel Divinity, Sorcery Points, Wild Shape, etc).
At higher levels it becomes even more egregious with abilities like Spell Mastery on top of the number of spell slots.
Utility spells are still useful out of combat but now, outside of specific classes (looking at you EB Warlock), there's no mechanical reason for casters to need cantrips to stay in the fight and be useful, yet they often get used because they've scaled to be more powerful than leveled spells.
Issues I can see with removing offensive cantrip scaling:
Quickened Spell becomes less impressive offensively.
Characters that mainly use concentration spells + offensive cantrips would be nerfed.
Most Warlocks would break without Eldritch Blast.
Drives spellcasters to need/want Long Rests more often.
My counters to those issues:
Quickened Spell would still allow an offensive cantrip for a small amount of damage or a status effect, or the action could be used for Blade Ward/True Strike/Search/Disengage/Dodge (which might actually see these used more often).
Most concentration+cantrip caster builds already have features that improve their cantrips (Blessed Strikes, etc) which could be enhanced (debatable).
Eldritch Blast could remain as the sole unique cantrip that scales as a core feature of the Warlock as a cantrip blaster.
WotC already seem to be heading towards removing Short Rest dependency, although this might actually encourage those who have recovery mechanisms (Arcane Recovery, etc) to want to take Short Rests. As ever, depends on table and party I suppose.
Personally I think the changes would largely be for the good and go some way to ameliorate the power imbalance of high level casters.
I'm intrigued whether you can foresee any other, bigger issues, whether you think reigning in scaling offensive cantrips would actually do anything to balance high level casters, or whether it would ruin the theme of any class archetypes.
In my experience casters end up using damage cantrips a lot. Typically you are going to be spending a good amount of your spell slots on problem solving outside of combat and in combat Its often a case of "cast an appropriate concentration spell and blast cantrips" I actually think cantrips are in a great place right now, they feel significantly weaker than weapon attacks, but they do remain relevant.
I do agree that damage cantrips out-scaling spells is a problem, but I think that is a problem with damage spells not scaling, rather than cantrips scaling.
The huge power difference between martials and casters does not lie in the cantrips vs attacks comparison, but rather higher level spells vs martials lack of competing features. You could take away cantrips entirely and casters would still be able to do things that makes the martial characters feel weak and insignificant, so I dont really believe that nerfing cantrips is addressing the real issue.
I feel like this is targeting casters in the one area are they are at an appropriate power level, instead of boosting martials to match much more impactful aspect of casters.
Fair points. I agree the utility and power doesn't come from the damage cantrips.
I would, however, say the Vancian magic system inherently makes scaling difficult (hence cantrips breaking it). Also, toning down cantrips could force casters to consider whether they use their spell slots outside combat, making it less of a given that they outshine non-casters in utility.
But you might be right that this is not the right lever to adjust the balance.
Fair points. I agree the utility and power doesn't come from the damage cantrips.
I would, however, say the Vancian magic system inherently makes scaling difficult (hence cantrips breaking it). Also, toning down cantrips could force casters to consider whether they use their spell slots outside combat, making it less of a given that they outshine non-casters in utility.
But you might be right that this is not the right lever to adjust the balance.
Don't really agree with the concept, a lvl 1 attack spell at lvl 11 is still not going to be worth casting even if cantrips where dropped to base level only. The threats are to strong to look at magic missile and go "yeah on my action I'm going to do 3d4+3 damage"
Also I don't agree at all that scaling cantrips somehow will put a damper on martials as a firebolt by lvl 11 is doing 3d10 damage (average of 16.5) and a fighter at lvl 11 is making 3 attacks a turn. Even a sword and board fighter with a longsword will be doing 3d8+15 on those (average of 28.5) and any fighter packing PAM or GWM or SS will easily pull even more.
So I don't really see what the relevance of wanting to nerf cantrips down, it makes sense that a higher level caster wouldn't still be slinging level 1 spells in combat just like a martial wouldn't still be making single attacks
I do agree that damage cantrips out-scaling spells is a problem, but I think that is a problem with damage spells not scaling, rather than cantrips scaling.
Forget the martials, this is a problem in and of itself.
A lot of spells don't upcast, or the amount that you get extra damage when you upcast is minimal compared to the level jump. a first level spell getting an extra die at level 5 is ridiculous.
The spells you gain later on, while powerful, are either underpowered compared to other spells at the level, or are overpowered, and are your bread and butter till you get accesses to truly broken spells.
The magic system sucks, and its not because it's vancian magic, because for the most part, the magic system of first edition doesn't apply to wizards in the slightest anymore, (needing to prep 3 copies of the same spell), and it doesn't apply to most classes of spellcasters anymore either. It sucks because outside of utility spells, you're given a lot of false choice to inflate what seems like a robust spell system.
Sure, there's 300+ spells, but there's only a handful that get chosen time and time again, because not choosing them is kind of ridiculous. And the only spell that regularly gets upcast is counterspell, mostly because you're guessing at how high the level of spell you are countering is.
The spells should be compacted. you should have an elemental blast which you get to choose the type of damage being dealt (sans force, obviously), and its damage should scale every level upcast, not just some. Either by 1d6 or 1d4. Damage dice assigned to current spells should be changed so that 1d8 is now 2d4 and 1d10 is now 2d6 (same with 1d12). at first level, it's a single target, at 3rd level, you can cast it as a cone, at 5th level it can be a ball or a cube.
if you want a spell that chains, then the distance between enemies can increase by 5 ft or you can increase by an extra damage die every other level of upcasting,
Simplify the spell list, have them scale like the rogue's sneak attack damage or the monk's points and hit die, just do something that makes more sense within the damned combat spells rather than the hodgepodge of BS we have now.
Ironically I don't think casters do all that much single target damage in general. They really only do a lot of damage through some of the broken summoning spells or through AOE spells. Like Fireball's 8d6 damage in terms of single target damage is still less than most martials can do in a single round of combat at level 5. The real strength of casters is their ability to solve problems and completely take creatures out of the fight or to do damage to multiple creatures and control areas of the battlefield. In the early game a cross bow is better at damage than just about any cantrip because cantrips don't add the caster's ability score to the attack.
Ironically I don't think casters do all that much single target damage in general. They really only do a lot of damage through some of the broken summoning spells or through AOE spells. Like Fireball's 8d6 damage in terms of single target damage is still less than most martials can do in a single round of combat at level 5. The real strength of casters is their ability to solve problems and completely take creatures out of the fight or to do damage to multiple creatures and control areas of the battlefield. In the early game a cross bow is better at damage than just about any cantrip because cantrips don't add the caster's ability score to the attack.
Actually casters get some very powerful single target spells early on that do out-damage martial characters, but don't get as many later on but those they do get are crazy, like disintegrate. 40+10d6 damage is no joke, on a failed save that is an average of 75 damage with a minimum of 50 and maximum of 100 damage. It's just that for using such high level resources, it is a huge hit if the save is successfully. However Scorching Ray upcast to 6th level is 7 2d6 rays, and since each ray is separate, less chance of complete failure, if you were to hit them all, that is an average 49 damage, that is a lot of damage for level 11.
All of that however is definitely outshone by their AoEs... caster AoE damage is definitely way too high, casters shouldn't be doing more damage on an AoE cast than martial characters do to a single character and that is one of the few things that contribute to casters being overpowered.
Disintegrate spends a level 6th slot and can miss. AoE is fine they rarely put out of combat to anything, and single target damage is low for the tier. As mentioned, in my games casters usually use cantrips for round-by-round, as spells have many other uses (Knock, Fly, Invisibility, etc.). You can't spend all your spells in combat, and lacks single target high damage in most cases.
Not getting my stat modifers is bad enough, and you want to take scaling away too?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I do agree that damage cantrips out-scaling spells is a problem, but I think that is a problem with damage spells not scaling, rather than cantrips scaling.
Absolutely agree.
The huge power difference between martials and casters does not lie in the cantrips vs attacks comparison,
I generally agree. I feel like the way Cantrips scale is rather comparable to the way a Fighter gets extra attacks.
The _only_ way in which I think Cantrips (other than EB) falls behind in this comparison is: Cantrips tend to be all or nothing (especially on saving throw cantrips), where Weapon Attacks are get a hit roll per damage die (sorta). EB is the only cantrip that works that way, with separate hit rolls per damage die. But Cantrips also usually get some sort of bonus effect or are energy based, so it might even out a little. The other downside is that the martial is likely not just doing 2-4 attacks with bare dice rolls, they're also adding their attribute modifier and a magic weapon to that damage.
I'm not sure if there's a good way to address the all/nothing nature of a cantrip.. it might be that there's no need to due to it being an all-day-long ranged* energy attack. But it definitely makes Cantrips have a "downside". (* usually ranged)
The magic weapon damage side of it is partially handled with some casting foci that allow bonuses to Attack/DC/damage, but they seem to be a bit less consistent in what bonuses they provide in that regard. More consistency would be better (all spell casting foci that provide a bonus, provide that bonus to all 3 things).
Attribute damage is ... you'd have to make a version of "Agonizing Blast" for everyone, which would dilute that feature a little, but it would solve a rough edge, IMO. Maybe an aspect of Spell Sniper that says you pick a cantrip that you can add spell casting modifier to the Damage. Or a standalone Feat for it, that applies to all of your cantrips... and/or says you do that damage (with a save vs damage cantrip) even if the target saves. This sort of mirrors class features that just deal attribute-modifier or PB damage to nearby targets because the character exudes some form of energy. Maybe:
Pick one Cantrip you know that inflicts damage.
Once per casting, add your Spell Casting Modifier damage to a target of the cantrip.
You do this damage whether you hit or miss, and whether or not the target successfully saves.
Because it's once per casting, and not per EB bolt, "Agonizing Blast" would still be better/desirable for the Warlock. And it becomes a guaranteed minimum damage (at low levels that could be significant, but at high levels "guaranteed 5hp of damage" isn't going to be significant, but it's at least better than nothing). And you have to give up a Feat to get this.
Prerequisite: Ability to cast a Cantrip that inflicts damage, 4th Level Repeatable: Yes, you must choose a different Cantrip each time.
Pick one damage inflicting Cantrip that you already know.
Once per casting of that Cantrip, add your Spell Casting Modifier as damage to one target of that cantrip.
You inflict this extra damage whether your attack roll hits or misses, and whether or not the target successfully saves.The target's other resistances, immunities, reductions, etc. still apply.
So, as an example of that last part, a Rogue with Evasion can still halve the damage, or avoid the damage entirely, if the Cantrip uses a Dex Save.But the Cantrip's own rule that a save has no effect does not eliminate this bonus damage.
Interaction with Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast:If the caster picks Eldritch Blast as the cantrip, and has the "Agonizing Blast" Eldritch Invocation, this does not allow them to apply their modifier to the damage twice, but they could use it to make one of the Eldritch Blast attacks do this damage even if it misses (but only to one of the attack rolls per casting).
Of all the problems in 5E/1DD, scaling cantrips isn’t one of them. Or if it is, is very low on the list of issues.
you're not wrong. I usually have better things to do than cast cantrips. The only levels my cantrips are really relevant at all, I am better served by shooting a crossbow, and that feels terrible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Of all the problems in 5E/1DD, scaling cantrips isn’t one of them. Or if it is, is very low on the list of issues.
you're not wrong. I usually have better things to do than cast cantrips. The only levels my cantrips are really relevant at all, I am better served by shooting a crossbow, and that feels terrible.
This is true, I have been a strong proponent of not picking up attack cantrips until level 4 on most of my casters as I am better served with utility cantrips and a crossbow until level 5 and I get an extra cantrip at level 4.
The good thing about attack cantrips vs crossbow is using your spell ability score instead Dex. Also ST excluding Dex are not affected by cover.
Right, but before level 4 the difference in attack is probably not high since you need decent dex for decent armor on casters anyway. Level 4 is when you are probably going to have a +1 or MAYBE a +2 difference in attack and level 5 the hit is going to do more damage anyway.
Of all the problems in 5E/1DD, scaling cantrips isn’t one of them. Or if it is, is very low on the list of issues.
Which is pretty much true of every thread I've seen that tries to "balance" casters with martials. There is work to be done in making them ...but the discussion always comes down to trying to spite casters rather than making them different but equal. There are always subjective assertions that, to my view, are absurd - the idea that casters using a finite (and at early levels it's very finite) resources in niche situations shouldn't be able to outdo the damage of what martials can do each and every single round throughout the day, without burning any resources, for example.
There are things that could be done to balance them. The major thing is the lack of cool abilities has characters progress. Casters get awesome powers, while martials largely just get more of what they get by level 5, but more. We don't want to strip casters of their powers though, because we don't play D&D to be mere mortals - we want to do the awesome stuff. The obvious response then is to look at what we can do for martials rather than what we can do to hobble casters. Another issue I see is the overabundance of spell slots..once.you get into T3, casters (other than Warlocks) have a ton of spells. This, counterintuitively, actually makes casters less fun than otherwise, because you're not being restricted in how often n you get to do awesome stuff - you're always doing awesome stuff, it's just the degree. I think a move to the point system (with a spell level cap that progresses similar to how it does now) so spells can be a more precious resource than they currently are would solve the problem - although I don't know how accessible that would be to new players and the conservative grognards would probably complain about any changes to the game, regardless of whether it would be an improvement or not. However, in making the choice of using a spell or not a meaningful one, it would make the case of casting one feel special and powerful so it'd be more fun than what happens now, while giving martials and their steady but sure attacks more meaning.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Of all the problems in 5E/1DD, scaling cantrips isn’t one of them. Or if it is, is very low on the list of issues.
Which is pretty much true of every thread I've seen that tries to "balance" casters with martials. There is work to be done in making them ...but the discussion always comes down to trying to spite casters rather than making them different but equal. There are always subjective assertions that, to my view, are absurd - the idea that casters using a finite (and at early levels it's very finite) resources in niche situations shouldn't be able to outdo the damage of what martials can do each and every single round throughout the day, without burning any resources, for example.
But that is not the case. Martials can accumulate some damage and inflict it with one of the multiple chances (attacks), while cantrips is all-or-nothing always, plus adding its score modifier multiple times, that is like adding a die average. I.e. a Barbarian Berserker with GWM has a large amount of damage that is landed when hit (once per turn), and if has some attacks remaining, can add more weapon dice plus its score modifier, that is like adding an extra die with average result.
Let's take a pure damage cantrip like fire bolt, it averages 11 damage per round at level 5th. Even comparing with a plain Fighter it can inflict 2x(1d10 + 4) = 19. If we compute percentage increased is a huge gap. Adding Fighting Style and probably a related feat, the difference is even greater.
And that multiple chances matters a lot. Taking the 65% hit rate D&D uses as base, means that martials will always land its main damage (the one you can only deal once per turn), while cantrips will directly miss dealing 0 damage about 1 of 3 rounds.
Taking into account that spells are very limited and cannot be used so easily for combat, most of the time a caster uses cantrips for round-by-round damage, and inflicts very lower than the martial, but at least does not feel useless like before cantrips, when you could only spam crossbow/sling single attacks with low attack bonus.
The good thing about attack cantrips vs crossbow is using your spell ability score instead Dex. Also ST excluding Dex are not affected by cover.
Right, but before level 4 the difference in attack is probably not high since you need decent dex for decent armor on casters anyway. Level 4 is when you are probably going to have a +1 or MAYBE a +2 difference in attack and level 5 the hit is going to do more damage anyway.
^^ this. My casters usually start with 16 stat and 16 dex for defense, so there's no drawback at all to crossbow. It feels bad that a magic user is better served with a weapon than with a spell, but, that's where we are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Cantrips, spells, and slots are game parameters to achieve balance.
Cantrips could be eliminated and replaced by standard spells. To replicate the effect of a fire bolt, a new 1st level spell might confer upon the caster the ability to "hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range." on demand for the next 1-10 minutes, etc. Upcasting would allow higher damage, etc. The game balance would then adjust the spell progression table to accommodate the change, such as a few more spells at a lower level. Same outcome but different mechanics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Cantrips exist to mitigate the resource burden of simple magical spells for spellcasters. These can largely be categorised into utility (druidcraft, light, mage hand, etc) and offense (firebolt, thorn whip, sacred flame).
This resource constraint is mainly felt at low levels when the casters have very limited spell slots and it would be crippling to expect them to expend precious slots on basic utility spells. The offensive cantrips also give them a weapon substitute they can reliably use in combat once they've burned their big powerful spells, assuming the 6 encounter adventuring day.
All good and balanced so far.
The question I have is: in modern D&D, do offensive cantrips need to scale?
Utility spells are still useful out of combat but now, outside of specific classes (looking at you EB Warlock), there's no mechanical reason for casters to need cantrips to stay in the fight and be useful, yet they often get used because they've scaled to be more powerful than leveled spells.
Issues I can see with removing offensive cantrip scaling:
My counters to those issues:
Personally I think the changes would largely be for the good and go some way to ameliorate the power imbalance of high level casters.
I'm intrigued whether you can foresee any other, bigger issues, whether you think reigning in scaling offensive cantrips would actually do anything to balance high level casters, or whether it would ruin the theme of any class archetypes.
In my experience casters end up using damage cantrips a lot. Typically you are going to be spending a good amount of your spell slots on problem solving outside of combat and in combat Its often a case of "cast an appropriate concentration spell and blast cantrips" I actually think cantrips are in a great place right now, they feel significantly weaker than weapon attacks, but they do remain relevant.
I do agree that damage cantrips out-scaling spells is a problem, but I think that is a problem with damage spells not scaling, rather than cantrips scaling.
The huge power difference between martials and casters does not lie in the cantrips vs attacks comparison, but rather higher level spells vs martials lack of competing features. You could take away cantrips entirely and casters would still be able to do things that makes the martial characters feel weak and insignificant, so I dont really believe that nerfing cantrips is addressing the real issue.
I feel like this is targeting casters in the one area are they are at an appropriate power level, instead of boosting martials to match much more impactful aspect of casters.
Fair points. I agree the utility and power doesn't come from the damage cantrips.
I would, however, say the Vancian magic system inherently makes scaling difficult (hence cantrips breaking it). Also, toning down cantrips could force casters to consider whether they use their spell slots outside combat, making it less of a given that they outshine non-casters in utility.
But you might be right that this is not the right lever to adjust the balance.
Don't really agree with the concept, a lvl 1 attack spell at lvl 11 is still not going to be worth casting even if cantrips where dropped to base level only. The threats are to strong to look at magic missile and go "yeah on my action I'm going to do 3d4+3 damage"
Also I don't agree at all that scaling cantrips somehow will put a damper on martials as a firebolt by lvl 11 is doing 3d10 damage (average of 16.5) and a fighter at lvl 11 is making 3 attacks a turn. Even a sword and board fighter with a longsword will be doing 3d8+15 on those (average of 28.5) and any fighter packing PAM or GWM or SS will easily pull even more.
So I don't really see what the relevance of wanting to nerf cantrips down, it makes sense that a higher level caster wouldn't still be slinging level 1 spells in combat just like a martial wouldn't still be making single attacks
Forget the martials, this is a problem in and of itself.
A lot of spells don't upcast, or the amount that you get extra damage when you upcast is minimal compared to the level jump. a first level spell getting an extra die at level 5 is ridiculous.
The spells you gain later on, while powerful, are either underpowered compared to other spells at the level, or are overpowered, and are your bread and butter till you get accesses to truly broken spells.
The magic system sucks, and its not because it's vancian magic, because for the most part, the magic system of first edition doesn't apply to wizards in the slightest anymore, (needing to prep 3 copies of the same spell), and it doesn't apply to most classes of spellcasters anymore either. It sucks because outside of utility spells, you're given a lot of false choice to inflate what seems like a robust spell system.
Sure, there's 300+ spells, but there's only a handful that get chosen time and time again, because not choosing them is kind of ridiculous. And the only spell that regularly gets upcast is counterspell, mostly because you're guessing at how high the level of spell you are countering is.
The spells should be compacted. you should have an elemental blast which you get to choose the type of damage being dealt (sans force, obviously), and its damage should scale every level upcast, not just some. Either by 1d6 or 1d4. Damage dice assigned to current spells should be changed so that 1d8 is now 2d4 and 1d10 is now 2d6 (same with 1d12). at first level, it's a single target, at 3rd level, you can cast it as a cone, at 5th level it can be a ball or a cube.
if you want a spell that chains, then the distance between enemies can increase by 5 ft or you can increase by an extra damage die every other level of upcasting,
Simplify the spell list, have them scale like the rogue's sneak attack damage or the monk's points and hit die, just do something that makes more sense within the damned combat spells rather than the hodgepodge of BS we have now.
Ironically I don't think casters do all that much single target damage in general. They really only do a lot of damage through some of the broken summoning spells or through AOE spells. Like Fireball's 8d6 damage in terms of single target damage is still less than most martials can do in a single round of combat at level 5. The real strength of casters is their ability to solve problems and completely take creatures out of the fight or to do damage to multiple creatures and control areas of the battlefield. In the early game a cross bow is better at damage than just about any cantrip because cantrips don't add the caster's ability score to the attack.
Actually casters get some very powerful single target spells early on that do out-damage martial characters, but don't get as many later on but those they do get are crazy, like disintegrate. 40+10d6 damage is no joke, on a failed save that is an average of 75 damage with a minimum of 50 and maximum of 100 damage. It's just that for using such high level resources, it is a huge hit if the save is successfully. However Scorching Ray upcast to 6th level is 7 2d6 rays, and since each ray is separate, less chance of complete failure, if you were to hit them all, that is an average 49 damage, that is a lot of damage for level 11.
All of that however is definitely outshone by their AoEs... caster AoE damage is definitely way too high, casters shouldn't be doing more damage on an AoE cast than martial characters do to a single character and that is one of the few things that contribute to casters being overpowered.
Disintegrate spends a level 6th slot and can miss. AoE is fine they rarely put out of combat to anything, and single target damage is low for the tier. As mentioned, in my games casters usually use cantrips for round-by-round, as spells have many other uses (Knock, Fly, Invisibility, etc.). You can't spend all your spells in combat, and lacks single target high damage in most cases.
Not getting my stat modifers is bad enough, and you want to take scaling away too?
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Absolutely agree.
I generally agree. I feel like the way Cantrips scale is rather comparable to the way a Fighter gets extra attacks.
The _only_ way in which I think Cantrips (other than EB) falls behind in this comparison is: Cantrips tend to be all or nothing (especially on saving throw cantrips), where Weapon Attacks are get a hit roll per damage die (sorta). EB is the only cantrip that works that way, with separate hit rolls per damage die. But Cantrips also usually get some sort of bonus effect or are energy based, so it might even out a little. The other downside is that the martial is likely not just doing 2-4 attacks with bare dice rolls, they're also adding their attribute modifier and a magic weapon to that damage.
I'm not sure if there's a good way to address the all/nothing nature of a cantrip.. it might be that there's no need to due to it being an all-day-long ranged* energy attack. But it definitely makes Cantrips have a "downside". (* usually ranged)
The magic weapon damage side of it is partially handled with some casting foci that allow bonuses to Attack/DC/damage, but they seem to be a bit less consistent in what bonuses they provide in that regard. More consistency would be better (all spell casting foci that provide a bonus, provide that bonus to all 3 things).
Attribute damage is ... you'd have to make a version of "Agonizing Blast" for everyone, which would dilute that feature a little, but it would solve a rough edge, IMO. Maybe an aspect of Spell Sniper that says you pick a cantrip that you can add spell casting modifier to the Damage. Or a standalone Feat for it, that applies to all of your cantrips... and/or says you do that damage (with a save vs damage cantrip) even if the target saves. This sort of mirrors class features that just deal attribute-modifier or PB damage to nearby targets because the character exudes some form of energy. Maybe:
Because it's once per casting, and not per EB bolt, "Agonizing Blast" would still be better/desirable for the Warlock. And it becomes a guaranteed minimum damage (at low levels that could be significant, but at high levels "guaranteed 5hp of damage" isn't going to be significant, but it's at least better than nothing). And you have to give up a Feat to get this.
Feat: Cantrip Expert
Prerequisite: Ability to cast a Cantrip that inflicts damage, 4th Level
Repeatable: Yes, you must choose a different Cantrip each time.
So, as an example of that last part, a Rogue with Evasion can still halve the damage, or avoid the damage entirely, if the Cantrip uses a Dex Save. But the Cantrip's own rule that a save has no effect does not eliminate this bonus damage.
Interaction with Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast: If the caster picks Eldritch Blast as the cantrip, and has the "Agonizing Blast" Eldritch Invocation, this does not allow them to apply their modifier to the damage twice, but they could use it to make one of the Eldritch Blast attacks do this damage even if it misses (but only to one of the attack rolls per casting).
Of all the problems in 5E/1DD, scaling cantrips isn’t one of them. Or if it is, is very low on the list of issues.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
you're not wrong. I usually have better things to do than cast cantrips. The only levels my cantrips are really relevant at all, I am better served by shooting a crossbow, and that feels terrible.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
This is true, I have been a strong proponent of not picking up attack cantrips until level 4 on most of my casters as I am better served with utility cantrips and a crossbow until level 5 and I get an extra cantrip at level 4.
The good thing about attack cantrips vs crossbow is using your spell ability score instead Dex. Also ST excluding Dex are not affected by cover.
Right, but before level 4 the difference in attack is probably not high since you need decent dex for decent armor on casters anyway. Level 4 is when you are probably going to have a +1 or MAYBE a +2 difference in attack and level 5 the hit is going to do more damage anyway.
Which is pretty much true of every thread I've seen that tries to "balance" casters with martials. There is work to be done in making them ...but the discussion always comes down to trying to spite casters rather than making them different but equal. There are always subjective assertions that, to my view, are absurd - the idea that casters using a finite (and at early levels it's very finite) resources in niche situations shouldn't be able to outdo the damage of what martials can do each and every single round throughout the day, without burning any resources, for example.
There are things that could be done to balance them. The major thing is the lack of cool abilities has characters progress. Casters get awesome powers, while martials largely just get more of what they get by level 5, but more. We don't want to strip casters of their powers though, because we don't play D&D to be mere mortals - we want to do the awesome stuff. The obvious response then is to look at what we can do for martials rather than what we can do to hobble casters. Another issue I see is the overabundance of spell slots..once.you get into T3, casters (other than Warlocks) have a ton of spells. This, counterintuitively, actually makes casters less fun than otherwise, because you're not being restricted in how often n you get to do awesome stuff - you're always doing awesome stuff, it's just the degree. I think a move to the point system (with a spell level cap that progresses similar to how it does now) so spells can be a more precious resource than they currently are would solve the problem - although I don't know how accessible that would be to new players and the conservative grognards would probably complain about any changes to the game, regardless of whether it would be an improvement or not. However, in making the choice of using a spell or not a meaningful one, it would make the case of casting one feel special and powerful so it'd be more fun than what happens now, while giving martials and their steady but sure attacks more meaning.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
But that is not the case. Martials can accumulate some damage and inflict it with one of the multiple chances (attacks), while cantrips is all-or-nothing always, plus adding its score modifier multiple times, that is like adding a die average. I.e. a Barbarian Berserker with GWM has a large amount of damage that is landed when hit (once per turn), and if has some attacks remaining, can add more weapon dice plus its score modifier, that is like adding an extra die with average result.
Let's take a pure damage cantrip like fire bolt, it averages 11 damage per round at level 5th. Even comparing with a plain Fighter it can inflict 2x(1d10 + 4) = 19. If we compute percentage increased is a huge gap. Adding Fighting Style and probably a related feat, the difference is even greater.
And that multiple chances matters a lot. Taking the 65% hit rate D&D uses as base, means that martials will always land its main damage (the one you can only deal once per turn), while cantrips will directly miss dealing 0 damage about 1 of 3 rounds.
Taking into account that spells are very limited and cannot be used so easily for combat, most of the time a caster uses cantrips for round-by-round damage, and inflicts very lower than the martial, but at least does not feel useless like before cantrips, when you could only spam crossbow/sling single attacks with low attack bonus.
^^ this. My casters usually start with 16 stat and 16 dex for defense, so there's no drawback at all to crossbow. It feels bad that a magic user is better served with a weapon than with a spell, but, that's where we are.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Cantrips, spells, and slots are game parameters to achieve balance.
Cantrips could be eliminated and replaced by standard spells. To replicate the effect of a fire bolt, a new 1st level spell might confer upon the caster the ability to "hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range." on demand for the next 1-10 minutes, etc. Upcasting would allow higher damage, etc. The game balance would then adjust the spell progression table to accommodate the change, such as a few more spells at a lower level. Same outcome but different mechanics.