Now that the PHB is "out", at least for some lucky few, we can see the whole of the Wizard's cantrip choices.
I am not one of the few to have a copy of the book early, but I did get a glance at the spell list and I didn't see a lot of new cantrips that sounded like evocation damaging spells.
Is there even a single option that is a save cantrip of the evocation school?
If not, potent cantrip is sort of a trap ability. It encourages you to use a save cantrip, even though you will really get better results on average by using an attack based cantrip, especially after empowered evocation.
It's not just save cantrips -- cantrips that miss are also affected by Potent Cantrip, and most-if-not-all of the Evocation cantrips will require attack rolls.
My players love the Evoker. He's the Great Weapon Fighter of the wizarding world.
AlHazred wrote:
It is just save cantrips, not attack cantrips. But here's the cantrip list....
Acid Splash, Blade Ward, Chill Touch, Dancing Lights, Fire Bolt, Friends, Light, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, Minor Illusion, Poison Spray Prestidigation, Ray of Frost, Shocking Graps, True Strike
Acid splash and posion spray both sound like damage saves.
That said, i would allow it to work on attack cantrips as well.
I can confirm that Acid Splash and Poison Spray are save vs damage, and not an attack roll.
Poison Spray is my only hope, haha.
Acid Splash is conjuration, is was spoiled on an image someone posted of the wizard spell lists. Chill Touch might also be a save (more likely attack roll), but it's almost certainly necromancy.
This is relevant because the bonus damage from empowered evocation only applies to evocations.
DemoMonkey wrote:
"But what school is poison spray?"
Good point, it's Conjuration as well.
It does seem like Potent Cantrip is underpowered.
I suppose Scorching Burst didn't make the final cut. That's unfortunate. It was a small area effect, very low damage, cantrip that allowed a Dexterity save for half damage.
The power of that feat will only increase exponentially as new spells (cantrips) are added to the game. Have some patience
Kalani wrote:
Yea, this is clearly not working as intended.
Just allow 1/2 damage on miss.
Karnos wrote:
Looking at the Basic rules for Potent Cantrip, it does not say the cantrip has to be from the Evocation school to get the benefit.
pend_collective wrote:
pend_collective wrote:
pend_collective wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
If I were to make PC half damage on a miss, I think I would change EE to only apply to levels 1-9 spells, like Kalani suggests.
Arithezoo wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
How can a static class feature be a "trap"?
Karnos wrote:
Kalani wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
Eerongal wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
My first house rule: Potent cantrip works with attack spells. Sure, it works as written with acid splash and poison spray, but those are conjurations. As an evoker, I'd want my special evoker abilities to work with evocations.
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Kalani wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Honestly, it's not a huge deal. As you mentioned, I think the bulk of a Wizard's contribution will be from spells cast out of spell slots. It's mostly an aesthetic issue to me, a feeling that if you want to make use of this particular ability your evoker has you need to use a conjuration cantrip, it just feels... worng.
In the scheme of things, the extra damage on a save of potent cantrip would only amount to a few extra damage per round in most cases, I think.
Personally, if I continue to play an evoker, I'm probably just going to completely ignore potent cantrip, because I prefer to use Fire Bolt and Shocking Grasp, and use a spell slot if I need some sort of area affect spell.
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Karnos wrote:
DLfan wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
An attack roll is basically a save in reverse. They are fundamentally the same thing, and there's no point in deluding ourselves about that. I'd let it apply to all attack roll cantrips and all save vs damage cantrips and call it a day.
FallingIcicle wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
BTW,, doesn't acid splash hit two creatures, each for 1d6, while fire bolt just hits one for 1d10, or did that change?
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Karnos wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
While I think it was an oversight not to include any cantrips that interact with Potent Cantrip in the v 0.1 draft of Basic, I don't see how you could call Potent Cantrip a trap option. It does exactly what it says on the tin. If a player runs off half-cocked assuming that one of their Tradition features is going to affect every single cantrip they cast, that's sorta on them. And, yeah, Karnos, I'm one of those annoying people who thinks that if reading the rules avoids all the trap options, that means there aren't trap options, just players who can't be bothered to learn the rules. 
Agreed. In fact, the only "trap" is to not bother reading the rules.
Karnos wrote:
This discussion has ceased to be about the actual point, and become about one of the terms, "trap".
So let's eliminate that word and start over.
The Potent Cantrip ability, as currently printed, sucks.
DemoMonkey wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Don't mind at all that we disagree Aaron*. I just wanted to get us back onto discussing the ability, rather than sidetracked defining "trap".
...
* You will of course roast in the depths of the Slor with many Shubs and Zuuls for disagreeing with me. But it's nothing personal.
I think all the 'trap' talk is going just a bit too far.
It was made pretty clear (in a blog post that, sadly, was washed away in the Great Website Relaunch) that the role of 'system mastery' was going to be reduced in D&D Next/Fifth Edition -- that, even if you didn't take perfectly optimized combinations of abilities, you could still make meaningful contributions. Some of that system mastery could be added back in via optional sub-systems (like the feat system), but it wasn't strictly necessary to play the game.
You guys can go ahead and argue whether a 6th level evoker is sub-optimal because his evocation cantrip isn't actually helped by his Arcane Tradition feature as much as his conjuration cantrip. I'll be over here casting fireball.
--
Pauper
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Ignoring resistance with all cantrip spells seems like a perfectly valid alternative. Consider the idea stolen.
Kalani wrote:
Klied wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Admittedly the fault appears to be mine, as I was the last person to have posted in this thread prior to it being necromanced lol
Just re-examine the thread in the light of the new cantrips then. Resurrection is for life, not just for Christmas.
Unless you are a snow golem.