Well, then let the “Utility” cantrips stay free and only do the SR cantrip points for combat cantrips?
I guess if you really want that, sure, but that's not what I'd want in my games. A wizard should have magic that they can use all of the time to help in combat, never be limited to dagger spamming, IMO.
Yeah, limiting the number of combat cantrips a wizard or sorcerer can use is like telling a fighter he can only make 8 attacks with a weapon before it becomes Dull and can't be used again until it's fixed during a Long Rest, and also that he's only allowed to carry two weapons at a time.
Did you ever play 2e? Prepared Spell Slots, and so few of them. And there were no Cantrips or Rituals.
Well, then let the “Utility” cantrips stay free and only do the SR cantrip points for combat cantrips?
I guess if you really want that, sure, but that's not what I'd want in my games. A wizard should have magic that they can use all of the time to help in combat, never be limited to dagger spamming, IMO.
Yeah, limiting the number of combat cantrips a wizard or sorcerer can use is like telling a fighter he can only make 8 attacks with a weapon before it becomes Dull and can't be used again until it's fixed during a Long Rest, and also that he's only allowed to carry two weapons at a time.
Did you ever play 2e? Prepared Spell Slots, and so few of them. And there were no Cantrips or Rituals.
There were cantrips even as early as 1e. I think they were introduced in the Unearthed Arcana, bu would not swear to that. IIRC, you could memorize two in place of a 1st level spell. In 2e, they replaced that system with a level 1 wizard 'Cantrip' spell, which allowed the caster to do minor effects with a duration of 1 hr/level. There were pretty strong limitations on what kind of effects were allowed, but it was there....
In 2e, “Cantrip” was a 1st-level spell. It was only one spell, and it did lots of cool, but ultimately useless stuff. It took an entire spell set to prepare just like every other 1st-level spell.
Well, then let the “Utility” cantrips stay free and only do the SR cantrip points for combat cantrips?
I guess if you really want that, sure, but that's not what I'd want in my games. A wizard should have magic that they can use all of the time to help in combat, never be limited to dagger spamming, IMO.
Yeah, limiting the number of combat cantrips a wizard or sorcerer can use is like telling a fighter he can only make 8 attacks with a weapon before it becomes Dull and can't be used again until it's fixed during a Long Rest, and also that he's only allowed to carry two weapons at a time.
Did you ever play 2e? Prepared Spell Slots, and so few of them. And there were no Cantrips or Rituals.
Yes. And at low level it was terrible. You cast your one spell per day and then you were useless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There were cantrips even as early as 1e. I think they were introduced in the Unearthed Arcana, bu would not swear to that. IIRC, you could memorize two in place of a 1st level spell. In 2e, they replaced that system with a level 1 wizard 'Cantrip' spell, which allowed the caster to do minor effects with a duration of 1 hr/level. There were pretty strong limitations on what kind of effects were allowed, but it was there....
Yeah, but they were still using your existing spell slots. It wasn't until 3rd Edition that cantrips got split off from 1st level spell slots.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Well, then let the “Utility” cantrips stay free and only do the SR cantrip points for combat cantrips?
I guess if you really want that, sure, but that's not what I'd want in my games. A wizard should have magic that they can use all of the time to help in combat, never be limited to dagger spamming, IMO.
Yeah, limiting the number of combat cantrips a wizard or sorcerer can use is like telling a fighter he can only make 8 attacks with a weapon before it becomes Dull and can't be used again until it's fixed during a Long Rest, and also that he's only allowed to carry two weapons at a time.
Did you ever play 2e? Prepared Spell Slots, and so few of them. And there were no Cantrips or Rituals.
Yes. And at low level it was terrible. You cast your one spell per day and then you were useless.
Exactly. Yet somehow the game has persisted for another 40+ years. So canning cantrips would not be unthinkable. Distasteful, but not unthinkable.
Exactly. Yet somehow the game has persisted for another 40+ years. So canning cantrips would not be unthinkable. Distasteful, but not unthinkable.
Just because it used to be in the game decades ago does not mean that going back to it would not be unthinkable. There was a time period when "Dwarf" and "Elf" were character classes, but trying to go back to those rules would be a massive mistake. Same with attempting to reinstate the mess that was THAC0, going back to different XP tables for each class, making players roll to see if they could actually become a paladin instead of being stuck as a fighter, or making someone dual class three times in order to become a bard.
Compromise? Cantrips as they are, except no damage escalation with level?
I want there to be some damage scale at higher levels, but not so much that a lot of first level damaging spells mostly become irrelevant, like current 5e rules. Witch Bolt in Tier 1 of the game sucks, but it gets even worse as cantrips get better. Chromatic Orb is eventually mostly surpassed by Fire Bolt and Shocking Grasp, and there are many more examples of this in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
At least for me, I am not calling for just "deleting cantrips from the game." When I talk about high-level design considerations, I assume that other changes would need to be made to the game if you took something like cantrips out of it. So, if I say something like, I wish at-will cantrips did not exist, I am not expressing the desire not to have them in the game but keep everything else 100% the same. Clearly, since the internal logic of the whole of 5e is designed around the assumption that cantrips exist and can be cast at-will, one would have to redesign the entire system, both for casters and non-casters, if one eliminated cantrips entirely. Less major, but still fairly sweeping, changes would need to be made if we used Sposta's idea of "cantrip slots."
This is a major fundamental game design decision (that casters should be able to cast on every single round) and you can't just delete a whole chunk of the rules without compensating in the rest of the design. Therefore, by saying that I wish they didn't have at-will cantrips, it's more of an expression that I wish the entire game had been designed differently, such that at-will cantrips were not necessary. What would it look like to design a game in which caster's didn't "need" cantrips and were still enjoyable to play? I'm not sure... but just "taking them out" would not work -- which is why I have not ever considered doing that as a house rule in my games. The goal is not to make casters "suck more" relative to non-casters, but rather, to have casters as PCs in the world, but still keep magic rare, mysterious, and surprising. And cantrips pretty much squash any chance of that latter thing occurring.
So, I guess my regret is that D&D went for a default "high magic" kind of rule set, and didn't go for something a little less "magic everywhere."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Compromise? Cantrips as they are, except no damage escalation with level?
I want there to be some damage scale at higher levels, but not so much that a lot of first level damaging spells mostly become irrelevant, like current 5e rules. Witch Bolt in Tier 1 of the game sucks, but it gets even worse as cantrips get better. Chromatic Orb is eventually mostly surpassed by Fire Bolt and Shocking Grasp, and there are many more examples of this in the game.
Ok, so reduced scaling, possibly even selective scaling.
That’s kinda what I was getting at with the points.
At least for me, I am not calling for just "deleting cantrips from the game." When I talk about high-level design considerations, I assume that other changes would need to be made to the game if you took something like cantrips out of it. So, if I say something like, I wish at-will cantrips did not exist, I am not expressing the desire not to have them in the game but keep everything else 100% the same. Clearly, since the internal logic of the whole of 5e is designed around the assumption that cantrips exist and can be cast at-will, one would have to redesign the entire system, both for casters and non-casters, if one eliminated cantrips entirely. Less major, but still fairly sweeping, changes would need to be made if we used Sposta's idea of "cantrip slots."
This is a major fundamental game design decision (that casters should be able to cast on every single round) and you can't just delete a whole chunk of the rules without compensating in the rest of the design. Therefore, by saying that I wish they didn't have at-will cantrips, it's more of an expression that I wish the entire game had been designed differently, such that at-will cantrips were not necessary. What would it look like to design a game in which caster's didn't "need" cantrips and were still enjoyable to play? I'm not sure... but just "taking them out" would not work -- which is why I have not ever considered doing that as a house rule in my games. The goal is not to make casters "suck more" relative to non-casters, but rather, to have casters as PCs in the world, but still keep magic rare, mysterious, and surprising. And cantrips pretty much squash any chance of that latter thing occurring.
So, I guess my regret is that D&D went for a default "high magic" kind of rule set, and didn't go for something a little less "magic everywhere."
How about *a* cantrip that is castable at will? Only a combat specific one. Then you can have your resource management because there are no utility freebies but people who don't want the classical feel of wizard being a dagger or sling specialist are satisfied as well.
As for keeping the magic mysterious - well, I considered it always a world building thing. Despite the fact that everything is equally available to the players, the class distribution in the world is very much skewed towards fighters and rogues being the most common archetypes but I suspect it's not exactly what you had in mind.
As for keeping the magic mysterious - well, I considered it always a world building thing.
It's not really just world-building. If the players can use magic for every little thing, they are casting spells all the time, regardless of what the NPCs are doing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If you want to keep magic mysterious in your games, just disallow subclasses for Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue that can use magic, and suggest that the players choose classes with "less" magic (Paladin, Ranger, Warlock, the four mentioned above). If you want magic items to be rare, don't allow Artificers in your games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It really does. Almost any damaging cantrip will match or beat it in damage at level 5, as well as not requiring concentration, having a much larger range, and the spell scales awfully.
So, maybe I change my one thing to making sure Witch Bolt doesn't suck before they printed the books (jk).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Brief reminder: Discussion wildly off topic. Consider splitting out the "Cantrips Suck" debate into a separate thread, so this one can go back to discussing single changes. The cantrip discussion is worth having, especially considering the points raised in that casters are awful without cantrips, but it's not the subject of this thread's discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Did you ever play 2e? Prepared Spell Slots, and so few of them. And there were no Cantrips or Rituals.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well guess what thread, I can change one thing. Actually more than one thing, cuz I DM.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
In 2e, “Cantrip” was a 1st-level spell. It was only one spell, and it did lots of cool, but ultimately useless stuff. It took an entire spell set to prepare just like every other 1st-level spell.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes. And at low level it was terrible. You cast your one spell per day and then you were useless.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah, but they were still using your existing spell slots. It wasn't until 3rd Edition that cantrips got split off from 1st level spell slots.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Exactly. Yet somehow the game has persisted for another 40+ years. So canning cantrips would not be unthinkable. Distasteful, but not unthinkable.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Maybe it could be a variant rule?
Main game is cantrips are the same as current, while the variant rule has them as short rest refresh limited slots?
Just because it used to be in the game decades ago does not mean that going back to it would not be unthinkable. There was a time period when "Dwarf" and "Elf" were character classes, but trying to go back to those rules would be a massive mistake. Same with attempting to reinstate the mess that was THAC0, going back to different XP tables for each class, making players roll to see if they could actually become a paladin instead of being stuck as a fighter, or making someone dual class three times in order to become a bard.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Theoretically you could do that, but it would badly nerf casters, especially Warlocks.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I want there to be some damage scale at higher levels, but not so much that a lot of first level damaging spells mostly become irrelevant, like current 5e rules. Witch Bolt in Tier 1 of the game sucks, but it gets even worse as cantrips get better. Chromatic Orb is eventually mostly surpassed by Fire Bolt and Shocking Grasp, and there are many more examples of this in the game.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
At least for me, I am not calling for just "deleting cantrips from the game." When I talk about high-level design considerations, I assume that other changes would need to be made to the game if you took something like cantrips out of it. So, if I say something like, I wish at-will cantrips did not exist, I am not expressing the desire not to have them in the game but keep everything else 100% the same. Clearly, since the internal logic of the whole of 5e is designed around the assumption that cantrips exist and can be cast at-will, one would have to redesign the entire system, both for casters and non-casters, if one eliminated cantrips entirely. Less major, but still fairly sweeping, changes would need to be made if we used Sposta's idea of "cantrip slots."
This is a major fundamental game design decision (that casters should be able to cast on every single round) and you can't just delete a whole chunk of the rules without compensating in the rest of the design. Therefore, by saying that I wish they didn't have at-will cantrips, it's more of an expression that I wish the entire game had been designed differently, such that at-will cantrips were not necessary. What would it look like to design a game in which caster's didn't "need" cantrips and were still enjoyable to play? I'm not sure... but just "taking them out" would not work -- which is why I have not ever considered doing that as a house rule in my games. The goal is not to make casters "suck more" relative to non-casters, but rather, to have casters as PCs in the world, but still keep magic rare, mysterious, and surprising. And cantrips pretty much squash any chance of that latter thing occurring.
So, I guess my regret is that D&D went for a default "high magic" kind of rule set, and didn't go for something a little less "magic everywhere."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
That’s kinda what I was getting at with the points.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Rebalancing cantrips' damage scaling is something that certainly deserves consideration.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
How about *a* cantrip that is castable at will? Only a combat specific one. Then you can have your resource management because there are no utility freebies but people who don't want the classical feel of wizard being a dagger or sling specialist are satisfied as well.
As for keeping the magic mysterious - well, I considered it always a world building thing. Despite the fact that everything is equally available to the players, the class distribution in the world is very much skewed towards fighters and rogues being the most common archetypes but I suspect it's not exactly what you had in mind.
It's not really just world-building. If the players can use magic for every little thing, they are casting spells all the time, regardless of what the NPCs are doing.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It's kind of hard to keep magic mysterious while still allowing PCs to have access to character classes that grant it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If you want to keep magic mysterious in your games, just disallow subclasses for Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue that can use magic, and suggest that the players choose classes with "less" magic (Paladin, Ranger, Warlock, the four mentioned above). If you want magic items to be rare, don't allow Artificers in your games.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
How dare you.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
It really does. Almost any damaging cantrip will match or beat it in damage at level 5, as well as not requiring concentration, having a much larger range, and the spell scales awfully.
So, maybe I change my one thing to making sure Witch Bolt doesn't suck before they printed the books (jk).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Brief reminder: Discussion wildly off topic. Consider splitting out the "Cantrips Suck" debate into a separate thread, so this one can go back to discussing single changes. The cantrip discussion is worth having, especially considering the points raised in that casters are awful without cantrips, but it's not the subject of this thread's discussion.
Please do not contact or message me.