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.
That's actually a neat idea. Most of the "problem" spells that need nerfing are concentration spells, so making it require concentration to spam cantrips would add a new dimension to the game. Or even if not requiring concentration, it would make the use of cantrips to "solve problems" more costly and thus give more space for ability-checks to shine.
Yes cantrips should scale. 1st level and higher spells don’t scale like they did in 3.5.
Correct, they scale with the spell slot instead of with character or class level. And I think that that is the right way to do it:
General Cantrips scale with Character Level
Class specific Cantrips scale with Class Level (as we're seeing with some OneD&D cantrips)
Level Spells scale with Spell Slot
The problem with damage on leveled spells only scaling with spell slots is that the higher level the character is, the weaker those options are compared to cantrips. I believe every damage spell should scale with character level somehow. I dont think its good design that cantrips eventually become stronger than lvl 1 and lvl 2 spells.
Yes, they can be upcast which is a fine mechanic, but a lvl 1 spell slot should always be more effective than a cantrip.
I also think that leveled damage spells not scaling with character level creates an imbalance between status effect spells and damage spells. Hold person, using a 2nd level spell slot can be massively effective for the entire level progression, but Acid Arrow becomes almost useless. This is because Hold Person does infact scale with character level, in that its effect is enhanced by your party's damage output, I dont see why direct damage spells shouldnt enjoy the same thing.
Yes cantrips should scale. 1st level and higher spells don’t scale like they did in 3.5.
Correct, they scale with the spell slot instead of with character or class level. And I think that that is the right way to do it:
General Cantrips scale with Character Level
Class specific Cantrips scale with Class Level (as we're seeing with some OneD&D cantrips)
Level Spells scale with Spell Slot
The problem with damage on leveled spells only scaling with spell slots is that the higher level the character is, the weaker those options are compared to cantrips. I believe every damage spell should scale with character level somehow. I dont think its good design that cantrips eventually become stronger than lvl 1 and lvl 2 spells.
Yes, they can be upcast which is a fine mechanic, but a lvl 1 spell slot should always be more effective than a cantrip.
I also think that leveled damage spells not scaling with character level creates an imbalance between status effect spells and damage spells. Hold person, using a 2nd level spell slot can be massively effective for the entire level progression, but Acid Arrow becomes almost useless.
As a general statement, I don't really agree. Cantrips aren't really "minor zero level spells" anymore. They're really "the magic you can do all day without burning a limited resource." So there's no reason, within that mindset, that they should automatically be weaker. Weaker than 1st level spells is really a mindset from earlier editions.
But I would also point out that Cantrips, even at high level, have a fundamental weakness: They tend to be all or nothing. Miss one roll with Firebolt? oh well, you burned your Action and dealt no damage (where a Fighter is going to get multiple hit rolls and probably do at least a little damage). The only Cantrip that doesn't do this ... is now a limited access cantrip that only scales with class level and not character level.
But getting back to comparing Cantrips to Leveled spells: you never miss with Magic Missile, you will just about always do damage (minus Shield, Counterspell, or immunity to Force damage). And with Thunderwave, and other save based spells, you at least do half damage (unless it's a Dex save and they have Evasion) -- Save based Cantrips do _no_ damage if the target saves. That is a significant advantage that Leveled Spells (even 1st level spells) have over Cantrips.
I may not roll well with Fireball or Lightning Bolt damage, but I've got a much better expectation about how much damage I'm actually going to inflict with them than I do with any Cantrip. Same with some of the 2nd level damage spells, as well as Burning Hands and Thunderwave.
The spells should add the caster level in some way, even with the simplest +X per caster level. While the encounter tier increases, you are forced to upcast your spells using higher spell slots, making useless the base ones (so you lose many slots as the higher ones are lesser) for their purpose (if you have a low level attack spell is supposed to be used for attack) and having plenty of low level ones which you are forced to use in anything, sometimes wasting them in not really required utility, but you have to use them in something.
I.e. the Chromatic Orb, if was 3d8 +1 per caster level, at level 4 is like adding and extra die average, and at level 9 is like adding a second one. Probably you will be fine casting it with its original level 1 if want to preserve the higher spell slots. And at level 11 you could want to cast it to ensure that 11 damage, plus 3d8, but I see no reason but choosing the damage type compared to casting a cantrip with 3d10.
Another way could be making the current cantrip method for all spells, adding 1 damage die at level 5, 11 and 17. More exactly and working for all spells (like magic missile or scorching ray), that should be generally getting 1 level of upcasting at those levels, then you add your own upcasting if applicable.
I just don’t know if there is any reason to change it. Doubt WotC would because of backwards compatibility. Cantrips are fine. Spells are fine. Leveled spells don’t need to scale automatically as the martial/caster divide is big enough. If you want your low level spells to do more you can upcast in many instances. Or use the slots for utility/control etc that don’t need scaling to be effective. And it’s why classes that aren’t prepared casters like clerics and Druids can swap out spells when they level.
Im currently in a campaign, just hit level 16 (Land Druid), where the part we are in I am seriously worried that I may not have the slots left when we face the boss at the end of this section. I’ve burnt a lot of my spells already on dispelling magic and in combats. We’re on a time sensitive part. Produce Flame and Primal Savagery are becoming my go to attacks to conserve spell slots. It would suck if they didn’t scale damage.
The spells should add the caster level in some way, even with the simplest +X per caster level. While the encounter tier increases, you are forced to upcast your spells using higher spell slots, making useless the base ones (so you lose many slots as the higher ones are lesser) for their purpose (if you have a low level attack spell is supposed to be used for attack) and having plenty of low level ones which you are forced to use in anything, sometimes wasting them in not really required utility, but you have to use them in something.
You're basically saying you recognize that there are two different ways to scale Leveled Spells: 1- the route of minutia that involves complication via caster level bonuses (the 3e method) 2- the simplifying 5e method of scaling via spell slot
And you want both.
Because of perceived needs that aren't really there. (that "need" being "keeping 1st Level Spells more powerful than Cantrips", because that's not a thing; 5e cantrips aren't intended to be "inherently weaker than 1st level spells cast at 1st level", and that you discard at mid and higher tiers of play, like they were in earlier editions)
I also don't know any caster that struggles to figure out what to do with their lower level spell slots. Does a 1st level Cure Wounds heal fewer HP than an 5th level casting of Cure Wounds? Sure. But it's still healing those HP .. what are you going to do, just sit on that 1st level slot and say "but it doesn't heal very much, so you'll just have to suffer without your HP"? No, you're going to cast Cure Wounds with the slot you have. Same with Magic Missile, or Chromatic Orb: it might not do as much damage as when you cast it at high level, but they DO add to the damage the party is doing. This line of reasoning just doesn't hold water for me. It's like saying a primary weapon makes a sidearm useless. It changes the situations in which you'd use sidearm/low-level-slot, but it doesn't change that it's still just as useful as it always was. Will you pick one over the other? you will pick it when it makes sense to do so. Does that mean the lower end one is useless? Not even slightly.
If you're REALLY concerned about how to use your lower level slots, then take a 2 level dip into Sorcerer so you can transform your low level slots into sorcery points, and then make higher level slots out of those sorcery points.
I.e. the Chromatic Orb, if was 3d8 +1 per caster level, at level 4 is like adding and extra die average, and at level 9 is like adding a second one.
Right. You want the benefit of two extra spell slot levels ... for free.
To solve a problem that doesn't actually exist.
Another way could be making the current cantrip method for all spells, adding 1 damage die at level 5, 11 and 17. More exactly and working for all spells (like magic missile or scorching ray), that should be generally getting 1 level of upcasting at those levels, then you add your own upcasting if applicable.
1- again, this is solving a problem that doesn't exist. 2- What about all of the other spells that aren't damage, or damage dice, based? You're boosting one type of spell, and not other types of spells, without considering how this unbalances these two types of spells. Further, it also pushes the power of casters vs marshals further toward the casters without compensating the marshals. Which means: all you're doing is creating a major imbalance ... to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
The spells should add the caster level in some way, even with the simplest +X per caster level. While the encounter tier increases, you are forced to upcast your spells using higher spell slots, making useless the base ones (so you lose many slots as the higher ones are lesser) for their purpose (if you have a low level attack spell is supposed to be used for attack) and having plenty of low level ones which you are forced to use in anything, sometimes wasting them in not really required utility, but you have to use them in something.
You're basically saying you recognize that there are two different ways to scale Leveled Spells: 1- the route of minutia that involves complication via caster level bonuses (the 3e method) 2- the simplifying 5e method of scaling via spell slot
And you want both.
Because of perceived needs that aren't really there. (that "need" being "keeping 1st Level Spells more powerful than Cantrips", because that's not a thing; 5e cantrips aren't intended to be "inherently weaker than 1st level spells cast at 1st level", and that you discard at mid and higher tiers of play, like they were in earlier editions)
I also don't know any caster that struggles to figure out what to do with their lower level spell slots. Does a 1st level Cure Wounds heal fewer HP than an 5th level casting of Cure Wounds? Sure. But it's still healing those HP .. what are you going to do, just sit on that 1st level slot and say "but it doesn't heal very much, so you'll just have to suffer without your HP"? No, you're going to cast Cure Wounds with the slot you have. Same with Magic Missile, or Chromatic Orb: it might not do as much damage as when you cast it at high level, but they DO add to the damage the party is doing. This line of reasoning just doesn't hold water for me. It's like saying a primary weapon makes a sidearm useless. It changes the situations in which you'd use sidearm/low-level-slot, but it doesn't change that it's still just as useful as it always was. Will you pick one over the other? you will pick it when it makes sense to do so. Does that mean the lower end one is useless? Not even slightly.
If you're REALLY concerned about how to use your lower level slots, then take a 2 level dip into Sorcerer so you can transform your low level slots into sorcery points, and then make higher level slots out of those sorcery points.
I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is that 5e is inconsistent in itself with how it scales magic. SOME upcast, but the upcast isn't even consistent. Some spells upcast more than other similar spells, and the whole thing is a mess where SOME upcasting can be better than a higher level spell, and others, you may as well swap the lower level spell out for something of utility, because there's a higher level spell that vastly outclasses it.
And that's just the smallest of the problems of the spell list as a whole.
As I said, you have a LOT of spell padding, where the difference between a spell might be just damage type, OR it may be damage geometry. OR, it could be one of the damned summons, of which there's 12 goddamned types of summon that do the same damned thing, but, of course, rather than ONE f***ing spell and you get to choose, we need 12, because, at over 300, there's not enough damned spells to sift through. I mean I still can't find a decent damned spreadsheet and the DNDbeyond has absolutely zero keyword search, so even while complaining about the upcasting sucking, I can't actually find examples because there's too many goddamned spells to sift through!!!!!!
ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!
:)
Seriously though, cleaning up, streamlining the spells, remove the ridiculously overpowered stuff, get it down to a list of about 100 to 150ish reasonable spells,and maybe I'll stop having an aneurysm every time I have to hunt for what the wizard in the group actually can do... :P
I see no inconsistency with what I said. Most games the magic progress with the character level, at the same time you get more advanced spells that you can use at the same time.
Then:
Edit: modified the cantrips option.
- Free 1 level of upcast at levels 5, 11, and 17.
- Base level when casted from items (depending description) or scrolls.
- Optional: can upcast cantrips, 1 extra die per level. Remove the extra features at levels 5, 11 and 17 from description as now is general. Use this ONLY if want to maximize getting utility spells, as this reduces interest for low level attack spells.
This also solves the problem of many class features and their free cast, which are always at level 1, making them not worth at higher levels. A new 18th level Warlock could cast Hex for free as level 4 spell, for 2d6, or upcast with a 2nd level spell slot (the base Hex 1 + 1) for 5th level spell, for 3d6. The Paladin now limited to 1 Smite per round could increase with level and use the higher level spell slots in spells, instead keeping them for Smites.
And yes, I already know how the new classes and spells work, the martial sustained damage round-by-round unlimited and for free, some important nerfing to spells (like Banishment), and all of that. And making those spells worth like getting an extra scorching ray at level 5 so it is worth to cast as 2nd level to keep your 3d level slots is the idea.
If you see some balance problem probably is more related with how to apply the Rest system, that should harden the Long Rest. When you have to complete the dungeon in a run without Long Rest, and in this case you can't in any way upcast any single spell to be at the tier level, as you even have lesser higher spell levels on that tier than when you were on lower tiers. I.e. when you get quickly 4 1st level slot and 3 2nd level, you will get stuck with 2 5th level. So upcasting 1-2 level spells to 5 is hardly an option but when tactically can be very helpful.
Finally you could argue what you want about cantrips and what are supposed to be, but simply getting better than a real spell that cost resources is a flaw design.
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.
Umm...did you realise that I wasn't talking about Cantrips outdoing Martials, and I was referencing someone else's opinion as an example of people putting what I felt were putting bad arguments across? Your response, at least from where I standing, didn't really respond to what I was saying at all, at least not in the part you cited.
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.
It looks like we're heading toward cantrips scaling based on the caster's level - though so far I *think* we've only seen class specific cantrips. I prefer this over tying cantrip scaling to character level.
That's actually a neat idea. Most of the "problem" spells that need nerfing are concentration spells, so making it require concentration to spam cantrips would add a new dimension to the game. Or even if not requiring concentration, it would make the use of cantrips to "solve problems" more costly and thus give more space for ability-checks to shine.
I 100% believe Cantrips - especially combat cantrips - should scale with player level. They are the basic attacks of casters.
Yes cantrips should scale. 1st level and higher spells don’t scale like they did in 3.5.
Correct, they scale with the spell slot instead of with character or class level. And I think that that is the right way to do it:
The problem with damage on leveled spells only scaling with spell slots is that the higher level the character is, the weaker those options are compared to cantrips. I believe every damage spell should scale with character level somehow. I dont think its good design that cantrips eventually become stronger than lvl 1 and lvl 2 spells.
Yes, they can be upcast which is a fine mechanic, but a lvl 1 spell slot should always be more effective than a cantrip.
I also think that leveled damage spells not scaling with character level creates an imbalance between status effect spells and damage spells. Hold person, using a 2nd level spell slot can be massively effective for the entire level progression, but Acid Arrow becomes almost useless. This is because Hold Person does infact scale with character level, in that its effect is enhanced by your party's damage output, I dont see why direct damage spells shouldnt enjoy the same thing.
As a general statement, I don't really agree. Cantrips aren't really "minor zero level spells" anymore. They're really "the magic you can do all day without burning a limited resource." So there's no reason, within that mindset, that they should automatically be weaker. Weaker than 1st level spells is really a mindset from earlier editions.
But I would also point out that Cantrips, even at high level, have a fundamental weakness: They tend to be all or nothing. Miss one roll with Firebolt? oh well, you burned your Action and dealt no damage (where a Fighter is going to get multiple hit rolls and probably do at least a little damage). The only Cantrip that doesn't do this ... is now a limited access cantrip that only scales with class level and not character level.
But getting back to comparing Cantrips to Leveled spells: you never miss with Magic Missile, you will just about always do damage (minus Shield, Counterspell, or immunity to Force damage). And with Thunderwave, and other save based spells, you at least do half damage (unless it's a Dex save and they have Evasion) -- Save based Cantrips do _no_ damage if the target saves. That is a significant advantage that Leveled Spells (even 1st level spells) have over Cantrips.
I may not roll well with Fireball or Lightning Bolt damage, but I've got a much better expectation about how much damage I'm actually going to inflict with them than I do with any Cantrip. Same with some of the 2nd level damage spells, as well as Burning Hands and Thunderwave.
The spells should add the caster level in some way, even with the simplest +X per caster level. While the encounter tier increases, you are forced to upcast your spells using higher spell slots, making useless the base ones (so you lose many slots as the higher ones are lesser) for their purpose (if you have a low level attack spell is supposed to be used for attack) and having plenty of low level ones which you are forced to use in anything, sometimes wasting them in not really required utility, but you have to use them in something.
I.e. the Chromatic Orb, if was 3d8 +1 per caster level, at level 4 is like adding and extra die average, and at level 9 is like adding a second one. Probably you will be fine casting it with its original level 1 if want to preserve the higher spell slots. And at level 11 you could want to cast it to ensure that 11 damage, plus 3d8, but I see no reason but choosing the damage type compared to casting a cantrip with 3d10.
Another way could be making the current cantrip method for all spells, adding 1 damage die at level 5, 11 and 17. More exactly and working for all spells (like magic missile or scorching ray), that should be generally getting 1 level of upcasting at those levels, then you add your own upcasting if applicable.
I just don’t know if there is any reason to change it. Doubt WotC would because of backwards compatibility. Cantrips are fine. Spells are fine. Leveled spells don’t need to scale automatically as the martial/caster divide is big enough. If you want your low level spells to do more you can upcast in many instances. Or use the slots for utility/control etc that don’t need scaling to be effective. And it’s why classes that aren’t prepared casters like clerics and Druids can swap out spells when they level.
Im currently in a campaign, just hit level 16 (Land Druid), where the part we are in I am seriously worried that I may not have the slots left when we face the boss at the end of this section. I’ve burnt a lot of my spells already on dispelling magic and in combats. We’re on a time sensitive part. Produce Flame and Primal Savagery are becoming my go to attacks to conserve spell slots. It would suck if they didn’t scale damage.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
You're basically saying you recognize that there are two different ways to scale Leveled Spells:
1- the route of minutia that involves complication via caster level bonuses (the 3e method)
2- the simplifying 5e method of scaling via spell slot
And you want both.
Because of perceived needs that aren't really there. (that "need" being "keeping 1st Level Spells more powerful than Cantrips", because that's not a thing; 5e cantrips aren't intended to be "inherently weaker than 1st level spells cast at 1st level", and that you discard at mid and higher tiers of play, like they were in earlier editions)
I also don't know any caster that struggles to figure out what to do with their lower level spell slots. Does a 1st level Cure Wounds heal fewer HP than an 5th level casting of Cure Wounds? Sure. But it's still healing those HP .. what are you going to do, just sit on that 1st level slot and say "but it doesn't heal very much, so you'll just have to suffer without your HP"? No, you're going to cast Cure Wounds with the slot you have. Same with Magic Missile, or Chromatic Orb: it might not do as much damage as when you cast it at high level, but they DO add to the damage the party is doing. This line of reasoning just doesn't hold water for me. It's like saying a primary weapon makes a sidearm useless. It changes the situations in which you'd use sidearm/low-level-slot, but it doesn't change that it's still just as useful as it always was. Will you pick one over the other? you will pick it when it makes sense to do so. Does that mean the lower end one is useless? Not even slightly.
If you're REALLY concerned about how to use your lower level slots, then take a 2 level dip into Sorcerer so you can transform your low level slots into sorcery points, and then make higher level slots out of those sorcery points.
Right. You want the benefit of two extra spell slot levels ... for free.
To solve a problem that doesn't actually exist.
1- again, this is solving a problem that doesn't exist.
2- What about all of the other spells that aren't damage, or damage dice, based? You're boosting one type of spell, and not other types of spells, without considering how this unbalances these two types of spells. Further, it also pushes the power of casters vs marshals further toward the casters without compensating the marshals. Which means: all you're doing is creating a major imbalance ... to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is that 5e is inconsistent in itself with how it scales magic. SOME upcast, but the upcast isn't even consistent. Some spells upcast more than other similar spells, and the whole thing is a mess where SOME upcasting can be better than a higher level spell, and others, you may as well swap the lower level spell out for something of utility, because there's a higher level spell that vastly outclasses it.
And that's just the smallest of the problems of the spell list as a whole.
As I said, you have a LOT of spell padding, where the difference between a spell might be just damage type, OR it may be damage geometry. OR, it could be one of the damned summons, of which there's 12 goddamned types of summon that do the same damned thing, but, of course, rather than ONE f***ing spell and you get to choose, we need 12, because, at over 300, there's not enough damned spells to sift through. I mean I still can't find a decent damned spreadsheet and the DNDbeyond has absolutely zero keyword search, so even while complaining about the upcasting sucking, I can't actually find examples because there's too many goddamned spells to sift through!!!!!!
ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!
:)
Seriously though, cleaning up, streamlining the spells, remove the ridiculously overpowered stuff, get it down to a list of about 100 to 150ish reasonable spells,and maybe I'll stop having an aneurysm every time I have to hunt for what the wizard in the group actually can do... :P
I see no inconsistency with what I said. Most games the magic progress with the character level, at the same time you get more advanced spells that you can use at the same time.
Then:
Edit: modified the cantrips option.
- Free 1 level of upcast at levels 5, 11, and 17.
- Base level when casted from items (depending description) or scrolls.
- Optional: can upcast cantrips, 1 extra die per level. Remove the extra features at levels 5, 11 and 17 from description as now is general. Use this ONLY if want to maximize getting utility spells, as this reduces interest for low level attack spells.
This also solves the problem of many class features and their free cast, which are always at level 1, making them not worth at higher levels. A new 18th level Warlock could cast Hex for free as level 4 spell, for 2d6, or upcast with a 2nd level spell slot (the base Hex 1 + 1) for 5th level spell, for 3d6. The Paladin now limited to 1 Smite per round could increase with level and use the higher level spell slots in spells, instead keeping them for Smites.
And yes, I already know how the new classes and spells work, the martial sustained damage round-by-round unlimited and for free, some important nerfing to spells (like Banishment), and all of that. And making those spells worth like getting an extra scorching ray at level 5 so it is worth to cast as 2nd level to keep your 3d level slots is the idea.
If you see some balance problem probably is more related with how to apply the Rest system, that should harden the Long Rest. When you have to complete the dungeon in a run without Long Rest, and in this case you can't in any way upcast any single spell to be at the tier level, as you even have lesser higher spell levels on that tier than when you were on lower tiers. I.e. when you get quickly 4 1st level slot and 3 2nd level, you will get stuck with 2 5th level. So upcasting 1-2 level spells to 5 is hardly an option but when tactically can be very helpful.
Finally you could argue what you want about cantrips and what are supposed to be, but simply getting better than a real spell that cost resources is a flaw design.
Umm...did you realise that I wasn't talking about Cantrips outdoing Martials, and I was referencing someone else's opinion as an example of people putting what I felt were putting bad arguments across? Your response, at least from where I standing, didn't really respond to what I was saying at all, at least not in the part you cited.
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.
It looks like we're heading toward cantrips scaling based on the caster's level - though so far I *think* we've only seen class specific cantrips. I prefer this over tying cantrip scaling to character level.
Check out my books on Amazon - Jon R. Osborne
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-YXqOMcVirc