[3.5] Why don't ability scores give bonus 0-level spells?

[rmg22893]

It hardly seems broken to give spellcasters a couple extra cantrips or orisons a day. I could always use one or two extra detect magic slots.

[elvengunner69]

Aren't there some feats that give you a few extra spells a day - I think you use them once a day or something? I'm thinking they were in complete Arcane?

[rmg22893]

Aren't there some feats that give you a few extra spells a day - I think you use them once a day or something? I'm thinking they were in complete Arcane?

Communicator, Insightful, Necropolis Born, Night Haunt, Soul of the North, Spell Hand.

Use 3 spells as spell-like abilities 1/day.

Hardly worth a feat, though. I'm more wondering why WotC explicitly excluded 0-level spells from the bonus spells table.

[umbergod]

Communicator, Insightful, Necropolis Born, Night Haunt, Soul of the North, Spell Hand.

Use 3 spells as spell-like abilities 1/day.

Hardly worth a feat, though. I'm more wondering why WotC explicitly excluded 0-level spells from the bonus spells table.

I've often wondered this as well, as extra 0 level spells come in handy, but are never going to be gamebreaking.

[Meianleader]

maybe because you are already getting them at a reasonable modifier?
-they are simple, so you know how to do however many, & being more intelligent/powerful doesn't help u know more, you are already using up as much space as you can

[rmg22893]

maybe because you are already getting them at a reasonable modifier?
-they are simple, so you know how to do however many, & being more intelligent/powerful doesn't help u know more, you are already using up as much space as you can

BUT MOAR IS BETTER!!!!1!!!111!

[erikun]

You already do have "additional" 0th-level spell slots, in the sense that you get far more of them than you do higher level ones. If you were given the same number of 0th-level slots as 1st-level ones, a character would need a 35 ability score to have more; not reasonable on a low level character, and an irrelevant difference on a high level one.

Rather, by giving more 0th-level slots but not tying them to the ability score, it gives characters with lower scores (including most low-level characters) more spells per day than they would otherwise get. Sure, it means your 20th level, 40 INT wizard has two less cantrips per day, but would you really want your 1st level character to lose a third of their starting spells for that? :smallconfused:

[FMArthur]

Because then you could start with 2 bonus slots from an 18 in the score! Outrageously broken at level 1.

Seriously though, I have no idea. Maybe the designers really did think something like that, crazy thought it may be. Maybe the reason why they didn't put races with mental bonuses in the PHB is similar; to avoid a +5 modifier granting more than one first level slot too early, because first-level play was 'balanced' around only having a very specific number of spell slots. It all sounds so crazy to me that I can sort of see them thinking that way. :smallconfused:

[Medic!]

I vaguely remember a discussion about some wonky carry-overs from previous editions doing things that make little to no sense. It may or may not have touched on this too.

*shrug*

[rmg22893]

Because then you could start with 2 bonus slots from an 18 in the score! Outrageously broken at level 1.

Seriously though, I have no idea. Maybe the designers really did think something like that, crazy thought it may be. Maybe the reason why they didn't put races with mental bonuses in the PHB is similar; to avoid a +5 modifier granting more than one first level slot too early, because first-level play was 'balanced' around only having a very specific number of spell slots. It all sounds so crazy to me that I can sort of see them thinking that way. :smallconfused:

Oh no! I can create four more gallons of water or cure two more HP or dazzle two more enemies a day! I'm gamebreaking!

[navar100]

Pathfinder concluded it's perfectly fine to give spellcasters infinite 0 level spellcasting. It's been a great help for my Sorcerer.

They also made sure there's no game-breaking. There is no Cure Minor Wounds spell, so clerics don't have infinite healing. The Pathfinder equivalent instead auto-stabilizes. For class abilities or feats that have you expend spell slots to do something, it is explicitly mentioned you can't use 0 level spells for it.

[Zombimode]

Maybe they wanted every spellcaster to benefit equaly from high ability scores, and since not every spellcaster gets 0 level spells, they left them out.

[Psyren]

Because minor wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prestidigitation.htm) is broken :smalltongue:

Seriously though, petition your DM to use Pathfinder rules - there you go, infinite cantrips/orisons/talents.

[ericgrau]

It was probably somewhat arbitrary; I bet they didn't care much about 0th level spells when they did it and didn't want a special mechanic for a caster score that every caster has (10). You could give a bonus 0th level spell per day at 18, 26 and 34 int. Plus 1 more to everyone at 10 if you want to get technical, but if it's a bonus that everyone gets, is that really a bonus?

Pathfinder style cantrips are an entirely different topic. They are still a minor power bump. At will detect magic makes for great scouting since it pierces doors, and there are likewise a dozen other tricks you can pull even with cure minor wounds removed. Sure a 375 gp wand could replace most of them but that's still something at low levels. Though they don't replace a constantly up, nothing-with-good-treasure-can-hide-from-me-muahahahah detect magic.

[Chronos]

I think it's because they didn't want a bonus that always applies. In order to cast 0th-level spells at all, you need a 10, which is also the score which (extrapolating) would give you a bonus 0th-level spell. Which would mean that there would be no such thing, even theoretically, as someone with 0th-level spells without bonus spells, which seems an abuse of the word "bonus".

[Coidzor]

^: The ones for higher ability modifiers would certainly outweigh that though.

Good question. I'd say it's a toss-up between or equal parts not wanting to redo the formula or have it be basically lock step with getting bonus 1st level spells and something they just never considered.


You already do have "additional" 0th-level spell slots, in the sense that you get far more of them than you do higher level ones. If you were given the same number of 0th-level slots as 1st-level ones, a character would need a 35 ability score to have more; not reasonable on a low level character, and an irrelevant difference on a high level one.

Rather, by giving more 0th-level slots but not tying them to the ability score, it gives characters with lower scores (including most low-level characters) more spells per day than they would otherwise get. Sure, it means your 20th level, 40 INT wizard has two less cantrips per day, but would you really want your 1st level character to lose a third of their starting spells for that? :smallconfused:

That's so counter-intuitive that not only am I having difficulty following your train of thought fully, but I'm reminded of the kinds of rationales that have been given by the designers, so I can almost believe they might have been thinking along those lines. :smalleek:


Pathfinder concluded it's perfectly fine to give spellcasters infinite 0 level spellcasting. It's been a great help for my Sorcerer.

Except if such had been the case, the carry-over would likely have meant that you could have more cantrips you could have at-will at the same time for a higher score.


They also made sure there's no game-breaking. There is no Cure Minor Wounds spell, so clerics don't have infinite healing.

If I could actually believe they gave it any amount of thought, I might almost believe that.


For class abilities or feats that have you expend spell slots to do something, it is explicitly mentioned you can't use 0 level spells for it.

Where's that passage featured?

[Psyren]

Pathfinder style cantrips are an entirely different topic. They are still a minor power bump. At will detect magic makes for great scouting since it pierces doors, and there are likewise a dozen other tricks you can pull even with cure minor wounds removed. Sure a 375 gp wand could replace most of them but that's still something at low levels. Though they don't replace a constantly up, nothing-with-good-treasure-can-hide-from-me-muahahahah detect magic.

*shrug*
I really don't see the problem. Detect Magic is one of those things that benefits the entire party, and using it in combat eats up to 3 rounds.

Although the math rationale sounds pretty plausible to me.

[Rubik]

There was a psionic version somewhere (homebrew) where you just had to expend your psionic focus to cast a 0th-level power for free. You could choose to augment it and treat it as a 1st level power if you wanted to spend pp instead.

Dunno how off-topic it is.

[navar100]

Where's that passage featured?

Whatever ability itself notes the restriction.

[Psyren]

There was a psionic version somewhere (homebrew) where you just had to expend your psionic focus to cast a 0th-level power for free. You could choose to augment it and treat it as a 1st level power if you wanted to spend pp instead.

Dunno how off-topic it is.

I think that was how they worked in 3.0.

In Pathfinder, it's the opposite - you have to maintain focus to cast them at will.

[Coidzor]

Whatever ability itself notes the restriction.

:smallconfused: I've seen several feats that reference spellcasting that did not have text that said they did not work with cantrips.

If this is supposed to be a universal thing and then it was decided to not have the general rule printed somewhere, well that was a rather bad decision on their part. Even considering the low expectations I have for the people that decided that monks are overpowered if they can have their unarmed strike damage combined with magic weapon properties.

The magus's spell combat ability makes no mention of cantrips being ineligible for use with the ability. I've included both the PF SRD and PRD versions for comparison.

Spell Combat (Ex)

At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus#TOC-Spell-Combat-Ex-)


Spell Combat (Ex): At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spellcasters/magus.html#spell-combat)

[Chronos]

That's not an ability where you expend spell slots for something; that's an ability to cast a spell.

[panaikhan]

Back when Cantrips were first introduced, our GM house-ruled that a caster could cast a number of cantrips equal to their controlling attribute BUT could only cast one cantrip per turn (10mins).

[Tenno Seremel]

I think that was how they worked in 3.0.

In Pathfinder, it's the opposite - you have to maintain focus to cast them at will.

There was a homebrew proposal to do it like that in 3.5 too. With some tweaks to talents and some new ones as well (although I liked it better when there were no different quanta costs to learn them). I think Brilliant gameologists had that on their forum, not sure about the new one, so… odt (http://ompldr.org/vY3RuZQ) | pdf (http://ompldr.org/vY3RuZg) (it's not only about talents, though).

[Tyndmyr]

Pathfinder style cantrips are an entirely different topic. They are still a minor power bump. At will detect magic makes for great scouting since it pierces doors, and there are likewise a dozen other tricks you can pull even with cure minor wounds removed. Sure a 375 gp wand could replace most of them but that's still something at low levels. Though they don't replace a constantly up, nothing-with-good-treasure-can-hide-from-me-muahahahah detect magic.

Yeah...there's a notable power bump at infinite cantrips...you can do a lot with that and some cleverness.

But an extra cantrip or two from bonus stats? No big deal at all.

[Person_Man]

My recollection is that it's a carry over from AD&D. It's like the presence of Jar Jar Binks in "Attack of the Clones." He doesn't belong there and everyone hates him, but Lucas felt compelled to throw him in anyway because he was in the last movie.

[Psyren]

If you want Talents back in 3.P, Psionics Expanded brought them back as a variant. They're pretty easy to take back into 3.5.

[Greenish]

They also made sure there's no game-breaking. There is no Cure Minor Wounds spell, so clerics don't have infinite healing.I don't see how infinite healing at 1 point per standard action would be game-breaking.


Back when Cantrips were first introduced, our GM house-ruled that a caster could cast a number of cantrips equal to their controlling attribute BUT could only cast one cantrip per turn (10mins).If you call a period of ten minutes "a turn", what do you call a turn?

[dextercorvia]

In 2e, Cantrip was a 1st level spell that would perform a variety of tasks, similiar to Prestidigitation and Mage Hand. Also, (except for divine) you didn't get bonus spells for high ability (and those were on a weird schedule). Probably they had already established the spells of level 1-9 and the ability based bonuses, when they decided to go with 0 level spells, and just tacked a few extra in there instead of redoing the whole system.

[dextercorvia]

I don't see how infinite healing at 1 point per standard action would be game-breaking.

If you call a period of ten minutes "a turn", what do you call a turn?

In 2e, a round lasted a minute, and was broken into segments (6 seconds), which theoretically represented each possible initiative (based on a d10 roll, and low was better), but once you factored in adjustments like weapons speed and casting time, they were actually shorter/a round was longer. Turn was used to represent a collection of 10 rounds. I believe action was the word that we used to represent the part of the round where you got to do stuff.

If some of my details are off, I apologize. It's been 12 years since I've played 2e.

[Psyren]

I don't see how infinite healing at 1 point per standard action would be game-breaking.

Not in combat, but it does allow parties to start every fight topped up without dedicating any resources to doing so. If CMW was infinite-use, nobody would ever skip it, even evil clerics.

[Greenish]

In 2e, a round lasted a minute, and was broken into segments (6 seconds), which theoretically represented each possible initiative (based on a d10 roll, and low was better), but once you factored in adjustments like weapons speed and casting time, they were actually shorter/a round was longer. Turn was used to represent a collection of 10 rounds. I believe action was the word that we used to represent the part of the round where you got to do stuff.

If some of my details are off, I apologize. It's been 12 years since I've played 2e.Ah, I see. So round was a part of a turn instead of the other way around.


[Edit]:
Not in combat, but it does allow parties to start every fight topped up without dedicating any resources to doing so. If CMW was infinite-use, nobody would ever skip it, even evil clerics.Yes.

[mikau013]

Not in combat, but it does allow parties to start every fight topped up without dedicating any resources to doing so. If CMW was infinite-use, nobody would ever skip it, even evil clerics.

So exactly the same as cure light wound wands from lvl ~5 on?

[Psyren]

[Edit]: Yes.

It's not precisely game-breaking, not in the grand scheme of things, but lack of it does give the party one more resource to manage throughout the adventuring day (their HP) and thus adds a little more grit and strategy to the game. The tactics a party employs knowing that they have a safety net at the end of every fight are different than those employed by a party concerned about their cleric's stamina.


So exactly the same as cure light wound wands from lvl ~5 on?

I said "without dedicating any resources" for a reason.

[Greenish]

It's not precisely game-breaking, not in the grand scheme of things, but lack of it does give the party one more resource to manage throughout the adventuring day (their HP) and thus adds a little more grit and strategy to the game. The tactics a party employs knowing that they have a safety net at the end of every fight are different than those employed by a party concerned about their cleric's stamina.The party fighter-types can actually enjoy the fact that they can keep swinging swords forever while casters can run out of spells, and the cleric doesn't have to waste her spells for patching people up after the fight. That fixes quite a bit of what people have been complaining about in low-level games.

Doesn't change anything much after level 4 or so when the party treasury has the budget for a CLW/wand.

[Lapak]

In 2e, a round lasted a minute, and was broken into segments (6 seconds), which theoretically represented each possible initiative (based on a d10 roll, and low was better), but once you factored in adjustments like weapons speed and casting time, they were actually shorter/a round was longer. Turn was used to represent a collection of 10 rounds. I believe action was the word that we used to represent the part of the round where you got to do stuff.

If some of my details are off, I apologize. It's been 12 years since I've played 2e.Essentially right. 'Segments' as such were 1e, not 2e, but rounds were still broken down that way.

Aside from being '10 rounds', the idea behind rounds/turns was in-combat vs. out-of-combat actions. Movement, searching, and related tasks were tracked in turns during out-of-combat exploration; in combat things dropped down to one-minute rounds.

[Psyren]

The party fighter-types can actually enjoy the fact that they can keep swinging swords forever while casters can run out of spells, and the cleric doesn't have to waste her spells for patching people up after the fight. That fixes quite a bit of what people have been complaining about in low-level games.

Doesn't change anything much after level 4 or so when the party treasury has the budget for a CLW/wand.

We're basically arguing preference at this point.
I'm fine with infinite healing up to half HP (reserve feats, dragon shaman etc) so that the party at least has a chance if they get jumped near the end of the day, but starting every combat bright-eyed and bushy-tailed loses a strategic element from where I'm sitting.

And I'm fine with wands. I think they're great. I just don't think they're equivalent to unlimited innate healing (unless MagicMart sends traveling salesmen along on your dungeon trips anyway.)

Let's agree to disagree. You're free to houserule infinite CMW in your games after all.

[navar100]

:smallconfused: I've seen several feats that reference spellcasting that did not have text that said they did not work with cantrips.

If this is supposed to be a universal thing and then it was decided to not have the general rule printed somewhere, well that was a rather bad decision on their part. Even considering the low expectations I have for the people that decided that monks are overpowered if they can have their unarmed strike damage combined with magic weapon properties.

The magus's spell combat ability makes no mention of cantrips being ineligible for use with the ability. I've included both the PF SRD and PRD versions for comparison.

It depends on the ability. Since spellcasters have infinite 0 level spell slots, an ability that can use 0 levels spells would have infinite uses. If an infinite use of that ability would be game-breaking, the restriction is there. A Magus can cast infinite 0 levels spells anyway so using it with his special fighting style doesn't change anything; there's no need for a restriction.

[Chronos]

Unlimited out-of-combat healing certainly makes a significant change to the game. Whether it's a change for the better or for the worse is debatable, but it's definitely significant.

Incidentally, there are other ways to get that, too. The most straightforward (as in, simple, and clearly intended to work that way) is a binder with the Buer vestige. Even there, though, it's notable that most vestiges give a mix of offensive, defensive, and utility abilities, while Buer gives almost nothing of note besides that unlimited healing, so they clearly still regarded it as significant.

[Coidzor]

It's not precisely game-breaking, not in the grand scheme of things, but lack of it does give the party one more resource to manage throughout the adventuring day (their HP) and thus adds a little more grit and strategy to the game. The tactics a party employs knowing that they have a safety net at the end of every fight are different than those employed by a party concerned about their cleric's stamina.

Yeah, isn't that part of the reason that level 1 is generally considered to be an unpleasant, boring place that establishes the 15 minute adventuring day in players' minds for long after they actually need to make use of it?


That's not an ability where you expend spell slots for something; that's an ability to cast a spell.

So in that case, what would an example of such an ability be then? As said, I haven't been able to find one yet.

[mikau013]

I said "without dedicating any resources" for a reason.

That is why I said level ~5, since wbl compensates for using consumables, the cost quickly becomes negligible

[Rubik]

I think that was how they worked in 3.0.

In Pathfinder, it's the opposite - you have to maintain focus to cast them at will.Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no such thing as psionic focus in 3.0.

[mikau013]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no such thing as psionic focus in 3.0.

There was a feat in 3.0 Psionics called psionic focus but that only increased the DC for saves against powers from a selected discipline.
Oh I mean, there was no such thing as 3.0 Psionics.

The expend psionic focus to cast cantrips was in the beta of Psionics Unleashed I believe.

[Psyren]

That is why I said level ~5, since wbl compensates for using consumables, the cost quickly becomes negligible

1) WBL is a guideline, not a contract.
2) All the money in the world won't help you when you don't yet have the chance to spend it. Porting back to town isn't easy at level 5, nor even level 7.

[avr]

In the first edition of AD&D there weren't any cantrips until they were introduced in a Dragon article or two. The cleric bonus spells for high wisdom, which is where the later bonus spells for high stats came from I think, therefore didn't include bonus cantrips/orisons. I think missing them out was just an oversight.