(PF) Making cantrips Vancian again

[Ozreth]

Anybody see the harm in this other than PF fans potentially pouting in the beginning? MY FLGS has asked me to run some PF but I never switched over and figure I'll try to make it as much like regular old 3.5 as possible haha. This would be my first step. Not into this change at all.

Thanks!

[Aasimar]

It's basically just so spellcasters can use spells and don't have to carry a crossbow or sling for the first few levels. Instead they can cast ray of frost or something.

Do you really think cantrips are powerful enough that you need to limit them?

[Ozreth]

Nothing to do with power/balance, I'm not that kind of gamer. It's simply for flavor. I'm a fan of resource management and a bit lower magic.

[Zaq]

It shouldn't make a huge difference in the long run, but really, it almost seems kind of petty to me. I can't really see how keeping track of cantrips would actually end up being more fun than the alternative, but if it's really that big a deal for you, I guess it wouldn't destroy game balance or anything.

Really just comes off as petty, though.

[Epsilon Rose]

I would recommend against your plan as a whole. It's dishonest and, frankly, rather rude to your players. If you don't want to run a PF game tell them that, don't say you will and then try and sneak a 3.5 game past them.

Also, I should probably point out that the base classes can be very different and if you start cutting everything PF out what you're trying to do will get real obviation real fast.

[TheOOB]

Honestly, if you're trying to change PF to be more like 3.5, you're completely missing the point. 3.5 had some good ideas, but many of it's rules were clunky and it's balance was fundamentally broken. Pathfinder is an effort to fix those problems. If you don't see a problem with 3.5, there is little reason to play PF.

Anyways, the entire point of making cantrips usable at will is to reduce resource management. There is so much stuff to keep track of in D&D already, and 0 level spells are so minor in their effect that it's not worth keeping track of them. Honestly, is there any way that casting ray of frost or read magic a dozen times per day is going to break the game? Honestly, if anything, I think the cantrips are a little weak.

[Ozreth]

Guys, I don't need to be told the merits of PF over 3.5 or why certain things are done a certain way. I've been doing this RPG thing for long enough.

I'm not missing any points.

There is nothing dishonest about it, its simply a houserule. Something that has always been important to D&D.

And TheOOB, I already stated this has nothing to do with "game breaking" stuff. So don't go there.

It was just a simple question about a small houserule. Some people have style and flavor differences. I'm a 2e and simplified 3e kinda guy. Thats the style of gaming I run best so that's what Im sticking to. Im not changing much and Itll still be Pathfinder as long as that's what book we are referring to for everything in the game.

[eggs]

It won't affect game balance, just make playing a low level caster suck that extra bit more.

[Ozreth]

It won't affect game balance, just make playing a low level caster suck that extra bit more.

That's all I figured. But we never thought playing a low level caster sucked. So we'll be good :p

[Epsilon Rose]

I take it you'll be telling you players this before character creation.

[Snowbluff]

You'll have to rebalance each one individually. Right now, alot of them are balanced around being able to use them endlessly. For example, bring back CMW to replace that stabilize cantrip.

[watchwood]

The infinite cantrips is for the first couple levels of spellcasting, when you can only cast a grand total of a couple of spells per day. The effects of cantrips are minor enough that it's really not a big deal.

While I do have a couple of specific gripes about how the conversion from pathfinder to 3.5, it's mostly in how some of the melee oriented feats things were converted. As a whole, I do consider it to be an improvement.

[Laniius]

Anybody see the harm in this other than PF fans potentially pouting in the beginning? MY FLGS has asked me to run some PF but I never switched over and figure I'll try to make it as much like regular old 3.5 as possible haha. This would be my first step. Not into this change at all.

Thanks!

My advice: Either run PF as PF, or tell your FLGS that you do not want to run PF and run 3.5 instead. Anything else is kinda... eh? I want to use the word dishonest, but that's a bit harsh.

[Techsmart]

As a player, I would be mildly annoyed by it (on the lines people were making of why not run 3.5), but by no means would it be a gamebreaker. It's also a matter of what kind of campaign you are running, and what the players expect out of it. If they expect a standard PF game, or a power-run, then players would be put off by it. If, however, both you and the players expect this to be a heavily resource-management type of game, it would be expected, possibly even wanted.
So no, I wouldn't go so far to say it's a bad idea on its own. I would just say make sure it fits into context with the rest of your houserules and DM style.

[bloodtide]

When I run Pathfinder, one of my top House Rules is no infinite zero level spells. I have never liked that change.

If you go by the pathetic base zero level spells in the rules, then it does not matter if a character casts them all day long. Then your only talking about a handful of spells that do next to nothing.

However, my game has over 100+ 0 level spells. And a lot of them while not 'powerful', can be very 'useful'. And you can run into lots of problems with infinite castings. And you run into the problem that with 100+ spells, it's hard for a single player too keep track of that many.

And it does stop the abuse from the occasional player too.

[RndmNumGen]

When I run Pathfinder, one of my top House Rules is no infinite zero level spells. I have never liked that change.

If you go by the pathetic base zero level spells in the rules, then it does not matter if a character casts them all day long. Then your only talking about a handful of spells that do next to nothing.

However, my game has over 100+ 0 level spells. And a lot of them while not 'powerful', can be very 'useful'. And you can run into lots of problems with infinite castings. And you run into the problem that with 100+ spells, it's hard for a single player too keep track of that many.

And it does stop the abuse from the occasional player too.

Interesting... so you have 100+ cantrips? Okay. Cool. But... prepared casters can still only prepare 4 Cantrips a day, while spontaneous ones can only learn up to 9(at level 20).

I mean, sure, they can use the ones they do have as much as they want, but it's not like they have an infinite reserve of all the cantrips ever.

[Dalek-K]

Hopefully the players know you are trying to run a 3.5 game and not a PF game.

It sounds like something a GM pulled on my group once... He said he would DM but then he changed all the rules to 3.5 (movements and status etc etc). Even went as far as put in the refresh mechanic from ToB for the melee types.

I like ToB and 3.5 but what I wanted to play was 4e.

Even the rule he made "you can only cast your at will spells *casting mod* times per day" made the game feel off.

If your players are ok with it then go ahead and use the 3.5 model but please for the love of the game let them know before hand and ask them if that is ok to run with. Just cause you are DM and make the rules and such doesn't mean your opinion is the only one that goes into what kind of game is going to be played.

[Fitz10019]

In addition to your Vancian Cantrips houserule, I suggest you make the non-expended cantrips feature available as a feat. It'd interesting to see if anyone will be willing to 'buy' the ability.

[edited]

[Hand_of_Vecna]

@bloodtide:100+ cantrips? I'm intrigued did you ban Prestidigitation? It's hard for me to imagine even a dozen effects that aren't already 0-level spells that are too strong for prestidigitation but weak enough to be 0's rather than 1's.

@general anti vancian crowd: With CMW and a few other spells nerfed/banned what 0-level spells are vital to low level play and make caster's not suck? Against most enemies the crossbow is going to be better than the d3 ray/splash anyway. I guess disrupt undead is kinda nice, since clerics don't instantly poof undead encounters at low levels if PF.

@Ozreth: I do think you're focusing a little too much on this if you prefer 3rd ed this is one of the least intrusive changes to you're familiar territory The combined skills are a much bigger change as is cleric's channeling energy instead of turning undead.