I miss cantrips running out after use. How can I fix this?

[Ozreth]

Hi all. As somebody used to playing 2e and 3e I am very much used to spellcasters being able to run out of spells, even cantrips. The idea of wizards being able to endlessly shoot fire just doesn't sit right with me. Has anybody house ruled back to how it used to be with an ability to keep some semblance of balance?

Thanks :)

[Demonic Spoon]

Hi all. As somebody used to playing 2e and 3e I am very much used to spellcasters being able to run out of spells, even cantrips. The idea of wizards being able to endlessly shoot fire just doesn't sit right with me. Has anybody house ruled back to how it used to be with an ability to keep some semblance of balance?

Thanks :)

How many uses per day would be acceptable to you?

The game is balanced around the idea of casters being able to use damage cantrips as a fall-back to conserve spell usage.

You could potentially give them a fairly large number of uses, rechargable upon short rest. They should be numerous enough that for normal use a wizard won't run out, but limited enough that the mage couldn't shoot fire bolts into the sky for ****s and giggles and not be worried.

[Ozreth]

How many uses per day would be acceptable to you?

The game is balanced around the idea of casters being able to use damage cantrips as a fall-back to conserve spell usage.

You could potentially give them a fairly large number of uses, rechargable upon short rest. They should be numerous enough that for normal use a wizard won't run out, but limited enough that the mage couldn't shoot fire bolts into the sky for ****s and giggles and not be worried.

Hm yeah maybe I'll just give them a large amount of uses since they are easier spells to cast. I always just kinda like the Gandalf image where they wizard can cast REALLY powerful spells, but can also get weak and have to resort to their wit and quarterstaff :p

[Susano-wo]

I would just like to point out that Gandalf is a way stronger than a wizard in physical combat, skillfully wielding a sword. He doesn't so much as run out of spells as he gets weary over too much exertion. (some kind of fort save if cast too much mechanic might satisfy what you are going for

[Abithrios]

Hi all. As somebody used to playing 2e and 3e I am very much used to spellcasters being able to run out of spells, even cantrips. The idea of wizards being able to endlessly shoot fire just doesn't sit right with me. Has anybody house ruled back to how it used to be with an ability to keep some semblance of balance?

Thanks :)

One thing to keep in mind is that wizards have far fewer 1+ level spells than they used to. Without unlimited cantrips, low level wizards will spend an even larger fraction of their time not wizarding than in 3.5. Alternatively, they might decide that two encounters per day is their maximum. Really, unlimited cantrips mostly just gives them something they can do all day that better matches the theme of the class than plinking away with a crossbow.

Cantrips are also some of the only spells that scale with the level of the character. This scaling is important for game balance, because it means that cantrips actually remain a viable option in combat. Note that most casters will still not keep up with fighters in terms of damage per round with cantrips, but they have other options.

Personally, I prefer 3.5 overall, but unlimited cantrips combined with heavy nerfs to other parts of how spellcasting works are some of my favorite parts of 5e.

Balance-wise, if you are dead-set on nerfing cantrips, you would probably want to give some kind of all day damage source that scales with level. You may also consider rewriting or banning warlock, as they are the class that actually does competitive amounts of damage with cantrips.

To me, it makes a lot less sense that mages would rely heavily on crossbows instead of shooting fire from their fingers.

If it helps you could think of them like 3.5's reserve feats.

[Demonic Spoon]

I would just like to point out that Gandalf is a way stronger than a wizard in physical combat, skillfully wielding a sword. He doesn't so much as run out of spells as he gets weary over too much exertion. (some kind of fort save if cast too much mechanic might satisfy what you are going for

Yeah, Gandalf isn't really a good example for D&D mages

[Eslin]

Hm yeah maybe I'll just give them a large amount of uses since they are easier spells to cast. I always just kinda like the Gandalf image where they wizard can cast REALLY powerful spells, but can also get weak and have to resort to their wit and quarterstaff :p

If you do, find some other way for them to regularly contribute. And don't limit warlock's cantrip use, eldritch blast is their main damage method and the whole point of the warlock class has always been that they can keep doing it continuously.

[Slipperychicken]

I find the unlimited-use cantrips function as basically a scaling, magic-flavored crossbow surrogate. I like having magic-users being able to use magic every round instead of a sidearm.

[Jeraa]

You shouldn't get rid of the unlimited use cantrips. They let the casters do what the casters are supposed to do - cast spells. Martial characters don't run out of sword swings - casters shouldn't run out of magic either. Wizards don't shoot at things with crossbows or smack them with staffs. They burn them with fire.

[dead_but_dreaming]

Please consider a wizard with Prestidigitation, a druid with Druidcraft and a cleric with Thaumaturgy. IMHO, being able to always pull of minor magic tricks like that adds a lot of flavour to these classes. In my mind, a Druid should always be able to get flowers to open, and a wizard should always be able to create minor magical effects. Don't you agree?

[Ozreth]

Please consider a wizard with Prestidigitation, a druid with Druidcraft and a cleric with Thaumaturgy. IMHO, being able to always pull of minor magic tricks like that adds a lot of flavour to these classes. In my mind, a Druid should always be able to get flowers to open, and a wizard should always be able to create minor magical effects. Don't you agree?

That I agree with! Good call. I would keep those.

As far as being able to cast damage dealing spells all day, nah. Everybody who keeps telling me "they should be able to", sure, in your game, and thats totally cool! I get why you would want it. However, it was not like that from 1974 until 2007 and it worked out just great and wizards were still one of the most powerful classes in the game. I'm just trying to figure out a way to make up for what they would lose because it seems so wired into the game now.

[Eslin]

That I agree with! Good call. I would keep those.

As far as being able to cast damage dealing spells all day, nah. Everybody who keeps telling me "they should be able to", sure, in your game, and thats totally cool! I get why you would want it. However, it was not like that from 1974 until 2007 and it worked out just great and wizards were still one of the most powerful classes in the game. I'm just trying to figure out a way to make up for what they would lose because it seems so wired into the game now.

You'd have to give them extra higher level spell slots or extra power on their spells - if you're taking away their consistency, they need more burst power.

[Demonic Spoon]

You can't compare cantrips in 5e to cantrips in previous editions. Cantrips in 3.x, at least, were completely awful and were only tangentially useful (occasionally prestidigitation or dancing lights would do something cool). However, wizards got so many spell slots of levels 1+ that there was no reason to use a cantrip.

Cantrips are totally different in 5e - they're meant to actually be useful. Spell slots are more limited, so wizards have to have something to fall back on, and that thing is the new cantrips.
The system from prior editions, by the way, absolutely did *not* work out great. I can't speak for 2e or before, but in 3.x wizards were one of the classes that could break the game.


Now, as I mentioned above, you -can- get away with limited use cantrips in 5e. However, depending on how limited you make them, you will run a serious risk of casters in your group running out of useful actions to take. Even disregarding balance, having one of your players have to sit on his hands and not really have anything useful to contribute isn't fun. You can work around this, depending on how limited you decide the cantrips should be, but you should be aware of the risk.

[rlc]

i once played a game with a friend (not d&d) where his characters had both magic and bows and arrows. he completely forgot about the bow and arrow and when he used all of his spells, he'd say, "he doesn't have anything; i'll move him away now." it's kind of a weird example, but it still helps explain why it makes sense for magic users to always be able to use at least weak magic. simply because that's their shtick.

[MaxWilson]

You'd have to give them extra higher level spell slots or extra power on their spells - if you're taking away their consistency, they need more burst power.

You could give clerics back their bonus spells for high Wisdom, from AD&D.


However, depending on how limited you make them, you will run a serious risk of casters in your group running out of useful actions to take.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I think Dodge is always a useful action to take, even if no one seems to be currently aiming at you.

[Demonic Spoon]

You could give clerics back their bonus spells for high Wisdom, from AD&D.

This would be extremely risky, as high-level spells are balanced to be very, very limited.

[MaxWilson]

This would be extremely risky, as high-level spells are balanced to be very, very limited.

Not that risky, since Wisdom caps out at 20. http://www.ancientscrossroads.com/adnd_tools/wis_table.htm

[Shining Wrath]

It's a 4e thing. If you want cantrips to run out, give spell casters level 0 spell slots, and let them cast a cantrip with any spell slot of level 0 or higher. Remove the "improves with your level" language where found, replace with "if cast with a higher level slot" language.

[Abithrios]

That I agree with! Good call. I would keep those.

As far as being able to cast damage dealing spells all day, nah. Everybody who keeps telling me "they should be able to", sure, in your game, and thats totally cool! I get why you would want it. However, it was not like that from 1974 until 2007 and it worked out just great and wizards were still one of the most powerful classes in the game. I'm just trying to figure out a way to make up for what they would lose because it seems so wired into the game now.

5e wizards have a far lower optimization ceiling than in 3.5. Cantrips give them a higher optimization floor in 5e. Both of these are good for balance.

3.5 wizards who have already cast all their useful spells are just smart commoners, and they might as well spend the rest of the adventuring day hiding in a different room. That sounds boring.

If you want to maintain balance, make sure that your spellcasters have several useful things to do all day that are good, but not awesome at all levels. Maybe give them extra skills and make them super awesome at crossbows?

I am having a hard time thinking of suggestions because either you are either going to nerf casters in ways they do not need nerfing or you would make them masters of things that make little sense if you are keeping the published fluff. If you want to give wizards as many attacks with a crossbow as a fighter gets with a sword, that is fine, but that sounds even weirder than the current version.

[Rallicus]

I think it's pretty well established that you'd be doing the opposite of keeping "some semblance of balance" by limiting casters' cantrips. You do realize that casters have something like half the amount of spells per day than they did in 3e? And that concentration spells further limit what they can and can't cast...

All you're going to do is slow down the pace of the game, causing the caster to do a long rest after every battle because "sorry guys, I'm completely useless otherwise. Spell spots are spent!"

[Jeraa]

That I agree with! Good call. I would keep those.

As far as being able to cast damage dealing spells all day, nah. Everybody who keeps telling me "they should be able to", sure, in your game, and thats totally cool! I get why you would want it. However, it was not like that from 1974 until 2007 and it worked out just great and wizards were still one of the most powerful classes in the game. I'm just trying to figure out a way to make up for what they would lose because it seems so wired into the game now.

And for the majority of that time (pre-2000), wizards couldn't cast a spell at all if they took any amount of damage in a round. And casting Haste on the party fighter could potentially kill him (as Haste aged people and magical aging forced a System Shock roll). All classes had different XP requirements to level up, and non-humans had level caps in all but 1 class.

Just because an older system did something one way doesn't mean you need to modify the new system to work the same way. The rules were changed for a reason. When a wizards spells per day are gone, he is now basically useless in combat. Cantrips at will alleviate that.

5e cantrips are not the old-style level 0 spells. Cantrips are now spells that you have practiced so much that you can now cast them at will. Don't try to look at 5e cantrips as 3.X or previous cantrips. They are not the same thing.

[MadBear]

I'd just reinstate what others have said.

Giving Wis Mod 3.x style bonus spells, extra skills, better crossbow use, lots of cantrips, rechargeable on short rest cantrips, etc. would all help balance this.

With that said, you're recreating the wheel by trying to make it more square. Sure we can help round off the edges a bit, but why would you make worse, one of the better mechanics of wizards.

[obryn]

I think this is a bad idea, game-balance-wise. I'd also make sure you don't inadvertently nerf Warlocks and the like in the process.

But given that caution, if you really like the whole "running out of gas" deal, I'd recommend something like...

* Each time a wizard/cleric attacks with an offensive cantrip, they roll 1d6. On a 2-6, add the result to the cantrip's damage against one target. On a 1, the cantrip is expended and cannot be cast again until a (Short/Long depending on flavor) Rest is taken.

I'm just eyeballing the balance here, mind you, but it adds some "oomph" to counterbalance the downside, with a minimum of extra tracking.

[Ozreth]

It's a 4e thing. If you want cantrips to run out, give spell casters level 0 spell slots, and let them cast a cantrip with any spell slot of level 0 or higher. Remove the "improves with your level" language where found, replace with "if cast with a higher level slot" language.

This should work. Thanks! And thanks to everybody who was alright with me having my own taste and giving suggestions based one that rather than trying to explain that I'm doing it wrong :p

[Ferrin33]

This should work. Thanks! And thanks to everybody who was alright with me having my own taste and giving suggestions based one that rather than trying to explain that I'm doing it wrong :p

Keep in mind this is a massive nerf to all spellcasters with cantrips.

[Rallicus]

This should work. Thanks! And thanks to everybody who was alright with me having my own taste and giving suggestions based one that rather than trying to explain that I'm doing it wrong :p

4e and 5e aren't interchangeable. Why would anyone waste higher level spell slots for cantrips to do slightly more damage -- UGH. I don't know why I'm even bothering... you're not doing anything wrong, per se, but I think that poster above made a good analogy with the square wheel.

I still don't understand why you're so intent on making cantrips limited use. But then again, I don't understand 90% of the zany ideas that people come up to "fix" D&D (and inevitably break it even more in the process).

[VoxRationis]

You can't compare cantrips in 5e to cantrips in previous editions. Cantrips in 3.x, at least, were completely awful and were only tangentially useful (occasionally prestidigitation or dancing lights would do something cool). However, wizards got so many spell slots of levels 1+ that there was no reason to use a cantrip.


I'd disagree with that. There are a lot of useful cantrips, detect magic in particular (during that period before arcane sight becomes available/a good use for one's spell slots), and I often found myself thinking it's rather unfortunate that they're so limited. Some cantrips were completely awful. They were just best used for utility, out-of-combat functions, rather than in-encounter resources. Now, when they were combined with the 1st level spells for AD&D mages, that was awful ("Hmm... I can cast shield to not die, color spray to be useful in a fight, or detect magic to do my job as 'the guy who knows about magic'...").

[Naanomi]

If the problem is the *feel* of literally unlimited juice, just set the '0 level spell slots' as something very high and that reset after a short rest. May I recommend using the Casting Stat?

[Abithrios]

This should work. Thanks! And thanks to everybody who was alright with me having my own taste and giving suggestions based one that rather than trying to explain that I'm doing it wrong :p

I still have my concerns about your plan, but it is far from my place to tell you that you are "having fun wrong".

I am curious to know how it eventually turns out.

[Easy_Lee]

I'd just give them more spell slots and take away the damaging cantrips. That will let casters keep their utility and make them feel more like 2e and 3e (cast a few very powerful spells but only every now and then).

If you feel that makes casters too weak (and it might), let them concentrate on two spells at once after a certain level. Perhaps wizards could concentrate on one spell from their focused school and one spell from any school (many people expected WoTC to do that anyway).

I too am more familiar with how mages used to function. Most of the games that came out back then treated casters the same way. EverQuest, for example, had wizards casting a few large, powerful nukes per minute. But most of the time, they conserved their mana and waited for the right moment. It wasn't until WoW that everyone started making casters basically the same as melee in terms of feel. If you'd like to houserule away the damage-at-wills, go right ahead. But make sure your casters can cast more spells to make up for it.

[Eslin]

This should work. Thanks! And thanks to everybody who was alright with me having my own taste and giving suggestions based one that rather than trying to explain that I'm doing it wrong :p

How would that work for warlocks? They depend on cantrips for almost all of their damage.

[MeeposFire]

This should work. Thanks! And thanks to everybody who was alright with me having my own taste and giving suggestions based one that rather than trying to explain that I'm doing it wrong :p

Actually I wouldn't say that looking for limited cantrips is bad, though I would hate it myself as a player and a DM (and I am a DM from the AD&D days too), I do think you are wrong in that you have not in any meaningful way compensated the caster for losing its basic at will offense.

Now you may think "but Meepo didn't casters have crappy at wills before and relied solely on casting higher level spells directly?" and I will say that is incorrect and I will show this by first comparing what you have forced the caster to lose and what they had in previous editions.

Your suggested fix that you like is big nerf to casters in an area that they are already weak in this edition. The at will damage is already fairly low compared to other classes and this "fix" actually makes them worse at dealing damage per spell (as if that was actually possible) since it removes auto scaling on cantrips. It also makes them useless to boost. Why would you spend a 1st level slot on firebolt to make it 2d10 when many 1st level spells of the same type deal 3 dice of damage? You also further reduce the number of slots a caster has to use in a day which are already fairly close to the minimum. Think every time you use a boosted cantrip that removes a spell you could have used of a higher level this is a no win situation since cantrips are not that good especially if you have to boost them. So you have reduced their spell endurance, their at will damage, and further limited their fun utility since now we need to conserve uses for combat magic even more means you are less likely to use fun/cool magic like prestidigitation.

So with all of these negatives what has the caster gained? Nothing you have not compensated them one bit and I think it would be a mistake to give them more higher level slots because those are the things that cause problems not cantrips. Every high level gives more burst potential which is where these classes already excel and giving them more may push them too far into being overkill. You could tell your players to use simple weapons like crossbows but remember they can hit (which is a plus in this edition) but their contribution at higher levels will be minimal. So minimal that it is bad for the party and gameplay.

As for previous editions you have to consider what a mage could do in those editions and how it is different now. IN AD&D you would resort to weapon attacks when you did not use spells. You had to do this often because spell slots were very limited as were items, however weapons worked out better then than they do in 5e in the long run. The reason for this is that if you used throwing or slings you could deal respectable damage if you gave yourself a good str score and at higher levels you could do so for long periods of time with low level spells or with fairly common magic items (as common as they ever really are in AD&D anyway) and at the lower levels your damage will be similar anyway. In 3e YOu have way more spell slots earlier and you have much more access (and easier access) to items that give you spells to cast (like wands). In addition later they gave out reserve feats which allowed for essentially at will usage of supernatural magic effects. 4e of course used at will cantrips to be their base attacks.

5e without at will cantrips cannot get close to any of those editions of at will options for casters. You need to consider this when you are thinking about how to change the game. I know we all want various changes to our games but as a DM or player we need to consider the ramifications of our changes on the game as a whole.

NOW FOR WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST AS A COMPROMISE!!! (caps used to indicate that I do have a suggestion for you)

From what I think you want is that you want to see the casters grow into their power and the idea of at will cantrips bugs you but would it be a problem for a higher level caster? For example what if you limited low level casters in their use of cantrips? At those levels they are still in training so they do not have free use of thier magic yet. When they run out of magic they fall back on their weapon use which is OK because at low levels their to hit and damage fall into acceptable parameters. At character level 5 they graduate and become full on adventurers and gain access to at will cantrips (call it cantrip mastery or something) as per RAW.

This variant makes at will cantrips a goal for a caster and may make them feel like a real wizard whereas at 4th level and before they really fell like an apprentice. It gives a low level caster a reason to love their limited weapons and at higher level they are still effective with their at will cantrips.

I hope this idea strikes your fancy.

[rollingForInit]

This should work. Thanks! And thanks to everybody who was alright with me having my own taste and giving suggestions based one that rather than trying to explain that I'm doing it wrong :p

Perhaps more importantly, make sure that the people who're going to be playing spellcasters think it's fair that they're nerfed into uselessness.

[silveralen]

What do you intended to do about wizard feature that gives you constant access to lvl 1-2 spells at high levels?

Honestly, you aren't going to preserve balance doing this. If you want to, go ahead, but explain to your group that you don't feel casters should be able contribute except to a couple encounters per day. Make it quite clear you are delivering a considerable nerf to spell casting classes, one they don't really need in the current edition. Then see what your group has to say. I imagine you won't actually need real rules, most of them will probably be smart enough to not play full casters afterwards.

If you are dead set on it want some balance: double the number of lvl 1-3 slots each caster gets. Possibly boost the number of 4-5 lvl slots by 1-2 at higher levels. Which basically just means they are back to being less useful at low levels, and spending more time standing around at high levels.

Either ban warlock or leave his eldritch blast as a "use whenever" ability like it was in previous editions.

Still leaves problems with valor bards and moon druids getting the best of both worlds.

[Deadline]

This should work. Thanks! And thanks to everybody who was alright with me having my own taste and giving suggestions based one that rather than trying to explain that I'm doing it wrong :p

I'm kind of just surprised to see that someone liked the old "Well, I'm out of spells, guess I'll just have to use my crossbow ineffectually or flail away with my quarterstaff" routine. Doing that wasn't fun to me, or anyone I've ever met. It was something you did to "pay your dues" for later levels when you were throwing around phenomenal cosmic power and rendering the sword swingers pointless. The 5e wizard doesn't do that anymore, so the consistent cantrip usage makes a great deal more sense.

I just ... can't really wrap my head around calling a commoner with a crossbow a "Wizard" just because he can cast a couple of spells each day.

That said, in 5e, a Wizard who is proficient with a crossbow is pretty much just as deadly as a fighter with a crossbow, so aside from breaking theme, it's nowhere near as crippling as it used to be.

Edit: I'm glad you've found a workable solution though! I'm curious as to what you'll do to the Warlock though, given that all-day blasting magic is their thing.

[Easy_Lee]

That said, in 5e, a Wizard who is proficient with a crossbow is pretty much just as deadly as a fighter with a crossbow, so aside from breaking theme, it's nowhere near as crippling as it used to be.

Only at low levels before the fighter class features start to push him too far ahead. A single d6 + dex ain't doing much at high levels. By then, a wizard would be casting more spells, though.

That said, if a DM took away cantrips and gave no boon to make up for it, there's no way I'd play a caster prior to level 9. Wizards in certain prior editions could game the system to be exactly as powerful as they wanted to be, but in 5e the squishy mages have to be careful.

[Shining Wrath]

This should work. Thanks! And thanks to everybody who was alright with me having my own taste and giving suggestions based one that rather than trying to explain that I'm doing it wrong :p

I won't do this myself at my table, but since your mileage varies from mine, I saw this as a clean way to accomplish your goal. Everyone gets to play their own magic elf game :smallsmile:

[MaxWilson]

I'm kind of just surprised to see that someone liked the old "Well, I'm out of spells, guess I'll just have to use my crossbow ineffectually or flail away with my quarterstaff" routine. Doing that wasn't fun to me, or anyone I've ever met. It was something you did to "pay your dues" for later levels when you were throwing around phenomenal cosmic power and rendering the sword swingers pointless. The 5e wizard doesn't do that anymore, so the consistent cantrip usage makes a great deal more sense.

FWIW, I also liked wizards-with-weapons. Not quarterstaffs (getting in melee range is insane) but darts and slings were fine. And yes, it was a pretty minimal contribution compared to the fighters in melee, but that was okay because if it was a serious threat I would be doing something else, possibly including "running away". (However, be it noted that I did not and do not like Vancian magic--I was using a mana system from the Net Wizard's Handbook/Magic Is A Science variant. So wizards had flexibility in other ways.)

5E has a lot of this flavor too in my opinion--a 2d6 acid splash isn't really all that different from plinking away with a 1d4 sling bullet.

[Demonic Spoon]

Keep in mind that with bounded accuracy and scaling proficiency modifiers, wizards will in fact be able to hit things with their crossbows (even if they aren't as good as cantrips).

[Telok]

Eh, there has been a change over the last decade in what it means to be a wizard or other spellcaster. Wizards started as the smart guy who could cast some powerful spells a few times. Now it's small magics 24/7 and people complaining that the character is a useless cripple if it can't explode the scenery at will.

These characters are supposed to be intelligent, cunning, competent people. Being incapable of doing anything just because your magic rocket launcher needs to recharge for a couple hours isn't a game system problem. It's a lazy people problem.

I'll go take my old codgery ranting somewhere else for a while.

[Shining Wrath]

Eh, there has been a change over the last decade in what it means to be a wizard or other spellcaster. Wizards started as the smart guy who could cast some powerful spells a few times. Now it's small magics 24/7 and people complaining that the character is a useless cripple if it can't explode the scenery at will.

These characters are supposed to be intelligent, cunning, competent people. Being incapable of doing anything just because your magic rocket launcher needs to recharge for a couple hours isn't a game system problem. It's a lazy people problem.

I'll go take my old codgery ranting somewhere else for a while.

Shall I get off your lawn, sir? :smallbiggrin:

[Ferrin33]

Eh, there has been a change over the last decade in what it means to be a wizard or other spellcaster. Wizards started as the smart guy who could cast some powerful spells a few times. Now it's small magics 24/7 and people complaining that the character is a useless cripple if it can't explode the scenery at will.

These characters are supposed to be intelligent, cunning, competent people. Being incapable of doing anything just because your magic rocket launcher needs to recharge for a couple hours isn't a game system problem. It's a lazy people problem.

I'll go take my old codgery ranting somewhere else for a while.

Spellcasters have a lot less spells overall in this edition, they only cast their cantrips at will which are a shadow of the capabilities of martial classes.

[Easy_Lee]

Spellcasters have a lot less spells overall in this edition, they only cast their cantrips at will which are a shadow of the capabilities of martial classes.

Cept the eldritch blast one

[Ferrin33]

Cept the eldritch blast one

On a warlock which has even less spells per day.

[Easy_Lee]

On a warlock which has even less spells per day.

Yep, and a warlock without cantrips is like a rogue without a finesse weapon.

[Ferrin33]

Yep, and a warlock without cantrips is like a rogue without a finesse weapon.

Exactly, so there needs to be some compensation for the warlock I feel.

[Geoff]

The idea of wizards being able to endlessly shoot fire just doesn't sit right with me. Has anybody house ruled back to how it used to be with an ability to keep some semblance of balance? You could make cantrips into spells: you'd beef them up a bit and let them scale with slot levels instead of caster level. Some cantrips have been spells in the past, after all. Of course, with no at-will to fall back on, you'd also want casters to have proficiency in an adequate weapon or few, like crossbows, the staff, and so forth. With proficiency the same for everyone, and bounded accuracy (and DEX being an obvious secondary for some casters) you wouldn't even need to cheese up any way to apply caster stat instead of DEX (or STR).


Of course, you could just cut to the chase and play 3.5 (and ban Reserve feats) or 2e, and just avoid giving out any items that allow evoking a spell every round or have too many charges. Oh, and ban races with at-will spell-like abilities, of course.

[Sartharina]

If you force them to rely on mundane means, I think an Extra Attack at level 10 would be required for them to be functional in combat when out of spells.

[Naanomi]

Eh, there has been a change over the last decade in what it means to be a wizard or other spellcaster. Wizards started as the smart guy who could cast some powerful spells a few times. Now it's small magics 24/7 and people complaining that the character is a useless cripple if it can't explode the scenery at will.

These characters are supposed to be intelligent, cunning, competent people. Being incapable of doing anything just because your magic rocket launcher needs to recharge for a couple hours isn't a game system problem. It's a lazy people problem.

I'll go take my old codgery ranting somewhere else for a while.
As someone who spent many a game session deciding whether or not to use my single Chromatic Orb for the day and spend the rest of the day hiding (5 HP, no armor, and no Weapon Proficiencies due to Witch Kit); I don't miss the old model terribly.

[Deadline]

Eh, there has been a change over the last decade in what it means to be a wizard or other spellcaster. Wizards started as the smart guy who could cast some powerful spells a few times. Now it's small magics 24/7 and people complaining that the character is a useless cripple if it can't explode the scenery at will.

These characters are supposed to be intelligent, cunning, competent people. Being incapable of doing anything just because your magic rocket launcher needs to recharge for a couple hours isn't a game system problem. It's a lazy people problem.

I'll go take my old codgery ranting somewhere else for a while.

*sigh* Apparently my wanting to keep on theme means that I'm lazy. It's not like I'm asking for constant nuking power, I'd just like to not have to use a crossbow (y'know, shoot some magic at the enemy, even if it does less damage than a crossbow, I'd happily take it to stay on theme).

And I fail to see how shooting a crossbow bolt is a more creative thing than flinging some magic around. After all, they were called "magic users" back in the day. Not, "crossbow users." :smalltongue:

When I mentioned the word "crippled" it was clearly in reference to the mechanical ability of the character to contribute meaningfully in combat. Not that they were a "useless cripple".

I don't really think that "what it means to be a wizard" has changed (unless you are suggesting that any variation from Vancian magic is bad) - they are intelligent and studied masters of magic. Wielding powerful magics is taxing on them, and thus limited. The rules in many game systems (including past editions of D&D) have attempted to simulate the latter, to varying degrees of success. The thing is, when discussing the application of weak magic (like, say, those of cantrip level power), most fantasy sources (including novels and the like) either shy away from touching the subject, or mention that such things are barely any effort at all. This is all my opinion of course, your mileage may vary, offer void where prohibited, etc. :smallbiggrin:

[MadGrady]

If you force them to rely on mundane means, I think an Extra Attack at level 10 would be required for them to be functional in combat when out of spells.

I agree. If nerf is the name of the game (and it appears that it is, despite arguments to the contrary :smallbiggrin: ), then granting a second attack option, as well as better weapon proficiencies (perhaps martial - Longsword wielding Gandalf comes to mind) to compensate I think is required to help balance the class back out.