A Couple of Cantrip Questions

[Segev]

In Pathfinder, cantrips got the nifty added benefit of not being expended when you cast them. Wizards get 4 of them they can choose to prepare on a given day, for most of their career (3 at level 1). It has always been possible to prepare lower-level spells in higher-level slots. If you really, positively wanted more magic missiles than you have 1st level spell slots, you can start using 2nd level spell slots for them. (Generally, if you have metamagic feats, you go ahead and apply them if you're going to do this anyway.)

It has long been accepted, so far as I know, that you can treat Cantrips like "0-level spells" in this regard, and prepare them using higher-level spell slots. (When I went looking for this rule, I couldn't find it, but I'm pretty sure it's there somewhere. Even if it isn't, I'm still pretty sure it's commonly accepted as "okay.") However, I've always, in the past, thought of this in terms of applying metamagic feats to cantrips. For example, a still silent mage hand might be prepared in a level 2 slot.

I had also always thought that this was likely not worth it, because no matter how metamagic'd up a cantrip is, it's still a cantrip, and without being able to spam it, it loses much of its appeal. You can see in that last sentence an implicit assumption I was making: that a metamagic'd cantrip would be expended the same way a normal spell of whatever level slot it fills is expended.

But today, I was contemplating how it's sometimes difficult to pick and choose just 4 cantrips to have at one's fingertips, even daily. And I thought, "I wonder if it would be worth it, maybe given, say, a Ring of Wizardry I, to sacrifice a few first level spell slots for extra cantrips on any given day." Implicit in THAT thought was that of course the raw cantrips prepared in first level slots would retain their spammability.

As soon as I consciously recognized that implicit assumption and its contradiction with my prior assumptions, I was given to wonder: Are cantrips, prepared in other than level 0 slots, spammable? Of particular note is the question as to whether metamagic applied to a cantrip so it eats a higher-level slot leaves it as a spammable cantrip.

A maximized acid orb would be a third level spell slot for a fixed 3 acid damage on a ranged touch attack at close range. Hardly impressive for a third level spell slot, but...just maybe almost worth it if you can spam it.

More interestingly, a still silent ghost sound (especially if you also have Eschew Materials, though you can probably palm the bit of fleece or lump of wax if needs be) would be far less detectable as fake without the caster waving his hands and chanting before it happens. It may actually be worth the slot if it's spammable.


So, the two primary questions are:

1) Is the cantrip's spammability part of it being a cantrip, or part of the 0-level spell slot?
2) Would it be broken if this were the case (regardless of whether it's the RAW or a house rule)?

I suppose a third question:
3) If this WERE the rule (house or as-written), what would you do with it?

[Segev]

...and I finally found some rules which might be the answer to my questions, and it's...more potent than I expected. First off, I'll just reiterate the important part from wizard cantrips (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/classes/core-classes/wizard#TOC-Cantrips):


Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Wizard under “Spells per Day.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again. A wizard can prepare a cantrip from an opposition school, but it uses up two of his available slots.

Of note is that this expressly calls them out as 0-level spells, and it says that "these spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again." This implies to me that the answer to my first question (which I should have realized when I read this before) is that, yes, the "not expended" nature is part of being a cantrip, and not part of the 0-level spell slot.

The second part comes from Preparing Wizard Spells (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/magic#TOC-Preparing-Wizard-Spells), particularly the subsection on Spell Slots:


The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels.

So this tells us that we can, in fact, prepare a cantrip (0-level spell) in a higher-level spell slot. Combined with the above, it strongly suggests that such cantrips retain their spammability.

Finally, and this is probably the most questionable part, the introductory paragraph of Metamagic Feats (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/feats/metamagic-feats) has this sentence:


Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up.

On the one hand, it says it doesn't change the level of the spell. And, additionally, it certainly doesn't say that it makes a metamagic-modified cantrip cease to be a cantrip (which is what arguably gives it the "doesn't expend the slot" property).

On the other, on the same page of the SRD is a FAQ which includes this line:


In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.

Admittedly, this is responding to a question that was asking what level Pearl of Power would be needed to reclaim a metamagic spell that had been cast. But it arguably applies in philosophy. It is definitely to your disadvantage to consider a still silent ghost sound a 2nd level spell, if it being a 2nd level spell means that you can't spam it.

But again, does this make it "not a cantrip?" Maybe a "2nd level" cantrip spell still is spammable.



Essentially, I'm looking for some discussion on this, both as to what the RAW really are saying, and to what would be more fun and balanced. Is this broken, or useful without being broken? What could be done with it? Why shouldn't it be allowed? Why should it?

[Krazzman]

I'll try to answer how I would rule it in my games.

1) It is part of the spell slot since in our games (yeah, houserules...) Metamagic actually increases the cost of the spell by 2 or more (depending on which metamagic). As thus 4 points would be used for a stilled mage hand (Still Spell: Spells Cost 4 Spell Points more, [Benefit of Still Spell]).

2) If you would recharge your Metamagiced Cantrip it would not really break anything as the scope and limit of these abilities is really small with maybe a few really minor corner cases.

3) The problem I would face: How can I even abuse this? Then ask myself WHY would I even want to abuse it? I doubt the damaging cantrips can really be abused save for things like dazing spell at the early levels where it could deny enemies. But then again you would need to get the Metamagic requirements first. I still doubt that you can really wreak havoc with it. Casting Multiple Twin Create Water spells might be good to flood something but I see no problem ruling it that way. Other opinions might differ.

[Psyren]

If it means anything to you, JJ addressed this one (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jxsv&page=4?A-little-gem-about-0-level-spells#198) back in PF's beginning days (basically saying no.) So make of that what you will.

Personally, I would say that if you're just prepping extra cantrips in your higher level slots, that it should be totally fine / not broken to retain their spammability; this already carries the disadvantage of fewer actual spell slots. If however you apply any metamagic to them, the Metamagic FAQ applies, and they are treated as expendable higher-level spells.

[Zanos]

If it means anything to you, JJ addressed this one (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jxsv&page=4?A-little-gem-about-0-level-spells#198) back in PF's beginning days (basically saying no.) So make of that what you will.
Hasn't JJ also said in the past something basically to the effect of "I am not a rules guy, and anything I say on the forums should be taken as how I play it on my home table, and not actually the rules?"

He should really earmark all of his posts with it if he's determined to weigh in on rules issues all the time.

[Psyren]

Hasn't JJ also said in the past something basically to the effect of "I am not a rules guy, and anything I say on the forums should be taken as how I play it on my home table, and not actually the rules?"

He should really earmark all of his posts with it if he's determined to weigh in on rules issues all the time.

That post was from 2009, the beginning of Pathfinder, when he was actively involved in the game's design/development. So to reiterate, make of it what you will; OP wanted a discussion so I'm providing data.

EDIT: Also Mark Seifter, who IS a "rules guy," had this to say about JJ's role. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tn4c?James-Jacobs-Rulings#16) More data. Ultimately the GM has to make a decision, that is one of the points of having one after all.

[Segev]

If it means anything to you, JJ addressed this one (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jxsv&page=4?A-little-gem-about-0-level-spells#198) back in PF's beginning days (basically saying no.) So make of that what you will.

Personally, I would say that if you're just prepping extra cantrips in your higher level slots, that it should be totally fine / not broken to retain their spammability; this already carries the disadvantage of fewer actual spell slots. If however you apply any metamagic to them, the Metamagic FAQ applies, and they are treated as expendable higher-level spells.


Hasn't JJ also said in the past something basically to the effect of "I am not a rules guy, and anything I say on the forums should be taken as how I play it on my home table, and not actually the rules?"

Still a valid point to raise, since I'm guessing he's either on the design team or somehow close to those who write the rules. Obviously, he's not dictating the RAW, but it's an informative opinion.

I agree that the metamagic FAQ seems to be against doing it with metamagic, though I'll point out that the question it was answering was rather narrow. But the answer does say "in general," so arguably it's meant to reach beyond that question to any level-based metamagic incident.

I'm still not 100% convinced that a 2nd-level cantrip ceases to be a cantrip, but argument is strong if one goes back to "Cantrips" in the wizard class entry where it says "Cantrips, or 0-level spells." Which can be read to mean "if it is not a 0-level spell, it is not a cantrip."

Edit: Also, the question is about spell slots. Specifically, "At what spell level does a spell modified by a metamagic feat count for purposes of concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power?"

The only one that's ambiguous on whether it's about the slot itself (rather than the spell level occupying the slot) is concentration DCs. This does lend some credence back to "no, it screws you on cantrip properties, too." /edit


RAW discussions aside, would it be broken to allow metamagic-improved cantrips to be spammed?

A slight detour consideration is what the answer to this question would mean for spontaneous casters. Right now, I believe the assumption (and probably the RAW) is that a metamagic-enhanced cantrip cast by a sorcerer consumes a higher-level spell slot, rather than saying "it's a cantrip, so it consumes nothing." The alternate way to read it that would be consistent with "Wizards can spam metamagic'd cantrips if they prepare them in a higher-level slot" would be that sorcerers can spam metamagic'd cantrips if they have a slot available of the appropriate (or higher) level. They won't expend the slot, but if they lack it, they can't cast it.

This would extend from the way it says that cantrips are not expended when cast. Which suggests they still need the spell slot to be cast...they just don't expend it.


Again, though, Psyren's probably right about the metamagic FAQ saying this doesn't work by the RAW.

[Deophaun]

When wondering if something is valid for Pathfinder, I ask two questions: A) Is it an unintended interaction of the rules and B) Is it fun? If the answer to both of those is "yes," it's been errata-ed out somewhere.

[Psyren]

RAW discussions aside, would it be broken to allow metamagic-improved cantrips to be spammed?


My problem with this is that it constrains metamagic design by introducing an issue that Dreamscarred Press has artfully coined the "Bag of Kittens problem." (http://dreamscarred.com/the-bag-of-kittens-and-you/) Namely that, if a resource is multitudinous / spammable, it increases the chances that some unforeseen interaction makes it unbalanced and that lengthens your playtest time at a minimum. Even if this would be totally fine with the existing cantrips and metamagic (which I haven't even dived into myself), it means that any future metamagic would need to be designed with this potential in mind. Imagine for instance combining this with something like Fell Drain - Pathfinder doesn't have this specific problem for multiple reasons, but in 3.5, infinite cantrips would mean that even an apprentice wizard can cause an extinction-level event in the GM's campaign quite trivially.

That's an extreme example of course but you get the idea; Cantrips by themselves are already balanced with spammability in mind. Metamagic feats are not, and even without Fell Drain making the planet uninhabitable, you could still end up with interactions that trivialize multiple encounters or opponents.

[Zanos]

Well, assuming they are spammable, what's the worst we can do? I always find worst case scenario analysis to be somewhat useful.

[Krazzman]

Well, assuming they are spammable, what's the worst we can do? I always find worst case scenario analysis to be somewhat useful.

That's exactly what I would like to see too. I just see a magus spamming his Spellstrike'd sword at someone and having a chance at dazing him 1/turn. But I don't know anything about Metamagic as the last Caster I played past level 6 was a sorcerer focused on crafting...

[Segev]

One additional thought to chew on: What if the metamagic you apply is +0 levels? e.g. Invisible Spell (which may not exist in PF, but you get the idea).

[Segev]

Okay, here are the most interesting/powerful things I can think of and find in the SRD. Note that at least a couple are only even potentially powerful if a later book produces cantrips that do not yet, to my knowledge, exist:

Enlarge Spell in general could be fun. 1st level spell slot to have a 2x range mage hand or acid splash. Not really broken though.

Reach Spell (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/feats/metamagic-feats/reach-spell-metamagic) is similarly fun, for the same reasons. Still doesn't seem all that broken.

If you could find a [fear]-descriptor-bearing cantrip, Scarring Spell (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/feats/metamagic-feats/scarring-spell-metamagic) might be breakable. In a first level slot, it would let you spam a fear cantrip until you got a failed save, and then inflict -2 to future emotion/fear effects you cast at the target for the next 24 hours.

Disruptive acid splash (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/feats/metamagic-feats/disruptive-spell-metamagic): 1st level slot, 1d3 acid damage, DC [10+int mod+(disrupted spell level)] Concentration on any spell cast in the next round, lest it fail.

Snuffing acid
splash (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/feats/metamagic-feats/snuffing-spell-metamagic): If you're really worried about taking out targets' light sources, this would let you dispel magic any of them he has without having to spend a spell slot on it. Not sure this is worth the third level spell slot, though.

Solar light (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/feats/metamagic-feats/solar-spell-metamagic): A first level spell slot to spam rocks that Dazzle anybody in their light radius, with no save. Okay, this is actually abusable.

Of course, this one's also abusable with continual flame. 4th level spell slot, but permanent Dazzling item.

With the right set-up, threatening ghost sound (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/feats/metamagic-feats/threatening-illusion-metamagic) being spammable means you can place flankers wherever you like. It does expressly require you to give the intended victim(s) reason to believe there's an invisible creature in the area.

Eclipsed light (https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/feats/metamagic-feats/eclipsed-spell-metamagic): This is a +0 already, but would let light function as darkness. And you can choose, per the metamagic feat, whether to use it that way or not. This seems awfully powerful, and since it's +0, it's questionable what slot it WOULD burn if it were usable only once.

[Psyren]

One additional thought to chew on: What if the metamagic you apply is +0 levels? e.g. Invisible Spell (which may not exist in PF, but you get the idea).

As this would then still occupy a 0th-level slot I'd be fine with it being infinite. In fact, however you rule the intent on this interaction, +0 MM to 0th-level spells is a thing that can be done right this minute, even in PFS.

[Zanos]

Bouncing daze could be good in a 1st level slot, assuming you're fighting humanoids.