What if: Remove Cantrips from all classes, but Spellcasting Foci grant you Cantrips

[Arkhios]

At the core of this alternative option is that Cantrips are removed from all classes.

Instead, cantrips can be cast only if you have acquired an appropriate Spellcasting Focus. Your class determines which spellcasting foci you have proficiency with.

Spellcasting Foci are treated as weapons, except that each individual Spellcasting Focus can grant only one Cantrip which limits how often they can be used per turn. Any Spellcasting Focus you have proficiency with as determined by your class can be used to cast spells from that class as normal.

An example:

Wand of Firebolt (Arcane Spellcasting Focus for Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard):
You know the Fire Bolt cantrip, but can cast it only when using this Wand.

[Wilb]

That seems nice for a house rule and can help a lot with setting, but how would you balance things like the Warlock, cantrip enhancing class features and the Magic Initiate feat?

[DarkKnightJin]

Sounds nice, but.. no.

Cantrips aren't so inherently OP compared to a Martial hitting things more often that we need to hit em with a Nerf bat.

Cantrips are an inherent part of any caster(Paladin and Ranger excluded, for some odd reason), and their tie to the Weave. Or whatever you call it in your setting.

Let the cantrip users have their cantrips. Don't turn them into a weird kind of 'weapon' that you need a special proficiency with.

[GreyBlack]

Grod's Law.

You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.

All this does is make casting cantrips more fiddly. In fact, if anything, it increases the number of cantrips a class can know.

This mechanic may be more flavorful for certain campaigns, but as a universal mechanic, I vote no.

[BeefGood]

I like it because it gives spellcasting foci a reason to exist. Whereas currently they are mostly pointless. But....spellcasters would want more than one such focus, to be able to cast more than one cantrip. A spellcaster might end up with a quiver full of wands. Not necessarily bad, just different.

[Lombra]

Can you elaborate on why would I want to apply this to my game? What's the intent?

[Arkhios]

Grod's Law.

You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.

All this does is make casting cantrips more fiddly. In fact, if anything, it increases the number of cantrips a class can know.

This mechanic may be more flavorful for certain campaigns, but as a universal mechanic, I vote no.
Frankly, I care little what someone on the forums think what anyone should or shouldn't do (with the rules of a game). Grod or anyone else. There's nothing personal or offensive in this by the way. Just a statement of opinion.

This is, as I said, an alternative. Far from anything universal. I'm not asking for your "vote". I'm really sorry about my bitterness, but you reap what you sow. Is it forbidden now to start a discussion about a houserule that some people may or may not want to use? Last time I checked, Grod wasn't an authority on this matter or anything else. Neither are you.


Can you elaborate on why would I want to apply this to my game? What's the intent?
Basically, because:

... it gives spellcasting foci a reason to exist. Whereas currently they are mostly pointless. But....spellcasters would want more than one such focus, to be able to cast more than one cantrip. A spellcaster might end up with a quiver full of wands. Not necessarily bad, just different.

My OP was more of a draft where I intended to add content as soon as I wrap my head around it better. My intent was that characters would have more than one foci, based on how many cantrips they would have as determined by their class.

I'm still working on a solution that takes care of Warlocks and Eldritch Blast, as well as Magic Initiate. I have ideas, but I'm in the middle of something else and I'll have to wait for a while to implement them.

[Sariel Vailo]

Would they be able to switch foci instantly or would they have to become the marvels mandarin and. Have a ring foci for each cantrip.

[Arkhios]

Would they be able to switch foci instantly or would they have to become the marvels mandarin and. Have a ring foci for each cantrip.

I don't see why would they have to be able?

Normal object interaction is free once per turn, and handling a spellcasting focus (including drawing it from whatever container they were) is done as part of the action to cast a spell? As is using material components if spellcasting focus isn't used for reason or another.

[KorvinStarmast]

Have a ring foci for each cantrip. To include earrings, nose rings, nipple rings, eyebrow rings, and (private parts) rings? Depending upon the style of your campaign (some of these feel really Planescape in style) this might be cool.

Example: At first level, your sorcerer has a nose ring, an earring, and two finger rings, each with a different rune that indicates which cantrip is linked to it. Firebolt comes out of nose ring.

What's not to like? :smallbiggrin:

[Tetrasodium]

At the core of this alternative option is that Cantrips are removed from all classes.

Instead, cantrips can be cast only if you have acquired an appropriate Spellcasting Focus. Your class determines which spellcasting foci you have proficiency with.

Spellcasting Foci are treated as weapons, except that each individual Spellcasting Focus can grant only one Cantrip which limits how often they can be used per turn. Any Spellcasting Focus you have proficiency with as determined by your class can be used to cast spells from that class as normal.

An example:

Wand of Firebolt (Arcane Spellcasting Focus for Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard):
You know the Fire Bolt cantrip, but can cast it only when using this Wand.




I have two distinct things to say about this

the caster classes having those cantrips is an important part of their class. is a sorlock(or whatever) suddenly needed to pull out a wand/crossbow/whatever to cast eldritch blast it would severely limit what they could do that makes them unique. That part is bad.
I'm going to preface this saying that I run my game in the wide magic setting of eberron so these kind of minor/low powwer magic items are actively produced rather thanlost relics. I've never had a player go looking to buy one, but would probably let them order one fthrough a house cannith merchant if they tried. I frequently give out weapons with modified cantrips bound to them. The cantrips typically use a stat relevant to the weapon rather than cha/int/wis. This includes a pike with a strength using thorn whip, a crossbow with ray of frost using dex, & a crossbow with a dex based firebolt. The pike can be used as a pike or activate the cantrip, the crossbows don't fire bolts. I've also given out wands wit acid splash & who knows what other cantrips. If there were more spell attack cabtrips that fit these sort of things I'd probably do it more often, but there are not many others that would make sense without going to the oh hell no eldritch blast. Since they scale, they make great loot at any level
I balance it out to some degree by sprinkling treasure with trinkets that are single use (generally modified) spells bound to an object like a feign death reaction usable false tooth, a number of thrown objects with necrotic/piercing/slashing/etc fireball & set dc's, things like blessed bandages that heal 10-20 hp over the course of a minute or two (ie 1-2hp every round or two for duration), etc.
I've never seen any of my players play a wizard regardless of who is gm'ing & can hardly blame them givenm how charisma is the do everything multiclasser's dream sorlockadin+bard atop social domination stat

[Arkhios]

Sounds nice, but.. no.

Cantrips aren't so inherently OP compared to a Martial hitting things more often that we need to hit em with a Nerf bat.

Cantrips are an inherent part of any caster(Paladin and Ranger excluded, for some odd reason), and their tie to the Weave. Or whatever you call it in your setting.

Let the cantrip users have their cantrips. Don't turn them into a weird kind of 'weapon' that you need a special proficiency with.

Sorry for answering to these in a weird order, I'm just picking them up in order I could come up with a response first.

In all honesty, I don't think there's a nerf here. Quite the contrary, actually. No separate proficiency is required. Your Spellcasting feature already lists whether you can use a type of spellcasting focus. Granted, now that I think about it, there are some spellcasting classes that don't have available spellcasting foci listed as part of their spellcasting feature (ranger, eldritch knight, and arcane trickster come to mind), so in those cases an additional feature might be required for them. But, nothing is really taken away, only shifted to another place.

[Ganymede]

It feels like there could be a better way of making foci relevant. You could just make foci mandatory (or semi-mandatory) for spellcasting. That solves the problem with the most ease.

There's something off with the narrative visual of a spellcaster having a half dozen different foci. I don't think I've ever seen this in any property; generally, wizards and the like have one signature implement.

I like the idea of making foci more important, but I am not sure this is the way to go.

***

I like the idea of requiring spellcasters to bond with a specific focus (with a short rest, perhaps) and requiring that bound focus for all spellcasting. If they don't have their focus, they must pass a constitution save a la concentration to succeed.

[DivisibleByZero]

Spellcasting Foci are treated as weapons, except that each individual Spellcasting Focus can grant only one Cantrip which limits how often they can be used per turn.

Are you saying your players would be able to Dual Wield foci, and Attack with their weapons, to cast one cantrip as an Action and one as a Bonus?

If so, OP.
If not, no point.

[Sigreid]

It's got its ups and downs. If I'm understanding it right, the caster could carry enough foci to essentially have all of their class cantrips, but would have the ability to be disarmed and imprisoned as if you remove their foci they would not be able to cast their cantrips?

[Laserlight]

Assuming I have grokked your proposal:
Problem 1: when disarmed, martial can pick up weapons from any peasant hut and be back in business, while casters are basically useless until they gather cash and find a magic shop.
Problem 2: Stowing one wand and drawing another is two item interactions, which both "two more than it costs now" and "one more than they get per turn", raising havoc with the action economy.

If I wanted to make foci more relevant, I might require a stat roll (DC as some function of the spell level) to cast successfully if you don't have your focus. Even then, the concept of cantrips is that they're easy enough (and limited in power enough) to be free.

As an aesthetic matter, I dislike the idea of spreading your attention among multiple foci. It seems antithetical to the meaning of "focus". I can see Oldguy the Wizard saying "This is my mage's wand" but I have a hard time with him adding "And here's another one, and that one over by the reading lamp, and those in the umbrella stand, and I have a few upstairs." YMMV. If your casters are all cat ladies who have bags of knitting and half a dozen wands stuck through balls of wool and half-finished shawls, then go for it.

[Arkhios]

Are you saying your players would be able to Dual Wield foci, and Attack with their weapons, to cast one cantrip as an Action and one as a Bonus?

If so, OP.
If not, no point.

That's not how I meant it. Granted, I wrote the OP in a hurry and the message might be a bit misleading.

What I meant with them being treated as weapons was that they'd count as "weapons" for the purpose of various magic items normally available to weapons only, so you could find <Spellcasting Focus> +1 for example, or <Spellcasting Focus> of Vengeance (which would be Cursed, like the sword equivalent).

Magical Foci (in addition to those that already exist) would then bestow their bonuses to spells as is appropriate to their kind. (I'm AFB, but IIRC they would add their bonus to spell attack rolls and save DC's).

[JakOfAllTirades]

First rule of game design: Don't fix it if it's not broken.

[Temperjoke]

I don't really like this idea, for a couple of reasons.

1. You are adding more complications to track. With this rule, you'd have to ensure that the player has the right focus out to cast a spell, make sure they're not fudging their actions to switch foci, etc. You are making a lot more work over something that's at the low end of spell power.

2. You are adding a blanket material requirement/cost for a lot of spells that don't have such a cost. Firebolt, for example doesn't have a material cost. Now, with this requirement, a wizard may as well pull out their light crossbow to use, instead of pulling out their foci to cast Firebolt.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the ultimate goal is for adding this rule.

[Fayd]

There's something off with the narrative visual of a spellcaster having a half dozen different foci. I don't think I've ever seen this in any property; generally, wizards and the like have one signature implement.

I can think of a few:

Harry Dresden, The Dresden Files has and uses multiple spellcasting foci (force rings, shield charm, silver necklace, staff).

Gandy Dancer, The Adventure Zone: Dust was basically a curio shop of useful magical spellcasting foci.

[Arkhios]

Ok, I understand your concern regarding action economy, and possibility of being useless if disarmed and/or imprisoned.

Which does lead me to a suggestion for change. Foci won't be required to know or cast cantrips, but special foci like these could exist.

What if, in order to add your proficiency to the attack roll or save DC, you would need a focus appropriate to your class (unless the spell requires a costly material component).

[Fayd]

That would put casters who like the image of using a material component pouch at a disadvantage (unless that counted as a focus... which I guess there's no reason it couldn't).

[Temperjoke]

Ok, I understand your concern regarding action economy, and possibility of being useless if disarmed and/or imprisoned.

Which does lead me to a suggestion for change. Foci won't be required to know or cast cantrips, but special foci like these could exist.

What if, in order to add your proficiency to the attack roll or save DC, you would need a focus appropriate to your class (unless the spell requires a costly material component).

How many cantrips are there that you add your proficiency to the attack roll or save DC as it stands? Assuming you're still talking about just cantrips. But again, it still feels like you are adding extra work for the sake of adding extra work. Could an item like that exist? Sure. But I don't think it adds anything unless you are attempting to create a certain feel to spellcasters in your game.

Now, on the other hand, if you wanted to use this item-based cantrip idea to give cantrips to non-spellcasting classes, that sounds like an interesting idea. An attuned ring that grants the wearer the potential to cast 4 or 5 cantrips, or disposable magic items that let non-spellcasters cast a cantrip or two before they're worthless could add a lot of flavor to a campaign.

[DivisibleByZero]

That's not how I meant it. Granted, I wrote the OP in a hurry and the message might be a bit misleading.

What I meant with them being treated as weapons was that they'd count as "weapons" for the purpose of various magic items normally available to weapons only, so you could find <Spellcasting Focus> +1 for example, or <Spellcasting Focus> of Vengeance (which would be Cursed, like the sword equivalent).

Magical Foci (in addition to those that already exist) would then bestow their bonuses to spells as is appropriate to their kind. (I'm AFB, but IIRC they would add their bonus to spell attack rolls and save DC's).

Ok, so why not just add those magical foci, and one of their features is that they grant the ability to cast the cantrip in addition to their other stuff.
Leave cantrips as is, beyond that.

Edit:
I now see that you've come to the same road.

[Mellack]

It seems to me that this adds a bunch of fiddling around switching foci and such for very little benefit. I think it detracts much more than adds to the game. It also messes strongly with the idea of divine casters. They tend to focus everything through the symbol of their faith. Having to keep switching out items would make them seem a lot more like technique than faith based, IMO.

[Lombra]

I don't think this is a good way to make focuses (and not foci, which means "fires" (plural of fire) in latin) unique, you already have magic staves and wands that can serve as focuses with special properties.

What I woud do is give a quirk to each type of focus, for example: (random properties)

Staves increase AoEs by 5 ft
Wands allow you to reroll a damage die of a spell
Crystals increase the duration of a spell by one minute

Druidic focuses and spellbooks do something else, and casting without focuses should have a quirk too.

Minor things that add just a bit of functionality and flavour

[Joe the Rat]

If you're still considering cantrip sticks, then Magic Initiate gives you proficiency with two cantrip foci. This is sort of a direction suggested in one of the "How to Eberron" dev rambles. Don't ask me which one - they all sort of turn into quacking ducks in my head. A different angle is that MI gives you proficiency in the chosen class cantrip foci... and a 1st level spell 1/day.

Overall, it's an interesting lateralization, and one that moves you back towards the wand bandoleer wizard aesthetic.

Some other thoughts:

This adds M to every cantrip - even the nominally verbal only such as vicious mockery. So do we need to have them in hand, or just on? This might make wearable foci - on hand but not in hand - a necessary point. I'm a proponent of ring/bracelet/circulet/amulet foci in general.
Booming Blade?
A parallel concept: specific foci for specific types of spells. You need a special focus by school, or by spell family, or by some conceptual bracketing. Your Firewand lets you cast all of your fire-based spells, and comes with 1+ fire cantrips (or allows casting of said cantrips).
I think Grod's Maxim would be a better name - It's what you should do, not what must be. Plus Grod's Law sounds like Barry Allen should be coming to rescue Gorilla City any second now.

[bkwrm79]

What happens if you find a +X magic wand/staff/whatever? How does that interact with the focus required for cantrips?

What about cantrips where the whole point seems to be 'effortless minor effect' such as Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy and Druidcraft?

I think this would fit some spellcasters and settings better than others. It would be cool where it fits, but I don't think that's everywhere.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd perhaps limit it to weapon cantrips, while leaving class-based slots for utility ones, but I like the idea.

[Asmotherion]

At the core of this alternative option is that Cantrips are removed from all classes.

Instead, cantrips can be cast only if you have acquired an appropriate Spellcasting Focus. Your class determines which spellcasting foci you have proficiency with.

Spellcasting Foci are treated as weapons, except that each individual Spellcasting Focus can grant only one Cantrip which limits how often they can be used per turn. Any Spellcasting Focus you have proficiency with as determined by your class can be used to cast spells from that class as normal.

An example:

Wand of Firebolt (Arcane Spellcasting Focus for Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard):
You know the Fire Bolt cantrip, but can cast it only when using this Wand.

May I present a diferent perspective?
Cantrips as regular. Rather, they all do 1d4 default Damage. The ability to enhance them past that, comes by using a specific spellcasting focus, like you mention.

So, a level 11 Wizard would do 1d4 fire damage with his regular Firebolt, but 3d10 with a Wand of Firebolt.

The Warlock (Whose one of the bigest Pilar-Concepts is Eldritch Blast) needs no such focus for 1 ray of Eldritch Blast, but can't cast more than 1 without a Focus.

How does that sound? This way, an unarmed mage (who is also out of spell slots) has some "limited" magical ability, but benefits a lot more by having access to an Arcane Focus like a Wand, and would generally not want to be Unarmed in combat.

[Ganymede]

Ok, here's a thing...

Divide cantrips into Orisons and Cantrips.

Orisons are non-offensive cantrips. Every spellcaster gains access to Prestidigitation/Druidcraft/Thaumaturgy, as appropriate, as well as one more from their list.

Cantrips are offensive. Depending on whether your focus is a weapon (dagger/staff/sickle) or a non-weapon (wand/crystal/orb), you can do a short-range or a long-range magical attack. The damage type is as appropriate for your class.

[CantigThimble]

I'd perhaps limit it to weapon cantrips, while leaving class-based slots for utility ones, but I like the idea.

It strikes me as kind of funny that several people invoked your rule against this idea and then you endorse it. Just goes to show how trigger-happy people tend to be with invoking rules & fallacies sometimes.

I think if I were to implement this rule, I would remove one or two cantrips known from each class and add the foci for attack cantrips. Noncombat cantrips need to be learned innately, and you have the option to learn combat cantrips innately as well if you really want to be sure you aren't 'disarmed' so to speak, but it's more efficient to use the wands if you can.

[X3r4ph]

First rule of game design: Don't fix it if it's not broken.

First rule of game design: there is no game design!

*snicker*

But seriously. This statement kills innovation. Just no.

[X3r4ph]

Also. I like the idea. I am gonna try something simular.

All focus let's you cast a cantrip. A holy symbol might let you cast guidance, a wand for firebolt, etc.
Buy they also change the damage type of your spell. So, if you use a wand to cast Spirit Guardians it will deal fire damage. Etc.
I would not recommend anybody doing this if they dont create their own monsters.

[strangebloke]

I like the idea of magical foci that boost cantrips. I like to give my players customized items so I could see statting out a magical item like the following:

Dragontalon Boomstick:
If you cast firebolt using this arcane focus and your target is within five feet, you can make the attack with advantage, pushing the target back 5 feet on a hit.

Just to give a bit more 'oomph' to a signature cantrip.

[Arkhios]

First rule of game design: Don't fix it if it's not broken.
This statement kills innovation. Just no.

Thank you for putting into words what I was about to say as well. As it is, I *study* game development. I'd argue that I know what I'm doing, just posting here to see if something needs to be revised.(definition of development: the process of developing or being developed; synonyms: evolution, growth, expansion, progress).

It's not that if something was broken and needing a fix. If I thought of this as a fix I would've said so. But I didn't. I don't think cantrips as is are broken. Not at all. As I said, this is an *alternative option*. Not an universal *fix* or *mandatory* replacement.

I must admit that I like the ideas of:

Offensive vs Non-offensive divide as Cantrips vs Orisons, respectively.
Offensive Cantrips deal only 1d4 without Foci, and using Foci improve them to what they normally are.
Foci can alter the damage type of cantrips and spells. Maybe the range of cantrips as well.
Foci affect only offensive cantrips.

[T.G. Oskar]

Do note that there are "ways" to make Spellcasting Foci relevant. The Wand of the War Mage is one - it's essentially a spellcasting focus that increases the to-hit chances with spells by improving your weapon attack roll. There's no other similar magic item that aids, and by itself it doesn't count as a spellcasting focus, but you could rule it as such.

That said, I don't agree with the idea, if anything because it runs a bit counter with the development of cantrips. Recall that cantrips were once simple spells that had their own spell slots and didn't improve. With the advent of 4e, they figured that they could give casters cantrips that: a) could be used at-will and b) could improve with the character. This is cool, because this means casters have things to do when their spells run out, and have a combat ability somewhat in par with martial characters, who really need the boost. In a way, they become the caster's weapons; a way to replace the crossbow as the choice of a caster until level 6th or so.

Your idea pretty much radicalizes that - cantrips are the caster's weapons, therefore they must act in a way like martial character's physical weapons. Thus, they must have a physical form, one that can be disarmed or otherwise disabled in order to have the caster in a bind. In a way, it feels like a step back, as it makes casters entirely dependent on their spellcasting foci to play, even more so than before (though a spell component pouch pretty much does the same thing, so there's little need for it). There seems to be a logic behind it - if martial characters are disarmed, they lose some of their staying power; apply that to casters, and have their cantrips act as their weapons, and it makes sense in that respect.

Do note there's a reason why the Disarm action is now an optional rule component in the DMG - martial characters being disarmed heavily affect them, whereas a caster isn't as it's "always armed". Thus, the reason pretty much resolves into fluff more than anything, and fluff-wise, I feel it's not needed to handle. There is, IMO, no mechanical need to limit cantrips into spellcasting focus.

That said, it DOES add options that would be otherwise ignored. Take Magic Initiate, for example. The choice of cantrips is worthwhile because it adds options to non-casters AND casters alike. It gives casters additional cantrips to play with, while it gives non-casters a taste of magical power. There's a reason why it's a go-to choice for any character, alongside the lines of...let's say, Lucky. Spellcasting foci embedded with cantrips would be a logical step, working under the same rules - non-casters get a taste of what it means to be a caster, but as long as they hold the focus; casters get more options, with the same caveat. That also makes Magic Initiate a tad less desirable, as you don't need to spend a feat to gain cantrips to use.

Let's take this idea one step further. What if Spellcasting Foci worked the same way as 4e Implements (after all, that IS what you're aiming at - characters needed their implements to work, and you could provide improved implements to use their powers while giving them needed accuracy and damage boosts, AND something else), but under 5e restraints? That is, you can use the spellcasting focus to cast spells, but have augmented versions that offer certain benefits? Wand of the War Mage is the ur-example of this: it's a wand, so it counts as a spellcasting focus for those characters that use wands as such, but it also boosts spell attack power, AND it offers a special benefit of allowing the character to ignore half-cover when using any spell. Suddenly, that wand could be of utility! Let's say you offer an Amulet of the Healer, which works as a holy symbol for purposes of spellcasting focus, and lets you count as if you used a spell slot of one level higher for purposes of determining healing. That would be a magic item relatively uncommon, perhaps rare (but not any further), ready to enter your game table by character level 6th or higher, which offers a solid benefit while not overcoming the table. I mean, a Healing Word that heals 2d4 + spellcasting ability modifier with a 1st level spell makes the spell itself reliable, but doesn't steal the shine from a Life Cleric who can further improve the healing. See how the idea expands, fits the intention behind your rationale, brings up a nice idea from an otherwise shunned edition, without altering balance any further? In fact, it's a rather elegant solution, as it uses the game mechanics in your favor (using the benefit of higher spell slots, which is already acknowledged in-game, without taking it too far towards the broken side), so you don't need to tinker with the rules that much.

I would approve of the idea of spellcasting foci with embedded cantrips, but if they offer more options, not restrict those that already exist for an ill-defined reason. A Wand of Firebolt being absolutely required to cast a cantrip is a bad idea IMO; a Wand of Firebolt that exists to grant anyone the ability to cast Firebolt is a good idea because it offers a new option to casters and non-casters alike...and for non-casters, it might not be as OP as using a regular bow and attacking 4 times, or using a bow with SA. That said, it could be a strong roleplaying tool to create a more solid story ("you remember that time the Rogue used the Wizard's Wand of Firebolt to take down that Ice Paraelemental? I owe him/her my life; after the Wizard was paralyzed/knocked unconscious, I thought we were done for, but that little thing saved our lives! Now, if the Wizard wasn't so stingy about his Orbs of Dancing Light...")

[Arkhios]

Do note that there are "ways" to make Spellcasting Foci relevant. The Wand of the War Mage is one - it's essentially a spellcasting focus that increases the to-hit chances with spells by improving your weapon attack roll. There's no other similar magic item that aids, and by itself it doesn't count as a spellcasting focus, but you could rule it as such.

That said, I don't agree with the idea, if anything because it runs a bit counter with the development of cantrips. Recall that cantrips were once simple spells that had their own spell slots and didn't improve. With the advent of 4e, they figured that they could give casters cantrips that: a) could be used at-will and b) could improve with the character. This is cool, because this means casters have things to do when their spells run out, and have a combat ability somewhat in par with martial characters, who really need the boost. In a way, they become the caster's weapons; a way to replace the crossbow as the choice of a caster until level 6th or so.

Your idea pretty much radicalizes that - cantrips are the caster's weapons, therefore they must act in a way like martial character's physical weapons. Thus, they must have a physical form, one that can be disarmed or otherwise disabled in order to have the caster in a bind. In a way, it feels like a step back, as it makes casters entirely dependent on their spellcasting foci to play, even more so than before (though a spell component pouch pretty much does the same thing, so there's little need for it). There seems to be a logic behind it - if martial characters are disarmed, they lose some of their staying power; apply that to casters, and have their cantrips act as their weapons, and it makes sense in that respect.

Do note there's a reason why the Disarm action is now an optional rule component in the DMG - martial characters being disarmed heavily affect them, whereas a caster isn't as it's "always armed". Thus, the reason pretty much resolves into fluff more than anything, and fluff-wise, I feel it's not needed to handle. There is, IMO, no mechanical need to limit cantrips into spellcasting focus.

That said, it DOES add options that would be otherwise ignored. Take Magic Initiate, for example. The choice of cantrips is worthwhile because it adds options to non-casters AND casters alike. It gives casters additional cantrips to play with, while it gives non-casters a taste of magical power. There's a reason why it's a go-to choice for any character, alongside the lines of...let's say, Lucky. Spellcasting foci embedded with cantrips would be a logical step, working under the same rules - non-casters get a taste of what it means to be a caster, but as long as they hold the focus; casters get more options, with the same caveat. That also makes Magic Initiate a tad less desirable, as you don't need to spend a feat to gain cantrips to use.

Let's take this idea one step further. What if Spellcasting Foci worked the same way as 4e Implements (after all, that IS what you're aiming at - characters needed their implements to work, and you could provide improved implements to use their powers while giving them needed accuracy and damage boosts, AND something else), but under 5e restraints? That is, you can use the spellcasting focus to cast spells, but have augmented versions that offer certain benefits? Wand of the War Mage is the ur-example of this: it's a wand, so it counts as a spellcasting focus for those characters that use wands as such, but it also boosts spell attack power, AND it offers a special benefit of allowing the character to ignore half-cover when using any spell. Suddenly, that wand could be of utility! Let's say you offer an Amulet of the Healer, which works as a holy symbol for purposes of spellcasting focus, and lets you count as if you used a spell slot of one level higher for purposes of determining healing. That would be a magic item relatively uncommon, perhaps rare (but not any further), ready to enter your game table by character level 6th or higher, which offers a solid benefit while not overcoming the table. I mean, a Healing Word that heals 2d4 + spellcasting ability modifier with a 1st level spell makes the spell itself reliable, but doesn't steal the shine from a Life Cleric who can further improve the healing. See how the idea expands, fits the intention behind your rationale, brings up a nice idea from an otherwise shunned edition, without altering balance any further? In fact, it's a rather elegant solution, as it uses the game mechanics in your favor (using the benefit of higher spell slots, which is already acknowledged in-game, without taking it too far towards the broken side), so you don't need to tinker with the rules that much.

I would approve of the idea of spellcasting foci with embedded cantrips, but if they offer more options, not restrict those that already exist for an ill-defined reason. A Wand of Firebolt being absolutely required to cast a cantrip is a bad idea IMO; a Wand of Firebolt that exists to grant anyone the ability to cast Firebolt is a good idea because it offers a new option to casters and non-casters alike...and for non-casters, it might not be as OP as using a regular bow and attacking 4 times, or using a bow with SA. That said, it could be a strong roleplaying tool to create a more solid story ("you remember that time the Rogue used the Wizard's Wand of Firebolt to take down that Ice Paraelemental? I owe him/her my life; after the Wizard was paralyzed/knocked unconscious, I thought we were done for, but that little thing saved our lives! Now, if the Wizard wasn't so stingy about his Orbs of Dancing Light...")

That's a lot to consider. I'm currently on phone and had only a superficial glimpse on what you said, but your reasoning seems astute. I'll give it a more thorough read later. Thank you for your thoughts!

Edit: Still on phone, but not as easily distracted, I got time to give the post a proper read-through.

You know, it's funny that while I forgot to mention it, you deduced correctly that the idea stems from 4th edition's implements.

I see now that I took a bit too radical step towards them. I think I'll drop the idea of limiting cantrips to using Foci only. Instead, I will look into creating a set of common to rare magical spellcasting foci along the lines you suggested. Wands, Orbs, Holy Symbols, Rods, Staffs, etc. that each grant the user the ability to cast a cantrip from a spell list appropriate for the type of Spellcasting Focus (e.g. holy symbol grants it from a cleric's list, a staff from druid's or wizard's list, or the like) AND an additional benefit that aids spells other than that cantrip, like the way you mentioned: Casting the spell as if using a slot level higher than you did, etc.

I guess this is the direction where I was heading anyway, just couldn't put into proper words. So, thank you (all) for your guidance.

[Sigreid]

I had a think on this last night and thought what if a focus was a very personal item? The idea I thought of was yes, you need your focus to cast cantrips. You "program" your focus with the cantrips the class table showing you getting as you level up. So first level you program your focus with 3 cantrips. You can use your focus freely. If you get another caster's focus for a type of magic you can use (no wizards using the cleric's focus and vice versa) you can make a Arcana or Religion check at a DC of say 12 plus the number of cantrips on the focus to make it work. You can use someone else's focus, but it's not easy as their way of interacting with magic is slightly different than yours. This lets you acquire foci for different cantrips but keeps you from having to carry half a dozen just for your own personal cantrips.

Anyway, just a thought.

[djreynolds]

This isn't a terrible idea.

What are trying to get out of all of this?

Now I'm guessing a martial type has to switch weapons, and casters should be doing something similar?

Or attack cantrips require a wand or different focus than say minor illusion does?

[GreyBlack]

Frankly, I care little what someone on the forums think what anyone should or shouldn't do (with the rules of a game). Grod or anyone else. There's nothing personal or offensive in this by the way. Just a statement of opinion.

This is, as I said, an alternative. Far from anything universal. I'm not asking for your "vote". I'm really sorry about my bitterness, but you reap what you sow. Is it forbidden now to start a discussion about a houserule that some people may or may not want to use? Last time I checked, Grod wasn't an authority on this matter or anything else. Neither are you.


I apologize if my post sounded antagonistic or offensive; I suppose I'm simply baffled by what this is supposed to fix, if anything at all. You're free to housetule as you wish, but please be aware of the consequences.

In removing cantrips as a class specific product and instead tying it to wealth, (which is essentially what is happening), you also wind up killing the uniqueness of multiple classes. Warlock obviously comes to mind, as many builds rely on their ability to enhance a specific cantrip, but even something like an evocation wizard is affected.

In addition, it really muddles mechanics as a storytelling tool. If these wands are available for purchase, then why wouldn't even a level 0 commoner save his money to buy a foci/wand of druidcraft? That takes the magic and makes it mundane to my mind in a system and setting where magic is supposed to be rare. In a high magic campaign, this could be overlooked somewhat, but it also, at least to my mind, destroys some of the fantasy involved in the setting.

If anyone can cast cantrips, then why are the PC's special?