Pushing cantrips

[Toadkiller]

Was just pondering the next level for my character and looking at spells. Mending caught my eye as a possibility and I was thinking of its strengths and limitations. Then I had the thought- what if you could up cast it?

What if you could? What would break if you could up cast cantrips? For damaging ones maybe it’s a level (or maybe 2) to get each stage of increase.

For utility cantrips maybe it’s on a per case basis. You want to mend something larger than normal and the DM gives you a cost. “You can mend the hole in the ship, but it is going to take a third level spell slot to do it.”

I’ve been thinking about this for probably 4 whole minutes, but I don’t see a problem so far. :).

[Dork_Forge]

So you mean a 1st level character could burn a 1st level slot to cast Firebolt as a 2d10? Then using a 2nd level for tier 3, 3rd level for tier 4?

I see no problem with that, but I wouldn't make it a 1st level slot to just bump it to whatever the next tier is, the scaling gets wonky, especially with a loaded up Eldritch Blast.

[Hellpyre]

I think it's probably something that is too strongly in DM fiat territory for the utility cantrips to be something at all advisable as a general rule, but at a good table it should be fine. For cantrips, I'd say letting you upgrade tier by 1 per spell level wouldn't be too bad at first, but even if you cap out at tier-4 damage it still feels kind of wonky later on in comparison to other damage spells of those levels. Having it be static might alleviate that, but disincentivizes it pretty sharply at higher levels.

I think, then, that you should look at it as a small additional number of spells known and prepared, and figure out if that's something appropriate to give to casters in your campaign (and if non-cantrip casters or full martials also deserve a capability increase to match the small versatility bump).

[Malinthas]

My first concern is how this would work with damage Cantrips, which already scale. Would you be multiplying the multiplier?

My next thought is, why not just create an actual spell for this? Cantrips are supposed to be quick-and-dirty spells that are low-powered enough to be cast endlessly. For more dramatic/powerful effects, you need an actual, leveled spell. Compare Firebolt to Fireball, for example; or compare Acid Splash to Acid Arrow.

[SandyAndy]

I see no problem with that, but I wouldn't make it a 1st level slot to just bump it to whatever the next tier is, the scaling gets wonky, especially with a loaded up Eldritch Blast.

Can you imagine a 9th level Agonizing Blast? I think we just found a way to work modern artillery into a fantasy setting.

[Asisreo1]

This post reminds me that you can actually cast Cure Wounds on an object as a means to repair it with a but of setup.

Objects have HP so targeting it with restoration magic will refills its HP. The problem is that no healing magic can target anything other than creatures.

To solve this, cast Nystul's Magic Aura and have spells treat objects as basically any creature type except undead and constructs.

This means Cure Wounds will treat the object as a creature and will successfully restore HP to the object.

[Hellpyre]

This post reminds me that you can actually cast Cure Wounds on an object as a means to repair it with a but of setup.

...

To solve this, cast Nystul's Magic Aura and have spells treat objects as basically any creature type except undead and constructs.


I assume you're referring to using the 'Mask' option here? While that's very clearly not RAI, it is also pretty arguably not even RAW.


Mask
You change the way the target appears to spells and magical effects that detect creature types, such as a paladin’s Divine Sense or the trigger of a sym bol spell. You choose a creature type and other spells and magical effects treat the target as if it were a creature of that type or of that alignment.

If you take the second bolded statement as being uninfluenced by the first, you can try and argue that all spells treat said object as a creature. But that really requires you to ignore the rules text in the first bolded sectiin, which clearly limits the effect to a subset of spells and effects that specifically determine either creature type or alignment as part of their function.

So throw a rock to trigger a Glyph of Warding? Sure, no problems there, RAW. Heal that rock? A bit more difficult to argue.

[Asisreo1]

If you take the second bolded statement as being uninfluenced by the first, you can try and argue that all spells treat said object as a creature. But that really requires you to ignore the rules text in the first bolded sectiin, which clearly limits the effect to a subset of spells and effects that specifically determine either creature type or alignment as part of their function.

So throw a rock to trigger a Glyph of Warding? Sure, no problems there, RAW. Heal that rock? A bit more difficult to argue.
It's iffy to begin with, but the crux of my argument isn't necessarily that you ignore the first part, its that the second part makes the first part redundant.

Yes, it changes the type of the object to a creature for reference of detection spells, but it also does it for all other magical effects. An example of this type of wording is the fighter's action surge BA clarification. Nothing special is actually happening due to the fighter's action surge, the mechanics are the same without the BA phrase, it's just the designers covering their bases a couple more times.

[Hellpyre]

It's iffy to begin with, but the crux of my argument isn't necessarily that you ignore the first part, its that the second part makes the first part redundant.


And I understood that to be the thrust of the argument behind it - that the second clause is independent of the first. I'm just saying that you inherently must ignore the initial clause describing what the 'Mask' option is limited to when you allow the second clause to overrule it, and that's poor rules-lawyering.

It could also be argued that the spells still fail despite trying to "treat the target as if it were a creature of that type or of that alignment" because as something that in fact is not a valid target, the spell simply fizzles.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

For utility cantrips maybe it’s on a per case basis. You want to mend something larger than normal and the DM gives you a cost. “You can mend the hole in the ship, but it is going to take a third level spell slot to do it.”

Spells in general only sometimes sort of work like that. Greater invisibility is not an upcast version of invisibility, nor is greater restoration an upcast lesser restoration, although 5e already goes much further in this direction than 3.5 did, with something like Cure Wounds now being one upcastable spell.

My first thought is that this could be a cool concept for a new class/magic system. The character has a limited and only slowly increasing number of base magical abilities but the same spell slot progression as other classes. Like one ability could be controlling/creating water. You can do the cantrip version all day, while a table shows the volume of water/amount of fog/surface area of ice/wave height/damage output for the other levels, with for some effects a plain base level needed to get any amount of it.

That's not a very useful contribution to this discussion, but it could be a cool concept.

[Hellpyre]

snip

The Spheres of Power system from Pathfinder has a 5e conversion coming out fairly soon. It functions somewhat similarly, and I'd urge you to look into it if you find the idea intriguing