Spells vs Cantrips

[Schwann145]

Just lamenting, but I miss having enough spell slots to feel like a "spellcaster." Here's what I mean:

There's nothing wrong with the way 5e decided to go, giving powerful cantrips that you can spam over and over and then severely limiting the number of actual slots you gain as a different way to balance...

But I do miss the mini-game of spell preparation and knowing that I could support more than one tactic because I wouldn't run dry on slots after only a combat or two, or feeling more free to prepare fun/niche spells alongside more impactful ones to flavor out the day, or not feeling starved by "necessary" preparations like Mage Armor, etc.

Powerful, scaling, unlimited Cantrips is a powerful compensation, but it's... bland, IMO. I can only spam the same thing over and over so many times before it becomes tedious. (At least Warlocks, old and new alike, get ways to alter their spam-spell so as to combat the tedium!)

I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm curious what others think on the issue.
Less slots + strong cantrips vs. more slots + paltry cantrips.
Which is better? Why?

[SharkForce]

The problem with being able to get a huge amount of spell slots is that spells as they exist in D&D are kind of supposed to be something that you can use a limited number of times, but you get a bigger effect when you use them. In comparison, a fighter will generally be able to do their standard attack action over and over and over and it's quite effective each time, but generally doesn't have quite the same ability to do a big showy effect (Not that they have *no* "nova" ability, just that it isn't to the extent of a full spellcaster broadly speaking).

So, you get wizards who mostly rely on cantrips and then occasionally can throw out a fireball that typically does many times the total damage of a fighter even if they use all their resources (albeit spread across multiple targets).

If you give wizards a whole bunch more spell slots, the dynamic goes from having classes that can consistently do something (usually damage) effectively at a lower resource cost in a party alongside classes that have low effectiveness most of the time but can spend resources to be extremely effective when necessary, to having classes with consistent effectiveness in the same party as classes with consistent super effectiveness.

And if that's the case, anyone who isn't interested in playing a spellcaster is basically being punished with reduced ability to contribute.

In fact, in games where there is only one encounter per day, this can already happen more or less.


You could design a game around spellcasters and non-spellcasters having similar resources and similar "nova" ability, but D&D 5th edition isn't it (D&D 4e is a lot more like that, but I would point out that while there are many people who loved 4th edition, there are also many people who complained that it didn't feel like D&D to them... which is a large part of the reason why 5th edition didn't keep that part of 4th edition).

[JackPhoenix]

Full casters have too many spell slots compared to expected number of daily encounters as it is, they don't need more. And I'm saying that as someone who likes playing spellcasters when I have a chance. The only time you don't have enough spell slots is at lower level, about 1-5, and any concerns are gone at 11+.

The only situation where more spell slots would be acceptable would be if you radically re-designed the entire spellcasting system to make it more balanced.

[Theodoxus]

I made a variant feat that tried to address this issue. I removed Wizard as a class option, but granted a 1st level feat: Wizardry that allowed a Bard, Cleric, Druid, or Sorcerer to use a spellbook and learn magic like a Wizard. The stipulation was that they'd be fully Vancian, where they had to memorize specific spells into specific slots in order to cast them. The benefit was they had 50% more slots per level:



1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th


3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


6
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


6
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


6
5
3
-
-
-
-
-
-


6
5
5
-
-
-
-
-
-


6
5
5
2
-
-
-
-
-


6
5
5
3
-
-
-
-
-


6
5
5
5
2
-
-
-
-


6
5
5
5
3
-
-
-
-


6
5
5
5
3
2
-
-
-


6
5
5
5
3
2
-
-
-


6
5
5
5
3
2
2
-
-


6
5
5
5
3
2
2
-
-


6
5
5
5
3
2
2
1
-


6
5
5
5
3
2
2
1
-


6
5
5
5
3
2
2
2
1


6
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
1


6
5
5
5
5
3
2
2
2


6
5
5
5
5
3
3
2
2

[Beelzebub1111]

I really don't like infinite cantrips. It makes those early levels feel less vulnerable and like your choices matter less. Like do you save your spells for later or do you try to manage with your sling and staff for when a larger threat comes around? Oh wait, you can do a d10 damage every round with no problem, why were you even given these things?

[Sorinth]

Your ignoring the fact that your slots are now much more versatile with 5e as you no longer have to prepare spells at specific slots. I don't think it's slots vs cantrips (Excepting the Warlock) it's vancian spell preparation vs slots. And I personally don't really want to go back to vancian casting, I'd even be tempted to go less slots (Notably at higher levels), more recouping of slots through SR, and then rebalance through additional class features.

[Blatant Beast]

Your ignoring the fact that your slots are now much more versatile with 5e as you no longer have to prepare spells at specific slots........ I'd even be tempted to go less slots (Notably at higher levels), more recouping of slots through SR, and then rebalance through additional class features.

At most a spellcaster has two spell slots for 6th and 7th level spells, and those extra spell slots are gained at 19th and 20th level class level, I believe.

A full caster having less higher level spell slots, just does not seem a viable option, when we examine the actual features. A Warlock's Mystic Arcanum ability is often viewed dimly, because that ability lacks the inherent flexibility you mentioned that 5e's baseline spellcasting system has.

Reducing the number of spell slots a caster receives, would actually reduce the accuracy/efficacy of the argument you posted above.

[Sorinth]

At most a spellcaster has two spell slots for 6th and 7th level spells, and those extra spell slots are gained at 19th and 20th level class level, I believe.

A full caster having less higher level spell slots, just does not seem a viable option, when we examine the actual features. A Warlock's Mystic Arcanum ability is often viewed dimly, because that ability lacks the inherent flexibility you mentioned that 5e's baseline spellcasting system has.

Reducing the number of spell slots a caster receives, would actually reduce the accuracy/efficacy of the argument you posted above.

I meant total slots when at higher level rather then the high level slots themselves. I'd prefer cutting the total number of slots, possibly adding some additional recovery of slots with SR, but giving class features that casters could use on their turn that either don't specifically use slots or have a free use and then require slots. For example, give Draconic Sorcerers an actual breath weapon action which they might use instead of casting a spell.

[Blatant Beast]

While I can respect the design direction you desire, I think the methods you are recommending, would put an additional amount of design pressure on the game itself. Balancing base class abilities with subclass abilities is a design challenge that already is very taxing to the game.

As it stands now, someone might be willing to play a caster subclass that is underpowered compared to the subclasses' peers, knowing that there are spells that help it out.

If spell slots are reduced across the board, as you are recommending, then people will not play the weaker subclasses. If spell slots are reduced across the board, then people have less incentive to stay with a single class, and will multi-class more, which ultimately is more problematic, due to the nature of M/C-ing in general.

3e/WotC style Multi-classing, needs to go. TSR style multi-classing needs to come back. You can broadly balance TSR style M/C-ing. 3e style, (and worse the 4e style M/C feats like Fey Touched etc in TCoE), is very difficult to balance because of the fiddly elements...and subclasses.

[Witty Username]

I just don't like cantrips, they break a number of small interactions in the game. Take say a werewolf that is normally a matter of research and gearing up, or just spam cantrips and your done. Heck, I have heard a few people that Eldritch Blast being in the game has turned them off playing an archer entirely because warlock is just sorta better.

They accomplish having a consistent vibe of spellcaster, which I don't value very much.

Things I would prefer,
Cantrips having limited use, like say a set number of castings per day, or backlash effect, like if you roll a 1 on an attack roll you can't cast that cantrip for the rest of the day.
Cantrips being cut, if you want to cast spells use spells, that is what spellcasters do

[Vegan Squirrel]

See, I'd go in the opposite direction and limit spell slots more, at least above a certain level (but I'm really not a fan of high level spells). I've toyed with the idea of adding a multiple day Extended Rest beyond the normal Long Rest, and reducing the number of spell slots you can recover per Long Rest. I would also prefer to redesign spellcasters to receive higher level spells at a slower rate (with 9ths at 20 or possibly reserved for epic boons). I could be talked into allowing high level slots before high level spells known, though, as upcasting is a nice mechanic that often gets passed over for shiny new spells.

I very much enjoy cantrips, though! I would like to see more of a progression, where high level casters can pick up even more cantrips.

I could also enjoy a mechanic that allows you to cast a spell when you've already expended your slots by passing a high DC spellcasting check (with negative consequences for failure). You should always be able to try to cast your best spell; I just like the fantasy of having to recover from the exertion of casting your strongest magic.


Okay, now, understanding that I'm in a very different place than most of you. OP, how did you feel about the reserve feats in 3.5, where you gained an at-will attack so long as you kept a higher level spell slot available? Would you like a 5e that gave another spell slot per spell level (and maybe added proficiency bonus to spells prepared), but conditioned cantrips' availability on having an unexpended spell slot of 5th level or higher (or your highest level before then)? Maybe you could still cast them without a slot available, but you'd have to expend a 1st level slot to do so? There'd be room to improve cantrip casting for specific (sub)classes or through feats, of course.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

I just don't like cantrips, they break a number of small interactions in the game. Take say a werewolf that is normally a matter of research and gearing up, or just spam cantrips and your done. Heck, I have heard a few people that Eldritch Blast being in the game has turned them off playing an archer entirely because warlock is just sorta better.

Is this solely an issue with cantrips being too powerful, or is it more that other options are too weak or underdeveloped? Would you rather spells be nerfed across the board? They bring the same problem as cantrips of practically invalidating other classes in many scenarios, yet people clap and yawp whenever the wizard casts Fireball.


They accomplish having a consistent vibe of spellcaster, which I don't value very much.

Things I would prefer,
Cantrips having limited use, like say a set number of castings per day, or backlash effect, like if you roll a 1 on an attack roll you can't cast that cantrip for the rest of the day.
Cantrips being cut, if you want to cast spells use spells, that is what spellcasters do

Both of these options sound unfun to play with in the current iteration of the game. The scrawny level 1 nerd magic user forced to use his wimpy noodle arm to throw a 1d4 + 1 damage rock whenever he blows his 3 spells for the day is incongruous with the heroic, high-magic action fantasy theme of modern D&D. That feeling of uselessness is just frustrating.

[Amnestic]

Cantrips were invented to do away with the crossbow-wizard. And rightly so, it sucks to play a magic guy but fill your turns with "I cast Crossbow Bolt" because you don't want to expend a slot. I want to play a spellcaster, not discount crossbowguy.

Are they too strong as they are right now? Ehhhhh, I dunno really. Early game it definitely doesn't feel like it. Midgame it rarely feels like it - you're either expending a spell slot or typically doing less than a martial. That's fine.

If you're going to change them at all, scrap the 17th level damage boost, so they stop scaling after 11th level. This will mostly be a vibes change rather than anything actually mechanically based, but sometimes vibes are important.

[Psyren]

Less slots + strong cantrips vs. more slots + paltry cantrips.
Which is better? Why?

The former (current 5e and arguably 4e as well).

Even in 3e which was more geared towards the latter, the designers eventually realized how awful it felt for caster players to need to whip out the crossbow/sling, and created Reserve Feats as a result, later in that edition's life. Leaning into at-will design for the next two editions was a good change.

And you're neglecting all the other categories of impactful things casters get to do round-by-round, e.g. directing spells, using other class features, active racials, feats, even items. There are many options that let you be tactically useful without burning through your limited spell slots too early. And many full casters have ways to recover their spell slots too.


Full casters have too many spell slots compared to expected number of daily encounters as it is, they don't need more. And I'm saying that as someone who likes playing spellcasters when I have a chance. The only time you don't have enough spell slots is at lower level, about 1-5, and any concerns are gone at 11+.

The only situation where more spell slots would be acceptable would be if you radically re-designed the entire spellcasting system to make it more balanced.

^ This too. More spell slots, even if cantrips got weakened, would be a terrible idea. At best, the less experienced casters still run out and then end up in the arguably worse situation of being unable to contribute at all because their cantrips and weapons are both weak. At worst, the more experienced players who are already good at managing their resources now end up with a significant power increase.

[Rafaelfras]

If you're going to change them at all, scrap the 17th level damage boost, so they stop scaling after 11th level. This will mostly be a vibes change rather than anything actually mechanically based, but sometimes vibes are important.
Not needed at all.
At level 17 cantrip damage doesn't get anything near at martial damage.
IME because magic items tend to increase caster spells, (staff, wands, etc) and having a higher number of spell slots any caster besides warlocks will not be casting cantrips. Martials on the other hand already have higher damage will get way higher with magic weapons.
If cantrips didn't got that last damage boost they would not be used at all.
In my table we are at 17 and all players have itens, weapons and everything you could wait for a group of that level. Our martials do way higher damage than any cantrip could hope to get, our hexblade warlock went melee so I don't have good data on eldritch blast, but, by his account he does more as melee.
Cantrip damage is fine. It was always fine and exist so a spell caster doesn't have to spend his actions on crossbow shots or nothing between his spell casts in levels 1-7

[Amnestic]

Not needed at all

At level 17 cantrip damage doesn't get anything near at martial damage.

Don't care. Most martials don't get a damage boost at 17. Caster cantrips getting one is unneeded. Like I said, it's a vibes based decision. It doesn't matter if casters aren't getting as high standard damage at 4dX. It's "why are casters getting a damage boost to their resourceless, when martials don't?"



Cantrip damage is fine. It was always fine and exist so a spell caster doesn't have to spend his actions on crossbow shots or nothing between his spell casts in levels 1-7

Cool, 3dX/turn is going to do the job at avoiding crossbow use just as well as 4dX/turn.



If cantrips didn't got that last damage boost they would not be used at all.

Patently untrue. You'd use them when you run out of spell slots. That's what they're there for, especially at 17+ when you're drowning in slots to use.

[Mastikator]

No such thing as resourceless damage. Cantrips costs actions, so do attacks. If you don't pay with spell slots then you're paying with hit points.

[Psyren]

Don't care. Most martials don't get a damage boost at 17. Caster cantrips getting one is unneeded.

Lots of fun things are unneeded. Just because people would still use a 3dX cantrip when they have nothing better to do doesn't mean 4dX is unbalanced.

[Amnestic]

Lots of fun things are unneeded. Just because people would still use a 3dX cantrip when they have nothing better to do doesn't mean 4dX is unbalanced.
Yeah, I know. That's why I said this:

This will mostly be a vibes change rather than anything actually mechanically based, but sometimes vibes are important.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I know. That's why I said this:

Comparing cantrips to martial damage is as valid a way of checking the "vibe" as any.

[Rafaelfras]

Yeah, I know. That's why I said this:
Yes they do. +1 proficiency bonus.
As cantrips don't get attribute to damage a higher hit chance benefits martials more. So there is that.
Also lots of classes get their last subclass feature at that level usually getting damage boosts as well.
I am not going to guess why devs choose level 17 for cantrip damage boost, but it's something that don't need fixing because it isn't broken

[Amnestic]

Yes they do. +1 proficiency bonus.

...which applies to cantrips as well, yes.



Also lots of classes get their last subclass feature at that level usually getting damage boosts as well.

Two do. Rogues and monks (assuming they didn't multiclass - not a problem for cantrips though, they scale off character level). Not quite sure how that's equivalent to getting a resourceless damage boost and a 9th level spell. Other classes getting subclass stuff at other levels (well, not cleric, they get their last subclass feature at 17th too) doesn't change that. Near everyone gets a damage boost at 11th. After that it falls apart. One need look no further than EB spam getting 4 beams at 17th and Fighters having to wait 'til 20th for their fourth attack.

Another change you could look at would be to base cantrips off of class level instead of character.

You'd have to address feat+racial cantrips (I probably just wouldn't scale them at all, just like most racial features don't scale) unless you took class levels with a class that has that cantrip on its list.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just lamenting, but I miss having enough spell slots to feel like a "spellcaster." Here's what I mean Cantrips are spells, level zero. Your title is in error. Cantrips are a subset of the larger set that is Spells.


I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm curious what others think on the issue.
A spell caster needs to keep getting cantrips as they go up in level. The Hard Cap harms flexibility and customizability.

Example:
Cleric
From level 1 to level 3 ... 3, 3, 3 ... through level 3.
At level 4 through 9th we see 4
4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4,

I disagree. there should be 4 for 4 levels.

5 for five levels.

Six for six levels

And then 7 until the end.
Three through 3
Four through 7
Five through 12
Six through 18
Seven to the end.

They currently max out at 5.

Same for the other classes. Increase points at the same levels so druids would end with 6 and sorcerers would end with 8.

[JellyPooga]

Personally, I think the trick that has been missed is in viewing spell slots as a resource to be used, rather than as a spell to be cast.

With the latter, a spell slot can be used for one thing only, i.e. to cast a spell of a given level. With the former, one could, for example, expend a spell slot for the abliity to cast a spell of (level-x) at-will, or to "create effect Y". Such things could be gated behind subclasses, such as an Abjurer having an ability to expend a spell slot to create a 24hr (or until long rest) Mage Armour effect, or an Evoker expending a 3rd level slot for the ability to cast 1st lvl. Magic Missile at-will.

This, assuming it's a choice to be made when preparing or refreshing your spell slots, would then obfuscate the need for cantrips as spam-damage or effects by incorporating them into the level 1-9 spell level paradigm and giving the spellcaster the choice between greater flexibility and/or power by reserving their spell slots to use in the moment, or sacrificing versatility for reliability of always having x or y on hand by spending their slots to generate permanent or at-will features.

The facility of something similar, if not directly, to this can already be seen in the likes of Glyph of Warding, Time Stop or (in previous editions) Contingency, in which a higher level slot is used to amplify a lower level effect, by simply altering when or how the effect takes place or to who. Yes, in those cases multiple spell slots need be cast, but it does beg the question of what the value of a spell slot of level x actually is and atthe level it's available. A 1st level slot, for example, at level 17 is of much less value than at 1st or 3rd; why not introduce abilities that increae the facility of those lower level slots at a level at which they have less impact?

[Inquisitor]

First, I'd commend your table for playing enough encounters to actually make this an issue. We try, but by mid game it's tough.

Some of the new features and feats add to the number too; Fey Touched is good enough we're seeing it on a lot of characters, and Harness Divine Power is pretty common unless the CD is great or broadly applicable. Given that Arcane Recovery can't be used on high level spells the end result can be a bunch more spells.

I get the point you're making, but I wonder if some of the issue with not using 'fun/ niche" spells is the huge disparity in the power of spells in 5e. There are too many 'must haves' and newer content has more overlapping spell lists. I'm also not sure if giving characters lower powered cantrips and more spells, as they're currently described, could be balanced with lowering the power of cantrips, or would result in casting a (much) wider variety of spells.

[Beelzebub1111]

Both of these options sound unfun to play with in the current iteration of the game. The scrawny level 1 nerd magic user forced to use his wimpy noodle arm to throw a 1d4 + 1 damage rock whenever he blows his 3 spells for the day is incongruous with the heroic, high-magic action fantasy theme of modern D&D. That feeling of uselessness is just frustrating.
I would say that's the trade-off. The lows to balance the highs. Now you can't blow all your high level slots because you have scaling powerful cantrips to fall back on. The 1d4+1 damage rock is your punishment for being wasteful with your resources, just like dealing half damage to skeletons is your punishment for not diversifying your damage types as a fighter or not bringing silver for a werewolf is a punishment for not roleplaying to find out if there are werewolves.

[stoutstien]

IMO the concept of spell slots has been stretched way beyond the scope where it works and it didn't work all that well to begin with.
It's already the most difficult job for a GM to get players to the game as there characters as much as possible rather than a list of options to smash to win. then you have spell slots that *only* function in that lens.

Not only are they isolated little pockets of power that you can use to do a bunch of different stuff, inevitably they always allow those little pocket of power to be just about everything else as well (converting spell slots into a different resource or vice versa). That issue pales in comparison to banking where you're allowed to convert spell slots into something that can be perpetually carried over to the next day almost continually.



If you are going to take the time to address it you might as well go the root issue.

[Pooky the Imp]

Cantrips were invented to do away with the crossbow-wizard. And rightly so, it sucks to play a magic guy but fill your turns with "I cast Crossbow Bolt" because you don't want to expend a slot. I want to play a spellcaster, not discount crossbowguy.

This.

Playing a wizard who frequently has to shoot a crossbow or throw stones at enemies isn't a whole lot of fun.



I really don't like infinite cantrips. It makes those early levels feel less vulnerable and like your choices matter less. Like do you save your spells for later or do you try to manage with your sling and staff for when a larger threat comes around? Oh wait, you can do a d10 damage every round with no problem, why were you even given these things?

If you want wizards to rely more on their staffs (or other mundane weapons), then this would seem to be entirely at odds with both the high magic system and the general design of wizards (who basically sacrifice all combat skills to just cast spells). Granted, 5th isn't quite as bad as older editions on that front (remember when wizards had the absolute worse BAB progression?), but wizards are still starting with minimal skill in weapons, no armour/shield proficiencies, and no prospects of improving either of these with their class abilities.

To be clear, I don't mind wizards needing to rely on standard weapons. The issue is that feels very at odds with the cost-free, consequence-free, flash, bang, whoop magic system. Not to mention the vast amount of space in rulebooks taken up with all the different spells they can use.

It would seem that the staff/sling/crossbow wizard would fit better into a system where magic is a riskier prospect, rather than something that can be summoned with 0 effort and 0 chance of failure or risk. Or else when magic is just weaker and/or more subtle. Perhaps it's more suited for out-of-combat units, or it can enchant the wizard's weapons but he must still wield them himself. One would also expect wizards to have more skill with weapons if they're going to be relying on them.

[Psyren]

I would say that's the trade-off. The lows to balance the highs. Now you can't blow all your high level slots because you have scaling powerful cantrips to fall back on. The 1d4+1 damage rock is your punishment for being wasteful with your resources, just like dealing half damage to skeletons is your punishment for not diversifying your damage types as a fighter or not bringing silver for a werewolf is a punishment for not roleplaying to find out if there are werewolves.

It's a wholly unnecessary tradeoff. Being reduced to cantrip spam works just fine as an incentive to be judicious with your resources, but feels a lot better in play than throwing rocks or firing a crossbow.

Cantrips are also a lot more interesting in play. They get to deal elemental damage or carry riders that allow for a lot more tactical variety than a crossbow can manage; they can also interact with defenses and other qualities differently such as targeting saving throws, interacting with resistances/vulnerabilities, interacting with regeneration etc.

[Inquisitor]

It's a wholly unnecessary tradeoff. Being reduced to cantrip spam works just fine as an incentive to be judicious with your resources, but feels a lot better in play than throwing rocks or firing a crossbow.

Cantrips are also a lot more interesting in play. They get to deal elemental damage or carry riders that allow for a lot more tactical variety than a crossbow can manage; they can also interact with defenses and other qualities differently such as targeting saving throws, interacting with resistances/vulnerabilities, interacting with regeneration etc.

I would tend to agree with cantrips actually being more interesting than the proposed alternative. Depending on class you have a variety of cantrips with different ranges, saves, riders, damage types, etc. Say you nerfed cantrips and provided a few more low level spells; what are those going to be? Seems to me back in 2e there was a lot of magic missiles flying around; was that better?

[OldTrees1]

I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm curious what others think on the issue.
Less slots + strong cantrips vs. more slots + paltry cantrips.
Which is better? Why?

I am also in the minority but personally:
0 spell slots + more and stronger at-will magic.
I would trade away 5th level spells in exchange for Misty Step, Invisibility, and Web at-will.
Alternatively I might be willing to trade away 4th level spells in exchange for Ritual Misty Step, Invisibility, and Web.


However I think the best answer is variety and letting the players choose. Have a class that focuses on spell slots to the detriment of their at-will magic. Have another that is more balanced. Have a third that focuses on at-will magic to the detriment of or instead of their spell slots.

[Beelzebub1111]

It's a wholly unnecessary tradeoff. Being reduced to cantrip spam works just fine as an incentive to be judicious with your resources, but feels a lot better in play than throwing rocks or firing a crossbow.

Cantrips are also a lot more interesting in play. They get to deal elemental damage or carry riders that allow for a lot more tactical variety than a crossbow can manage; they can also interact with defenses and other qualities differently such as targeting saving throws, interacting with resistances/vulnerabilities, interacting with regeneration etc.
To me it seems strictly worse. Why give wizards proficiencies in weapons at all in that case? I feel like there's more strategy in using what you have well and meaningfully than just doing the thing that does the biggest numbers every round until one side falls down.

Using slings and bolts on occasion for lesser foes is balanced out by Being a Wizard in all other situations.

Yes, it doesn't feel as good to shoot a crossbow bolt or sling a rock doesn't feel as good as throwing a bolt of flame or shooting lightning from your fingertips. That's the point. It makes the highs seem higher when you do use them. it makes magic special. Taking damage doesn't feel as good as being missed, and missing doesn't feel as good as hitting. So let's have enemies always miss and players always hit. That's would feel good right?

[KorvinStarmast]

Why give wizards proficiencies in weapons at all in that case? Why indeed? :smallcool:

[Psyren]

To me it seems strictly worse. Why give wizards proficiencies in weapons at all in that case?

You mean simple weapons? They got them because everyone does. That is in no way an expectation to use them when other options exist.


Using slings and bolts on occasion for lesser foes is balanced out by Being a Wizard in all other situations.

So use slings and bolts on your wizard then, nothing is stopping you. Why do you care what the game rules allow my wizard to do?


Yes, it doesn't feel as good to shoot a crossbow bolt or sling a rock doesn't feel as good as throwing a bolt of flame or shooting lightning from your fingertips. That's the point. It makes the highs seem higher when you do use them. it makes magic special. Taking damage doesn't feel as good as being missed, and missing doesn't feel as good as hitting. So let's have enemies always miss and players always hit. That's would feel good right?

Argumentum ad absurdum avoided.

[InvisibleBison]

Yes, it doesn't feel as good to shoot a crossbow bolt or sling a rock doesn't feel as good as throwing a bolt of flame or shooting lightning from your fingertips. That's the point. It makes the highs seem higher when you do use them. it makes magic special.

For a wizard (or other full caster), using magic should be as special as using a sword is for a fighter, which is to say not special at all. A guy who usually uses a weapon but occasionally casts a spell isn't a wizard, he's an eldritch knight fighter.

[Mastikator]

To me it seems strictly worse. Why give wizards proficiencies in weapons at all in that case? I feel like there's more strategy in using what you have well and meaningfully than just doing the thing that does the biggest numbers every round until one side falls down.

Using slings and bolts on occasion for lesser foes is balanced out by Being a Wizard in all other situations.

Yes, it doesn't feel as good to shoot a crossbow bolt or sling a rock doesn't feel as good as throwing a bolt of flame or shooting lightning from your fingertips. That's the point. It makes the highs seem higher when you do use them. it makes magic special. Taking damage doesn't feel as good as being missed, and missing doesn't feel as good as hitting. So let's have enemies always miss and players always hit. That's would feel good right?

The reason it doesn't feel good to use a crossbow as a wizard is because a wizard is supposed to use magic. At levels 1-4 a light crossbow is likely to deal more damage than a firebolt yet it feels better to use firebolts as a wizard. (at level 5+ that changes, but it's not the variable in question) It's about the vibes. It's about having to resort to crude weapons when you should be using an elegant weapon for an elegant time a wand.

[Pooky the Imp]

To me it seems strictly worse. Why give wizards proficiencies in weapons at all in that case? I feel like there's more strategy in using what you have well and meaningfully than just doing the thing that does the biggest numbers every round until one side falls down.

Using slings and bolts on occasion for lesser foes is balanced out by Being a Wizard in all other situations.

Yes, it doesn't feel as good to shoot a crossbow bolt or sling a rock doesn't feel as good as throwing a bolt of flame or shooting lightning from your fingertips. That's the point. It makes the highs seem higher when you do use them. it makes magic special. Taking damage doesn't feel as good as being missed, and missing doesn't feel as good as hitting. So let's have enemies always miss and players always hit. That's would feel good right?

Might I suggest that the wizard's class features are not exactly suggestive of combat with mundane weapons.

Shall we go through them?

Spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells, spells.

Recharge spells.

Cast some spells at-will.

Gain extra uses of some spells.

Make spells easier to learn.

Minor buff to your chosen spell school.

Medium buff to your chosen spell school.

Major buff to your chosen spell school.

At what point does this class give the impression it's supposed to spending a decent amount of time fighting with mundane weapons? :smallconfused:

[Beelzebub1111]

So use slings and bolts on your wizard then, nothing is stopping you. Why do you care what the game rules allow my wizard to do?

Of course you can play your games how you want. I thought we were talkng about the health and fun of the game as a whole.

I think there's a big misunderstamding about what I am saying. I don't think wizards should wamt to ise weapons, i am sayimg they should have to. Either to be careful with resources or as punishment for not being careful. This is to balance the experience of, essentially, being the flashy show off in the big fights.

Infinite level scaling cantrips, imo, are very lame long term and lead to boring repetitive combats over the course of a long campaign.

[Amnestic]

Infinite level scaling cantrips, imo, are very lame long term and lead to boring repetitive combats over the course of a long campaign.

I am not sure how "I shoot my crossbow" is less boring and repetitive than choosing from one of a half-dozen offensive cantrips.

I can think that they botched the scaling on cantrips for one reason or another, or even that they could be implemented differently* but I don't think if your aim is to avoid 'repetitive combat' that reducing spellcasters back to filling their non-slot turns with crossbows is the solution.

*eg. instead of a class feature, they're a weapon - Staff of Firebolts, Wand of Frostbite, Orb of Thunderclap. Perhaps sorcerers would be the only ones that learned them innately, whereas all other casters need to rely on different focuses or holy symbols.

[Psyren]

I think there's a big misunderstamding about what I am saying. I don't think wizards should wamt to ise weapons, i am sayimg they should have to. Either to be careful with resources or as punishment for not being careful. This is to balance the experience of, essentially, being the flashy show off in the big fights.

You still haven't demonstrated that cantrip spam due to wasting spell slots isn't a punishment. In general, leveled spells are a better use of your action than cantrips, even after factoring in the additional cost their slots.


Of course you can play your games how you want. I thought we were talkng about the health and fun of the game as a whole.


Infinite level scaling cantrips, imo, are very lame long term and lead to boring repetitive combats over the course of a long campaign.

1) Bold is your personal preference, not "the health and fun of the game as a whole."

2) How is crossbow spam any less repetitive than cantrip spam? At least with cantrip spam you have many options to choose from instead of being stuck with the same ranged attack for the same damage type and amount.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

I would say that's the trade-off. The lows to balance the highs. Now you can't blow all your high level slots because you have scaling powerful cantrips to fall back on. The 1d4+1 damage rock is your punishment for being wasteful with your resources, just like dealing half damage to skeletons is your punishment for not diversifying your damage types as a fighter or not bringing silver for a werewolf is a punishment for not roleplaying to find out if there are werewolves.

Cantrips are most useful precisely when there isn't the opportunity for a trade-off. In the levels at which (I presume) the majority of people spend the majority of game time (levels 1 to 10), the line is quite blurred between what is a 'wasteful' or 'efficient' use of resources. There simply aren't enough spell slots at that tier of gameplay to create that distinction well enough. For instance, some 5th level cleric could plan out a whole strategy in his head, where he gets his spirit guardians up then uses the dodge every action to make the most out of it, pumping damage over time in a way that is tactically efficient and a "good" use of resources, only for him to lose concentration from a stray goblin arrow, or for his barbarian buddy to pwn the enemy with a lucky crit or two so the combat just ends.

You want to mitigate that sort of frustration. Players don't want to feel useless because the party doesn't want to short/long rest and all they have is a dinky shortsword. From a game design standpoint, that is going to kill the player experience. People don't need to play some tabletop game where they're useless half the time when they can play WoW or Baldur's Gate or read a book or anything else.

[KorvinStarmast]

The reason it doesn't feel good to use a crossbow as a wizard is because a wizard is supposed to use magic. The wizard can use magic. That's the distinction. Wizards also use their brains: active checks to perceive, help, etc are available but only a few players end up doing that. Here we go: in old school D&D, with the slightly scarce spells, you did quite a few things (like hold the torch, toss bottles of flaming oil, looked for things to notice and tell you comrades about, until that moment with committing that spell slot arrived. With magic being rare and powerful, (the combination) when the spell did go off, it really registered.

At levels 1-4 a light crossbow is likely to deal more damage than a firebolt But it won't set anything on fire. :smallcool: My first sorcerer character used a crossbow as often as he used any spell, in Tier 1. It didn't make me any less of a sorcerer.

yet it feels better to use firebolts as a wizard. Sometimes, it does. A friend once hit a fire (lava?) mephit with a ray of frost, with a crit, and he ended up doing enough damage to one shot it ... party was level 2 or 3. (Vulnerability to cold). Yes, that's an edge case, but the cool factor (pun intended) was great for the whole party.

Might I suggest that the wizard's class features are not exactly suggestive of combat with mundane weapons. Yes.
At what point does this class give the impression it's supposed to spending a decent amount of time fighting with mundane weapons? :smallconfused: Desperate times call for desperate measures, so don't burn out your spell slots early in the day. :smallsmile:

In general, leveled spells are a better use of your action than cantrips, even after factoring in the additional cost their slots. With the notable exception of EB +AB.

2) How is crossbow spam any less repetitive than cantrip spam? You eventually run out of crossbow bolt, though, whereas you can cast firebolts all day for 16 hours every 6 seconds. Not saying that anybody would, but one could. :smalleek:

[Pex]

I really don't like infinite cantrips. It makes those early levels feel less vulnerable and like your choices matter less. Like do you save your spells for later or do you try to manage with your sling and staff for when a larger threat comes around? Oh wait, you can do a d10 damage every round with no problem, why were you even given these things?

If I'm playing a spellcaster I want to be a spellcaster. I absolutely want to be casting a spell every round instead of firing off a crossbow or sling. When I want to play a warrior that's when I use a weapon.

[Schwann145]

Call me crazy, but the Wizard/Sorcerer/whomever shouldn't be expected to fall back on a crossbow or sling either (unless they personally want to).

Wands. Staves. Rods. Throwables. Active Skill checks using your brain. These are the tools of the spellcaster. Unfortunately, 5e has made them mostly suck, and impossible to create for yourself.

A cantrip is supposed to be very minor magic so small in effect that it is possible to master it to a degree that you can apply it whenever you'd like. Spells like Prestidigitation or Mending fit this perfectly.
A blasting attack that is significantly more powerful than a trained fighter swinging their favorite weapon (such as a leveled attack cantrip) doesn't fit at all, IMO.

[Mastikator]

I am not sure how "I shoot my crossbow" is less boring and repetitive than choosing from one of a half-dozen offensive cantrips.

I can think that they botched the scaling on cantrips for one reason or another, or even that they could be implemented differently* but I don't think if your aim is to avoid 'repetitive combat' that reducing spellcasters back to filling their non-slot turns with crossbows is the solution.

*eg. instead of a class feature, they're a weapon - Staff of Firebolts, Wand of Frostbite, Orb of Thunderclap. Perhaps sorcerers would be the only ones that learned them innately, whereas all other casters need to rely on different focuses or holy symbols.

Some cantrips have riders, Ray of Frost reduces speed, Chill Touch prevents healing, Thornwhip/Lightning Lure reposition enemies, Mind Sliver debuffs the next save. Those are the fun ones to use.

Those are fun to use.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes, it doesn't feel as good to shoot a crossbow bolt or sling a rock doesn't feel as good as throwing a bolt of flame or shooting lightning from your fingertips. That's the point. It makes the highs seem higher when you do use them. it makes magic special. Taking damage doesn't feel as good as being missed, and missing doesn't feel as good as hitting. So let's have enemies always miss and players always hit. That's would feel good right?

Your ridiculous hyperbole aside, magic wasn't anything special in D&D for the last ~20 years.

[Psyren]

You eventually run out of crossbow bolt, though, whereas you can cast firebolts all day for 16 hours every 6 seconds. Not saying that anybody would, but one could. :smalleek:

In theory, yes, ammunition is limited - but in practice, even when tables bother tracking arrows/bolts/bullets at all archers seldom if ever run out, so they may as well not be.


Call me crazy, but the Wizard/Sorcerer/whomever shouldn't be expected to fall back on a crossbow or sling either (unless they personally want to).

Wands. Staves. Rods. Throwables. Active Skill checks using your brain. These are the tools of the spellcaster. Unfortunately, 5e has made them mostly suck, and impossible to create for yourself.

Wands/Staves/Rods are just spellcasting foci, i.e. mundane equipment. If by "throwables" you mean stuff like alchemist's fire, that's in the equipment chapter too.
"Active skill checks using your brain" are still very much available to spellcasters.


A cantrip is supposed to be very minor magic so small in effect that it is possible to master it to a degree that you can apply it whenever you'd like. Spells like Prestidigitation or Mending fit this perfectly.
A blasting attack that is significantly more powerful than a trained fighter swinging their favorite weapon (such as a leveled attack cantrip) doesn't fit at all, IMO.

EB+AB aside, they're not. They might scale up as you level, but they take up your entire action, whereas a "trained fighter's swing" takes up less and less of theirs.

[JNAProductions]

Cantrips are generally fine.
They're more interesting (if multiple combat ones are taken) than weapon attacks, honestly. Amnestic's "Stop the Tier Four scaling" would barely affect balance, excepting the Warlock, but could help with feelings.

Also, I don't think "A master caster can, by rote, make an effect more powerful than a trained warrior's weapon swing," is a big deal. Look at Firebolt and assume a trained warrior has 14 Strength to start:

Tier One
Greatsword does 2d6+2, average of 9.
Firebolt does 1d10, average of 5.5.

Tier Two
Greatsword, assuming only bump to Strength, does 2d6+3, average of 10.
Firebolt does 2d10, average of 11.
The Firebolt is slightly better on the average, but the minimum of 5 damage on the Greatsword can be pretty helpful, depending on what you're fighting.

Tier Three
Greatsword, assuming Strength has hit 20 by now, does 2d6+5, average of 12.
Firebolt does 3d10, average of 16.5.
The cantrip has enough of a higher average to make the Greatsword feel poor in comparison. However, this is when full casters get 6th level slots. They are a REALLY POWERFUL CASTER, at this point. If you're still swinging with just one attack and no big bonuses to it... You're not keeping up with the Tier Three caster, and that's fine, because all classes that would be swinging a weapon have bonuses, extra attacks, or miscellaneous other that helps.

[Schwann145]

Wands/Staves/Rods are just spellcasting foci, i.e. mundane equipment.
I'm referring to the magic items, not the mundane foci. A "wand of magic missiles" or a "staff of fire."
However, like I said, 5e ruined these sorts of magic items by drastically weakening them.


EB+AB aside, they're not. They might scale up as you level, but they take up your entire action, whereas a "trained fighter's swing" takes up less and less of theirs.
I was speaking pound-for-pound. One cast vs one attack, not one "attack action."

[JNAProductions]

I'm referring to the magic items, not the mundane foci. A "wand of magic missiles" or a "staff of fire."
However, like I said, 5e ruined these sorts of magic items by drastically weakening them.

I was speaking pound-for-pound. One cast vs one attack, not one "attack action."

A decent warrior is doing more damage with their weapon than a caster is with a cantrip all throughout T1.
It's pretty close T2, assuming Firebolt, but that's the highest damage you're reliably getting on a usable cantrip. Poison Spray is garbage and Toll The Dead is d8 against hordes.
It's not till T3 where a cantrip is significantly better than one attack without any bonuses.

[InvisibleBison]

I was speaking pound-for-pound. One cast vs one attack, not one "attack action."

The game mechanics are just an abstraction of the actual fiction. "One attack" isn't necessarily a single swing of the sword, and "one cast" isn't necessarily a single bolt of fire (or whatever). You can't speak pound-for-pound when neither pound is actually a pound.

[Psyren]

I'm referring to the magic items, not the mundane foci. A "wand of magic missiles" or a "staff of fire."
However, like I said, 5e ruined these sorts of magic items by drastically weakening them.

I know what you meant. My point is that "the tools of the spellcaster" were shifted intentionally. Everyone gets wands like in 3.5, while simultaneously keeping the desired magic-item-light design intact.


I was speaking pound-for-pound. One cast vs one attack, not one "attack action."

I was explaining why scaling cantrips are okay, because they don't get extra shots (EB aside.)


The game mechanics are just an abstraction of the actual fiction. "One attack" isn't necessarily a single swing of the sword, and "one cast" isn't necessarily a single bolt of fire (or whatever). You can't speak pound-for-pound when neither pound is actually a pound.

Also this.

[Zevox]

This is one of the things I most like about 5e compared to 3.5e, actually. Unlimited-use, actually-good cantrips meant the end of the low-level caster as the "crossbowman with a few spells." You actually feel like a wizard (or sorcerer, warlock, etc) all the time, not just the couple of times a day you can meaningfully perform magic until you get to high enough levels to actually have a reasonable number of overall spell slots. If that comes at the cost of some high-end power, fine by me. That's a trade I'm entirely happy with, especially since most other people seem to feel they had too much of that to begin with.

[JackPhoenix]

If by "throwables" you mean stuff like alchemist's fire, that's in the equipment chapter too.

It is, but WotC goes out of their way to make them as user-unfriendly as possible. Excessively high cost, poor range, improvised weapons means poor accuracy, and you use a full action to throw one making them incompatible with Extra Attack or similar features.

[Goobahfish]

Hmmm...

So... I think there are a few things going on here.
#1... like Ki and other resources, there are periods of the level progression where you are starving (early levels), about right (mid levels) and drowning (late levels).
#2... There is a balance between the power of cantrips and spells. Spells in general have a much better per-turn utility than cantrips at the cost of being a finite resource.

I think, having more spells at lower levels and less at higher level would alleviate some of this issue. An extreme (and not recommended example) would be if you had say... 10-12 level 1 spells at level 1 and as you level up, they shift rightwards every level. So at level 20 you have 12 spells/day, they are just... level 9/8/7/6/5/5/4/4/3/3/2/2 rather than 1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1 or some such.

That said, my favourite (and I mean favourite) thing in 5e is Minor Illusion being a spamable thing. If I am an illusionist, I would be using my illusion magic for the most petty, useless, RP-centric nonsense ever.

Like when introducing my character, creating a big flashing sign with his name above his head etc.

Cantrips which are sort of the 'magical equivalent of digging a hole with a spade' are just great.

Now damaging cantrips... are better than a crossbow admittedly. But they don't really need to scale past level 5 TBH. Extra Attack doesn't. Why should cantrips? Really there should be a caster ability... Empowered Cantrips at level 5 (similar to extra attack) which grants you the extra dice of damage so that casters feel put out every time they come up with a multiclass build which double-hits that feature. Yeah, that is right. I'm being needlessly off-topic and spiteful to casters. Warlocks could get an extra level 11 cantrip feature (like Fighter with Extra Attack).

---

Back on-topic. I'd be happy to see spells moderated in power and increased in availability. I'd be happy for it to be easier to spec into more spells prepared and less spell slots. I.e., give up a spell slot for an extra prepared spell. Cantrips aren't all that great, so making the weaker isn't exactly going to solve any problems. Nerfing spells a bit, will though.

[Schwann145]

The game mechanics are just an abstraction of the actual fiction. "One attack" isn't necessarily a single swing of the sword, and "one cast" isn't necessarily a single bolt of fire (or whatever). You can't speak pound-for-pound when neither pound is actually a pound.
This is a popular way to explain the action, but it is not what the game presumes.
The game presumes every attack made is indeed it's own attack, and this is demonstrated the moment you consider ammunition, thrown weapons, etc.
You can abstract away rapier swings, but you can't abstract away how you must have two daggers in order to throw two daggers, and how you are now down two daggers after throwing them.

It's similar to the "HP isn't meat" argument... except HP is definitely meat, because you cannot apply your poison if you're not wounding your enemy.


I was explaining why scaling cantrips are okay, because they don't get extra shots (EB aside.)
"Okay" as a desirable way to mechanically keep up with the advance of combat math through the leveling process? Sure. No argument.
"Okay" as a proper facsimile of beginner magic so simple and small that it doesn't even require the effort of a memorization and/or spell slot to cast? Hard disagree. (Heck, the fact that damage cantrips get to "level up" at all makes this problematic; not to mention it introduces the issue of, "why don't my other cantrips get to level up? Fire Bolt gets to become better and more powerful than first level spells, but Minor Illusion never gets the same consideration?)


Like when introducing my character, creating a big flashing sign with his name above his head etc.
A shame Minor Illusion can't create light, eh? ;(

[JackPhoenix]

This is a popular way to explain the action, but it is not what the game presumes.
The game presumes every attack made is indeed it's own attack, and this is demonstrated the moment you consider ammunition, thrown weapons, etc.
You can abstract away rapier swings, but you can't abstract away how you must have two daggers in order to throw two daggers, and how you are now down two daggers after throwing them.

It's similar to the "HP isn't meat" argument... except HP is definitely meat, because you cannot apply your poison if you're not wounding your enemy.

That's what abstraction means. An attack may or may not be a single attack depending on context, just like "HP isn't meat" is a strawmann of the actual argument, which is "HP isn't ONLY meat", which is just as wrong as "HP is NEVER meat".

[Pooky the Imp]

Desperate times call for desperate measures, so don't burn out your spell slots early in the day. :smallsmile:

But this makes no sense.

If you're not "burning all your spell slots", then what are you doing with your actions in the rounds when you're not casting spells?

If we're assuming you don't have Cantrips, then presumably you'll be attacking with a crossbow, sling or whatever.

In other words, you're in the exact same boat if you use your spells frugally because you're still stuck using mundane attacks in place of casting spells. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Let's... let's not go down the "HP aren't meat" rabbit hole again.



"Okay" as a desirable way to mechanically keep up with the advance of combat math through the leveling process? Sure. No argument.
"Okay" as a proper facsimile of beginner magic so simple and small that it doesn't even require the effort of a memorization and/or spell slot to cast? Hard disagree. (Heck, the fact that damage cantrips get to "level up" at all makes this problematic; not to mention it introduces the issue of, "why don't my other cantrips get to level up? Fire Bolt gets to become better and more powerful than first level spells, but Minor Illusion never gets the same consideration?)

Except that's not how the rules describe cantrips. Nowhere is the term "beginner magic" used in the PHB for them. What the PHB actually says is:


"Every spell has a level from 0 to 9. A spell’s level is a general indicator of how powerful it is, with the lowly (but still impressive) magic missile at 1st level and the earth-shaking wish at 9th. Cantrips — simple but powerful spells that characters can cast almost by rote — are level 0. The higher a spell’s level, the higher level a spellcaster must be to use that spell."

The "Cantrips" description in the same section goes on to say that the defining aspect of a cantrip is "repeated practice" and the caster being "infused with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over." Nothing about them being spells for beginners; the "beginner magic" label seems to be something you invented yourself.


A shame Minor Illusion can't create light, eh? ;(

It can't illuminate, but it can create visible phenomena. How that works by physics is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Unoriginal]

Cantrips are generally fine.
They're more interesting (if multiple combat ones are taken) than weapon attacks, honestly. Amnestic's "Stop the Tier Four scaling" would barely affect balance, excepting the Warlock, but could help with feelings.

Also, I don't think "A master caster can, by rote, make an effect more powerful than a trained warrior's weapon swing," is a big deal. Look at Firebolt and assume a trained warrior has 14 Strength to start:

Tier One
Greatsword does 2d6+2, average of 9.
Firebolt does 1d10, average of 5.5.

Tier Two
Greatsword, assuming only bump to Strength, does 2d6+3, average of 10.
Firebolt does 2d10, average of 11.
The Firebolt is slightly better on the average, but the minimum of 5 damage on the Greatsword can be pretty helpful, depending on what you're fighting.

Tier Three
Greatsword, assuming Strength has hit 20 by now, does 2d6+5, average of 12.
Firebolt does 3d10, average of 16.5.

This ignores that said "trained fighter" is having two attacks by the time the Firebolt average is 11, and 3 by the time Firebolt does 16.5.

Coincidentally, said "trained fighter" will deals 18 damages if they land three untrained unarmed strikes.

And they're more likely to hit with two of their three attacks than the Wizard is likely to hit with one of their Firebolt.

[Anymage]

There are times when a wizard's greatest contribution to the fight is casting their one big concentration spell, and then doing everything they can to avoid risking having their concentration broken. The more that at-will damage is negligible plinking, the more you encourage a strategy of casting one big spell and then running away to hide. It may be effective, but spending your actions away from the battlefield doing nothing doesn't sound that engaging for the player. The other major option is for the wizard to throw out leveled spells every round and then have the whole party retreat to rest when they run out, which is what a lot of groups do but then you run into five minutes workday problems.

I get how damage scaling cantrips feel off. It's just that past low levels (where cantrip wizard and crossbow wizard are fairly comparable) the alternatives aren't much better in actual play.

[KorvinStarmast]

But this makes no sense.
Yes, it does. There is a resource management sub game and that's part of it. As the Lone Ranger once pointed out,
I only have so many silver bullets in my gun belt.

Let's... let's not go down the "HP aren't meat" rabbit hole again. I'm telling Mom! :smallyuk:

The "Cantrips" description in the same section goes on to say that the defining aspect of a cantrip is "repeated practice" and the caster being "infused with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over." Nothing about them being spells for beginners; the "beginner magic" label seems to be something you invented yourself. Indeed, and it's a shame that here we are, nearly 10 years into 5e, and folks need to be reminded of a few of the fundamentals.

One of the things I liked most about Tasha's player options was the "cantrip buyers-remorse" feature.
Either at an ASI, or when you go up a level, you can trade one out for another that, in play, left you underwhelmed.

[JNAProductions]

Yes, it does. There is a resource management sub game and that's part of it. As the Lone Ranger once pointed out,
I only have so many silver bullets in my gun belt.

So, let’s get this out of the way-many people want their mages to cast spells. That should be their main contribution, at level one and level twenty. Cantrips are generally gonna see a lot more use in T1 than later.

With that in mind, what do propose a level one mage do with their two spell slots that lets them feel like a mage during each combat?

[KorvinStarmast]

With that in mind, what do propose a level one mage do with their two spell slots that lets them feel like a mage during each combat? Given that they have cantrips, in this edition, I do not understand your question.
But they are not required to just use cantrips. They are also, in a generic sense, adventurers.
They are also part of a party. They should help the rest of the party.

[Witty Username]

Is this solely an issue with cantrips being too powerful, or is it more that other options are too weak or underdeveloped? Would you rather spells be nerfed across the board? They bring the same problem as cantrips of practically invalidating other classes in many scenarios, yet people clap and yawp whenever the wizard casts Fireball.


This is a misunderstanding of my problem. Power isn't a concern for me so much as narrative space and world interaction.

A firebolt spell can be cast an infinite number of times, and requires no impliments. This makes a number of scenarios awkwardly slanted in favor of casters. An archer needs a bow, and arrows to be effective. Casters should have similar requirements.

Damage types is another aspect, most casters have some means to overcome such concerns without planning or consideration, either by Force damage being good (warlock things) or by having multiple damage types available as part of the base kit.

The way I see it, I would prefer one the following set of methodologies:
- Limited castings, double proficiency bonus for example would give a bunch of uses for cantrips but mean they are not a mash to solve encounter and give similar limits to things like thrown weapons or arrows, not much but requires attention
- Caster weapons, this doesn’t need to be mundane weapons, it could be things like blasting wands and such. That way the feeling of caster could be preserved without smuggling in gameplay interactions as bad
- Duration spells, we already have things like vampiric touch, witch bolt, flameblade etc. Generally these spells don't see much use because they are outperformed by cantrips. Having a selection of these at early levels does the same effect as cantrips for most of play
--
And before anyone gets too nettled, I have no interest in the game itself changing or other tables doing anything different. I just don't care for cantrips.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

This is a misunderstanding of my problem. Power isn't a concern for me so much as narrative space and world interaction.

A firebolt spell can be cast an infinite number of times, and requires no impliments. This makes a number of scenarios awkwardly slanted in favor of casters. An archer needs a bow, and arrows to be effective. Casters should have similar requirements.

Will this be a rehash of the "fighter vs. magic user, who can better overcome an attacker when they're in their pajamas" argument? Sure, a caster may fare slightly better when the party gets their "toys" taken away (except for the wizard :smallfrown: no spellbook), but the martial character doesn't always need their equipment to still do okay, and are supported by class features, hit dice, and better physical stat focuses to help them even in those sorts of scenarios. Besides, forcing a scenario in which the party has their resources limited or outright removed is hardly the most fun (outside of non-combat focused gametime), and shouldn't be done more than once or twice a campaign.


Damage types is another aspect, most casters have some means to overcome such concerns without planning or consideration, either by Force damage being good (warlock things) or by having multiple damage types available as part of the base kit.

I see this as a concern over the power level of casters and their spells. This is true beyond cantrips, perhaps even more so with how few damage types cantrips can really give most classes - as well as the versatility of most spells.


The way I see it, I would prefer one the following set of methodologies:
- Limited castings, double proficiency bonus for example would give a bunch of uses for cantrips but mean they are not a mash to solve encounter and give similar limits to things like thrown weapons or arrows, not much but requires attention

The adventuring day will end after 2 encounters during level 1, after 3 during level 2, maybe holding out for 4 during level 3, and so on. Feel free to set these limits, but low level adventures will not be much fun for casters, and I suspect there might be some pushback.


- Caster weapons, this doesn’t need to be mundane weapons, it could be things like blasting wands and such. That way the feeling of caster could be preserved without smuggling in gameplay interactions as bad

If you want to link cantrips to a spellcasting focus, that's fine. Probably the most reasonable course of action listed here.


- Duration spells, we already have things like vampiric touch, witch bolt, flameblade etc. Generally these spells don't see much use because they are outperformed by cantrips. Having a selection of these at early levels does the same effect as cantrips for most of play

I think the reason for their lack of use is not only the paltry damage, but the fact that they take up concentration.


And before anyone gets too nettled, I have no interest in the game itself changing or other tables doing anything different. I just don't care for cantrips.

So the bias shows itself bare!! Another martial player with a prejudice against our beloved little magic tricks . . .

[Psyren]

This is a misunderstanding of my problem. Power isn't a concern for me so much as narrative space and world interaction.

A firebolt spell can be cast an infinite number of times, and requires no impliments. This makes a number of scenarios awkwardly slanted in favor of casters. An archer needs a bow, and arrows to be effective. Casters should have similar requirements.

It's not actually infinite though. Even if you spend every waking moment casting firebolt for some ungodly reason, for most adventuring parties that's 8 hours worth of activity. That's 28800 seconds, or 4800 casts. That's a lot - but it's already drastically less than infinity. It also assumes you're not doing any exploration activities that need your action, you're not participating in any social interaction of any kind, nor are you using your action for anything else, including any other spells, especially not rituals...

And for an archer who wanted to fire 4800 arrows in a day for some equally godawful reason and do nothing else, that would cost them a whopping 240gp. Is that really the "infinity" we're haggling over? In practice, it's a rounding error. Cantrips not needing ammo are fine.


Damage types is another aspect, most casters have some means to overcome such concerns without planning or consideration, either by Force damage being good (warlock things) or by having multiple damage types available as part of the base kit.

The way I see it, I would prefer one the following set of methodologies:
- Limited castings, double proficiency bonus for example would give a bunch of uses for cantrips but mean they are not a mash to solve encounter and give similar limits to things like thrown weapons or arrows, not much but requires attention
- Caster weapons, this doesn’t need to be mundane weapons, it could be things like blasting wands and such. That way the feeling of caster could be preserved without smuggling in gameplay interactions as bad
- Duration spells, we already have things like vampiric touch, witch bolt, flameblade etc. Generally these spells don't see much use because they are outperformed by cantrips. Having a selection of these at early levels does the same effect as cantrips for most of play
--
And before anyone gets too nettled, I have no interest in the game itself changing or other tables doing anything different. I just don't care for cantrips.

1) If your encounters are entirely solvable through mashing cantrips, then they weren't good or engaging encounters to begin with. Cantrips are filler, even with their scaling.
2) As I mentioned upthread, caster weapons exist, they're called spell foci. You can even cast your cantrips through them.
3) I completely agree with you that several action-spam-concentration spells like Witch Bolt and Vampiric Touch are weak. But other spells that use concentration + your action every round like Moonbeam and Call Lightning are fine. The solution to underperforming spells is to buff them, not nerf cantrips.

[Witty Username]

So the bias shows itself bare!! Another martial player with a prejudice against our beloved little magic tricks . . .

Don't quote the deep magics to me witch.

The overwhelming majority of characters I have played since AD&D(ish, Baldur's gate mostly) to now have been wizards, and almost all the rest have been casters in some way. In my current game I am a Warlock/Bard as player. I enjoy casting powerful spells, and the narrative themes inherent to them.

I Just don't like cantrips. The value they add I find is overstated, and they do silly things to bits of the game I find particularly interesting.

[Amnestic]

2) As I mentioned upthread, caster weapons exist, they're called spell foci. You can even cast your cantrips through them.


There's a grand total of 6 M component cantrips that are offensive based. Two of them are SCAGtrips and one of them is shillelagh, so we'll ignore those, leaving 3 - Infestation, Thorn Whip and Word of Radiance. Of those three, Thorn Whip is the only one I see with any regularity (druids and rangers only), with Word of Radiance far behind (clerics rarely use it even if they do take it). I don't think I've ever seen anyone take and use Infestation.

What this means is that 99% of the time when a caster is using a cantrip, they're not using a focus (with Artificers as the exception because they're forced to via class features). While I can't speak exactly to what Witty Username is referencing I assume with "blasting wands" they're referencing the idea of needing to Wands of Firebolt and Staffs of Frostbite. Cantrips would be removed from class features either partially or entirely, and moved into items, where if you want the 'flexibility' of having a half-dozen different cantrip options, you'd need to be packing that many wands or staffs or orbs or druidic twigs.

Maybe they'd even be items anyone could use, but if you're not Proficient with them you wouldn't add your proficiency bonus to the attack/save, much like how wizards can still use a longsword even if they're not proficient with them.

[Psyren]

What this means is that 99% of the time when a caster is using a cantrip, they're not using a focus (with Artificers as the exception because they're forced to via class features).

Just because you don't need a wand to do something doesn't mean you can't wave it around. It's a little thing called roleplay.

[Pooky the Imp]

Yes, it does. There is a resource management sub game and that's part of it. As the Lone Ranger once pointed out,
I only have so many silver bullets in my gun belt.

You haven't addressed the issue.

Let me remind you what you said:


Desperate times call for desperate measures, so don't burn out your spell slots early in the day. :smallsmile:

You are saying here that the only time a (cantrip-less) wizard would have to fall back on mundane weapons is if he has burned up all his spell slots too early. Thus, if a wizard is shooting a crossbow, it must be his own fault.

Let's take a ridiculously wasteful use of a spell - casting Fireball to kill a single goblin. Barring exception circumstances, I think we can all agree that this is a huge waste of a spell slot, right?

So now lets consider our hypothetical spellcaster's alternatives:
- Cast a different spell (still uses a spell slot)
- Attack with a mundane weapon.
- Stand around picking his nose while shouting encouragement to his teammates or something.

In other words, if our spellcaster doesn't want to be wasteful by casting a spell, his options are 'use a mundane weapon' or 'do nothing'.

Thus, it makes absolutely no difference whether a wizard is frugal with his spells or not - he'll still have plenty of rounds when he's forced to use mundane weapons (or do sod-all). The only thing that changes is whether he's using a mundane weapon to save a spell slot or because he's run out of spell slots. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

You haven't addressed the issue.

Let me remind you what you said:



You are saying here that the only time a (cantrip-less) wizard would have to fall back on mundane weapons is if he has burned up all his spell slots too early. Thus, if a wizard is shooting a crossbow, it must be his own fault.

Let's take a ridiculously wasteful use of a spell - casting Fireball to kill a single goblin. Barring exception circumstances, I think we can all agree that this is a huge waste of a spell slot, right?

So now lets consider our hypothetical spellcaster's alternatives:
- Cast a different spell (still uses a spell slot)
- Attack with a mundane weapon.
- Stand around picking his nose while shouting encouragement to his teammates or something.

In other words, if our spellcaster doesn't want to be wasteful by casting a spell, his options are 'use a mundane weapon' or 'do nothing'.

Thus, it makes absolutely no difference whether a wizard is frugal with his spells or not - he'll still have plenty of rounds when he's forced to use mundane weapons (or do sod-all). The only thing that changes is whether he's using a mundane weapon to save a spell slot or because he's run out of spell slots. :smalltongue:

You can still waste additional slots through bad tactics though - such as positioning yourself poorly or building your character with poor defenses so that you lose concentration earlier in a combat, or burning spell slots on exploration and social challenges unnecessarily that could have been overcome with clever skill and tool use instead. And yes, burning higher slots than needed on lesser challenges counts too, especially when recovery abilities (which can usually replenish more of those slots) are taken into account.

[Amnestic]

Just because you don't need a wand to do something doesn't mean you can't wave it around. It's a little thing called roleplay.

Well, in some cases it might, because you don't have the hands free to wave it around (Shield proficiency+Somatic components=whoops, no wand!). The object interaction economy for drawing different wands and staffs also isn't something that can be ignored, as is the requirement for actually having them in the first place.

Witty Username said that spellcasters having access to too many damage types as part of their base kit is something they don't like, and suggested blasting cantrips could be tied to wands instead, thereby both limiting the availability to casters (they need to shop for the wands, carry them, not lose them, etc., plus the action economy noted above). You responded by saying "spell foci exist".

I'm not sure how "roleplaying" having a wand in hand addresses the concerns you were directly responding to.

[Theodoxus]

Gotta be honest, I groove to the idea of having a specific implement for a specific cantrip. Wand of Firebolt, Orb of Mending, Rings of Prestidigitation, etc. Though I also grok that folks want to stay away from the equipment bag of weapons mentality. I'd be happy if 2024 adopted this meatier concept of magical prowess, and then had as a 1st level Feat (provided by the Acolyte, Hermit, and Sage backgrounds) the 'Free From Implements' feat, that allows casters to not need any implements at all. A free finger to point and shoot, as one might say. (Definitely worth a point of Cha, Int, or Wis - though IIRC, half feats are dying in 2024.)

The only other thing that might help imo, is reworking the scaling. Either have them work like martials (5/11/20) or martials work like cantrips (5/11/17). Though really instead of simply adding another die, I think it'd be more interesting (though more complicated, so it'll never see the light of day) to have the damage bumps be more akin to Paladins/Clerics or Rangers. So, 5th level might keep the +1 die boost. But level 11 might add a different die size or damage type (a firebolt dealing 2d10 fire, +1d8 radiant for instance) or at 11th, it can be used twice, working like EB in that respect.

And then the capstone (17th or 20th, depending) might grant the opposite, so a 2d10+1d8 firebolt might have two attacks. A Chill Touch might deal 2d8 Necrotic and 2d10 Cold. (or 1d8+1d10 vs two targets). Or might add an additional rider that knocks back or something else fun.

(Although doing all that, I'd probably reduce every cantrip by at least a die size first.)

[Psyren]

Well, in some cases it might, because you don't have the hands free to wave it around (Shield proficiency+Somatic components=whoops, no wand!). The object interaction economy for drawing different wands and staffs also isn't something that can be ignored, as is the requirement for actually having them in the first place.

I expect them to drastically simplify the S/M thing. It makes no sense to me that if a spell has more restrictions (S+M) then it's actually easier for you to cast than if it has fewer (S only).

Something like "you can perform somatic components using the hand that is holding a spell focus."



I'm not sure how "roleplaying" having a wand in hand addresses the concerns you were directly responding to.

Those "concerns" are a mindset issue. The poster wanted a return to 3.5's everyone walks around with magic wands, 5e is designed such that magic items are uncommon and don't need to be specific.

[JNAProductions]

I expect them to drastically simplify the S/M thing. It makes no sense to me that if a spell has more restrictions (S+M) then it's actually easier for you to cast than if it has fewer (S only).

Something like "you can perform somatic components using the hand that is holding a spell focus."

Those "concerns" are a mindset issue. The poster wanted a return to 3.5's everyone walks around with magic wands, 5e is designed such that magic items are uncommon and don't need to be specific.

They aren't asking for magic items, they're asking for foci.
There's a difference.

[Pooky the Imp]

Gotta be honest, I groove to the idea of having a specific implement for a specific cantrip. Wand of Firebolt, Orb of Mending, Rings of Prestidigitation, etc. Though I also grok that folks want to stay away from the equipment bag of weapons mentality. I'd be happy if 2024 adopted this meatier concept of magical prowess, and then had as a 1st level Feat (provided by the Acolyte, Hermit, and Sage backgrounds) the 'Free From Implements' feat, that allows casters to not need any implements at all. A free finger to point and shoot, as one might say. (Definitely worth a point of Cha, Int, or Wis - though IIRC, half feats are dying in 2024.)

I think the issue is that Material Components / Foci already feel weird for some characters.

Sorcerers feel like they should be leaning towards fewer material components - not more. At the very least, it doesn't seem right for them to require a separate item to channel each basic spell, given that their power is supposed to be innate. :smalltongue:

Bards seem like their spells should be all about somatic components.

Warlocks seem like they should be channelling magic through whatever item or familiar their Patron granted them.

[Psyren]

They aren't asking for magic items, they're asking for foci.
There's a difference.



I'm referring to the magic items, not the mundane foci.

I know it's difficult to keep track of a conversation when multiple posters are interjecting but that's the comment I was referring to.

[Amnestic]

Those "concerns" are a mindset issue. The poster wanted a return to 3.5's everyone walks around with magic wands, 5e is designed such that magic items are uncommon and don't need to be specific.

Respectfully, that is not what you were responding to. It's not a mindset issue at all to dislike spellcasters having so many damage types available at will with minimal investment (cantrips known). It's an opinion. One you might disagree with, but you're not addressing it. Here's the conversation, with extraneous sections redacted:-

Witty Username:


Damage types is another aspect, most casters have some means to overcome such concerns without planning or consideration, either by Force damage being good (warlock things) or by having multiple damage types available as part of the base kit.

The way I see it, I would prefer one the following set of methodologies:
[...]
- Caster weapons, this doesn’t need to be mundane weapons, it could be things like blasting wands and such. That way the feeling of caster could be preserved without smuggling in gameplay interactions as bad
[...]
--
You:

2) As I mentioned upthread, caster weapons exist, they're called spell foci. You can even cast your cantrips through them.
Me:


There's a grand total of 6 M component cantrips that are offensive based. Two of them are SCAGtrips and one of them is shillelagh, so we'll ignore those, leaving 3 - Infestation, Thorn Whip and Word of Radiance. Of those three, Thorn Whip is the only one I see with any regularity (druids and rangers only), with Word of Radiance far behind (clerics rarely use it even if they do take it). I don't think I've ever seen anyone take and use Infestation.

What this means is that 99% of the time when a caster is using a cantrip, they're not using a focus (with Artificers as the exception because they're forced to via class features). While I can't speak exactly to what Witty Username is referencing I assume with "blasting wands" they're referencing the idea of needing to Wands of Firebolt and Staffs of Frostbite. Cantrips would be removed from class features either partially or entirely, and moved into items, where if you want the 'flexibility' of having a half-dozen different cantrip options, you'd need to be packing that many wands or staffs or orbs or druidic twigs.

Maybe they'd even be items anyone could use, but if you're not Proficient with them you wouldn't add your proficiency bonus to the attack/save, much like how wizards can still use a longsword even if they're not proficient with them.

You:

Just because you don't need a wand to do something doesn't mean you can't wave it around. It's a little thing called roleplay.

It feels like you're simply having another conversation, addressing points that neither I nor Witty Username made despite quoting them directly, and I am really confused as to why.

[Psyren]

Respectfully, that is not what you were responding to. It's not a mindset issue at all to dislike spellcasters having so many damage types available at will with minimal investment (cantrips known). It's an opinion. One you might disagree with, but you're not addressing it. Here's the conversation, with extraneous sections redacted:-

Witty Username:

You:

Me:


You:


It feels like you're simply having another conversation, addressing points that neither I nor Witty Username made despite quoting them directly, and I am really confused as to why.

I'm well aware that my opinion is my opinion :smallconfused: And cantrips known are not "minimal investment," especially if you're blowing your limited allotment (especially at low levels) on multiple damage types while overlooking useful options like Minor Illusion, nuResistance, Mage Hand, Mending, Prestidigitation etc. And no, I don't think I need to address your concerns further than saying "I disagree, and I think you're blowing this non-issue way out of proportion, cantrips as currently designed are broadly fine." We can instead (and seemingly have to) agree to disagree.

[Theodoxus]

I think the issue is that Material Components / Foci already feel weird for some characters.

Sorcerers feel like they should be leaning towards fewer material components - not more. At the very least, it doesn't seem right for them to require a separate item to channel each basic spell, given that their power is supposed to be innate. :smalltongue:

Personal taste, but I think Sorcerers shooting firebolts from their fingertips and Rays of Frost from their eyes feels too superhero-y to me. I can concede using a single implement for a Sorcerer (whatever the player thinks best), or the feat mentioned previously. As noted, this would simply be my preference. If it never happens, or is panned, that's ok too.


Bards seem like their spells should be all about somatic components. I feel that way about all the Bard spells. If spells weren't universal, but based on class (so a Bard casting Hypnotic Pattern and a Wizard casting Hypnotic Pattern had the same effect, but different mechanics), you could do something like every Bard spell is V,S,M where M is a musical instrument and S is the hand motions to play the spells specific song. It would make using a weapon or shield harder, but then again, you could always have a feat that removed the requirement... Warcaster only different.


Warlocks seem like they should be channeling magic through whatever item or familiar their Patron granted them.

I wouldn't be sad either way with this, though I think Warlocks should be even more tailored to their patron when it comes to spells. EB is overtuned IMO. d10, Force, multishot, easily modded for +Cha mod damage, easily modded for useful riders (range, push, pull)... all those things together (albeit with an opportunity cost for the Invocation upgrades) is just too much.

EB should match Patron. Fire for Fiend, Force for Archfey, Necrotic for GOO, Elemental flavor for Genie, Cold for Hexblade, Radiant for Celestial... then every Invocation outside of AB should reduce the die by 1. So, you want to push something? You're only dealing d8s. Want to pull something towards you from 300' away? You're dealing d6s.

Again, complicated, so will never see the light of day, but if I ran the zoo, well, I'm sure the feedback would be that you're sad.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

EB is overtuned IMO. d10, Force, multishot, easily modded for +Cha mod damage, easily modded for useful riders (range, push, pull)... all those things together (albeit with an opportunity cost for the Invocation upgrades) is just too much.

Off topic, I suppose, but Eldritch Blast is an overtuned ability for an undertuned class. Warlock has a great many options, with all these levers for them to pull and invocations to select, but that's really more of a distraction from their weaker casting ability. Plus, realistically, most people don't select anything more than Agonizing Blast, since it isn't as though a warlock is swimming in invocations. There's an argument to be made on lowering the damage (especially with multiclassing), but the spell really isn't that oppressive if you consider it in context.


EB should match Patron. Fire for Fiend, Force for Archfey, Necrotic for GOO, Elemental flavor for Genie, Cold for Hexblade, Radiant for Celestial... then every Invocation outside of AB should reduce the die by 1. So, you want to push something? You're only dealing d8s. Want to pull something towards you from 300' away? You're dealing d6s.

This point on decreasing the damage die with subsequent invocations just feels like pedantry. How many invocations even deal with eldritch blast? This isn't like 3rd edition where the class revolved around the ability. At best there's agonizing blast, push, pull, slow, increased range . . . If there were more synergies to it that might be warranted, but as it stands: no way.

[Witty Username]

Just because you don't need a wand to do something doesn't mean you can't wave it around. It's a little thing called roleplay.


As for the 'I can just pretend I have restrictions' argument. You could just reflavor a crossbow to be a blasting wand, could you not? It sounds like cantrips don't actually add anything to the game. :smalltongue:

[Amechra]

I'd be happy if 2024 adopted this meatier concept of magical prowess

Bit tangential, but... I'd kinda love it if "cantrips vs. weapons" wasn't as baked in to individual classes as it is now, which is something that "focuses grant you cantrips" would kinda-sorta enable. For example, you could play a Fighter whose offense was cantrip-based and whose defense was "Mage" Armor + Shield, or a Wizard rocking medium armor and using a sword. You'd really have to fiddle with what classes are supposed to do, though.

[Goobahfish]

Yeah... I find it very surprising that

"Magic Item which grants cantrip" seems to be completely absent from 5e. That to me says a lot about the awkward spot cantrips hold in 5e.

[Psyren]

As for the 'I can just pretend I have restrictions' argument. You could just reflavor a crossbow to be a blasting wand, could you not? It sounds like cantrips don't actually add anything to the game. :smalltongue:

It's not "pretending you have restrictions" though. It's holding a wand because you feel like holding something while you do magic, not because you have to.

[Amechra]

Yeah... I find it very surprising that

"Magic Item which grants cantrip" seems to be completely absent from 5e. That to me says a lot about the awkward spot cantrips hold in 5e.

It's also kinda weird that cantrips, unlike weapons, give you their full scaling if you happen to pick them up from somewhere... which is a bit odd, because most other things in 5e don't auto-scale. The party's High Elf Fighter's racial Firebolt cantrip is going to be surprisingly comparable to the Wizard's Firebolt in a way that a High Elf Wizard's racial longsword proficiency isn't in the face of any martial character (unless they spend a subclass on closing the gap).

...

This conversation has gotten me thinking... spellcasters have a very weird resource management problem. On the one hand, a full-caster has a ton of spell slots, but the number of spell slots that "matter" is usually really small — once you've spent 2-3 spell slots (aka your highest level ones), you're effectively several levels weaker than you are when fully powered. Contrast that with most other resources, where you're capable of doing the thing at full power as long as you have a single "point" left (where the point could be anywhere from a ki point to a Pact Magic slot). Which is probably one of the contributing factors to why spellcasters are so tough to balance, and kinda explains why people like spell points so much — your Nth level caster gets to spend more time casting their best spells instead of burning a couple of them and wanting to take a break.

(I honestly wish that spellcasters capped out at 6th level spells, but compensated by continuing to get "lower level" spell slots and cool ribbons past that. It'd make higher levels less all-or-nothing, at the very least...)

EDIT: Here's what a full caster progression that capped out at 6th level spells would look like if their spell slots were worth the same number of spell points as a current full-caster (they're actually slightly better off, since I decided to smooth out the progression a little bit in terms of when you get spell slots, instead of having them clump up at higher levels):



Level
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th


1
2







2
3







3
4
2






4
4
3






5
4
3
2





6
4
3
3





7
4
3
3
1




8
4
3
3
2




9
4
3
3
3
1



10
4
3
3
3
2



11
4
3
3
3
2
1


12
4
4
3
3
2
1


13
4
4
3
3
3
1


14
5
4
3
3
3
1


15
5
4
3
3
3
2


16
6
4
3
3
3
2


17
6
4
3
3
3
3


18
7
4
4
3
3
3


19
7
5
4
4
3
3


20
7
6
4
4
4
3





Figure out which 7th, 8th, or 9th level spells could be nerfed a little to end up as 6th level, turn a few others into magic items or class features, and you're done.

[Pex]

As for the 'I can just pretend I have restrictions' argument. You could just reflavor a crossbow to be a blasting wand, could you not? It sounds like cantrips don't actually add anything to the game. :smalltongue:

Much harder to do when you need to go to a mundane weaponsmith to get one, uses DX not your casting modifier to function, you need to keep track of ammunition, and then need to get enchanted ammunition when dealing with a creature resistant or immune to non-magic weapons. Reflavoring isn't working here.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Just lamenting, but I miss having enough spell slots to feel like a "spellcaster." Here's what I mean:

There's nothing wrong with the way 5e decided to go, giving powerful cantrips that you can spam over and over and then severely limiting the number of actual slots you gain as a different way to balance...

But I do miss the mini-game of spell preparation and knowing that I could support more than one tactic because I wouldn't run dry on slots after only a combat or two, or feeling more free to prepare fun/niche spells alongside more impactful ones to flavor out the day, or not feeling starved by "necessary" preparations like Mage Armor, etc.

Powerful, scaling, unlimited Cantrips is a powerful compensation, but it's... bland, IMO. I can only spam the same thing over and over so many times before it becomes tedious. (At least Warlocks, old and new alike, get ways to alter their spam-spell so as to combat the tedium!)

I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm curious what others think on the issue.
Less slots + strong cantrips vs. more slots + paltry cantrips.
Which is better? Why?

Oh, burn down the whole system and have everyone be Warlock casting (except let the player downcast as they want).

Then you get classes that have cantrips, spells, and actual class features.

Wizards could totally have a feature where they read from their spellbook to bore the ever-living crap out creatures. This could be an out of battle effect that they can use to distract a crowd.

But since everyone works off short rests the GM can better assume what players will and will not have. Instead of planning for an entire day they can fit in a 30-minute rest and now they don't have to worry about the party fighting a tough fight without stuff to do. Abyss, you could even change the short rest mechanic to however you want for the campaign. 5 minutes? 30 minutes? End of battle? You can do that now but classes aren't all on the same timer and that's messy.

Thing is this works wonders when you mix them with martials. Now the Fighter doesn't have to ask for short rests all the time.

You could even get rid of spells coming back from a specific short rest and bring back the alternate rule from 3e Recharge Magic times (each spell level has a different time needed) if you want a more involved system.

Then take cantrips and weapon masteries and merge them into one system. Have cantrips be tied to specific foci. Proficient with a weapon or foci? You get the cantrip or mastery (fighters should have better system than weapon masteries as a class feature).