What solution for "Cantrips don't feel magical"?

[reelo]

Who says casters need to contribute meaningfully to each and every combat, and do so by casting spells? There's plenty of stories where the wizard is bloody useless in regular fights and needs the protection of the fighters, but then, in the face of grave danger, or a seemingly insurmountable obstacle, where everybody else is useless, has just the right spell to save the day.
That's both highly magical and very heroic.

 

[LordEntrails]

Who says casters need to contribute meaningfully to each and every combat, and do so by casting spells? There's plenty of stories where the wizard is bloody useless in regular fights and needs the protection of the fighters, but then, in the face of grave danger, or a seemingly insurmountable obstacle, where everybody else is useless, has just the right spell to save the day.
That's both highly magical and very heroic.

And really boring for the player of the magic user. How many times did I a Magic User in OD&D and sit back and do just about nothing until I got to 5th level? Then I could cast ONE fireball and make or break one combat/encounter per day. Sure, it was a big deal. But I much prefer being a valuable contributor to each and ever combat at EVERY level.

 

[reelo]

And really boring for the player of the magic user. How many times did I a Magic User in OD&D and sit back and do just about nothing until I got to 5th level? Then I could cast ONE fireball and make or break one combat/encounter per day. Sure, it was a big deal. But I much prefer being a valuable contributor to each and ever combat at EVERY level.

"No child left behind" right?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Who says casters need to contribute meaningfully to each and every combat, and do so by casting spells? There's plenty of stories where the wizard is bloody useless in regular fights and needs the protection of the fighters, but then, in the face of grave danger, or a seemingly insurmountable obstacle, where everybody else is useless, has just the right spell to save the day.
That's both highly magical and very heroic.

And really boring for the player of the magic user. How many times did I a Magic User in OD&D and sit back and do just about nothing until I got to 5th level? Then I could cast ONE fireball and make or break one combat/encounter per day. Sure, it was a big deal. But I much prefer being a valuable contributor to each and ever combat at EVERY level.

Both sides have merit. Would a good compromise be if the wizard could make a less-meaningful (but not irrelevant) contribution each round, but also get one show-stopping Fireball per fight?

 

[Blue]

Some possibilities to fill the "action gap" with magical activities that aren't necessarily at-will spells.

1) Turn "cantrips" into the ability to craft "cantrip wands". A cantrip wand has 10 charges, and regains its charges after a long rest. (Possible tuning would be to lower the number of charges, or regain 1d6+X number of charges per long rest, to keep that old-school randomness). If you lose a cantrip wand, you can craft a new one in eight hours and with 25 gp of materials. Cantrip wands are attuned specifically to their creator and can only be used by their creator.

2) Buff up spells that allow magical actions, like Witch Bolt, Flame Blade, and the various Investiture spells. Rather than "one spell slot = one action", this allows one spell slot to support multiple turns in combat.

I like how you are thinking, these aren't just retreads.

The first hits a private spot fo mine that casters do need a way to be disarmed like other characters do. Normally this is components and/or tied/gagged. But having your cantrip wand taken away directly plays into that as well. It also brings back the feeling from many stories (and 4e) that a wizard's implement is important to them.

A small variation on it might be to allow non-combat cantrips (or just make them class features) so casters can still use things like prestidigitation, message, thaumaturgy, druidcraft to flavor scenes and seem magical, and then have their enchanted implement for combat.

There might be an issue with free hand, but that's workable with.

But it's the second one that is more inventive. Even for the spells that let you repeat or do another thing on subsequent rounds it's often a bonus action, and also often Concentration. Having a spell that one spell slot can be available for multiple actions (or not) without taking up Concentration could be a real sea change in how spells are done right now.

 

[Umbran]

There's plenty of stories where the wizard is bloody useless in regular fights and needs the protection of the fighters, but then, in the face of grave danger, or a seemingly insurmountable obstacle, where everybody else is useless, has just the right spell to save the day.
That's both highly magical and very heroic.

And also boring for a player who has to sit around for several encounters - possibly hours of play - before they get to meaningfully contribute.

D&D is not a machine for creating typical fantasy novels - it is a game we are playing. When writing a story, the author is engaged no matter which characters are active. In a game, a player is engaged in play when their own character is doing something. So, games typically need to share the spotlight time around more than a fantasy novel does.

 

[Blue]

Both sides have merit. Would a good compromise be if the wizard could make a less-meaningful (but not irrelevant) contribution each round, but also get one show-stopping Fireball per fight?

From a mechanical standpoint, that's the exact "compromise" that the current design fulfills. Cantrips that do less then martials but still feel like contributing, and occasional "the right spell" being a bigger deal.

 

[robus]

Jumping in on the end here without reading the middle, but the biggest thing that bugs me about ranged cantrips is that there is no skill (typically) required for aiming. For example, the first cantrip I pull up Acid Splash, has a range of 60 ft and you’re guaranteed to be on target, though the target itself has a chance to make a dex save to avoid the damage.

That doesn’t seem right to me, these things aren’t auto-targeting?! I’d say that it should require a skill roll to target the creature DC increasing as the range gets further (DC 10 for up to 30 ft, 15 for over 30ft, 20 for 45 ft?, Nat 20 means the target can’t evade it as the aim was perfect).

Too much magic requires no skill on behalf of the caster IMHO.

 

[Umbran]

Too much magic requires no skill on behalf of the caster IMHO.

The skill of the caster is in the save DC for the spell.

In general, the precept is that any given spell has one die roll associated with it connecting with the target - either it is a spell attack roll by the caster (like a wizard's Flre bolt) or a save by the target (like a cleric's Sacred Flame). You generally don't see double-jeopardy, having to roll a to-hit and *also* the target having a save. Having two die rolls would substantially reduce the spell's effectiveness.

 

[Harzel]

Let me ask a question - how many PC-type spellcasters do you have in a given village? A town? A city?

I think the basic answer for my world to what I infer is the main thrust of your query is that I don't like having a hard, bright line between PCs and everybody else. PCs are certainly exceptional in their ability to progress in their professions rapidly, but in the end, they are special mainly in that they are the characters my players have chosen to inhabit.

Having *player characters* be able to use at-will magic does not mean that this magic is common in the world at large.

I understand that that disconnect solves the problem and that it is fine for some / a lot of people; for me it is not. The "magical abilities curve" that trends down from gods (and perhaps a few villains) through PCs, various strength NPCs and finally to the common folk may be a fairly steep curve, but it doesn't (for me) have any cliffs in it.

If magic is relatively hard and limited for PCs, then I find it easy to postulate that the vast majority of the population have no access to it at all. On the other hand, if even novice PCs can pop off limited but still substantial spells (Firebolt is good enough to one-shot a lot of common creatures) repeatedly for a more or less indefinite duration, then that says to me that some magics are really quite easy, and so, barring special circumstances, they very likely have become fairly widely known - uncommon perhaps, but not rare. One can, of course, invent fictional special circumstances to rationalize the disconnect*, but I am disappointed to find I am forced to, especially when the 5e DMG seems to promise otherwise, and my sense (admittedly pretty much limited to 1e) of D&D tradition is that it shouldn't be necessary.

Maybe there's a difficulty in getting the setting characteristics across when the PCs are really special people within it? As a matter of course, PCs are dealing with very special situations that most people in the fictional world do not experience. It is kind of like John McClane in "Die Hard" has very violent experiences, when most folks in the US will never experience a gunshot or explosion.

Their choices and deeds will certainly distinguish them (or so we hope). Their abilities may be strong, but should not have to be highly unusual in character.

* Or, of course, resort to the always handy "because reasons".