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

In two different threads recently there were comments that Cantrips make magic too common, so it doesn't feel magical. They were often accompanied by ideas to restrict the number of cantrips per rest.

The issue for me is that there are a lot more actions per day then skill slots, all the way up through 20th. Here's a breakdown I did in an earlier thread:

Blue said:

Let's assume the conservative 5 encounters of 4 rounds each. That's 20 actions to cover. Add in an extra spell per encounter - say a reaction like shield or a bonus action. That's 25.

Let's assume you cast some spells a day cast outside combat - be it utility, mage armor, foresight, what have you. When you have more slots you're more likely to do this. For a conservative number lets say proficiency - 1. So only one until 5th level, and only five all the way at 20th. Nice and low.

At 1st, you have 2 slots for 26 castings. Sounds like mostly Firebolt or your damage cantrip of choice.

At 5th we have 9 slots for 27 casting. 2/3 cantrips.

At 9th we're up to 14 slots for 28 castings - 1/2 cantrips.

At 13th it's 17 slots for 29 castings. Still over 10 Firebolts a day.

At 17th it's 19 slots for 30 castings - still haven't reduced to 1/3 of your spells cast are cantrips.

At 20th it's 22 slots for 30 castings! Only 8 Firebolts that day.

Now, at higher level you probably have some magic item activations in there as well. So if you are a 20th level caster and use wands and stuff 8 times per day, you can just avoid casting a cantrip. It's harder at the lower levels.

So it looks like there's a lot of cantrip use. The majority of casting will be cantrips until reaching 9th, and even high levels will be doing it some.

This will vary a bit by class - some have less reaction spells, or sorcerers with quicken spell will cast more cantrips on their actions.

Click to expand...

The baseline we have from this is that casters will be mostly not-spells until double digits, and even at 20 will still have a good chunk of actions more than spell slots.

Back in pre-cantrip editions casters needed to default to mundane solutions - wizards throwing darts, etc. Using mundane solutions also does not make casters feel magical.

The idea of a few cantrips per day doesn't work - it still leaves mundane solutions for most actions until the highest of levels.

So how do we combine the contradictory ideas that (a) at-will magic makes magic feel mundane that several people have stated, and (b) have that casters can contribute meaningfully in a magical way without having to resort to mundane actions? I don't think a direct compromise works, so what solutions orthogonal to mundane=mundane and at-will=mundane can we find?

I feel the opposite. The fact that a wizard can conjure and throw a bolt of fire instead of having to resort to a light crossbow feels very magical to me. I know many people, commonly referred to as "grognards" think that at-will spells are too much, but for many, I think they are perfect as is.

My post doesn't really help the thread though unless leaving it "as is" is a possible solution.

Blue said:

So how do we combine the contradictory ideas that (a) at-will magic makes magic feel mundane that several people have stated, and (b) have that casters can contribute meaningfully in a magical way without having to resort to mundane actions? I don't think a direct compromise works, so what solutions orthogonal to mundane=mundane and at-will=mundane can we find?

Click to expand...

I don't believe you can do it completely. If at-will magic makes magic feel less special, then provide an option that is magical and not mundane will not work.

You can increase slots, but if you increase them enough so that they always have magic available it is really the same as having at-will cantrips.

The only solution I can think of at the moment is some type of recharge mechanic. Maybe limit cantrips per short rest or something. Then the DM has some control over how "magical" they will be

Very little magic in D&D and D&D-styled systems feels "magical". D&D-styled magic is more akin to science, repeatable actions with repeatable results. Cantrips don't even factor into this. They're just a game-system to allow magic-types to keep on magicing instead of having to feebly attempt to hit something with a stick.

"Magical" things IMO are things that have a strong certainty of chance every time you do them. Whose potency is affected by your mental state, the place in which you perform them, the time of day, the time of year. "Magic" is, IMO unpredictable with situational results.

No D&D-styled system replicates that. And for obvious reasons it shouldn't. If you're looking for a sense of "awe" and "wonder" look to the storytelling side of the game, not the rules side of the game.

Well, let's see. Limiting cantrips will not do the trick. You either limit them so much that the full casters are no longer mechanically balanced in the 5E system, or you give them a limit that's so generous, they still might as well be unlimited.

You can change the "attack" cantrips so they're saving throw-based. That might at least make them feel different than mundane attacks. It's a minor thing, but maybe?

I do think it's important to note that the people who have been making this complaint--so far as I've seen, at least--are DMs. Do the players in the campaign feel the same way? If they don't, all you're going to accomplish by making any changes along these lines is discourage them from playing full casters.

But then, maybe that's your solution. If what you want is a low-magic setting, maybe you need to get rid of the full casters. We created a number of new classes for the forthcoming Lost Citadel setting for precisely that reason: Because cantrips and high-level spells are simply not compatible with a low-magic feel.

But you don't have to create whole new classes to get there. Omit the full casters. Give paladins access to the full cleric spell list, rangers access to the druid list, eldritch knights and arcane tricksters access to the full wizard list--or, for a slightly different flavor, the full bard list. (Yes, the latter two have cantrips, but they only know a couple. You could easily make a "no offensive cantrips" rule for those two, and cut out 75% of their cantrip use without changing the mechanical balance.) You'll have casters who are a lot more like Gandalf or Merlin--using only lesser magics, and only some of the time.

I like this thread.

It reminds me of an observation on of my players made after our last session. He is playing two characters, a wood-elf fighter (archer) and a tiefling warlock. At one point, both characters were standing side-by-side towards the back of the room, one shooting arrows, the other casting eldritch blasts... over and over and over. He basically just felt like he was doing the same thing constantly and it was a bit of a let-down. Certainly not "magical" feeling...

Personally, I have always liked systems with "recharging" or "drain". Channeling magic IMO should be taxing, and in 5E this just isn't the case. I know it is my opinion, but there you go.

If I come up with anything, believe me I'll let you all know.

Blue said:

In two different threads recently there were comments that Cantrips make magic too common, so it doesn't feel magical. They were often accompanied by ideas to restrict the number of cantrips per rest.

The issue for me is that there are a lot more actions per day then skill slots, all the way up through 20th. Here's a breakdown I did in an earlier thread:



The baseline we have from this is that casters will be mostly not-spells until double digits, and even at 20 will still have a good chunk of actions more than spell slots.

Back in pre-cantrip editions casters needed to default to mundane solutions - wizards throwing darts, etc. Using mundane solutions also does not make casters feel magical.

The idea of a few cantrips per day doesn't work - it still leaves mundane solutions for most actions until the highest of levels.

So how do we combine the contradictory ideas that (a) at-will magic makes magic feel mundane that several people have stated, and (b) have that casters can contribute meaningfully in a magical way without having to resort to mundane actions? I don't think a direct compromise works, so what solutions orthogonal to mundane=mundane and at-will=mundane can we find?

Click to expand...

We solve it by,not accepting that casting a spell isnt magical enough because its a canttip.

Is swinging a sword not martial enough?

Also, frankly, i see more bonus action use for soells after the first than you tend to calculate and canttips have to help out there - so even more castings.

But a key thing i have seen is that at most levels beyond very early, the cantrip is often chosen for its conditions with damage the add-on.

Cast a spell which hurts and gives disadvantage on an attack, costs them reactions, slows them and prevents healings for a short window of opportunity... in any other efition those would be considered "magical" so why not here?

If you choose to see them as "not magical enough" tell us what elements of "magical" are missing?

James Grover said:

I like this thread.

It reminds me of an observation on of my players made after our last session. He is playing two characters, a wood-elf fighter (archer) and a tiefling warlock. At one point, both characters were standing side-by-side towards the back of the room, one shooting arrows, the other casting eldritch blasts... over and over and over. He basically just felt like he was doing the same thing constantly and it was a bit of a let-down. Certainly not "magical" feeling...

Personally, I have always liked systems with "recharging" or "drain". Channeling magic IMO should be taxing, and in 5E this just isn't the case. I know it is my opinion, but there you go.

If I come up with anything, believe me I'll let you all know.

Click to expand...

Wsrlock is built as an archer in its EB configurstion, not a spellcaster. If they wsnted a "magic-user" of olde, thry chose the wrong class.

At worst, its a labelling issue that lets some GMs leads people to think the Warlock is on the same arcanist type as bard, wizard or sorc.

Bard, Wizard, Sorc - arcane spell-casters

Ranger, Paladin, Warlock - spell-fighter-mix

Cleric, druid - divine spell-casters.

Rogue, fighter, barbarian, monk - non-casters

How about a Wild Magic roll for every cantrip cast?