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

[5ekyu]

At-will cantrips in 5e are a continuation of a popular aspect of 4e: everyone that has magic can always use magic, without having to rely on a crossbow when they're all "used up." I played my entire 3.5e career finding ways to have magic all day long, whether it was metamagic cheese (persistent spell, ftw), finding ways to wildshape into non-animal forms and get their abilities (aberration wildshape + Assume Supernatural Ability + Enhance Wildshape), or simply finding all-day spell effects. Having the system just let me make a magic-user at level 1 that gets magic all day without a bunch of books and esoteric optimizing tricks is a huge boon in 5e, IMO.

I remember sitting down at a Pathfinder game sometime after 4e was out. One of the complaints at the table about 4e was that different classes got spells that were too similar to each other. The wizard might get "Fireball," which was a AOE at a distance, while the sorcerer would get something like "Fireblast," which would be a fire AOE with a different rider effects. With this in mind, we started the PF campaign with a bunch of level 6 characters and, when the first fight broke out, 3 different characters, representing 3 different classes, were all casting the exact same buff spells and using the exact same tactics. So, in our 4e game, different classes had different powers that were similar and, in PF, different classes had powers that were literally identical. My problem with magic not feeling special in 5e relates directly to this.

You show up with a 5 man group at a fresh 5e game: Elven bow fighter, tielfing warlock, human wizard, dragonborn sorcerer, halfling cleric. The first time you enter a cave, you realize that most of your party can't see in the dark so ... all 5 characters cast the "light" cantrip. THAT is what stops magic from feeling "magical" in 5e, to me. My problem is that every character gets so, so, so much overlap in what they have access to off of the same list of options. I wish the sorcerer and wizard had different spell lists. I wish the wizard was broken up into around 3 or 4 unique classes with very little spell overlap. I'm tired of seeing parties where the wizard, sorcerer, specialty cleric, eldritch knight, and warlock all cast "fireball" in fights because everyone has casual access to the same stuff. The issue for me isn't how often you can cast a cantrip, its that literally everyone at the table can do the exact same stuff (likely, with the same DC!).

So, which of your cant see in dark characters shoulda gone around without a light answer in the world egere at night modt nightdms you are blind?

Part of the reason for shared soell lists is pragmatic - which rules in the PHB do we take out to make up for four different fireballs that do mostly the same thing - solve the ssme problem - but with flavor diff twixt sorc and warlock?

I think if we cut out Shove that gets us one or two. Grapple might get us another two.

Now lets talk how many varieties of Fly we need and how important those backgrounds really are.

More seriously, another reason for overlap is in-game pragmatism. Its not good to have say bard, wizard and sorc not all able to be the teans primary caster cuz some basic effects that are reasonably needs are divided between them instead of shared.

To me, the key to diffetentiating the classes and giving them their own unique flavor is in the other class abilities and how they impact the casting and results. Metamagic vs prepared/school-focus vs spell-singing/inspiration to me dies this **but** it doesnt have to stop there.

The GM can, and IMO, should narratively add bits and flourishes that show "wondrous" differences.

Fir me, part of that is sensual.

Bards get a lot of their descriptives keyed around the sound of their spells - their Hold Person is more like a description of a Harpy Song or a fascination effect, the sorcerer more like mental domination and the wizards more like an arcane mind trap or binding. Detect magic and identify - very different narrative - sounds and whispers/tones vs precise analysis of magic patterns vs instinctive almost reflexive responses.

Bards - focus is music item vs the others.

I guess for me i want the core rules to provide a useful, manageable framework and leave the flavor, sense of wonder and wow to me.

Let the sorc fireball be described as an unearthly blue flame not the wizards more normal. Let the trickster clerics creste water flow up into containers at time of conjury. Let the conjurer fireball be more opening a portal to the realm of fkame vs transmuter igniting rocket pellet vs illusionist crafting/painting the flames.

Alarm cast by wizard (magical lazer grid lines) but by ranger (woodland spirits watching over you) necromancer (darker spirits watching) and let each show different flavors of alarm - not all identical ringing.

I mean, i want **less** hard-coded flavor for the basic how-to-get-stuff-done bits.

I have tossed all their silly childish material components for 2019 and beyond - letting each caster define their own thematic components and focuses - all things grave (bones, grave dirt, headstone pieces, etc), coins, herbs, liquids-blood-inks, inks-paints, fragrant-things, slips of holy writs - whatever. To deal with costly spells, introducing to the setting a harvestable, refinable, craftable and sellable resource for that "fuel."

My players and I, my setting and their play - thats where the magic, flavor and wow needs to come from - not from greater complexity hard-coded into the basics and fundamentals.

If your game and your players *choose** to use, treat, describe and *imagine* the warlock and the archer as the same - while they certainly may bring similar tools to the table - thats not the book doing that.

Happy New Year!!!

 

[NaturalZero]

I would not mind seeing some 4e powers come back to add some options for casters. Not sure on what to remove or make them feats or such though. I always like things like a mage that pushed the opponent 10ft when hit with their staff, or slowed people.

There was a lot of amazing design space that got left on the table with 4e. One of the big ones was the assumption that every magic user relied on implements, the way a fighter relies on a sword. The idea that a wizard was going to use sets of magic wands with special qualities, like a fighter with different swords, has a universe of possibilities that could still be used in 5e to a lesser degree, though the big stumbling block now is that some spells rely on attack rolls and others saving throws. You could still have a wand that adds a 5 foot push effect whenever you deal fire damage, for example, or a staff that grants 1 hp every time you damage an enemy. I, personally, prefer to fill campaigns with magic that is ephemeral and aesthetic in nature though, like wands that produce a floral perfume effect when you cast healing spells or a staves that record and replay conversations nearby.

 

[Immortal Sun]

YMMV, obviously, but I strongly disagree on this point. Casting spells is not what makes a spellcaster feel magical to me. In my opinion, the magical thing about a spellcaster is that they can cast spells; and that remains true of them, until such time as they run out. A wizard who can cast Fireball feels at least as magical as a wizard who is casting Fireball.

In much the same way, a grenade feels dangerous because it can explode.

I feel like this commentary requires some kind of test. Like, play a Wizard, but never cast a spell, and then see if you still feel magical.

Somehow I question the premise.

 

[NaturalZero]

So, which of your cant see in dark characters shoulda gone around without a light answer in the world egere at night modt nightdms you are blind?

The specific example of which cantrip everyone has isn't the point. If your special racial feature is "you have 5 fingers on each hand" and then every other race also gets 5 fingers, it ceases to be a special ability.

Part of the reason for shared soell lists is pragmatic - which rules in the PHB do we take out to make up for four different fireballs that do mostly the same thing - solve the ssme problem - but with flavor diff twixt sorc and warlock?

Reflavoring is great, and plenty of people do this, but when you're rolling the same dice, with the same DC, with the same numbered spell slot, etc, it becomes a matter of seeing the same game mechanics over and over.

More seriously, another reason for overlap is in-game pragmatism. Its not good to have say bard, wizard and sorc not all able to be the teans primary caster cuz some basic effects that are reasonably needs are divided between them instead of shared.

You really, really don't need a system where everyone has the exact same spells in order to have different classes be useful as "primary caster" though. That niche is hella vague.

Bards get a lot of their descriptives keyed around the sound of their spells - their Hold Person is more like a description of a Harpy Song or a fascination effect, the sorcerer more like mental domination and the wizards more like an arcane mind trap or binding. Detect magic and identify - very different narrative - sounds and whispers/tones vs precise analysis of magic patterns vs instinctive almost reflexive responses.

Or you could give the bard the mental domination spells and give wizards or sorcerers something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thematically. Currently, we can have 4 completely different characters at a table using the same numbered slot to cast the same spells with the same variables and same DC. It didn't have to be that way.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I feel like this commentary requires some kind of test. Like, play a Wizard, but never cast a spell, and then see if you still feel magical.

Somehow I question the premise.

We called it "Second Edition".

One ramification of being able to cast a Fireball is that, should circumstances warrant, you can deal a bunch of fire damage in a large area. Another ramification of being able to cast a Fireball is that you know you can cast Fireball, and others may believe that you can, so that changes how everyone acts in your presence.

If you walk into a public place and start waving a gun around, the fact that you have a gun has a strong influence on everybody present, whether or not you ever actually use it. The firing is a rather small part of the experience.

 

[CubicsRube]

At-will cantrips in 5e are a continuation of a popular aspect of 4e: everyone that has magic can always use magic, without having to rely on a crossbow when they're all "used up." I played my entire 3.5e career finding ways to have magic all day long, whether it was metamagic cheese (persistent spell, ftw), finding ways to wildshape into non-animal forms and get their abilities (aberration wildshape + Assume Supernatural Ability + Enhance Wildshape), or simply finding all-day spell effects. Having the system just let me make a magic-user at level 1 that gets magic all day without a bunch of books and esoteric optimizing tricks is a huge boon in 5e, IMO.

I remember sitting down at a Pathfinder game sometime after 4e was out. One of the complaints at the table about 4e was that different classes got spells that were too similar to each other. The wizard might get "Fireball," which was a AOE at a distance, while the sorcerer would get something like "Fireblast," which would be a fire AOE with a different rider effects. With this in mind, we started the PF campaign with a bunch of level 6 characters and, when the first fight broke out, 3 different characters, representing 3 different classes, were all casting the exact same buff spells and using the exact same tactics. So, in our 4e game, different classes had different powers that were similar and, in PF, different classes had powers that were literally identical. My problem with magic not feeling special in 5e relates directly to this.

You show up with a 5 man group at a fresh 5e game: Elven bow fighter, tielfing warlock, human wizard, dragonborn sorcerer, halfling cleric. The first time you enter a cave, you realize that most of your party can't see in the dark so ... all 5 characters cast the "light" cantrip. THAT is what stops magic from feeling "magical" in 5e, to me. My problem is that every character gets so, so, so much overlap in what they have access to off of the same list of options. I wish the sorcerer and wizard had different spell lists. I wish the wizard was broken up into around 3 or 4 unique classes with very little spell overlap. I'm tired of seeing parties where the wizard, sorcerer, specialty cleric, eldritch knight, and warlock all cast "fireball" in fights because everyone has casual access to the same stuff. The issue for me isn't how often you can cast a cantrip, its that literally everyone at the table can do the exact same stuff (likely, with the same DC!).

One of the things that made me fall in love with shadow of the demon lord is the spell system.

When you gain levels you can choose to open up a new magic school or learn a new spell in a school you know.

Theres around 30 in the core book alone and many more in expansions.

Given that you can really only learn about 2 schools if you want all the high level spells, then you could have about 15 wizards in your party and theyd all feel different.

 

[Bitbrain]

I feel like this commentary requires some kind of test. Like, play a Wizard, but never cast a spell, and then see if you still feel magical.

Somehow I question the premise.

Allow me to introduce you to my dad.

Whenever he plays a Wizard, he does almost nothing but shoot a light crossbow . . . And yet he will still complain that the class feels too magical for his preferences.

I'm not kidding. In one campaign, he managed to get an evocation wizard up to 9th level (the wizard was eventually killed by a storm giant) without using a single spell or cantrip.

Meanwhile, whenever he plays a Bard or Druid, he'll cast spells like there is no tomorrow, and then announce that they don't feel magical enough.

 

[5ekyu]

The specific example of which cantrip everyone has isn't the point. If your special racial feature is "you have 5 fingers on each hand" and then every other race also gets 5 fingers, it ceases to be a special ability.



Reflavoring is great, and plenty of people do this, but when you're rolling the same dice, with the same DC, with the same numbered spell slot, etc, it becomes a matter of seeing the same game mechanics over and over.



You really, really don't need a system where everyone has the exact same spells in order to have different classes be useful as "primary caster" though. That niche is hella vague.



Or you could give the bard the mental domination spells and give wizards or sorcerers something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thematically. Currently, we can have 4 completely different characters at a table using the same numbered slot to cast the same spells with the same variables and same DC. It didn't have to be that way.

"Or you could give the bard the mental domination spells and give wizards or sorcerers something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thematically. Currently, we can have 4 completely different characters at a table using the same numbered slot to cast the same spells with the same variables and same DC. It didn't have to be that way"

It doesnt have to,be that way now!!!

Your four guys throwing the same spells at same times with ssne DCs are doing so with four classes because they **all** wanted to br doing that that wsy at that time. It was a need they saw they wanted or needed to cover and made multiple choices to get to.

In your alternative, wouldnt they all be there doing that but with that one class that allows it because thats the only way to cover thst thing they **all** want to do that way?

If your game sees in actuality four players of spell casters and what not all needing, wanting, choosing the ssme things, same dcs etc often enough to be a "problem" that is saying more about the game-table and the challenges experienced than the rules snd flexible class structure.

In my experience, the more restrictive you make classes, the more you see classes being sorted into "the ones we need" and the "ones we dont" instead of having class not be more of a straight-jacket.

But changing thongs up so the bard and sorc cannot be part of that samesome foursome you fret might just lead to (likely will) you seeing the same thing - just four wizards and less variety than you have now.

But hey, good luck with that.

 

[Shiroiken]

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?

Unfortunately, I think we really can't without a rewrite of a huge chunk of the edition. If they had set the starting baseline level at 3, with levels 1-2 being only for multi-classing and "apprentice" games, they could have gotten rid of cantrips completely (level 1 spells would take their place), and they could have overall increased the number of lower level spell slots. This would allow primary casters to be able to use spells for a majority of combat, but at the cost of utility spells, leaving them to occasionally find a non-magical option. Eventually they would "master" a few 1st level spells, turning them into cantrips, but that would be at a point where the character would feel very magical anyway.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

(snip)... The issue for me isn't how often you can cast a cantrip, its that literally everyone at the table can do the exact same stuff (likely, with the same DC!).

Yeah, this is one of my pet peeves about 5E. Just about every class has some version of archetype where they can cast spells or use spell-like effects. If everyone can do it, it isn't special (i.e. magical). Of course, there are plenty of options without spells or spell-like abilities, so I suppose it simply comes down to a matter of choice.