• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D (2024) Playtest 8: Cantrips


log in or register to remove this ad


YES.

If it's a reasonable spell in one game and a punishing trap in another, that is a problem.
I don't see it as a punishing trap, it's still usable. You can knock the creature down, you can escape into a crowd before the minute expires, you can wear a disguise before you use it, and etc. There are many solutions to that issue.
 
Last edited:

YES.

If it's a reasonable spell in one game and a punishing trap in another, that is a problem.
I'm just saying, it would be exceedingly rare for me to play the same character under two different DMs, who disagree this strongly with each other, about the same cantrip.

And even if it were, how hard is it to have this conversation?

Me: I'm thinking of taking the Friends cantrip. How does it work at your table?
DM: It works like this. (explains)
Me: Ah, thanks. I'll take Firebolt instead.
DM: Sounds good.
 

And even if it were, how hard is it to have this conversation?

Me: I'm thinking of taking the Friends cantrip. How does it work at your table?
DM: It works like this. (explains)
Me: Ah, thanks. I'll take Firebolt instead.
DM: Sounds good.
Or for that matter, that same conversation and result happening, just, as they are about to cast it for the first time instead of at level up.
 


Man, if I do absolutely know that someone used magic to influence my opinion of them, even if they treated me well, or didn't take advantage of me, I don't know how I don't have an immediate and strong negative reaction as a result. There's a reason the modern consensus on love potions is that they're pretty evil.
Sure. But that is different from involuntarily killing. The DM has leeway to decide how the target responds. Circumstances matter. The Charm is an attempt to persuade, and might be for a good reason.
 


I'm just saying, it would be exceedingly rare for me to play the same character under two different DMs, who disagree this strongly with each other, about the same cantrip.

And even if it were, how hard is it to have this conversation?

Me: I'm thinking of taking the Friends cantrip. How does it work at your table?
DM: It works like this. (explains)
Me: Ah, thanks. I'll take Firebolt instead.
DM: Sounds good.
How often do you actually have this conversation for every spell of every character that you make?

And would you need to monopolize the DM's time so much if there was an expectation that DM would be the one to explain to you if they were diverging from the standard everyone can understand?

I dunno, I like having a phillips head screw driver work on most screws and don't see it as a 'feature' when some 'brilliant' company decides to put little star shapes on their screw heads.
 

Copying my thoughts from the general thread:

Acid Splash – Changes from two creatures within 5' of each other to just a 5' AOE. Nice simplification. Changes to an Evocation, which means it can also benefit from an Evoker's Sculpt Spell. Overall, I like it.

Blade Ward – Changes from an action to a reaction. Massive improvement on action economy. Imposes disadvantage on an attack rather than resistance to physical damage. Downgrade since it only affects one attack, rather than lasting the whole round, however for a single attack is a similar net effect. Overall, much improved.

Note: Jeremy mentioned its range increasing at higher levels, in the YouTube video. I think he was mixing Blade Ward up with Spare the Dying, or they failed to include the higher tier effects in the PDF, as no such modification is included here.

Chill Touch – Made it actual touch range. Eliminates a big point of confusion, though it's still necrotic, and not cold, damage. Increased die from 1d8 to 1d10. Unsure if the loss of range is worth it.

Friends – Gets rid of the automatic hostility at the end of the spell. Very happy about that. Makes it a 10' range instead of casting on self, and the target gets to make a save. Unclear how the likely visibility of the spellcasting would affect things. Perhaps it's just accepted if the target fails its save? Loses effect if you are active in any sort of combat. Overall, a nice improvement.

Note: No verbal component, so you're not chanting a spell, just waving your hand around like Dracula mesmerizing people in old 30's movies. I can see it working thematically. For me, the old version was never worth using. Now it feels flexible enough to consider getting.

Poison Spray – 30' range instead of 10', and an attack roll rather than a save. Seems a reasonable improvement.

Produce Flame – Produces light in a 20'/20' radius instead of 10'/10', which is a welcome improvement. Does not end the spell if you throw the fire, which you can do at a range of 60' instead of 30'. Makes it far more balanced for something which is kind of a cross between the Light spell and Fire Bolt. Overall, a nice improvement.

Shillelagh – Can do force damage instead of "magic" damage, which is line with other changes they're making to magic damage. Increases the weapon die size at higher levels. A nice minor improvement to go along with the cleanup on damage types.

Shocking Grasp – Only prevents opportunity attacks instead of all reactions, and doesn't give you advantage if the target is wearing metal armor. General downgrade in power, but probably doesn't change much in actual use. Might have expected it to be a 1d10 spell, in line with Chill Touch.

Spare the Dying – Gives it actual range, starting at 15', and doubling at higher levels. I thought they were getting rid of the "stable" condition, though? I mostly like the change, but the "stable" part adds uncertainty.

True Strike – Completely rewritten. This actually seems decent. I'd actually consider taking this.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top