D&D 5E Can an Arcane Trickster change a cantrip as his spell to change when he gains a level?

[Burnside]

1. Arcane tricksters are not limited to illusion or enchantment when it comes to cantrips. That restriction only applies to leveled spells.

2. RAW doesn't allow a cantrip to be replaced by a levelled spell or vice-versa, nor would I allow it

3. RAW doesn't allow Arcane Tricksters or Eldritch Knights to replace cantrips with other cantrips when levelling up, but this seems like an oversight because it's something every other class with cantrips can now do, as of Tasha's. I would allow it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, I think the omission of EK and AT from the list of classes who can swap cantrips was an oversight, not intention. I would allow swapping a cantrip for a different cantrip.

I wouldn't allow swapping a cantrip for a levelled spell (or visa versa) though. Not because it would have an effect on game balance, but because it invalidates class progression tables. The rules have always treated "cantips known" and "spells known" separately. Does it matter mechanically? No. But there are lots of rules that don't really matter mechanically, and if you change things on a whim or by accident it undermines the "rulishness" of the whole ruleset. Rule changes should always be made with INTENT. Rules that don't matter one way or the other should be left alone - if it doesn't matter there is no need to change it.

The rules should never be treated with this level of reverence. If a group doesn't like a rule, or prefers a different take on a rule, they should feel free to just change it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The rules should never be treated with this level of reverence. If a group doesn't like a rule, or prefers a different take on a rule, they should feel free to just change it.

The rules require a degree of respect, otherwise sessions degenerate into arguments, with each player choosing their own rules.

Which is not to say they shouldn't be changed, but it should be done for good reason, not on a whim.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The rules require a degree of respect, otherwise sessions degenerate into arguments, with each player choosing their own rules.

No, they don't. The only thing that requires respect is the people at the table, and the shared agreement to play the game in good faith.

Which is not to say they shouldn't be changed, but it should be done for good reason, not on a whim.

The rules serve the people playing the game. That is their only purpose. If the game will be more fun for a group if they change a rule, then they should change the rule.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If the game will be more fun for a group if they change a rule, then they should change the rule.

And if the change does not make the game more fun, they should leave it as is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And if the change does not make the game more fun, they should leave it as is.

Okay?