Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7862420" data-attributes="member: 59848">I don't understand your comment. I haven't taken anything away from the wizard. I just rearranged cantrips so that they are treated more mechanically similar to spells. There's nothing in there about cantrips functioning any differently other than them needing to be prepared and scribed into a Wizard's spellbook.As an aside, I really didn't agree with the thread suggesting that wizards suck thread.I disagree. For one, just because you don't know where you are going, doesn't mean you won't like where you end up.But I do have a goal, even if it wasn't well or explicitly stated. I am trying to make cantrips be treated more like spells, rather than something separate. The recent UA has put out those options to increase versatility of cantrips. And I think that it is in part because the change increases player enjoyment. It sucks choosing a cantrip only to find it be a lame duck or not what you wanted. Whether you prepare your spells or have spells known, cantrips are largely locked regardless of how a player comes to enjoy them or how the needs of the group may change in response to the campaign.I am considering a similar change for clerics and druids, who also prepare their spells. The main question I'm trying to determine is whether a spellcaster must draw from the same pool of prepared spells, or if it should be separate. Personally, I like keeping it all together, hence the new equation for the number of spells a wizard can prepare.I'm fine with this. A player is still limited by action economy and spell slots, so the increased number of spells prepared doesn't bother me much. If a player wants to prepare lots of cantrips and fewer spells, or vice versa, then ok. Additionally, if a player really wants to add a new cantrip but don't want to give up one of their two new spells when they level up, there is always the possibility of finding a scroll of that cantrip, or researching it during downtime.</blockquote>

Verification