DESTROY CANTRIPS: Keep Orisons....

[Empath Negative]

or at least redefine what a cantrip is...


Rather than making them zero level spells why not make them the foundation of an arcane spellcasters learning.


In other words... they're not zero level spells... they're .5 level spells, 1.5 level spells and so forth.

Cantrips bridge the gap between magic levels, though they are rudimentry compared to the specialization of Fireball, Charm Person, and Dimension Door they are practiced frequently enough that the caster may use a cantrip on a successful spellcraft check.


For example, Mialee has learned the .5 Level Cantrip "Sympathy", the foundation of the first level spell "Charm Person" (just go with it). As a standard action Mialee may cast Sympathy on any humanoid within ten feet, causing that creature to feel concern for the casters well being, or at least more than they otherwise would, for three rounds. This has the effect of causing the subject to find other targets to attack, or provide the caster with a favorable outcome while socializing. However, due to its short duration, Sympathy is unsuited for schemes and endeavors that are intricate or would have immediate consequences once the subject of the spell reverts to its former level of helpfulness.

In other to use this Cantrip the caster must overcome a Spellcraft DC of 11.


As the caster leveled up these Cantrips could be replaced by more potent cantrips. Advanced Sympathy could be used on monsters to the same effect, would have a more difficult Spellcraft DC to overcome, but could be used against any monster. The caster would lose access to baseline Sympathy.



This means that each level would provide the Wizard with a possible selection of cantrips to study and master. This adds a great deal of new depth. Further, it would be possible to make sorcerers the purveyors of cantrips...

and because each usage requires a Spellcraft check it is not endless casting without possible failure.

 

[slobo777]

Over-complex for me.

But some kind of "feat tree" for spells, where the caster must know the lower-powered version of something, before they can learn a powerful version, would do a lot for me accepting D&D's spell system (have *never* liked the arbitrary feel of it, which did make it a lot easier for me to throw it away when playing 4E).

I expect any such complications would be a module though - the very simple Vancian system of slots for knowing and using spells is going to stay.

Shame they kept the halved spell level. It serves no purpose, and adds complexity. What's wrong with having spell levels matching caster levels i.e. a fifth-level caster can cast up to fifth-level spells (obviously the spells get put into levels differently than they are now - fireball would be e.g. 5th level)?

 

[Sadras]

But some kind of "feat tree" for spells, where the caster must know the lower-powered version of something, before they can learn a powerful version, would do a lot for me accepting D&D's spell system (have *never* liked the arbitrary feel of it, which did make it a lot easier for me to throw it away when playing 4E).

Produce Flame - Affect Normal Fire - Burning Hands - Flame Arrow/s - Fireball - Wall of Fire

Something like that I suppose?...It is interesting, but works better in a White Wolf system than the D&D systems. Thats why I'm a fan of spells becoming more powerful with level - its reflects the other side of the equation.
Anyways in 4E though, if a player in my group knows the spell Fireball I will allow him to "Produce Flame" at a cost of a surge. I mean if you can summon a bead which becomes an exploding ball of fire, surely you know rudimentary arcana incantations to produce a flame in the palm of your hand. I have the same leniency with other powers - it allows the PCs to think out the box and not be limited to what they have on their character sheets.

 

[CleverNickName]

It's a bit too complex for my tastes, but I don't see why it can't work.

I will probably just assign a spells-per-day value for level 0 spells. Something like twice the number of level 1 spells. Maybe fewer, if low-level spamming is still an issue.

*sigh* It's a shame. These balance and playability problems could have been avoided if they had just given us a "mana point" system for spells. Ah well.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Actually, having seen the playtest material (no NDA) cantrips are some of the most useful spells and there is no limit to the amount of times they can be cast in a day (no 3.X limiting factors) its somewhat of a blending of the Vancian magic/at will powers. IMO, it looks good for now (at least until the powermongers figure out a way to break it. )

 

[Fifth Element]

It could work in theory, but besides bringing much more difficultt (complexity) than benefit (IMO), it would also raise the question as to why wizards need to make a Spellcraft check to cast some spells while others go off automatically, especially since you seem to be saying they should be interspersed between levels rather than just being sub-level-1.

I also note that the distinction between a "level 0" spell and a "level 0.5" spell is meaningless. They both just mean the lowest-power spells available.

 

[Fifth Element]

*sigh* It's a shame. These balance and playability problems could have been avoided if they had just given us a "mana point" system for spells. Ah well.

These particular balance and playability problems? Perhaps. But you're forgetting that a "mana" (shudder) system has its own issues, which the current system does not have. If there were one objectively best system, would it not be used be all games?

 

[Thunderfoot]

<SNIP>
*sigh* It's a shame. These balance and playability problems could have been avoided if they had just given us a "mana point" system for spells. Ah well.

Sorry for the quick derail, but can someone explain to me why spell points are always called "mana"? Considering the word is Jewish term for 'bread like food that came from heaven', I don't see the connection.

Okay, carry on...

 

[the Jester]

I really don't see this as an improvement- it strikes me as overly complex.

What's the difference between a 2nd level spell and a 1.5 level spell, anyhow? I mean, isn't this a matter of semantics? How granular does the spell level system need to be?

I just don't see how this improves anything, especially with the "waste an action when you fail your spellcraft check, hurray!" trap you've built in.

 

[Abstruse]

Might make for a good alternate spell system, but not for the core system. Cantrips have been part of the game for a long time (2nd Edition I think), and I like the idea that they're more useful than the 0-level spells in Pathfinder. The wizard in my game managed to make Acid Splash's 1d3 damage useful, but only because I kept throwing trolls at them when they were levels 2-4. I played a lot of wizards in 3rd Edition when I played a lot with a killer DM in the twice-weekly game store game. I never want to see another crossbow as long as I live.

This sort of building-blocks system adds a lot of complexity to the system for little gain. It would work great for a lot of settings, but it doesn't really add anything to the core game itself. If you're going to do something like this, I'd suggest moving to a sort of magic system closer to the one in Shadowrun, where the exact same fire-based elemental spell can cause a little spark or a massive white-hot fireball with the only difference being the skill check to cast it successfully and the amount of drain you suffer.