Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="crashtestdummy" data-source="post: 6774610" data-attributes="member: 6803354">Unfortunately, to make that effective, you'll also need to play with the spell focus rule. That is, unless there's a cost listed against the component, you can use your spell focus (arcane focus, holy symbol, etc) instead of a material component.Also, for the vast majority of spells, spell components are not used up. You can use the same spell component to cast the spell again. Of course, that rule can also be varied by the DM, but you can see that it's not just a case of making one rule change -- you need to make multiple rule changes to bring around the result you're looking for, with the constant danger of an unexpected consequence.I don't have any problems with the idea of a low-magic world having a limit on cantrip use. I just want to point out that the game system isn't designed for that. It's roughly the equivalent of limiting the number of times a fighter is allowed to swing their weapon. You can do that (fatigue rules have been mentioned), but it gets complicated. Cantrips are to spellcasters what weapons are to martial characters. I would be more inclined to constrain the cantrips that have wider uses (eg. Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy), leaving the spellcasters with the cantrips that have specific uses (light, message, mending, firebolt, etc) that aren't easy to use outside of the cases that they were designed for. Yes, a spellcaster could cast firebolt to burn their way through a door, but a fighter could do similar with a mace or axe. Either way would take time. Is there an effective difference between the two that means the fighter should be allowed to do it but the spellcaster shouldn't?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="crashtestdummy, post: 6774610, member: 6803354"] Unfortunately, to make that effective, you'll also need to play with the spell focus rule. That is, unless there's a cost listed against the component, you can use your spell focus (arcane focus, holy symbol, etc) instead of a material component. Also, for the vast majority of spells, spell components are not used up. You can use the same spell component to cast the spell again. Of course, that rule can also be varied by the DM, but you can see that it's not just a case of making one rule change -- you need to make multiple rule changes to bring around the result you're looking for, with the constant danger of an unexpected consequence. I don't have any problems with the idea of a low-magic world having a limit on cantrip use. I just want to point out that the game system isn't designed for that. It's roughly the equivalent of limiting the number of times a fighter is allowed to swing their weapon. You can do that (fatigue rules have been mentioned), but it gets complicated. Cantrips are to spellcasters what weapons are to martial characters. I would be more inclined to constrain the cantrips that have wider uses (eg. Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy), leaving the spellcasters with the cantrips that have specific uses (light, message, mending, firebolt, etc) that aren't easy to use outside of the cases that they were designed for. Yes, a spellcaster could cast firebolt to burn their way through a door, but a fighter could do similar with a mace or axe. Either way would take time. Is there an effective difference between the two that means the fighter should be allowed to do it but the spellcaster shouldn't? [/QUOTE]

Verification