Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6774640" data-attributes="member: 996">In the broader sense, D&amp;D has had limits on cantrip use from the moment cantrips were introduced (in a Dragon article in the early 80s) until late in 3.5 when the Warlock and, IIRC, some wizard feat finally opened up at-will spellcasting.&nbsp; So for the majority of it's history with cantrips, the game has had limits on them.&nbsp; And, 5e, specifically, is designed to be 'modular,' to allow the DM to make rulings, opt in and out of modules, and mod the system as much as he wants.&nbsp; Robust, built-in balance is necessarily no part of that, you can change one class and leave others the same.&nbsp; The DM task of keeping the game playable &amp; fun will not be made any harder.Fatigue rules can be pretty simple, really.&nbsp; But the game already features such short combats and such long 'short' rests that it doesn't seem like there's a lot to be gained from remotely realistic/practical fatigue rules.Weapons are gear that characters - including spellcasters - can use to make attacks, and can freely swap out to change the damage, range, damage type, and other characteristics of those attacks.&nbsp; A character can be proficient in a large number of weapons, though few carry all that they are proficient in.&nbsp; Cantrips are class abilities that do a wide range of things, including damage or making an attack roll (or forcing a save), and, while they are at-will, a given character can know only a relatively few of them, and not generally change them out.Aside from being at-will, cantrips and weapons are really nothing alike.&nbsp; The Battlemaster's maneuvers, in doing a wider range of effects than weapons, and in being limited in number 'known' and not readily swapped out, would seem a stronger analogy to cantrips.&nbsp; And, those maneuvers /are/ limited-use, as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6774640, member: 996"] In the broader sense, D&D has had limits on cantrip use from the moment cantrips were introduced (in a Dragon article in the early 80s) until late in 3.5 when the Warlock and, IIRC, some wizard feat finally opened up at-will spellcasting. So for the majority of it's history with cantrips, the game has had limits on them. And, 5e, specifically, is designed to be 'modular,' to allow the DM to make rulings, opt in and out of modules, and mod the system as much as he wants. Robust, built-in balance is necessarily no part of that, you can change one class and leave others the same. The DM task of keeping the game playable & fun will not be made any harder. Fatigue rules can be pretty simple, really. But the game already features such short combats and such long 'short' rests that it doesn't seem like there's a lot to be gained from remotely realistic/practical fatigue rules. Weapons are gear that characters - including spellcasters - can use to make attacks, and can freely swap out to change the damage, range, damage type, and other characteristics of those attacks. A character can be proficient in a large number of weapons, though few carry all that they are proficient in. Cantrips are class abilities that do a wide range of things, including damage or making an attack roll (or forcing a save), and, while they are at-will, a given character can know only a relatively few of them, and not generally change them out. Aside from being at-will, cantrips and weapons are really nothing alike. The Battlemaster's maneuvers, in doing a wider range of effects than weapons, and in being limited in number 'known' and not readily swapped out, would seem a stronger analogy to cantrips. And, those maneuvers /are/ limited-use, as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification