Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 6262681" data-attributes="member: 54710">I would reverse the sidebar.I think including damage cantrips (roughly as is -- but with much more variety) is the right default solution.&nbsp; That's supported by my sense that more people prefer them than dislike them.&nbsp; (I know that my gaming group thinks they add to the game.)&nbsp; But - as data is not the plural of anecdote - I think the greater support is the fact that WotC has consistently included them in versions of the game.&nbsp; I imagine they their survey data supports that decision.That being said, I completely support a sidebar that would give wizards something back (presumably extra spell slots) if DMs select the optional rule in which wizards don't get damage cantrips.&nbsp; Mostly based on my sense of message board volume, I think there are enough people who want balanced wizards without damage cantrips, that WotC would be well served to provide a playtested way to get that structure.-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 6262681, member: 54710"] I would reverse the sidebar. I think including damage cantrips (roughly as is -- but with much more variety) is the right default solution. That's supported by my sense that more people prefer them than dislike them. (I know that my gaming group thinks they add to the game.) But - as data is not the plural of anecdote - I think the greater support is the fact that WotC has consistently included them in versions of the game. I imagine they their survey data supports that decision. That being said, I completely support a sidebar that would give wizards something back (presumably extra spell slots) if DMs select the optional rule in which wizards don't get damage cantrips. Mostly based on my sense of message board volume, I think there are enough people who want balanced wizards without damage cantrips, that WotC would be well served to provide a playtested way to get that structure. -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification