D&D 5E Pew Pew magic......AHHHHHHH! Make martials all day swingers and casters limited per day slingers.

[Wulfgar76]

I disagree. Whatever ACF WotC ultimately chooses should be placed right alongside at-will cantrips in the Player's Handbook (assuming they use the three book model). I see no reason why the class write-up shouldn't say something like:

Wizard Ability
Pick one: At-will Cantrips or [Insert ACF]

Neither is default, both are available.

Now, there are some modules that cannot be placed in the PHB, and teh DMG or UA may be the correct place for them, but at-will cantrips is not it.

Sure, give them equal footing in the PHB then.

 

[Mistwell]

I disagree. Whatever ACF WotC ultimately chooses should be placed right alongside at-will cantrips in the Player's Handbook (assuming they use the three book model). I see no reason why the class write-up shouldn't say something like:

Wizard Ability
Pick one: At-will Cantrips or [Insert ACF]

Neither is default, both are available.

Now, there are some modules that cannot be placed in the PHB, and teh DMG or UA may be the correct place for them, but at-will cantrips is not it.

Naw that conflicts with the simplicity goal of D&D Next for new players. There should be a default rule in the PHB, and then a list of options for the DM if they wish to change the defaults. It's up to the DM to remove at-will spells, not the player. That's a campaign-level decision, not a player decision.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Naw that conflicts with the simplicity goal of D&D Next for new players. There should be a default rule in the PHB, and then a list of options for the DM if they wish to change the defaults. It's up to the DM to remove at-will spells, not the player. That's a campaign-level decision, not a player decision.

A couple points...

First, lets not underestimate the capabilities of new players. There is room in the game to present players with some, if limited, options without creating a bloated system. I don't see my suggestion as being too far removed from what was done with Essentials. If I wanted to play a Ranger, for example, I had two options, presumably equal in value, in front of me: Hunter or Scout. I am not sure why presenting an at-will wizard along with an [insert ability] wizard side-by-side is any more complex?

Second, there is a cost component that should not be overlooked. Wizards has a fine line to walk here, admittedly; the Player's Handbook cannot be too massive or customers will be turned off, but it also cannot be too sparse to the point where one would need to purchase multiple books to play the character they envision. That too will turn off customers. Ideally, Wizards will produce a product somewhere in between. At-wills versus [insert ability] seems like such a simple addition that would satisfy the most people for the least cost.

 

[Mistwell]

A couple points...

First, lets not underestimate the capabilities of new players.

I'm not. It has nothing to do with capability, and everything to do with the survey results Hasbro is getting from gamers in general - they want to be able to sit down and play much faster. Period, across the board, through a wide swath of all people who buy games. This has been the trend for 30 years, and it's not reversing. Sure, they might be perfectly capable of handling more choices - but they say they don't want them, to begin, and will choose something else to play if the something else seems easier to start.

There is room in the game to present players with some, if limited, options without creating a bloated system.

It's a pattern and practice. Everyone wants their one little option presented in the PHB, until you have dozens and dozens of them. You need a principal covering the rules that deals with this, as no particular person's pet peeve is more important than someone else's. The options to alter how the campaign functions all need to go in the DMG.

I don't see my suggestion as being too far removed from what was done with Essentials. If I wanted to play a Ranger, for example, I had two options, presumably equal in value, in front of me: Hunter or Scout. I am not sure why presenting an at-will wizard along with an [insert ability] wizard side-by-side is any more complex?

People who want to remove at-will spells for the most part want to do it on a campaign-level, not for just a particular character. It's the idea that magic functions in their world at their will, versus on a limited basis. It goes to how magic functions in the world. That's a DM choice. Take a look at the cantrip threads here and over and over that's the issue raised, and not as an individual-character issue.

Second, there is a cost component that should not be overlooked. Wizards has a fine line to walk here, admittedly; the Player's Handbook cannot be too massive or customers will be turned off, but it also cannot be too sparse to the point where one would need to purchase multiple books to play the character they envision.

I don't think that's a concern with this issue. We're talking about a PHB for a base game, and a DMG for altering the base game to function different.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I'm not. It has nothing to do with capability, and everything to do with the survey results Hasbro is getting from gamers in general - they want to be able to sit down and play much faster. Period, across the board, through a wide swath of all people who buy games. This has been the trend for 30 years, and it's not reversing. Sure, they might be perfectly capable of handling more choices - but they say they don't want them, to begin, and will choose something else to play if the something else seems easier to start.

Indeed. I hold that opinion, as well. I want faster character generation and quicker play at the table. That doesn't mean that I want options expunged from the Player's Handbook, though.

When I answered those same surveys, the complexity and play issues I was objecting to were mostly mathematical complexity - how changing ability scores affects the rest of the character sheet; how careful I needed to be in encounter design. I must not have been alone in that opinion as D&D Next has addressed the math, at least mostly to my satisfaction.

It's a pattern and practice. Everyone wants their one little option presented in the PHB, until you have dozens and dozens of them. You need a principal covering the rules that deals with this, as no particular person's pet peeve is more important than someone else's. The options to alter how the campaign functions all need to go in the DMG.

While it is true that people are stating their preferences for how they would like to see certain rules implemented -- and I certainly have stated mine -- I don't get the impression that those opposed to at-wills are mandating that their specific option be included (aside from a select few). I do get the impression that they want some option included in the Player's Handbook.

People who want to remove at-will spells for the most part want to do it on a campaign-level, not for just a particular character. It's the idea that magic functions in their world at their will, versus on a limited basis. It goes to how magic functions in the world. That's a DM choice. Take a look at the cantrip threads here and over and over that's the issue raised, and not as an individual-character issue.

This is a board with a larger proportion of DMs, so it is unsurprising that posters are taking a DM-centric position. That said, I don't think it is a DM issue or a player issue - it is a table issue, and it will be discussed at the table regardless of where the options are presented.

I don't think that's a concern with this issue. We're talking about a PHB for a base game, and a DMG for altering the base game to function different.

The cost issue has been raised amongst my own group. Lets agree that this is an issue for three of the guys I play with.

 

[Mistwell]

Indeed. I hold that opinion, as well. I want faster character generation and quicker play at the table. That doesn't mean that I want options expunged from the Player's Handbook, though.

When I answered those same surveys, the complexity and play issues I was objecting to were mostly mathematical complexity - how changing ability scores affects the rest of the character sheet; how careful I needed to be in encounter design. I must not have been alone in that opinion as D&D Next has addressed the math, at least mostly to my satisfaction.

I was referring to the Hasbro survey, not the WOTC survey. It was also in the WOTC survey, but it's a stated goal (as of late last year) for Hasbro across all their divisions now.

While it is true that people are stating their preferences for how they would like to see certain rules implemented -- and I certainly have stated mine -- I don't get the impression that those opposed to at-wills are mandating that their specific option be included (aside from a select few). I do get the impression that they want some option included in the Player's Handbook.

This is a board with a larger proportion of DMs, so it is unsurprising that posters are taking a DM-centric position. That said, I don't think it is a DM issue or a player issue - it is a table issue, and it will be discussed at the table regardless of where the options are presented.

The cost issue has been raised amongst my own group. Lets agree that this is an issue for three of the guys I play with.

Someone at your table will have a DMG. And "table issues" belong in the DMG, since the PHB is for individual player choices only. 5e is stated as being more DM-centric that 3e and 4e as well, so I think it's not just people posting here, but the people writing 5e, that feel these things are DM issues.

 

[Ichneumon]

I'm in favor of keeping the core game as clean as possible. Options need to be included judiciously. Very few new players are going to see cantrips and say "I wish my wizard didn't have those!". Cantripless play is pretty much exclusively for pre-4e veterans who want to keep playing that way, and experienced groups who want to try it to see what it's like.

A good rule of thumb with player options is that they should point to a particular archetype. When you choose a fighting style, you can immediately visualise your guy as being a tank, a sword-n-board wielder, or swinging a great weapon around. What do choosing cantrips or no cantrips make you think of? Nothing! There's no clear 'cantrip-user' and 'non-cantrip-user' visualisations. Sure, you could make some up, but it's way safer for the group to do this than for Wizards to do it. So I'm happy to keep the choice of whether to use cantrips or not at the group level, and have the DMG provide a module for this playstyle.