Removing/modifying the Cantrips Subsystem

[Inez Hull]

I think it's interesting to view this in reverse - in many ways it's like taking the existing cantrip system but allowing the option to "burn" the use of that cantrip for the day to up it by 1d of damage

 

[Sadrik]

I think it's interesting to view this in reverse - in many ways it's like taking the existing cantrip system but allowing the option to "burn" the use of that cantrip for the day to up it by 1d of damage

And to treat them like spells too! So you can learn them in your spellbook. Or the cleric knows them all, because clerics know every spell. And it makes other first level attack spells into cantrips too. It is a very robust idea.

To speak to Yunru's issue you could include the auto-scaling in when casting a spell as a cantrip. That part just does not work for me. It looks like it would for you. Pretty easy to extrapolate, even for the other non-cantrip 1st level attack spells.

 

[Yunru]

I guess my main issue is I still don't see "Why?"

You want weapons to be the fallback choice? Why?
You want scalable cantrips? Why aren't you happy with the way they currently scale?

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't understand the consequences.

You are first turning cantrips into 1st-level spells. Then you allow some of the 1st-level spells to be cast at will for reduced effects (although I can't check now, if the reduced effects are the same as the original cantrips or less).

Overall I don't understand what really changes, besides being a formal rearrangement of the system and minor changes to some specific spells. Spellcasters still have the option to cast at-will their weakest spells, spells still scale, it doesn't change the big picture enough IMHO to have a noticeable effect on the game (althought it might be a fun exercise by itself).

 

[GMMichael]

It looked to me, Li, that Sadrik is providing the option of casting cantrips at higher levels, in exchange for emptying that spell slot once cast, versus unlimited casting.

I would go with Remove Cantrips though. No one's mentioned the elephant in the room: anyone who can cast a weak spell, for unlimited times, is a priceless resource. Just think - hook up a wizard who knows Shocking Grasp to one end of a power line in Eberron (or anywhere, really), and you have a power supply that runs on porridge (and threats). A first-level wizard is much easier to coerce than a powerful elemental, right?

 

[Yunru]

And? How is that any different to skinning Conjured creatures for pelts and meat every day?

 

[Sadrik]

I don't understand the consequences.

You are first turning cantrips into 1st-level spells. Then you allow some of the 1st-level spells to be cast at will for reduced effects (although I can't check now, if the reduced effects are the same as the original cantrips or less).

Overall I don't understand what really changes, besides being a formal rearrangement of the system and minor changes to some specific spells. Spellcasters still have the option to cast at-will their weakest spells, spells still scale, it doesn't change the big picture enough IMHO to have a noticeable effect on the game (althought it might be a fun exercise by itself).

It removes the cantrip subsystem and makes them all regular spells. They are no longer at-will abilities with their own subset of rules. They are now something that function like a regular spell for learning them, for casting them, and allows them to scale like any spell might rather than automatically.

I acknowledge that this is essentially a minor rearrangement. It does not fundamentally alter much. The big picture is still wizard casts a low level spell at-will and does some damage.

It looked to me, Li, that Sadrik is providing the option of casting cantrips at higher levels, in exchange for emptying that spell slot once cast, versus unlimited casting.

I would go with Remove Cantrips though. No one's mentioned the elephant in the room: anyone who can cast a weak spell, for unlimited times, is a priceless resource. Just think - hook up a wizard who knows Shocking Grasp to one end of a power line in Eberron (or anywhere, really), and you have a power supply that runs on porridge (and threats). A first-level wizard is much easier to coerce than a powerful elemental, right?

I see this as an important switch between 1e/2e/3e and 4e/5e. Casting unlimited magic however mundane is a world changer - because magic is world changing. I am with you that many 5e at-will magic effects are too world changing when available at-will. I think limiting cantrips to a number of times per day or per short rest would be a good thing. Nothing too small.

The game assumes two short rests so that is three rests per day. You could limit it to casting stat bonus per rest. So if a wizard had an 18 INT that would be 12 cantrips per day. Another way could be casting stat per day 18 INT = 18 cantrips per day.

Note that limiting cantrips per rest/day is a separate idea from removing the cantrip subsystem.

 

[Yunru]

Casting magic being a world changer because magic is a world changer is the most nonsense I've ever heard. Take Firebolt: oh no, the wizard can consistantly do less damage than the melee classes, such a game changer. Or Mend. Now that magic can fix stuff with no expenditure the world shall enter a new golden age!

No. World changers are based on effects, not the name given to the system that delivers them.

 

[Sadrik]

Casting magic being a world changer because magic is a world changer is the most nonsense I've ever heard. Take Firebolt: oh no, the wizard can consistantly do less damage than the melee classes, such a game changer. Or Mend. Now that magic can fix stuff with no expenditure the world shall enter a new golden age!

No. World changers are based on effects, not the name given to the system that delivers them.

Affects whether at-will or daily are the world changers. True. My point, which evaded you though, was that many 5e at-will magic effects are too world changing when available at-will.

 

[Yunru]

Oh it hasn't evaded me, it just doesn't exist.

Question: have you played 5e yet, or are you guessing? 'Cause it certainly sounds like the latter.