What solution for "Cantrips don't feel magical"?

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I had a DM who wouldn't allow the 3ed Warlock because he felt they could eventually blow away mountains.

I've never seen it in actual play.

You could also chip your way through one with a dagger. Never saw that, either. I did have a warlock try to chip his way through a cave in, and a dungeon wall, and I'm pretty sure someone with a reserve feat tried something similar. It was a long time ago, though. It's hard to remember all of the details.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
In two different threads recently there were comments that Cantrips make magic too common, so it doesn't feel magical.

It's a fair complaint I think.

I would employ two methods to alter the flavor of the cantrips to make them feel magical and not common. First, require a unique physical manifestation which is the same every time it is cast for that specific spellcaster but is different from all other spellcasters casting that spell. Second, require a unique component variable which changes with each cast.

First, change the flavor to be unique to this caster.

The Physical Manifestation.

Make each spellcasters cantrip spells feel unique to them. So let's take firebolt, "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range."

A user names Newbie in this thread made a list of reflavoring for this spell, which others took up. Here are some items on that list.

1. A pit opens to the underworld and a blast of fire spits out and flies toward my target.
2. I pull a quill from my pack and with a hum it floats before me. The feathered end bursts into flames and shoots off like a bolt toward my target.
3. I swirl my dagger through the air forming the ancient rune of fire. The blade bursts into fire. With a thrust toward my opponent I release my control on the flame and it launches in a bolt of fire.
4. I wave my staff overhead and with each circle a flame builds. After a few passes it becomes a bolt of fire and when I strike forward with the staff the fire bolt launches at my target.
5. I wind up like a pitcher getting ready and as I throw a bolt of fire forms. Like a fastball it impacts my target right in the face.
6. I toss a ball of fire up in the air, swing my palm overhead, spiking it into my target.
7. I form an ember of fire between my pinched fingers. With my other hand outstretched before me I line up my target and pull back. When I release the fire bolts like it was shot out of a slingshot.
8. I toss an orb of fire that lands at the feet of the creature and explodes in a burst of flame.
9. I throw acorns and other small nuts at the target. When they hit the acorns burst into fire.
10. I draw ambient heat from the surrounding area and gather it into one bolt to shoot toward the target.
11. I pull heat energy from the target in strands of fire. Once I have a mass of them I fire them back at the target in a bolt of fire.
12. I spit out a breath of fire. It looks like Koopa shooting after Mario as a bolt of fire launches toward my target.
13. For a split second a portal to the elemental plane of fire opens. A gout of primal fire engulfs the target.
14. I hum and a dart appears in my fingers. I target the creature and as I release the throw the dart bursts into flame leaving a trail of smoke in its wake.
15. I spit out one of the seeds I was eating. The seed turns into a small bolt of fire and flies toward my target.
16. I pull a playing card from my cloak and fling it through the air. As it leaves my hand it bursts on fire and streaks toward my target.
17. I channel magic through my fingertips. I extend my index finger and fire leaps toward my target.
18. I go full metal on my lute. On the power chord a burst of fire lances up the neck of the instrument and strikes the target.
19. A soap bubble floats toward my target. When it is overhead it bursts and flames rain down.
20. I furrow my brow and stare at the target until my vision goes red and a bolt of fire shoots out of my eyes.
21. I snap my fingers and a flame appears above my hand. I throw it with a casual toss toward my enemy.
22. A crossbow made of fire appears in my hands. I aim and pull the trigger releasing a fire bolt at my target.
23. A little chipmunk plants a nut at the base of the creature. The chipmunk bolts away as I yell "fire in the hole" and the nut explodes.

I will add my own - 24. You summon what appears to be a tiny spirit dragon which flies towards the target, breaths fire, and then disappears in a puff of smoke.

So that is two dozen different variations on essentially the same spell. Each caster in your game, PC or NPC, will use a different flavor for that same spell - and then do this for all the cantrips in the game. Now, every spellcasters cantrips are unique to them.

This does not solve the entire issue - you still are casting the same spell over and over. But it does solve the issue of it not feeling unique to you. It's unique to your magic.

The second part is to finding a mechanism which will change with each casting, and which requires your spellcasting player to do a little role playing work to cast their spell (often with advanced preparation - which can be loads of fun when you have some time on your hands).

The Component Variable

Usually you tie this mechanism into the somatic, material, or verbal components which make up the spell.

The easiest example of this is of course vicious mockery. That spell comes built in with an interesting device - you are insulting your target so the caster should speak an insult. I used a Shakespeare Insult Generator for this. There are many out there, like this one. When I played my bard, it was tons of fun for me to come up with a sheet of insults prior to games and then cross them out once I had used that insult.

Returning to the firebolt spell and relating it to my tiny spirit dragon example, let's say the dragon really is a spirit which you have a business relationship with. It breaths fire on your foes in exchange for something you give it. Fire bolt has Verbal and Somatic but no Material components so we have those two to work with. I'd probably go with verbal. So you gesture in a specific way (the somatic component) and say one time, "sardine snack!" as your verbal component. This is your offering to the spirit dragon for this casting...what you're promising to give it in exchange for it breathing it's tiny fire on your foe this time. But every offering cannot be the same. Another time you might say, "scale scratches!" and another "balmy bath!" If you have a familiar you might even relate the spirit animal to that familiar. Regardless, your caster PC now needs to make good on their promises to the spirit dragon during rests. If they don't, well that spell could fizzle next time you try to cast it - giving you a tiny dragon who offers you the stink eye and flies off, or you might find your tiny dragon making further demands on you later, or your DM might get even more inventive...

Now each spellcasters cantrips are unique to them, and each casting of each cantrip is unique as well. This should feel plenty magical and not common. I know I've used elements of this in my game and it's both fun and interesting. Our cantrips do not feel ordinary.
 
Last edited:

W

WhosDaDungeonMaster

Guest
It's a fair complaint I think.

I would employ two methods to alter the flavor of the cantrips to make them feel magical and not common.

(snip)

Now each spellcasters cantrips are unique to them, and each casting of each cantrip is unique as well. This should feel plenty magical and not common. I know I've used elements of this in my game and it's both fun and interesting. Our cantrips do not feel ordinary.

I'm glad that works for you and maybe it will help others, but for me, it doesn't make it more "magical" at all. Each group has their own way of playing, I get that, but no matter how you describe it, each time it is still the same action. Do your players change it every time they cast Fire Bolt? Or is it usually just some variation of the same thing? When a fighter in your group attacks with his sword, does the player tell you, "I brandish my gleaming blade with a deft twist, into a swift upward arc, slicing the air with silent skill, and slashing the foe in half."?

At-will magic makes it feel mundane. It is too common and stops being "special", especially when you consider the vast amount of archetypes that aren't in caster-classes but have spells or spell-like ability. I don't see how that solution answers the OP:

So how do we combine the contradictory ideas that (a) at-will magic makes magic feel mundane that several people have stated, and (b) have that casters can contribute meaningfully in a magical way without having to resort to mundane actions? I don't think a direct compromise works, so what solutions orthogonal to mundane=mundane and at-will=mundane can we find?
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I'm glad that works for you and maybe it will help others, but for me, it doesn't make it more "magical" at all. Each group has their own way of playing, I get that, but no matter how you describe it, each time it is still the same action. Do your players change it every time they cast Fire Bolt?

Yes, the second part (component variable) changes every time you cast it. I tried to make that pretty explicit in the post. I even gave a detailed example of changing it with each casting. This is of course distinct from mundane actions like swinging your sword. It's more work for the spellcaster, but it definitely distinguishes our cantrip spells from mundane actions like attacking with a bow, and feels magical.

In practice, we've found it makes it very not mundane. You should try it out before dismissing it.
 
Last edited:

At-will magic makes it feel mundane. It is too common and stops being "special", especially when you consider the vast amount of archetypes that aren't in caster-classes but have spells or spell-like ability. I don't see how that solution answers the OP:

Who says magic isn't and shouldn't be mundane? This here, imo, is the crux of the discussion.

If magic is not commplace, then D&D 5E in the Forgetten Realms (or most other settings) and magic is rare, then you are in the wrong setting. Check out Thule or Barbarians of Lemururia or Conan or one of the other numerous low magic settings. (Others could direct you better than I.)

The default setting and assumption in 5E is that for adventurers, magic is common. Cantrips are as mundane as swinging a sword or shooting a bow.

If that's not for you, then look to one of the other resources that does not make that assumption and change your game accordingly. Just knowing that doing so you are changing more than just the feel of the game, but the mechanic as well. Those other settings/rules will help you address those balance issues. Sure, you can do that in this thread, but it's been done many times before, so I suggest you don't spend your efforts reinventing the wheel :)
 

This actually fits well one of the reasons for material components - so wizards can be disarmed like the martial classes for the types of stories that require it.
If you're really concerned about caster/noncaster parity, you can even say that wands have "charges" which are consumed whenever you cast a spell through it, and a classic 50-charge wand costs, oh, about the same as 50 arrows. :)

At least for wizards, clerics, and druids, I really like having an external manifestation of the spell like a wand, as opposed to just "you have this superpower for a day". For sorcerers, yeah, they should just have superpowers, but then again I'm.totally okay with sorcerers having true at-will cantrips, because, y'know, they're intrinsically magical.

This is effectively a spell that becomes at-will, just with a different explanation for it.
I started using this tech at the very tail end of 3E, before 4E negated the need for it. The 3E devs we're also wandering in the general direction of the concept with reserve spells.
 

Who says magic isn't and shouldn't be mundane? This here, imo, is the crux of the discussion.

If magic is not commplace, then D&D 5E in the Forgetten Realms (or most other settings) and magic is rare, then you are in the wrong setting. Check out Thule or Barbarians of Lemururia or Conan or one of the other numerous low magic settings. (Others could direct you better than I.)

The default setting and assumption in 5E is that for adventurers, magic is common. Cantrips are as mundane as swinging a sword or shooting a bow.

If that's not for you, then look to one of the other resources that does not make that assumption and change your game accordingly. Just knowing that doing so you are changing more than just the feel of the game, but the mechanic as well. Those other settings/rules will help you address those balance issues. Sure, you can do that in this thread, but it's been done many times before, so I suggest you don't spend your efforts reinventing the wheel :)
Can we just not with the gatekeeping?
 

Sorry I'm so behind. I went to work and came back to a million pages of posts added.

Your four guys throwing the same spells at same times with ssne DCs are doing so with four classes because they **all** wanted to br doing that that wsy at that time. It was a need they saw they wanted or needed to cover and made multiple choices to get to.

The fact that they all chose different classes but separately chose the exact same spells means that what they chose feels less special though, which is my issue. If your party is a human, a dog, an bull, and cat, the one character that has five fingers on each hand has an awesome ability. If you decide that the dog, the cat, and the bull can all have the option of five fingered hands, it ceases to be a special distinguishing feature. It becomes mundane.

In your alternative, wouldnt they all be there doing that but with that one class that allows it because thats the only way to cover thst thing they **all** want to do that way?

This may sound like a radical idea, but I think a class based games should have... ya know... classes that do different stuff. We have a "fighter" that's good with swords and a "wizard" that can shoot fire. Do you think we should just have one class that can pick from everything, because there are a systems that do that? The cantrip pool is so small and so easy to access, it makes cantrips feel boring due to over-saturation.

If your game sees in actuality four players of spell casters and what not all needing, wanting, choosing the ssme things, same dcs etc often enough to be a "problem" that is saying more about the game-table and the challenges experienced than the rules snd flexible class structure.

In my experience, the more restrictive you make classes, the more you see classes being sorted into "the ones we need" and the "ones we dont" instead of having class not be more of a straight-jacket.

The reason people are picking the same spells is because people have figured out that some spells are generally better than others. "The ones we need" versus "the ones we don't" problem already exists because of this and because of how broad the overlap is, you're going to have the warlock, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, et al, with the same "ones we need" spells if they have the option to take them. The system gets a straight-jacket instead of individual classes. Granted, this issue isn't too huge when it comes to general magic slots, but when we're talking about cantrips, their uniqueness is complete destroyed.

But changing thongs up so the bard and sorc cannot be part of that samesome foursome you fret might just lead to (likely will) you seeing the same thing - just four wizards and less variety than you have now.

I'd rather toss the wizard in the garbage and replace if with the Illusionist, the Necromancer, the Evoker, and the Oracle, each with a spell list that barely overlaps. Then, you would actually see "wizards" that were qualitatively and quantitatively different from each other instead of our current situation where pretty much every wizard picks a few of the same old spells, regardless of what school they are.

At-will magic makes it feel mundane. It is too common and stops being "special", especially when you consider the vast amount of archetypes that aren't in caster-classes but have spells or spell-like ability. I don't see how that solution answers the OP:

If my wizard goes into the dungeon with a crossbow and 10 bolts, he can shoot "firebolt" from thin air all day long, but is limited to only 10 uses of "fire a crossbow bolt." This means that unlimited firebolt is mundane and firing a crossbow bolt is magical?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around (what I think) the argument being made.
 


Harzel

Adventurer
Who says magic isn't and shouldn't be mundane? This here, imo, is the crux of the discussion.

If magic is not commplace, then D&D 5E in the Forgetten Realms (or most other settings) and magic is rare, then you are in the wrong setting. Check out Thule or Barbarians of Lemururia or Conan or one of the other numerous low magic settings. (Others could direct you better than I.)

The default setting and assumption in 5E is that for adventurers, magic is common. Cantrips are as mundane as swinging a sword or shooting a bow.

If that's not for you, then look to one of the other resources that does not make that assumption and change your game accordingly. Just knowing that doing so you are changing more than just the feel of the game, but the mechanic as well. Those other settings/rules will help you address those balance issues. Sure, you can do that in this thread, but it's been done many times before, so I suggest you don't spend your efforts reinventing the wheel :)

You seem to be conflating "setting" with "game system" (although I might not understand your points completely as I had trouble parsing the bolded bit). It's true that some systems are identified pretty much exclusively with a particular setting, but D&D is not one of them. It is not the case that because you are playing D&D, the setting must be FR. I did not get to experience any of editions 2, 3, or 4, but 1e could be reasonably set in a low-magic or moderate-magic world, and I expected that the same would be true of 5e, especially since the DMG's section on world building implies that this is the case. However, with cantrips and the profusion of caster classes, to me it definitely feels like an awkward fit if your world is not high-magic.

One solution* would be just to remove all cantrip-enabled classes. That would cut way down on the number of caster classes and get rid of cantrips. I guess that's something to try sometime, but for a generic D&D campaign, I really don't want to have to do with out at least a generic divine full caster and a generic arcane full caster. But in 5e, all the full casters come with cantrips.

*To the problem as stated here. I realize this does not respond to the challenge posed in the OP.
 

Remove ads

Top