Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 6262304" data-attributes="member: 43019">Eh - you may want to look more closely. Folks interested in D&D Next were decidedly not the 4e fanboys. Anyhow, to be really clear. When we were playtesting, the wizard in my group took the cantrip. Over the course of many levels, he used it a bunch of times. As the DM, I was personally keeping track of things, and it was almost never a good idea for him to do so. At early levels, using a crossbow/bow would have been more effective in 8 of 9 instances. At later levels, the only time it ever made sense was when the combat was so much in the bag that he could have just as soon delayed and made no difference in the outcome of the fight.That said, he was a dominating force using his actual spells.Ergo, you could ignore the damaging cantrips. Doing so will likely make you more effective in the campaign, despite feeling some unnecessary requirement that you bow to the damage gods who have given you a spell which allows you to act less effective than your companions in the rounds when you choose not to use something effective.If I made a wizard, I'd probably consider it, mind you, cause even if it's just as effective I choose not to be the wizard using a crossbow because _that_ breaks my genre appropriateness more than being the wizard hurling rays from his wand - but first I'd make sure I had minor illusions and mage hand, cause they're awesome and fun. And if they add a 3rd cantrip equally as awesome, then back to the crossbow I go. After I run out of all my other spells. Which I never did. In any of the playtests.</blockquote>

Verification