The thing a lot of people really want with cantrips is the sense that they are not unlimited.  Whether that translates to "but effectively unlimited" in mathematical terms in the campaign is besides the point.  So use the fabled "ammo die" for cantrips, either tied to the focus or just as a separate reserve of energy for the cantrips themselves:  

Start with 1d12 or 1d10 or 1d8 whatever gives you the feel you want.  Every time you use a cantrip out of of a fight, roll the die.  If it comes up a 1, it drops to the next size.   When it gets down to 1d4, a 1 means you have 1 cantrip left.  When using in a fight, check at the end of the fight, with 1 die roll if you used a cantrip once and 2 die rolls if you use it more than that.  Or any variation on that which fits your feel better.  Ammo die typically only recharges when you can rest in a civilized area (either replenishing your focus or whatever else you want to associate with it.)

This will cause all but the mathematical players to curb the unlimited and frivolous use of cantrips to the times when they really need it. Even the mathematical players will hesitate after they get that first 1 on the ammo roll.  Once that feel is in place, it doesn't matter how you got there.

Or you could just say they're as tiring as swinging as sword.

We don't have complex systems for figuring out how many times you can swing a sword before you get tired, but it's also assumed that you'll be more tired coming out of a long combat than you were going in.

I think that's the part I have a hard time wrapping my head around. The cantrips are mechanically weaker than swinging a sword or even throwing darts at opponents, but the idea that they must be more tiring than swinging a sword, flinging a dart or using a sling even with metric tons of fictional examples of basic magic being no more tiring than melee combat.

Basically, you want all this effort to limit the weaker magic, but don't apply the same to weapon use where we know from real world study that fatigue will limit how long you can swing that sword or fire that bow.

That's where it gets me... swinging an axe to split logs for eight hours doesn't require any special fatigue mechanics, but God forbid a wizard be able to strike the log with a spell that is less effective than an axe more than a handful of times because THAT would be unrealistic.

The thing is... if cantrips are objectively worse in every aspect; less damage, less range, hurts you to use them too much;
then no one would have ever developed them. They would have instead put work into using crossbows or even slings because they're less limited and expensive than the effort of using subpar spells. It literally breaks my verisimilitude that such spells would even exist given the limits some people want to put on them (but not on weapon attacks).

You want a system with fatigue for both? Great. You want a system with "unlimited" (in the sense you can use both until you get tired)? Also great. Applying it to one but not the other though is just playing favorites and calls for perhaps examining WHY you actually think it needs more stringent limits than they already have (i.e. less damage, less range, those without attack rolls can't even critically hit).

Quote from: Chris24601;1140490I think that's the part I have a hard time wrapping my head around. The cantrips are mechanically weaker than swinging a sword or even throwing darts at opponents, but the idea that they must be more tiring than swinging a sword, flinging a dart or using a sling even with metric tons of fictional examples of basic magic being no more tiring than melee combat.

That's because we also want magic to be special ... you know, magical. It's supposed to be something wondrous beyond mere sword-swinging. So when people try to add cantrip mechanics it creates a quandary -- we want cantrip mechanics to emulate mundane mechanics for the sake of class-balance, but it never feels quite right to reduce magic to that mundane level of usage.

It gets worse for me when the mechanics try to emulate damage from missile fire (for example), and starts to smell of 4e's "everyone does the same thing just with different flavor text" thing, real fast.

In sum, for my taste magic has to be (1) more powerful and (2) more difficult/rare than swinging a sword. Not just sometimes, but every time. It's precisely this difference that separates the wizard from the warrior for me.

Quote from: Zalman;1140497That's because we also want magic to be special ... you know, magical. It's supposed to be something wondrous beyond mere sword-swinging. So when people try to add cantrip mechanics it creates a quandary -- we want cantrip mechanics to emulate mundane mechanics for the sake of class-balance, but it never feels quite right to reduce magic to that mundane level of usage.

It gets worse for me when the mechanics try to emulate damage from missile fire (for example), and starts to smell of 4e's "everyone does the same thing just with different flavor text" thing, real fast.

In sum, for my taste magic has to be (1) more powerful and (2) more difficult/rare than swinging a sword. Not just sometimes, but every time. It's precisely this difference that separates the wizard from the warrior for me.

The problem then is that more limits are being placed without a corresponding increase in capability. If a wizard can only use, say, six cantrips per day then each use needs to worth several sword-swings worth of effect.

Side-bar: I actually think 4E's "does the same things with different flavor" actually feels more realistic. There's a joke about politics being Hollywood for ugly people, but the truism behind that is that people will play to their strengths to achieve basically the same ends (in that case money and influence).

If magic is real, people who are good at it would reasonably research and create solutions to the same problems smiths create swords to deal with. Being able to always pop off a club-level hit is more valuable for personal defense the same way that, until the advent of repeating firearms, a blade was considered better protection than a single-shot pistol. Being able to repeatedly pop someone hard enough to make them go "nope" and back off is infinitely more valuable personal protection than being known to only have one bullet that will kill IF it hits.

That's why I find the existence of the attack cantrips MORE believable than the higher level attack spells, or, more accurately, the existence of the cantrips feels like a natural predicate for the development of the higher level spells. Fireballs have precious little day to day utility; the fire bolt cantrip by contrast can handle personal defense in a wide variety of situations.

The logical thing to me is that those with the smarts to be a wizard would first focus on using magic to close the performance gap with the people who have exceptional physical prowess (i.e. the people who were generally in charge until relatively recently in out history). Magic that allows them to protect themselves to the same degree as the muscle-bound oafs of the world seems way more believable than the sort of limited use spells many wizards end up saddled with in D&D (and almost no other fantasy setting).

So, yeah, "unlimited-use" (again in the same sense that swinging a sword is unlimited) cantrips make way sense to me than the other magic casting paradigms D&D has used. It's probably why I gravitate towards the mechanics of the 5e warlock far more than any of the other spellcasters... that's my plausible magic set-up; lots of minor spells/cantrips, the energy expended on bigger spells tiring you out quickly (i.e. you only get a couple of slots), but you need only a short rest to recharge those few slots too.

I never liked the way that D&D handles magic and I think that a lot of this comes from looking at magic from the point of view of D&D conceits. Interestingly enough, even old D&D failed to handle making magic more impressive than a sword swing, since you could always do more damage with a sword than with a level 1 spell, like Magic Missile. Even at higher levels, when you got more missiles a warrior could still do more damage (consistently, unlimited times a day) with a sword once they got multiple attacks. It's only once you get access to spells like Fireball that you can do real damage. But the levels at which you get access to real damage spells was inconsistent and the levels themselves arbitrary.

Sphere of Power came up in a thread the other day and it offers some interesting alternatives to the way standard D&D handles magic. You basically get access to different talents that can be purchased similar to feats, and grant you access to the basic magic functions covered by the talent, which are powered by your caster level without having to track spell levels. In the case of Destruction magic, you simply do 1d6 damage every odd caster level by default (1, 3, 5, etc.), but can increase this damage to 1d6 per caster level (no limit) by spending a spell point. You may also add different Blast Shapes that determine the area of effects or number of targets affected, which may also cost you spell points. Characters get a number of spell points equal to their caster level + casting ability modifier.

More details can be found in the thread, which also links to the Spheres of Power site:
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42338-Spheres-of-Power-A-third-party-magic-system-for-PF-1e-amp-D-amp-D-5e

Last time I played a caster in a game was 2e I think, and we had to track components, I learned a spell (lightning bolt I think) but couldn't use it for like 5 sessions until I could get the copper rod/tube needed for the spell. Worth noting that in 3e this would have been considered a spell focus rather than a component because, unless I remember incorrectly, the piece of copper is not consumed with the casting.

The math of the game is objective.  The feel is not only subjective, but also fragile, at least at times.  Which is why I specifically pointed out that you could make the ammo die mathematically not all the different compared to unlimited in practical terms, but some people would still prefer it.  Nor is it all that complicated of a change the way I proposed it.  If you don't care about the change in feel, then it is busy work and useless.  If you do care about the feel, then it is a way to get it that is not that heavy and thus now worth it.

Note also that some objections to "unlimited" are not about the number of times that it gets used but about the certainty that it will always be there.   No matter what I do now, it will be there later.  Whether that is bug or feature is very much back to the sensibility of the group at the table.  People really in to resource consumption, such as with by the book AD&D 1E, are probably not going to like the ammo die for other reasons.

But mainly, the ammo die is an example of why feel matters.  Determine the feel you want, you can come up with a mechanic that will produce it.

Quote from: Omega;1140291You can through recover bolts and arrows if stop and take the time. Thats in the rules. 1/2 end up broken or otherwise not re-useable I believe each time so it is dwindling. So go in with 20 arrows shot. then have 10 can recover. Then 5, then 2, then 1. 38 shots total recycling.

You have to reload your crossbow.

Rust monster ate your bolts.

Ogre ate your crossbow.

Thief stole your crossbow.

Thief stole your bolts.

You lost your crossbow.

You lost your bolts.

You are disarmed of your crossbow.

You failed your save against X and your bolts/crossbow takes damage and are unusable.

You roll a "1" and your crossbow is damaged.

Meanwhile, 5e Wizard: 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6...



2nd edition had an optional rule in one of the Dragon Magazines that made Cantrips a NWP.  Loved it.  They were limited in number until you got on up in levels, all character classes could learn some if they took the NWP, and, remember, back then they were "useful", "non-damaging" (for the most part) minor magicks.  I loved them.  Loved them, I tell you.

I think a lot of the hand wringing about Wizards having "infinite" cantrips is nonsensical white rooming.  What kind of enemies is this wizard shooting at that dont do anything back to the party.  Is there a reason that DMs can not give their monsters a ranged attack?  Are they just sitting there doing nothing while the wizard plinks away?  And then after the party beats the monsters, does the wizard just sit there continuing to plink away at nothing just because theoretically they can just plink away at an empty room?

Quote from: Shasarak;1140704I think a lot of the hand wringing about Wizards having "infinite" cantrips is nonsensical white rooming.  What kind of enemies is this wizard shooting at that dont do anything back to the party.  Is there a reason that DMs can not give their monsters a ranged attack?  Are they just sitting there doing nothing while the wizard plinks away?  And then after the party beats the monsters, does the wizard just sit there continuing to plink away at nothing just because theoretically they can just plink away at an empty room?

Ya, but what about that old D&D magical feeling of just standing there frantically waving your dagger at enemies, hoping not to get killed, after you let off your single 1d4+1 magic missile that never measures up to a fighter swinging their sword all day long, even at higher levels (when you get more missiles 5/day tops, but fighters get more attacks unlimited times a day)?

How do we get that back?

Quote from: FASAfan;1140698You have to reload your crossbow.

Meanwhile, 5e Wizard: 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6...

1: With the crossbow expert feat you can bypass the loading problem. (Or if the DM allows. Get an Artificer to enchant your crossbow so its self loading or has unlimited ammo.) Probably one or two other tricks forgot. Or even port over the repeating crossbow from OA.

x:all that stuff listed is not a given and may never happen.

2: Actually its more like a d10, d10, d10 ad nausium.

acid splash is indeed 1d6 or nothing on a dex save, r60
fire bolt on the other hand is 1d10, r120
chill touch is 1d8, r120
poison spray is 1d12 or nothing on a con save, r10
ray of frost is 1d8, r60
shocking grasp is 1d8, but range of touch.
Detect a few problems here? I sure did. And remember, it was worse during playtest. Theres a few old threads on cantrips here.

Keep in mind that all this is, or should be, balanced by fighters getting progressively better gear or just more attacks as well as being able to add stat bonuses and get bonuses from + gear as well which casters can only get under certain circumstances and builds.

But interestingly enough the progression is about even now between a fighter and a wizard. With unsurprisingly the fighter potentially coming out again well ahead of the wizard in damage output. Very YMMV as usual of course as a DM stingy with magic weapons but generous with scrolls and other means to bolster casters can tip the scales the other way.

Quote from: Omega;1136650For those of you that did change over from an older edition of D&D to 3e. How smoothly or not did it go for you?

The only reason to go beyond 2.0 for any RPG system is if you like playing video games by hand.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1140725The only reason to go beyond 2.0 for any RPG system is if you like playing video games by hand.

um... not really... at all.

Except for 4e.

3e is pretty much still D&D. Just with the 2e proficiency and powers elements reworked into feats, and alot more number crunching. Nothing video-gamy about it. If that were the case then Gurps is the most video-gamy RPG ever!
5e is a return to D&D. Its got its issues. But some of these are carryovers from prior designers either unintentionally, or deliberately carrying over mistakes from earlier editions. And the rest is extensions of things players complain about. Just done in ways that seem ass backwards. But thats WOTC in a nutshell. Also nothing video-gamy about it.

And even 4e could work as a not-video-game as 4e D&D Gamma World showed. (though there they tried to glue on a CCG and failed miserably.)