Crossbows require ammo.  Acid Splash does not.

You DO keep up with ammo, right?

Edit to change “Bolt” to “Splash”.

Quote from: FASAfan;1140192I really liked 5e a lot.  I was the first DM in our group to run it; I've never been a player.

What sunk it for me were the unlimited, damaging cantrips.  I *get* it, but it changed the idiom for me, if you will, of the fantasy rpg experience I was used to for 30+ years.  I like the "one and done" spellcasters at first level: strategic or desperate use of your one spell, then pull out your dagger and hide behind a rock.  

Instead, my first level spellcasters in 5e could repeatedly do 1d8 or whatever damage ad nauseum on a successful To Hit roll.  In a small thorp, they could be holy terrors on the populace.  I didn't like it.

Cantrips is a hitch for 5e to be sure. But they could have been worse and we actually got WOTC to tone them down. Not enough to my liking. But at least isnt overshadowing the fighter.

The easiest way to parse cantrips is that they function pretty much like a melee or ranged combatants sword or arrow. If you step down all cantrips one die type in damage respectively it works fairly well. Its what I did for one group.

Quote from: FASAfan;1140236Crossbows require ammo.  Acid Splash does not.

You DO keep up with ammo, right?

Edit to change "Bolt" to "Splash".

You 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.

I assume shooting cantrips or shooting arrows, anyone will be fatigued (level of exhaustion) if they do it too long without a break, say 50 combat rounds.

I tried 3e when it came out. I didn't transition an existing campaign, I started a new campaign. The transition to the new set of rules was easy. At first, I thought 3e and the whole 3e approach to the game was pretty nifty and seemed like an improvement. After running it for a while I changed my mind about that and ultimately returned to TSR D&D (original D&D and 1e AD&D -- where I've stayed, and I don't see that changing). But the transition itself was smooth enough. (FWIW, I wasn't going from 2e to 3e, I was returning to D&D from other game systems that I started playing more because I didn't find 2e to my taste and wanted to explore different systems.)

My group went from the BECM to AD&D to Ad&d 2E to Shadowrun then Earthdawn then a Shadowrun/Earthdawn dual campaign one set in the past that can change the future which was a lot of fun, from there we shifted back to AD&D 2E then Jumped over to Pathfinder 1E and now to Pathfinder 2E.   Skipped D&D 3E 4E & 5E which sounds like we didn't miss much   Dabbled in one shots in a few different other rule sets like Call of Cthulhu, Dangerous Journeys, Talislanta, Torg etc

Point is jumping from system to system isn't hard if you are willing to try even if you have been at it for 37 almost 38 years like we have.

As far as never ending cantrips go for spellcasters it didn't bother us much at all.   After playing Shadowrun & Earthdawn and jumping back into AD&D 2E it was a bit of a jolt for our caster players so we altered cantrips to be more like what you see in 5E or PF2e but had a chance to cause damage to themselves.   d4 cantrip had a 1 in 20 chance, d6 had a 5 in 20, d8 had a 10 in 20 chance and a d10 had a 15 in 20 chance.   If you failed the "drain" roll you took the same amount of damage you hit someone with but the drain the wizard took was considered non lethal damage .   Needless to say at lower levels a Wizard would only use the d4 cantrip at the lower levels and would slowly go up as they gained HP with only a few using the d10 cantrip at the upper levels.

Quote from: S'mon;1140322I assume shooting cantrips or shooting arrows, anyone will be fatigued (level of exhaustion) if they do it too long without a break, say 50 combat rounds.

Combat in general can be exhausting, even if all you're doing is dodging attacks.

On the topic of 5e's unlimited cantrips, I actually like them. One of my (many) issues with magic in D&D is how spellcasters (esp. mages) become useless the moment they run out of spells, and how few they have at lower levels. The exclusively D&D trope of the low level wizard using up their single 1d4+1 damage spell that does less damage than a sword, then having to draw their dagger and hope they don't get attacked by enemies capable of one-shoting them is not just boring, but absurd. Low level mages in old D&D are less than useless, they're are a liability capable of contributing absolutely nothing even when they do use their useless level 1 spells. It's not till level 5 that mages get access to a decent combat spell, and even then that can also kill the party and it's just once a day.

5e's unlimited combat cantrips solve that, albeit in a somewhat hamfisted way. I can see some people's issue with how much damage they do compared to normal weapons that need ammo, though. My preference would probably be that they caused significantly less base damage (like maybe 1d4), but allowed casting ability modifiers to damage, like most weapons. That way they would basically be like a "natural" weapon that mages develop as an extension of their magical power. Maybe magic wands could increase the damage type, like in Harry Potter, so that mages would still need some sort of implement to cause decent damage, but wands could be disarmed or destroyed. There could even be special wands that work like magic weapons, with a +1 or higher bonuses, and maybe extra elemental damage.

Quote from: Krugus;1140324As far as never ending cantrips go for spellcasters it didn't bother us much at all.   After playing Shadowrun & Earthdawn and jumping back into AD&D 2E it was a bit of a jolt for our caster players so we altered cantrips to be more like what you see in 5E or PF2e but had a chance to cause damage to themselves.   d4 cantrip had a 1 in 20 chance, d6 had a 5 in 20, d8 had a 10 in 20 chance and a d10 had a 15 in 20 chance.   If you failed the "drain" roll you took the same amount of damage you hit someone with but the drain the wizard took was considered non lethal damage .   Needless to say at lower levels a Wizard would only use the d4 cantrip at the lower levels and would slowly go up as they gained HP with only a few using the d10 cantrip at the upper levels.

Did you apply the same "might damage themselves with every shot" to fighters firing bows or even if the wizard using a crossbow (that in 5e does more damage than most cantrips because you can add your Dex bonus to it)?

Because 40 arrows cost less and weigh about the same as the focuses spellcasters need to cast their cantrips.

If cantrips actually did significantly more average damage than a fighter could just striking with a dagger (c. 1d4+3 at level 1 vs. 1d10 for a really good attack cantrip) I could see a point to restricting them.

But they don't. They're crap damage spells useful in the same way the crossbow used to be only without the thematic mismatch of the guy in the robes and a point hat also carrying a crossbow.

Also, for those asking... no we don't really track shots because arrows/bolts are so light and inexpensive that even a first level PC can carry enough to carry themselves through a week's worth of combats (10-15 rounds of combat a day with every 20 arrows actually being useful for about 40 rounds of combat if you recover them; 40 arrows for 4gp and 4 lb. will cover 5-8 days of fighting).

Generally we just say everyone spends 10gp a week on restocking supplies and getting armor and weapon maintenance done and we call it a day. If we know we're headed out for longer, we spend more beforehand (i.e. a for a month long trip we'd spend 45 gp each to represent stocking up for the trip).

If someone actually wants to count each arrow, more power to them, but we play to escape real life not be fantasy bean counters/accountants so we only count what's actually important to the game we're playing and the above is "good enough" for our purposes.

Quote from: Chris24601;1140342Did you apply the same "might damage themselves with every shot" to fighters firing bows or even if the wizard using a crossbow (that in 5e does more damage than most cantrips because you can add your Dex bonus to it)?

Because 40 arrows cost less and weigh about the same as the focuses spellcasters need to cast their cantrips.

If cantrips actually did significantly more average damage than a fighter could just striking with a dagger (c. 1d4+3 at level 1 vs. 1d10 for a really good attack cantrip) I could see a point to restricting them.

But they don't. They're crap damage spells useful in the same way the crossbow used to be only without the thematic mismatch of the guy in the robes and a point hat also carrying a crossbow.

Also, for those asking... no we don't really track shots because arrows/bolts are so light and inexpensive that even a first level PC can carry enough to carry themselves through a week's worth of combats (10-15 rounds of combat a day with every 20 arrows actually being useful for about 40 rounds of combat if you recover them; 40 arrows for 4gp and 4 lb. will cover 5-8 days of fighting).

Generally we just say everyone spends 10gp a week on restocking supplies and getting armor and weapon maintenance done and we call it a day. If we know we're headed out for longer, we spend more beforehand (i.e. a for a month long trip we'd spend 45 gp each to represent stocking up for the trip).

If someone actually wants to count each arrow, more power to them, but we play to escape real life not be fantasy bean counters/accountants so we only count what's actually important to the game we're playing and the above is "good enough" for our purposes.

Greetings!

Yeah, I'm not seeing the teeth-gnashing over Mages using at-will cantrips that do whatever damage. It isn't likely to be augmented by an ability modifier, and it is a spell and not otherwise improved by magic items or resources, so it is just a flat D12 damage or whatever. Straight up. That means the Mage at range doesn't have to be fiddling with a stupid crossbow. At close range, a Mage can fight with their quarterstaff, or a dagger. Sounds good to me. I haven't seen any problems with Mages and their at-will cantrips during play. It means that Mages are never pathetically useless or helpless, even at lower levels--and especially at lower levels.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1140353Yeah, I'm not seeing the teeth-gnashing over Mages using at-will cantrips that do whatever damage. It isn't likely to be augmented by an ability modifier, and it is a spell and not otherwise improved by magic items or resources, so it is just a flat D12 damage or whatever. Straight up. That means the Mage at range doesn't have to be fiddling with a stupid crossbow. At close range, a Mage can fight with their quarterstaff, or a dagger. Sounds good to me. I haven't seen any problems with Mages and their at-will cantrips during play. It means that Mages are never pathetically useless or helpless, even at lower levels--and especially at lower levels.

Another point worth addressing is the bolded. If you're trying to restrict the at-will cantrips because you see it as balancing out the phenomenal cosmic power they will gain at high levels... DON'T.

Both 5e and 4E before it (the two editions where at-will cantrips/at-will spells became a thing) severely curtailed the upper end casting abilities for all spellcasters through a combination of concentration, no auto-scaling spell damage (i.e. if you want fireball do more damage you have to cast it using a 4th, 5th, etc. level slot) and severely limited the number of spell slots they have.

How limited? A level 20 spellcaster in 5e has 4 first, 3 second, 3 third, 3 fourth, 3 fifth, 2 sixth, 2 seventh, 1 eighth and 1 ninth level slot. In 4E they don't have any more spells than a fighter has special combat maneuvers.

If you want to limit the number of uses a wizard can get out of their cantrips in 5e, you need to also look at taking off some of the other restrictions at the top end to compensate for the cut in power you're giving them on the low end.

Quote from: Chris24601;1140342Did you apply the same "might damage themselves with every shot" to fighters firing bows or even if the wizard using a crossbow (that in 5e does more damage than most cantrips because you can add your Dex bonus to it)?

Because 40 arrows cost less and weigh about the same as the focuses spellcasters need to cast their cantrips.

If cantrips actually did significantly more average damage than a fighter could just striking with a dagger (c. 1d4+3 at level 1 vs. 1d10 for a really good attack cantrip) I could see a point to restricting them.

But they don't. They're crap damage spells useful in the same way the crossbow used to be only without the thematic mismatch of the guy in the robes and a point hat also carrying a crossbow.

Also, for those asking... no we don't really track shots because arrows/bolts are so light and inexpensive that even a first level PC can carry enough to carry themselves through a week's worth of combats (10-15 rounds of combat a day with every 20 arrows actually being useful for about 40 rounds of combat if you recover them; 40 arrows for 4gp and 4 lb. will cover 5-8 days of fighting).

Generally we just say everyone spends 10gp a week on restocking supplies and getting armor and weapon maintenance done and we call it a day. If we know we're headed out for longer, we spend more beforehand (i.e. a for a month long trip we'd spend 45 gp each to represent stocking up for the trip).

If someone actually wants to count each arrow, more power to them, but we play to escape real life not be fantasy bean counters/accountants so we only count what's actually important to the game we're playing and the above is "good enough" for our purposes.

We just came back to AD&D 2E from playing Shadowrun & Earthdawn systems (that casters can cast spells all day long) so we just added what we felt was ok at the time for AD&D 2e system.   It was my players that came up with the system and I ok'd it.  We tested it and it worked out quite well vs I cast magic missile and then use my staff or dagger and hope nothing gets close.

Yes our group tracks how much ammo they use and we did have some of those "this is my last arrow" moments that took down the BBEG.   At the end of the day, its your game, play it the way you want it to be played but our group will still have fun being "fantasy bean counters and accountants"

Quote from: Chris24601;1140342Did you apply the same "might damage themselves with every shot" to fighters firing bows or even if the wizard using a crossbow (that in 5e does more damage than most cantrips because you can add your Dex bonus to it)?

Because 40 arrows cost less and weigh about the same as the focuses spellcasters need to cast their cantrips.

I wouldn't, because a mage can take the Eschew Materials feat.  There's no Eschew Projectiles for fighters, so, eh?

Quote from: kythri;1140409I wouldn't, because a mage can take the Eschew Materials feat.  There's no Eschew Projectiles for fighters, so, eh?

Eschew Materials is 3.5e where there were no at-will spells, not even cantrips. There are also magic quivers and bows that provide unlimited ammunition in 3.5e.

There is no Eschew Materials in 5e. You need to either carry a component pouch or an appropriate focus to cast spells in 5e. Which, yes, means a spellcaster in 5e can be disarmed just like a weapon-wielder can... all the more reason for their basic attack spells to be no more tiring than swinging a sword (especially when the "limitless" spells almost always do less damage than the sword would).

One thing can do to put cantrips on the same footing as ammo is both remove focuses and make every cantrip consume some material that costs around the same as a arrow or bolt.

Quote from: Omega;1140453One thing can do to put cantrips on the same footing as ammo is both remove focuses and make every cantrip consume some material that costs around the same as a arrow or bolt.

I'd say much less than an arrow or bolt as the cantrips do much less damage and at shorter range.

A single longbow arrow can typically do 1d8+3 at first level with a range of 150/600. A quiver of 20 arrows is 1 gp and weighs 1 pound. You can recover half your expended ammo after a battle with a one minute search so it's actually 20+10+5+2+1=38 shots per gp/lb. Improving your Dex increases the damage per arrow as does using a magic weapon (which also increases accuracy).

The Fire Bolt cantrip can do 1d10 damage with a range of 120/--. Your ability score doesn't increase the damage and there are no magic items that improve it (or it's accuracy).

That actually puts it down at the performance of a sling (1d4+3; average 5.5) which has no cost for the weapon and it's ammunition costs just 4 COPPER pieces for 20 bullets (with the same recovery rules as arrows).

So for a fair price based on performance (i.e. 1st level sling damage/range) you're probably looking at something on the order of 1cp per 10 fire bolts (or 1000 fire bolts per gold piece) -OR- at that point you can just chalk it up to being included in the cost of a wizard's focus... the cheapest of which is 5 gp (or the cost 5000 sling bullet attacks) and the fact that even a 1-20 campaign will probably end well before they've used fire bolt a 1000 times, much less 5000.

Seriously, the at-will cantrips aren't remotely unbalanced; it's only previous edition baggage that doesn't even apply to the 5e spellcasters (i.e. they don't turn into virtual gods at high level in 5e) that makes people THINK they need to be nerfed. Hell, the DART has comparable performance to attack cantrips and is 100% recoverable.