| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Therise |
Posted - 05 Oct 2013 : 22:20:56
Went through an old box of AD&D books today and was seized with a really strong level of nostalgia for Unearthed Arcana.
It reminded me of an old play session where my wizardess came across her first book of evil spells involving planar binding and... encouragement spells.
Gate, Succor, Torment, Dolor, Truename, Spiritwrack, things like that found in an evil archmage's tome. And it was mine. The dark power, the incredible possibility, and the things that all happened as a result of obtaining it. Ah, nostalgia!
But also the introduction of cantrips, so long ago. Such a novel, but perfect idea at the time. Fiddling about with innovative and creative ways to use and adapt cantrips was a favorite pastime of my wizardess all those years ago.
What is your "yen" for, the most fun thing you remember doing "back when" from any edition of D&D? Do you want your favorite thing incorporated into 5E/Next in some way?
Personally, I like the inclusion of cantrips as "at wills" in the playtest materials. But I think there should be more fluidity in some ways. I think mages should have "at wills" for a huge amount of very low-powered cantrips (and clerics their "osirons").
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 17 Oct 2013 : 02:16:41
I was always of the school of thought that cantrips make the fantasy world feel more magical, which is good. A 1st or 2nd level wizard has theoretically studied magic for years so should not be limited to one or two spells each day. I treated cantrips as 0-level spells, castible as often as desired. They must still be studied and researched one by one though. Just because you know how to make Old Man Harpell sneeze doesn't mean you know how to make him cough or blush after all... (Making him blush might require a more powerful spell after all :) ) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 16 Oct 2013 : 19:05:11
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'd love to see something similar adapted for 5E
Not exactly the same from what I can see, but in D&D Next wizards should have unlimited at-will use of cantrips beginning at level 1. I think they start off knowing 4 cantrips, and iirc they get 2 new spells each level and they can select cantrips for these if they want to. Cantrips will include some damaging spells, like ray of frost, and the damage will scale with level. Which will be the wizards' main means of doing damage since their overall spells-per-day drops dramatically.
While I'm not upset to see this, I'd love to see an alternative rule that gives the mage more melee/ranged weapon orientation, perhaps for individuals who are less magically adapted. Maybe they gain the weapon proficiency in return for a slower caster level increase for cantrips. I think you could have both in your campaign, and it could make it interesting if say most of the militia wizards of Impiltur had to rely on weapons, but say the wizards of Halruaa didn't. There's arguments to be made for both sides (i.e. the purely magical wizard can find themselves useless against a being that absorbs magic, etc...). |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 16 Oct 2013 : 16:12:45
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'd love to see something similar adapted for 5E
Not exactly the same from what I can see, but in D&D Next wizards should have unlimited at-will use of cantrips beginning at level 1. I think they start off knowing 4 cantrips, and iirc they get 2 new spells each level and they can select cantrips for these if they want to. Cantrips will include some damaging spells, like ray of frost, and the damage will scale with level. Which will be the wizards' main means of doing damage since their overall spells-per-day drops dramatically. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 13 Oct 2013 : 09:01:12
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
If you roll a natural '1' (fumble) while try to save from a sneeze, does your head come off?
Or do you just break your neck? 
Your sinus cavity might just explode in a bloody mess. Though it was hardly life-threatening, I have seen this happen. 
- OMH |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Oct 2013 : 20:59:31
If you roll a natural '1' (fumble) while try to save from a sneeze, does your head come off?
Or do you just break your neck? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Oct 2013 : 20:42:16
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
In that situation, I (as a DM) would have allowed a concentration check of some sort -- trying to recall 2E proficiencies, prolly a Spellcraft check -- for the caster to have managed to concentrate enough to get a spell off.
It is a creative use of a cantrip, certainly, but with the fact that cantrips are minor magic, I'd not allow them to so readily incapacitate someone.
Looking back on it, I likely wouldn't, either. The DM was one of those 'rolling dice constantly' to mask his actual rolls, so I have no idea if the goblin shaman was rolling Proficiency checks against the cantrip or not. If he was, the shaman's success rate was nothing short of abysmal, and this DM was no Monty Haul advocate - so I am left with only speculation.
In the old DM's place, assuming I did allow it, I'd probably have the character make a Ranged Touch attack in addition to his Spellcraft Proficiency roll to see if it even hits the goblin. If it does, then the goblin gets a save, with his WIS bonus added, minus the degree of success of the mage's roll against his Spellcraft Proficiency to keep his clerical spell from misfiring. That's a lot more bookwork than cantrips are supposed to have, sure, but anything less is a bit lopsided.
- OMH
That is explicitly ignoring the basic rules of cantrips, which:
"are completely unable to cause a loss of hit points, cannot affect the concentration of spellcasters, and can only create small, obviously magical materials"
While that is technically correct, I'm not sure that I'd stick with that rule as an absolute -- I would think that a forced sneeze or being stung by a bee could prove distracting. The cough cantrip requires a saving throw for the victim to not be interrupted by the coughing, so I'd expect a failed saving throw could interrupt spellcasting (though I'd again allow the victim a check to maintain the casting). And if the firefinger cantrip can set things aflame, it could certainly distract someone whose clothes are set on fire, or who is directly contacted by the flaming finger.
Obviously the majority of cantrips aren't going to break concentration or cause damage, but I can see situations where that would not be the case. And even a creatively used cantrip should still leave the victim a saving throw. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 12 Oct 2013 : 20:10:03
Agreed, the presence of a barbarian in the party was pretty crippling in terms of access to magic, at least until he was about 3rd-5th level (and everybody else was basically 6th-8th level) - by then people considered multiclassing, the Rangers and Paladins could access a few spells, the monk could destroy things barehanded, and the thief/assassin (who was basically 10th level!) was really good a “hiding“ magical trinkets.
Everybody wanted to have a barbarian in the beginning ... unless their DM chuckled and replied “I wish you guys luck without some kind of priest in the party“. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 12 Oct 2013 : 05:45:32
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I recall a long, long-ago passionate argument among players about the 1E Barbarian (along with drow and svirfneblin) being vastly unbalanced and overpowered. Even moreso than top level assassins, monks, and bards - primarily because the special advantages of the class (along with raw combat stats) granted significant advantages at such low levels, even considering the insane experience point costs for level progression.
It seemed quite evident (from ancient Dragon magazines which came out before UA) that Gar Gygax, or perhaps Ernie Gygax, was greatly impressed by Ahnold‘s barbarian movies of the time.
I see that argument, except that early level Barbarians pretty much have to play alone...they can't associate with Wizards until much later (level 6 if needed...as in life and death, and then at level 8 occasionally). Which to me meant that they were intended as a single player experience really. By the time a Barbarian got to level 8 he had gained 275k experience...which put wizards at 10th level. By the time a Barbarian got to 10th level (and was a true menace to the world!) a wizard would have been at 12th level and was easily more than a menace on their own really.
As a loner class, Barbarians were fun to play...but few people were going to go without a wizard in the party for so long; and so I never played in a group with a Barbarian as either a player or DM. |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 12 Oct 2013 : 05:26:56
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
In that situation, I (as a DM) would have allowed a concentration check of some sort -- trying to recall 2E proficiencies, prolly a Spellcraft check -- for the caster to have managed to concentrate enough to get a spell off.
It is a creative use of a cantrip, certainly, but with the fact that cantrips are minor magic, I'd not allow them to so readily incapacitate someone.
Looking back on it, I likely wouldn't, either. The DM was one of those 'rolling dice constantly' to mask his actual rolls, so I have no idea if the goblin shaman was rolling Proficiency checks against the cantrip or not. If he was, the shaman's success rate was nothing short of abysmal, and this DM was no Monty Haul advocate - so I am left with only speculation.
In the old DM's place, assuming I did allow it, I'd probably have the character make a Ranged Touch attack in addition to his Spellcraft Proficiency roll to see if it even hits the goblin. If it does, then the goblin gets a save, with his WIS bonus added, minus the degree of success of the mage's roll against his Spellcraft Proficiency to keep his clerical spell from misfiring. That's a lot more bookwork than cantrips are supposed to have, sure, but anything less is a bit lopsided.
- OMH
That is explicitly ignoring the basic rules of cantrips, which:
"are completely unable to cause a loss of hit points, cannot affect the concentration of spellcasters, and can only create small, obviously magical materials" |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 12 Oct 2013 : 04:58:55
I recall a long, long-ago passionate argument among players about the 1E Barbarian (along with drow and svirfneblin) being vastly unbalanced and overpowered. Even moreso than top level assassins, monks, and bards - primarily because the special advantages of the class (along with raw combat stats) granted significant advantages at such low levels, even considering the insane experience point costs for level progression.
It seemed quite evident (from ancient Dragon magazines which came out before UA) that Gar Gygax, or perhaps Ernie Gygax, was greatly impressed by Ahnold‘s barbarian movies of the time. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 12 Oct 2013 : 03:51:27
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I literally haven't looked at this book in over a decade. And yet, it's among my favourites from the AD&D-era. The 3e update was kind of cool, but the original really did have a charm all it's own.
So, due to Therise's kind mental-nudging... I'm digging this book out next week for a long overdue re-read.
Well worth it! I'm using it extensively right now in my new campaign...especially the Barbarian class is coming to the fore very soon! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 12 Oct 2013 : 03:36:54
I literally haven't looked at this book in over a decade. And yet, it's among my favourites from the AD&D-era. The 3e update was kind of cool, but the original really did have a charm all it's own.
So, due to Therise's kind mental-nudging... I'm digging this book out next week for a long overdue re-read. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 12 Oct 2013 : 01:01:22
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
In that situation, I (as a DM) would have allowed a concentration check of some sort -- trying to recall 2E proficiencies, prolly a Spellcraft check -- for the caster to have managed to concentrate enough to get a spell off.
It is a creative use of a cantrip, certainly, but with the fact that cantrips are minor magic, I'd not allow them to so readily incapacitate someone.
Looking back on it, I likely wouldn't, either. The DM was one of those 'rolling dice constantly' to mask his actual rolls, so I have no idea if the goblin shaman was rolling Proficiency checks against the cantrip or not. If he was, the shaman's success rate was nothing short of abysmal, and this DM was no Monty Haul advocate - so I am left with only speculation.
In the old DM's place, assuming I did allow it, I'd probably have the character make a Ranged Touch attack in addition to his Spellcraft Proficiency roll to see if it even hits the goblin. If it does, then the goblin gets a save, with his WIS bonus added, minus the degree of success of the mage's roll against his Spellcraft Proficiency to keep his clerical spell from misfiring. That's a lot more bookwork than cantrips are supposed to have, sure, but anything less is a bit lopsided.
- OMH |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Oct 2013 : 21:27:31
In that situation, I (as a DM) would have allowed a concentration check of some sort -- trying to recall 2E proficiencies, prolly a Spellcraft check -- for the caster to have managed to concentrate enough to get a spell off.
It is a creative use of a cantrip, certainly, but with the fact that cantrips are minor magic, I'd not allow them to so readily incapacitate someone. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 11 Oct 2013 : 21:00:24
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What's the concern about them being over-used? With only minor, non-damaging effects, you're not going to unbalance anything when you use them, whether its once a day or twenty times a day.
Personally, I agree and I love the idea of having a wizard use magic all the time for really minor things. Heating a cup of tea, chilling someone's beer, lighting a candle for reading, all those kinds of things really make the magic-user feel more mystical and less like a gun with X bullets per day. The Vancian system has its advantages, but in lieu of changing completely over to a power point system this seems like an excellent way to add flavor without going overboard.
I do agree that any damaging cantrips should be very limited to killing extremely tiny things like vermin (bugs, maybe a mouse) and not have any real value in combat. Players are known for coming up with innovative ways of breaking game mechanics, though, and that would be my primary concern. I want flavor and fluff, but balanced against the needs of mechanics.
I had a DM that used the the 'cantrip proficiency' rule, and I used it during play to shut down a goblin shaman. Whether it allowed it rules-wise, or the DM was winging it, I can't say, but my wizard had run out of spells, and all he had left was cantrip magic...so...
The shaman would start casting a healing spell for his goblin buddies - and he would sneeze, ruining his spell. The next round, he would again start casting his healing spell...and sneeze. And so on. This pretty much kept him locked down until the encounter was over. He was the last goblin standing, and the only one with enough sense to run after a point.
Was the DM just trying to make it so I felt my wizard was useful and contributing something? Maybe. But this is my most vivid memory of this rule. I'll have to see if I have that issue lying around.
- OMH |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 20:21:46
I love this thread too...thanks Therise! 
I'm running a 2e PbP game right now...and this will be perfect! |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 20:15:59
Ayrik,
Having looked it over, I found that it is more of a 'slight of hand' skill than an actual magical cantrip like power. So, the Dragon Magazine article system seems a more likely alternative to the old school cantrip spell.
Thanks for pointing it out though! |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 18:03:28
I believe so, although I don‘t have access to my 2E books right now. |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 16:56:42
Ayrik,
Are you referring to the 'Prestidigitation' proficiency on page 54 of 2E Spells and Magic? |
| Tamsar |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 16:56:23
My original copy of Unearthed Arcana is well tattered, the binding wasn't much cop, and it fell to pieces. Still got much love for that book. The internal B&W art is awesome. |
| Kris the Grey |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 16:46:19
Excellently timed find all
I just converted BACK to the 2E rules set from Pathfinder in my longstanding campaign and the players were feeling the loss of their 'at will' cantrips (from PF). I directed them to take a peek here and at the relevant 2E rules so we might discuss it. I'll let you know what we decide to adopt.
Thanks Therise for starting the thread (and to the rest of you for recalling the system). |
| Therise |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 14:59:30
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
What's the concern about them being over-used? With only minor, non-damaging effects, you're not going to unbalance anything when you use them, whether its once a day or twenty times a day.
Personally, I agree and I love the idea of having a wizard use magic all the time for really minor things. Heating a cup of tea, chilling someone's beer, lighting a candle for reading, all those kinds of things really make the magic-user feel more mystical and less like a gun with X bullets per day. The Vancian system has its advantages, but in lieu of changing completely over to a power point system this seems like an excellent way to add flavor without going overboard.
I do agree that any damaging cantrips should be very limited to killing extremely tiny things like vermin (bugs, maybe a mouse) and not have any real value in combat. Players are known for coming up with innovative ways of breaking game mechanics, though, and that would be my primary concern. I want flavor and fluff, but balanced against the needs of mechanics.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 14:16:49
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
By the same token, those 'minor magics' should scale with the level of the character. A fireball is probably a very minor magic to someone like Larloch.
Why should they scale? It doesn't matter if you're 1st level or 20th, the amount of effort it takes to start a fire or tie your shoes isn't going to change.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I love the idea of cantrips, but without a spell point system they become unmanageable; if you make them cost, no-one will use them. If you make them free, they will over-use them.
What's the concern about them being over-used? With only minor, non-damaging effects, you're not going to unbalance anything when you use them, whether its once a day or twenty times a day. |
| Neil Bishop |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 14:08:09
My favourite part of Unearthed Arcana was the spell stoneskin, although we had already been using it from an issue of Dragon. It was so difficult to get players to play magic-users until that spell came along. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 12:59:06
Yes, I have much love for Unearthed Arcana as well. It was like a book of 'cheat codes' for D&D (not really, but it had that same feeling - forbidden knowledge that lead to some in-game awesomeness). When you cracked the cover, you felt like you were seeing stuff you weren't supposed to know about... that was so COOL.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There was an article in Dragon, in 2E, that made cantrips a proficiency. As I recall, it was 4 cantrips a day, plus one per mage level, up until 8th level, at which point they became unlimited. And you just needed a spellcraft check to do one; this limitation also went away, at 5th level, IIRC.
That was, to me, the best approach I'd ever seen for cantrips. It didn't waste a spell slot, and still kept them as the minor magical exercises we've seen in fiction. I'd love to see something similar adapted for 5E, if they've not done it already (I've not been looking at the playtest material).
By the same token, those 'minor magics' should scale with the level of the character. A fireball is probably a very minor magic to someone like Larloch.
In the Spell point system I used, I had it where you didn't pay for cantrips if you specialized (the cost to cast a spell was its level+1, -1 for specialists of the same school). As you leveled, spells could become cheaper, which would eventually give you something akin to the 4e system with 'at will' powers (because the spell point costs became negligible).
There was also a system somewhere regarding 'signature spells', and it was along the same lines as a fighter's 'preferred weapon'. A mechanic like that could work, in that a spell that they used often could become their 'signature power' and not count against the normal number of spells allowed (although thats not how they worked in RAW, IIRC).
I love the idea of cantrips, but without a spell point system they become unmanageable; if you make them cost, no-one will use them. If you make them free, they will over-use them. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 06:16:55
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by rjfras
Dragon 221, starting on page 20, an article called "The Little Wish"
Awesome, thank you! 
I wonder if unlimited cantrips (at high level) might be unbalancing for 5E/Next... does anyone think this would be too OP as a house rule?
If you stick with cantrips having minor effects and doing minimal (if any) damage, I don't see how it can be unbalancing...
The character I played, that made heavy use of cantrips, did things like use them to shave, to mend his clothes, to dry his clothes after getting them wet, to add spice to food, things like that -- effects that fully embraced the flavor of cantrips, but had no real in-game effects. He did do a few things that had in-game effects, but even those were minor: coating a floor with dust to see if anything invisible was on it, or conjuring a small ball of light behind a wall to look for openings. |
| Therise |
Posted - 06 Oct 2013 : 02:24:44
quote:
Originally posted by rjfras
Dragon 221, starting on page 20, an article called "The Little Wish"
Awesome, thank you!
I wonder if unlimited cantrips (at high level) might be unbalancing for 5E/Next... does anyone think this would be too OP as a house rule?
|
| rjfras |
Posted - 05 Oct 2013 : 23:29:41
Dragon 221, starting on page 20, an article called "The Little Wish" |
| Therise |
Posted - 05 Oct 2013 : 23:07:55
Do either of you remember the sourcebook or Dragon this was in? I'm going through some, but it's slow-going.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 05 Oct 2013 : 22:52:39
2E Player‘s Option: Spells & Magic offered a proficiency which synergized cantrips. It allowed a wizard to perform minor cantrip-like magics at will (for an extended duration, anyhow) without blowing through all his memorized cantrip spell slots. Stuff like teleporting a coin from one hand to another during stage performances, or like flipping through the pages of a book through puffs of wind. |
|
|
