Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Narl Sep 21, 2014 20:27:19	If you read the rules as written, clerics, druids, and wizards only "know" so many cantrips, and there is no provision for preparing different cantrips when you prepare your other spells. Is this how everyone else is interpeting it?   If so, this doesn't really make a lot of sense. Why would a cleric or druid be able to pray for and prepare different 1st through 9th levels spells each day, but not have the same flexibility with their weakest magics? Why can't a wizard, who can scribe and choose from any spells of each level in their book not be able to prepare different cantrips each day?
#2 Captain_Kobold Sep 21, 2014 20:41:08	That is how people are interpreting it indeed: cantrips are permanent selections, not prepared daily.   I think the idea is that cantrips are spells that the caster has completely mastered: she has learned them so thoroughly that she can cast them by second nature. Bear in mind that they aren't their "weakest magic"; they scale with the caster in a way that normal spells do not and can end up more powerful than some actual spells.
#3 Timborama Sep 22, 2014 6:59:50	Balance. You're trading versatility for power at will. I did a similar thing in 3.x as a houserule. They could choose to "learn" the amount of spells they can cast through the class, and can get them at will. It wasn't exactly game breaking, and 0 level spells were dinky enough like "Light" or "Guidance"  or "Flare" that it was fine. OR they could do it by the books and have to prepare their own cantrips a certain amount of times. This gave them flexibility, but they could still only cast a 0-level spell a max of 5 times per day.   You can choose to do the same, but I made it so once they chose which method to do Cantrips, they couldn't change it later. So you could have a level 1 Druid who, when preparing spells, can select any 2 from their class cantrips, but can only cast 2 per day...
#4 Danny_Montanny Sep 22, 2014 7:06:24	Cantrips: Basic Rules p.78 "A cantrip is a spell that can be cast at will, without using a spell slot and without being prepared in advance. Repeated practice has fixed the spell in the caster’s mind and infused the caster with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over. A cantrip’s spell level is 0."   Doesnt lend to the concept if you're changing that fixed spell daily.
#5 Sword_of_Spirit Sep 25, 2014 13:30:17	Yes. It is a conceptual problem for many of us. It's kind of hard to imagine how you can repeatedly practice or cast a spell sufficiently to infuse yourself with the energy of the spell, but you can't actually practice it at all.   When you hit a level where you know a new cantrip, you get it at-will, but no intermediate state wherein you can cast it, just not yet at will, exists. Oh, and you can learn every spell on your entire spell list, except for those tricky little cantrips.   That's absurd.   What I'm doing as a temporary house rule (waiting for the DMG to see what sort of options, if any, are suggested) is to say that prepared casters "know" all the cantrips on their spell list, but they can only cast the specified ones at will. They can cast any of the others with a 1st level or higher spell slot. (Must use higher level slots if you want to replicate cantrip scaling). No preparation required. This allows additional cantrips an intermediate position between the specified number of at-will cantrips, and regular spells.
#6 BW0222 Sep 25, 2014 19:37:22	Narl wrote:
#7 GreyMorgan Sep 25, 2014 22:48:24	Cantrips are no longer the weakest spells on the block.  Instead they are magics you learn so well you have them always available at a moments notice.   Spells on the other claw use up the spell energy you draw in from divine, arcane, or natural sources.   IE you spell slots.  These are set formula you can swap in and out but you only have limited use of.   The cantrip you can always channel the energy for.
#8 Sword_of_Spirit Sep 26, 2014 18:01:09	So, if I didn't spend years learning to cast a light spell at will, I can't cast anything like that at all?   Seriously?   As a wizard player in a campaign where the DM allowed PC spell creation, I would research a 1st level version of every utility cantrip on the list. Then, after they were up and running, I'd ask, "Why hasn't any other wizard done this?" (The point being that in thousands of years it most certainly *should* have been done before, and would be in high enough demand that they would definitely go on the list of common spells (ie, PHB spell list) available to wizards.)
#9 E-Tallitnics Sep 26, 2014 19:45:14	Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
(Reply to #9) Timborama	E-Tallitnics wrote:
#11 Sword_of_Spirit Sep 26, 2014 21:42:10	Well let me rephrase it.   It is absurd that relatively simple magical effects exist in a format that one can only learn to cast at-will, while one can learn an unlimited number of effects based on any combination of those simple effects and more.   For instance, I can skip the light cantrip, but learn sunburst, skip minor illusion but learn major image, skip ray of frost but learn cone of cold. I can't see* why a wizard of high enough level to cast one of those spells can't create a lesser version of the same type of magic similar to what the cantrip can do.   The issue isn't the idea of a special category of spells that can only be learned in a certain way (although that is a lesser issue), the issue is that the effects that category of spell creates are simpler forms of similar effects of higher level spells, and you can know an unlimited number of the higher spells while only knowing a limited number of the lesser spells.   (Another way to think of the problem would be to imagine you could only learn, for instance 4 spells each of 1st and 2nd level, but an unlimited number of spells of 3rd through 9th level. It makes little sense.)   If there were a 1st level spell similar (either identical or slightly superior) to each cantrip then there wouldn't be an issue. Or if spells had prerequisite chains where you had to learn the right cantrips in order to have access to higher level spells (ie, if you don't know ray of frost, you can't learn cone of cold), it would also make sense.   I apologize if I'm coming off as a bit snarky here, but I just don't find this rules irregularity to be defensible as anything other than a designer decision to keep things simple. An early playtest had a better way of doing it (you have 0-level spells and slots, but certain 0-level spells you know don't expend slots), but some people didn't understand it and thought it was too complex, so it was abandoned (rather than just explained better).   *Of course I can think up some fanciful justification for why it can work. We all have to do some of that when we try to mix common sense with our D&D. But there are certain points where it is just too absurd to be worth the effort, where the element in question is just unsatisfying and doesn't deserve to be justified.
#12 Devils-Advocate Sep 27, 2014 8:59:59	That line is different for everyone. While it may be absurd to you, many people find it perfectly reasonable. Luckily, it sounds like you already have a few good ideas for house rules to fix your issues with cantrips.
(Reply to #12) Nevvur	A DM could also just define the metaphysics of cantrips differently than the PHB does if their description does not make sense in the DM's mind. For instance, the PHB describes cantrips as being a simple spell the caster has studied to the point of automation. Instead cantrips might be rather complex spells that the caster discovered an inborn affinity for casting during his magical education . He can't ever learn and cast all the other cantrips because he lacks the knack.    I would argue for the sake of consistency that all cantrips can also be learned as level 1 spells, requiring a level 1 spell slot to use, but that is for flavor and probably not a tactically sound use of spell slots. But I'm sticking with cantrip RAW at my table.
#14 Novacat Sep 27, 2014 20:15:33	The entire magic system in D&D is absurd for many reasons, and it has been in every edition (even 4th). We accept the absurdities because if we do not, then we must either never use spell casters in our games, or do so much work to fix it that we might as well play a different game.
#15 FallingIcicle Sep 27, 2014 20:48:56	Cantrips are more like invocations than they are like normal spells. If it helps, try thinking of them as magical talents.   Or, if it really bothers you that much, just let clerics, druids and wizards change their cantrips each day. I don't really see how that would break anything.
#16 FallingIcicle Sep 27, 2014 20:58:00	Another idea I had is to allow clerics, druids and wizards to prepare additional cantrips, counting against the number of spells they can prepare each day. The cantrips they know are the ones that they've throroughly mastered, but they could still prepare other cantrips if they want to. I've been thinking about it and can't think of any serious balance problems. Each extra cantrip you want to have available is one fewer 1st level or higher spell you can prepare that day.
#17 obsid Sep 28, 2014 7:27:30	I would add the house rule at least that you can swap cantrips when you level up like any spell.
#18 ScottMcFarland Sep 28, 2014 15:02:38	The fact that wizards have fewer spell slots in 5th ed means that magic items like wands and staves that allow the casting of a spell are especially valuable. If Joe the Wizard has magic missile in his spellbook but then finds a wand of magic missile he can free up a 1st level spell slot, a pretty precious resource.   Then he finds an item that allows him to cast the Ray of Frost cantrip 3 times per day. But hang on, he already knows the Ray of Frost cantrip. Now he's gutted that he didn't chose Firebolt instead. His regret leads him inexorably into a downward spiral. Before you know it he's lost his job, his marriage is over and he never sees his kids grow up.   Is that what we want the legacy of this game to be for guys like Joe the Wizard?   Let's have cantrip scrolls / a mechanism by which wizards can learn, relearn or swap out cantrips over time.
(Reply to #18) AaronOfBarbaria	ScottMcFarland wrote:
#20 Timborama Sep 29, 2014 6:16:03	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#21 Sword_of_Spirit Sep 29, 2014 14:03:58	FallingIcicle wrote: