Quote from: CRKrueger;763053Spell lists are not the concern, the Mage (and presumably Cleric) now being a class that can pump out 50%+ of base weapon damage of a fighter without expending resources is the concern.  You really think the default assumption is going to be that Mages and Clerics do not have them?

But they could already do that, by using a weapon.

Wizard with Quarterstaff, equal base chance to hit as fighter, d8 damage. The only difference between the Wizard and the Fighter is the Fighter's strength.

Cleric with Morningstar, equal base chance to hit as fighter, d8 damage. The only difference between the Cleric and the Fighter is the Fighter's strength.

Quote from: jadrax;763081But they could already do that, by using a weapon.

Wizard with Quarterstaff, equal base chance to hit as fighter, d8 damage. The only difference between the Wizard and the Fighter is the Fighter's strength.

Cleric with Morningstar, equal base chance to hit as fighter, d8 damage. The only difference between the Cleric and the Fighter is the Fighter's strength.

True, however, if they do it melee, then they can get squashed, if they do it ranged, then they could run out of ammunition, and unless those weapons are magical, they are doing mundane damage, none of which applies to an eternal magical attack at range.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763074You must hate monks then.  Consistently putting out large amounts of damage at-will endlessly and they don't need any weapons to do so.

Nope, because that's the Monk's classic function, it's what they do, it's not a side job they can do when they're not casting spells that no one else can.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;763003I still have never figured out how wizards using crossbows is seen as more iconic fantasy than wizards being able to consistently cast spells.

Apparently any wizard who can do weak magic as tirelessly as a fighter swings his sword is a superhero.

Wizards throwing endless spells is definitely not Swords & Sorcery, but certainly within the realm of fantasy. I don't really think it's D&D, either, if by D&D we're talking about pre-3.5ish D&D. Videogame fantasy, absolutely.

Gotta agree with the crossbow thing...I never liked the expanded weapons list in the newer versions of D&D.

Has anyone ever seen magic users run out of sling stones or crossbow bolts before?

I haven't, and I suspect it's a spurious argument.  I'm sure it could happen, but if it occurs less than 1%, then it's really not a strong basis for reasoning. IMO anyway.

Much like at will cantrips, they are last resort attacks after all other more powerful means have been exhausted/not applicable to the scenario.

To be honest, I hardly ever saw a decent level magic user, even in AD&D, resort to slings or crossbows when they had spells, scrolls, and wands at that point.

And I see little difference in the AD&D 'pew pew" wizard with a wand of magic missles vs. a "pew pew" wizard in 5e who has at wills and not nearly as many wands*.  They are both pew pewing.


*wands in 5e don't have nearly the # of charges as in 1e

Quote from: Rincewind1;763073Yeah, but at the same time, it's a dick move if you tell a fresh 5th level Wizard "No fireballs in this setting." Changes to Handbook spells should IMO be made before the guy chooses the class, unless it comes about that the spell is unbalanced in play.

Well, we're talking about cantrips here, so that's a decision which is going to come up early on.

And anyone who can't adapt to not getting the spells they expected isn't a very skilled wizard player in the first place.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763084Nope, because that's the Monk's classic function, it's what they do, it's not a side job they can do when they're not casting spells that no one else can.

This makes no sense.  Casting magic is what mages do.  Magic is not a side job for a mage.  It's the thing they do as a class feature.

Quote from: CRKrueger;763082True, however, if they do it melee, then they can get squashed, if they do it ranged, then they could run out of ammunition, and unless those weapons are magical, they are doing mundane damage, none of which applies to an eternal magical attack at range.

This is true, but I really do not think that its ever going to be important in terms of the core assumptions of the game. Honestly, ruling out damaging cantrips is not going to fuck up your game in the slightest. If I am wrong, I will buy you a beer.

Quote from: Brad;763085Wizards throwing endless spells is definitely not Swords & Sorcery, but certainly within the realm of fantasy. I don't really think it's D&D, either, if by D&D we're talking about pre-3.5ish D&D. Videogame fantasy, absolutely.

Gotta agree with the crossbow thing...I never liked the expanded weapons list in the newer versions of D&D.

Tolkien as been referenced as a huge influence of D&D.  The Shannara series has widely been cited as a rip off of Tolkien, and is a hugely popular fantasy series that came out in the 1970s.  Allanon cast spells all the time, whenever he wanted, at will.

Quote from: Bill;763076If I leave the cantrips as at will, I still consider them spells that require the wizard to be well rested, reasonable conditions to cast; etc..like any other spell.

Yep. It's not like they are doing magic by will alone. It's just that cantrips are simple enough that they're always memorized. They are a spell like any other not a supernatural ability. 5e is trying to keep it simplified as much as possible and figures you would use these 15-20 times a day screw tracking that. Similar to you recover half your arrows after each battle and move on.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;763090Tolkien as been referenced as a huge influence of D&D.  The Shannara series has widely been cited as a rip off of Tolkien, and is a hugely popular fantasy series that came out in the 1970s.  Allanon cast spells all the time, whenever he wanted, at will.

Yes, but Gandalf hardly ever cast spells, and he's pretty much the iconic wizard most people think about when you say Tolkien. Having read a ton of Forgotten Realms novels and bunches of other stuff, wizards casting spells all the time works for a specific sub-set of fantasy, which alters the old D&D paradigms. It's not a bad thing, but it is different.

Quote from: Marleycat;763075Funny thing is that I bet you'll learn to tolerate if not like them somewhat in the end if not figure out some houserule or use a particular module out of the DMG and all will be fine.

I've already decided to houserule them, limit the list, or cut out at-wills all together.  As I said, my table's not the issue.  

Things don't happen in a vacuum.  We didn't start with 3.0 and then magically teleport to the Gauntlets of Ogre Power thread at purple.  That kind of idiocy over there was built over time and was supported by the rules WotC kept issuing.

Quote from: Brad;763093Yes, but Gandalf hardly ever cast spells, and he's pretty much the iconic wizard most people think about when you say Tolkien. Having read a ton of Forgotten Realms novels and bunches of other stuff, wizards casting spells all the time works for a specific sub-set of fantasy, which alters the old D&D paradigms. It's not a bad thing, but it is different.

Liking or disliking a change has nothing to do with admitting that a change has taken place.

As you said, a change has taken place.

Will it have a positive or negative effect, at this point no one knows, but I have my doubts.

At will cantrips do have some setting implications if you look at it for too long - something that 4e got away with by being batshit crazy and not caring about anything beyond the encounter.

I don't care for them much, but i also don't see them as a problem either.

I gave AD&D wizards in my campaign a 1d3 "magic ray" attack, that bases on burning one 20 GP gem per 100 shots, since I prefer that to them tossing darts .