• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Cantrips as encounter powers?

nogray

Adventurer
I remember the Warlock from Complete Arcane, but I don't remember any other class that had at-will magic. I stopped buying 3.5E products shortly after Eberron came out...I didn't care for the direction the game was heading (The Book of Nine Swords, Tome of Magic, Races of the Dragon, etc.) Each new book seemed to move further away from what I thought D&D should be.

I didn't like the Warlock for several reasons, only one of which was that game-wrecking eldritch blast. I didn't like its quasi-demonic flavor, I didn't like the automatic healing, I didn't like the instant magic items...that class was just a mess.

Ahh. Thanks for the clarification. Though, to be honest, I'm not sure what you mean by some of the later parts of your post. I can agree with the forced quasi-demonic flavor being problematic, and that is why I tended to refluff it to be fey-themed, at least on my Chaotic Good warlocks, and sometimes on my CN ones. (The cold-iron DR fits well, here, as do several of the powers.)

What has me confused is the application of "game-wrecking" to eldritch blast, the self-healing being called "automatic," and the phrase "instant magic items."

The warlock's eldritch blast does less damage than the bonus sneak attack damage of a rogue. While the rogue can't SA undead or constructs -- at least without various feats and whatnot -- and so loses in those areas for damage, the warlock's EB has to deal with SR -- or energy resistance to acid, which is a later invocation choice and is only available later in the warlock's career -- plus possible disruption.) It has less range than any bow or crossbow (except maybe the hand crossbow), and it can't be used in a full attack. While the warlock doesn't have to worry about ammo, the bow-user will often be more damaging. (This is a bit of a reversal from the standard "martial is at will, but magic is more effective due to its limited uses" meme.) I'd love more information as to why it is game-breaking to you.

The self-healing's biggest benefit is that it is a free action to activate. That much is pretty potent, but other than that, it seems to me to be a really weak class feature. It amounts to 20 points of healing (40 at 13th level, 100 at 18th) per day. That is likely to be less than or on par with a paladin, and certainly less than even one of a cleric's spells. It is (until the last level of it is acquired) pretty on-par with a monk's self-healing. The monk has less points, but can dole it out as-needed. The warlock's is also limited in that it is fast healing, so it comes pretty slowly -- much to slow to save himself in combat. Regarding the use of "automatic," it does require a (free) action to activate, so it's not like you can use it to auto-stabilize yourself. (Depending on your reading of free actions, you might be able to activate it on a monsters turn before they attack you (or even between two attacks), but once you are struck, assuming that the hit is enough to put you unconscious, it is too late to act.)

The one that really gets my curiosity up, though, is the "instant magic items." They can qualify for making magic items pretty easily, but they have no advantages in the creation thereof, and each item type they want to make consumes a valuable feat. (No bonus feats like a wizard or, since you mentioned Eberron, an artificer.) They are only really good at qualifying for arcane-spell-based items, too. Divine spells are considerably harder for them to emulate. (Though the fact that they can potentially emulate divine spells does give them an advantage over an item-making wizard, it really doesn't help if the wizard had a cleric to help him -- either in the party or paid to assist.)

As a further aside, some of the books that you mentioned (Book of Nine Swords, Tome of Magic (the Binder chapter, anyway), and Magic of Incarnum (okay, so you didn't mention that one)) are some of my favorite parts of 3.5. Similarly, Complete Mage's reserve feats (that may have appeared elsewhere, too) and Player's Handbook II's combat focus feats and "beyond specialization" feats are also pretty neat to me. Some sort of help non-casters do more interesting things, and others help casters limit their reliance on big, fire-and-forget spells.

Whether you reply to this or not, thank you for what understanding you have imparted so far. Though I have some difficulty aligning my experiences to your stated views, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
What has me confused is the application of "game-wrecking" to eldritch blast, the self-healing being called "automatic," and the phrase "instant magic items."
Oh, that's just me climbing up on my soap box again. :) I should use less colorful wording to express things I don't like. After all, the things that wreck my games might be driving someone else's. I sense that you are a fan of the Warlock class, and that's cool. They just don't fit the style of play that I enjoy.

[SBLOCK="Since you asked..."]Regarding the eldritch blast: yes, it does less damage than a rogue's sneak attack. But the rogue must meet certain criteria for a sneak attack (he cannot apply bonus damage to every attack, for example.) He must be within 30 feet, his target must be denied its Dex bonus, must have vital organs, etc. The Warlock only has to defeat a target's SR...a fairly rare ability. It gets worse when you add feats and levels of other classes.

The healing ability and the magic item creation aren't as much of a problem, balance-wise. I just don't care for the style. Flavor-wise, the Warlock strikes me as an unfocused "everything but the kitchen sink" type of character...almost as if the game designers couldn't quite figure out what to do with it, so they made it do everything. "I made a pact with the powers of evil, and now I can shoot laser beams from my hand! And heal myself! And resist damage! And make magic items! And...!" Yawn.[/SBLOCK]
As a further aside, some of the books that you mentioned (Book of Nine Swords, Tome of Magic (the Binder chapter, anyway), and Magic of Incarnum (okay, so you didn't mention that one)) are some of my favorite parts of 3.5. Similarly, Complete Mage's reserve feats (that may have appeared elsewhere, too) and Player's Handbook II's combat focus feats and "beyond specialization" feats are also pretty neat to me. Some sort of help non-casters do more interesting things, and others help casters limit their reliance on big, fire-and-forget spells.
You aren't the only one who enjoys these products. This seems to be the trend that D&D is heading, for better or worse. I prefer a little more traditional style of game, myself. I like characters who start out with nothing, and in defiance of all odds, overcome the challenges before them and become heroes of legend. I don't particularly like the newer "start awesome, and get more awesome" approach to hero-building. As long as D&DNext manages to support both play styles, I'll be a happy camper.

Perhaps they could limit the at-will magic and powers to optional themes?
 

Janaxstrus

First Post
That is not really what I asked. To me, it looks like your falling back to encounter is a dodge. What I asked was about whether you thought any form of resource should be regained after a short (five or ten minute) rest, or if the only rest you thought should be meaningful is the long rest (six to eight hours).

I'll also note that you specify "spells and abilities," by which I might take it that you are okay with regaining some more passive resource (such as hit points) in the middle of the day? Or am I misreading?

Thank you for your patience in explaining your viewpoint.


I don't like short rests at all. I'm not "dodging" anything. I thought saying I don't like people recovering spells/abilities would cover it.

If I had my preference, it would work like 3.x. Clerics (and many X per day magic items) would recover their spells/charges at a certain time each day (with or without a rest)
Arcane casters, barbarians, etc would recover their spell slots/rage/whatever after 8 hours of rest. (and only 1 time per 24 hours)

If the game overall is good enough, the hit dice/healing kit mechanic is one I would be OK with. It's not my favorite thing in the world, but some non-magical healing is needed, and it makes more sense than shouting people healthy, so it has that going for it.
 

enrious

Registered User
It's not just about the amount of damage, though. At-will attack cantrips have infinite ammunition, automatically reload every round, can be used one-handed, don't require a move action to change weapons, are weightless, can't be disarmed or sundered, benefit from the same feats that bows do (point blank shot, etc.) and so on. They are superior to bows in every possible way except maybe the amount of damage they inflict.

A lot of people like at-will magic in their games, and they should have the option to keep using it. We will house-rule it away as soon as we see it, however.

Actually they don't benefit from those feats, "You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet," " When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round. All of your attack rolls take a –2 penalty when using Rapid Shot," and so on. Also, note that ranged weapons are defined as, "Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee," thus ruling out a mage's hand(s).

So yes, the offset to pitifully low damage is all of the advantages you listed above, to be countered by most archer types doing 2-5+ times the amount of damage per round, on average.

Of course, and I think you'd agree, the most important thing is what is fun for your group at the table - whatever it is, it is the right answer.
 

interesting. I could swear, that point blank shot and such once listed ranged attacks...

but you are right. Point blank shot and also precise shot is not useable by mages... interesting....
 

Cantrip: 1d3 per round.

Bow/Arrow: 1d6 per round. Without counting any bonuses from things like PBS, RS, Mighty, or Deadly Aim.

My experience differs from you; At-will low-damage spellcasting did not make other ranged characters superfluous and it had a certain aesthetic appeal by virtue of the spellcaster not resorting to crossbows/thrown daggers because they ran out of spells early in the fight.

The lack of at-will cantrips/osirins makes me a sad panda whenever I have to play 3.5 again.
1d3 damage cantrips are senseless... i can use a crossbow instead...
 

enrious

Registered User
1d3 damage cantrips are senseless... i can use a crossbow instead...

Except that they have unlimited amunition, are weightless, don't require an action to swap, don't require an action to reload, can't be disarmed or sundered, can be used one handed and for some groups provide more immersion than a wizard with a bandolier.

Those are not insignificant advantages.
 

jadrax

Adventurer
interesting. I could swear, that point blank shot and such once listed ranged attacks...

but you are right. Point blank shot and also precise shot is not useable by mages... interesting....

Complete Arcane changes Precise Shot and Point Blank Shot so it effects Ray Spells iirc.
 


jadrax

Adventurer
I think you're right. I was referring to Pathfinder, since it has at-will cantrips.

So does D&D of your using Complete Arcane ;o)

I have no idea what Pathfinder uses as core. Or even for that matter how many people mix and match Pathfinder with D&D add-on books.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top