Spell-chopping Archetypes VS 0-level spells

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

I forget what exactly it was I saw recently that raised me this qualm, but it has come to my attention that 0-level spells may, in fact, NOT count when considering the effect of Class Archetypes (the Kensei Magus being the example most pertinent to me) that skim off spell slots - ergo a 2nd-level Kensei would only have 1 + high-INT-bonus 1st-level spell/day, but would still have its normal full complement for that level of 4 Cantrips.

Is this the case, or have I been doing it correctly by shaving off a Cantrip slot as well?

[Firebug]

Cantrips are still spells. The only difference is that classes with Cantrips have another class feature that says that those particular spells are not expended on use.

Kensai reduces spells per day, and the Cantrips class feature also references the spells per day chart.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

That's what I thought.

Any dissenters?

[MrCharisma]

I think RAW that's correct (and probably intended, so RAI too).

Having said that I'd probably let you keep your cantrips in tact if I were the GM. Cantrips aren't super powerful and you can't get more cantrips for having a high INT so it'd be hard to game the system with 1 extra cantrip memorised every morning. I also wouldn't fight my GM if they didn't let me since - again - cantrips aren't super powerful and you're only losing one.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Well, I have Organized Play in mind, so DM interpretation has its limits.

[Melkiador]

It'd depend on the wording for each archetype and class. But as for the Kensai, I'd say you get one fewer cantrip.

[Cevah]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Well, I have Organized Play in mind, so DM interpretation has its limits.

Invest in a Cracked Orange Prism Ioun Stone for 1000 gp with your favorite cantrip and call it fixed. Get more than one for even more flexibility.

/cevah

[FamiliarMask]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

That's what I thought.

Any dissenters?

The Jistkan Artificer Magus archetype suggests that cantrips aren't normally reduced for a class with Diminished Spellcasting, since it has the normal language for that feature, but then adds an additional change to the Cantrips class feature saying they can prepare one less Cantrip per day...

[MrCharisma]

FamiliarMask wrote:

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

That's what I thought.

Any dissenters?

The Jistkan Artificer Magus archetype suggests that cantrips aren't normally reduced for a class with Diminished Spellcasting, since it has the normal language for that feature, but then adds an additional change to the Cantrips class feature saying they can prepare one less Cantrip per day...

Interesting.

If you're correct that means that a Kensai (or whatever) gets the normal allotment of cantrips. Or it could mean that the Jistkan Artificer gets 2 less cantrips than usual (that actually is harsh).

What I actually think though, is that the person who wrote that didn't check the rules properly and it got missed ... HOWEVER ... That kind of thing in print does actually give precedent, and can (maybe should?) be used as the Rules-As-Written.

Where do people land on this?

EDIT: Also, EDWARD ELRIC!! Anyone else wanna play this archetype just for the cosplay?

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Cevah wrote:

Invest in a Cracked Orange Prism Ioun Stone for 1000 gp with your favorite cantrip and call it fixed.

Already done - question is whether I really needed it as much as I thought I did.

FamiliarMask wrote:

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

That's what I thought.

Any dissenters?

The Jistkan Artificer Magus archetype suggests that cantrips aren't normally reduced for a class with Diminished Spellcasting, since it has the normal language for that feature, but then adds an additional change to the Cantrips class feature saying they can prepare one less Cantrip per day...

THIS. I think this is precisely what triggered my doubts.

[avr]

I think, by the wording, a kensai gets one less cantrip. I'm not going to venture an opinion on the Jistkan artificer.