Can same cantrip be prepared several times?


Rules Discussion


Playing as a cleric and our party needs additional sources of light. Can cleric (or any other caster) prepare spell "Light" twice to have 2 objects glow? Hate how dancing lights got nerfed in 2e. If I can't get it twice normally can I get it 2nd time by taking Druid dedication?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Huh. This is a very specific issue which I can't find much coverage for.

I can't find anything that prohibits you from preparing the same Cantrip twice, however that may not solve your specific issue.

Light reads

Quote:
The object glows, casting bright light in a 20-foot radius (and dim light for the next 20 feet) like a torch. If you cast this spell again on a second object, the light spell on the first object ends.

It really depends on how the game counts discrete objects, and if "this spell" means the spell 'Light cast by you' or the spell 'Light, cast from this spell slot, cast by you'.

Since the game doesn't really seem designed to handle questions like this, I'm going to say it probably defaults to "this spell" being any version of the Light spell cast by you. Meaning that a second preparation of it wouldn't allow contemporaneous Lights.

But its a niche question at best.

___________

Out of curiosity, what sort of issues are you guys having with darkness that need this?

An Everburning Torch is just 15gp after all!


Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Out of curiosity, what sort of issues are you guys having with darkness that need this?

An Everburning Torch is just 15gp after all!

1st lvl party delved into underground dungeon. Out of 5 ppl only 1 has darvision. My cleric has lowlight vision. Other 3 are vanilla humans. Currently our main source of light is my cleric's light spell. Party members ain't really keen on wasting 1 hand for torch. We have some torches so I'm gona carry 1 and have light cast on the fighter's helmet. Imho it's not enough of light for us so I would love to have more light sources. Also we just got lvl up so I can pick up some abilities.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I tend to view the "cast this spell again," line as prohibiting multiple instances of Light from one character no matter how that light spell may have been granted. So even if you were able to prepare 2 slots of Light, you would be unable to maintain 2 independent Light spells at once.

Note that a Wayfinder (out of a 1st level parties reach generally, but an option for later) can be activated to have light cast on it in a way that I believe would allow a single character to have 2 instances of Light up at the same time. Since the character is not specifically called out as casting the spell that is.

Edit: Other options for illuminating a battlefield: Never forget that you can drop a torch and it won't immediately go out. Each party member could carry a lit torch and if ambushed fling them around to illuminate the battlefield with relative ease. Sunrods or everburning torches can have a similar effect. As a GM I would tend to have the torch shed light for at least a few minutes once thrown in this way as long as it doesn't land in water. This is plenty of time for the party to finish up a decent sized combat.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Alchemists fire creates light...


I think the issue is the use of a hand.

Should belt lanterns be an available thing?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Belt lanterns are a thing.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

A Lantern (Hooded) is only Light bulk, so could easily go on a belt without issue.

Also

Produce Flame creates light...


What about the Shield cantrip?

Could you prepare it twice, so that if the Shield Block reaction is used, you could immediately start using the second prepared Shield cantrip?

Shield:
You raise a magical shield of force. This counts as using the Raise a Shield action, giving you a +1 circumstance bonus to AC until the start of your next turn, but it doesn't require a hand to use.

While the spell is in effect, you can use the Shield Block reaction with your magic shield. The shield has Hardness 5. After you use Shield Block, the spell ends and you can't cast it again for 10 minutes. Unlike a normal Shield Block, you can use the spell's reaction against the magic missile spell.

Silver Crusade

Sapient wrote:

What about the Shield cantrip?

Could you prepare it twice, so that if the Shield Block reaction is used, you could immediately start using the second prepared Shield cantrip?

** spoiler omitted **

I think the author's idea with the text "you can't cast it again for 10 minutes" would apply to any Shield cantrip trying to be cast - not just the one from a particular Cantrip slot.

In general I think the author's idea with being able to cast a Cantrip as many times as you want would result in Players only including a single instance in their Cantrip slots. As such, they included the limitations for light sources or Shield spell usage accordingly.

I think the Core Rulebook should not have used the term "spell slots" on page 300 when describing Cantrips:

If you’re a prepared caster, you have a number of cantrip spell slots that you use to prepare your cantrips.

Perhaps a better wording would have been:

If you’re a prepared caster, you can prepare a specific number of distinct cantrip spells per day.


corwyn42 wrote:


I think the author's idea with the text "you can't cast it again for 10 minutes" would apply to any Shield cantrip trying to be cast - not just the one from a particular Cantrip slot.

In general I think the author's idea with being able to cast a Cantrip as many times as you want would result in Players only including a single instance in their Cantrip slots. As such, they included the limitations for light sources or Shield spell usage accordingly.

I think the Core Rulebook should not have used the term "spell slots" on page 300 when describing Cantrips:

If you’re a prepared caster, you have a number of cantrip spell slots that you use to prepare your cantrips.

Perhaps a better wording would have been:

If you’re a prepared caster, you can prepare a specific number of distinct cantrip spells per day.

I agree. I did consider exploring the issue harder when I took a Bard dedication for my Champion. Could you take the same cantrip twice as a spontaneous caster, so that you could cast Shield twice if needed? I decided it wasn't worth pursuing, and likely was not within the spirit of the rules.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:
Party members ain't really keen on wasting 1 hand for torch.

Does anybody use a shield? If so, then, unlike PF1, they can use the hand wielding the shield to hold a torch/light source, without losing too much versatility.


Do you have an alchemist in the party? You could have him whip up 2 sunrods with a reagent in the morning they are good for 6 hours each and have them clipped on a helmet or shield or belt.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sapient wrote:
corwyn42 wrote:


I think the author's idea with the text "you can't cast it again for 10 minutes" would apply to any Shield cantrip trying to be cast - not just the one from a particular Cantrip slot.

In general I think the author's idea with being able to cast a Cantrip as many times as you want would result in Players only including a single instance in their Cantrip slots. As such, they included the limitations for light sources or Shield spell usage accordingly.

I think the Core Rulebook should not have used the term "spell slots" on page 300 when describing Cantrips:

If you’re a prepared caster, you have a number of cantrip spell slots that you use to prepare your cantrips.

Perhaps a better wording would have been:

If you’re a prepared caster, you can prepare a specific number of distinct cantrip spells per day.

I agree. I did consider exploring the issue harder when I took a Bard dedication for my Champion. Could you take the same cantrip twice as a spontaneous caster, so that you could cast Shield twice if needed? I decided it wasn't worth pursuing, and likely was not within the spirit of the rules.

If the spell is from the same tradition (arcane, divine, etc...) I'd say you couldn't stack it, but otherwise I'd allow it.


Being a Cantrip or from another tradition doesn't change that spell X remains spell X.
For example, if Fireball said after you cast it you can't cast it again for 10 minutes, you'd understand that references all Fireballs, right?
It wouldn't matter the tradition or source.

Same w/ Shield & Light, even though their slots aren't expended so it leads to the thought the description might reference the slot instead. Except it doesn't, it references the spell (and needs errata if the devs only meant to limit the slot's usage.)

Also, and I'm not so certain about this, I think when you use an item to cast a spell, you are still casting the spell. So a Wayfinder wouldn't get around this issue either. Some consumables don't involve you casting though, but I'm guessing they also have set DCs & stats.

There is one corner case where tradition matter, such as if you meet a creature who can counter Divine spells, then "aha!" you could switch to a Primal version...maybe once your whole career (unless it's a Rakshasa-themed campaign).


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Castilliano wrote:

For example, if Fireball said after you cast it you can't cast it again for 10 minutes, you'd understand that references all Fireballs, right?

Same w/ Shield & Light, even though their slots aren't expended so it leads to the thought the description might reference the slot instead. Except it doesn't, it references the spell (and needs errata if the devs only meant to limit the slot's usage.)

I don't understand that and there's no indication that is what it means at all, vagaries of language being what they are. I don't think the line in the spells referencing all such spells is an unreasonable stance, which is why I suggested the different tradition compromise, but I also think there's room to interpret it more broadly.

If it said "you can't cast shield again" I'd be more inclined to agree with the consensus, but Shield says that "After you use Shield Block, the spell ends and you can't cast it again for 10 minutes." The spell is entirely self referential.

Just like Light says 'If you cast this spell again' this, meaning the spell prepared in this slot.

And after reading the spell preparation section, I don't see any reason why you can't prepare the same cantrip in multiple slots.

If a wizard is going to prepare 4 shields and 1 acid splash, whatever man. They're his slots. Using redundant copies of spells to circumvent a logistical problem sounds like a good solution.


Kasoh wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

For example, if Fireball said after you cast it you can't cast it again for 10 minutes, you'd understand that references all Fireballs, right?

Same w/ Shield & Light, even though their slots aren't expended so it leads to the thought the description might reference the slot instead. Except it doesn't, it references the spell (and needs errata if the devs only meant to limit the slot's usage.)

I don't understand that and there's no indication that is what it means at all, vagaries of language being what they are. I don't think the line in the spells referencing all such spells is an unreasonable stance, which is why I suggested the different tradition compromise, but I also think there's room to interpret it more broadly.

If it said "you can't cast shield again" I'd be more inclined to agree with the consensus, but Shield says that "After you use Shield Block, the spell ends and you can't cast it again for 10 minutes." The spell is entirely self referential.

Just like Light says 'If you cast this spell again' this, meaning the spell prepared in this slot.

And after reading the spell preparation section, I don't see any reason why you can't prepare the same cantrip in multiple slots.

If a wizard is going to prepare 4 shields and 1 acid splash, whatever man. They're his slots. Using redundant copies of spells to circumvent a logistical problem sounds like a good solution.

It also sounds like a way to dodge an inbuilt limitation of those cantrips, in Light's case only having one lit item at once and in Shields case not being able to cast "it" after using Shield Block.

CRB PG. 368 "Shield" wrote:
...After you use Shield Block, the spell ends and you can’t cast it again for 10 minutes.

The "it" being referenced is the "spell" which is "Shield".

I can see the argument that spell slots are separate holding water, but I find it hard to believe that this is the intent of the designers. While I have nothing against a player preparing the same cantrip multiple times on it's own, I wouldn't allow that to bypass any cool downs or the limitations of spells that they personally cast.

@Castilliano, my argument for the Wayfinder activation bypassing the Light limitation is that the character is not referenced as casting that spell.

CRB PG. 617 "Wayfinder" wrote:
Activate [one-action] command; Effect The wayfinder is targeted by a 1st-level light spell.

It is not a "cast a spell" activation and the wayfinder is "targeted" by a 1st-level light spell with no reference to who is casting said spell.


Agree with beowulf99. Parsing "it" as described is really reaching.


beowulf99 wrote:

It also sounds like a way to dodge an inbuilt limitation of those cantrips, in Light's case only having one lit item at once and in Shields case not being able to cast "it" after using Shield Block.

It does come with a new limit and a cost, though. Each slot is limited by the text if the spell. And multiple preps of the same cantrip reduces the number of cantrips available. This hardly feels like a cheat or a work around. I think it is a legitimate question, based on the written rules.


Sapient wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:

It also sounds like a way to dodge an inbuilt limitation of those cantrips, in Light's case only having one lit item at once and in Shields case not being able to cast "it" after using Shield Block.

It does come with a new limit and a cost, though. Each slot is limited by the text if the spell. And multiple preps of the same cantrip reduces the number of cantrips available. This hardly feels like a cheat or a work around. I think it is a legitimate question, based on the written rules.

But it is also a workaround to dodging an in built limitation on a spell.

Look at power word stun. If each slotted spell was treated separately, then you could stun lock a creature. But you can't. Because they are temporarily immine to the spell.


You can hire a lantern bearer for 2sp per day. The table on p294 says 1sp for an unskilled hireling, double pay for dangerous conditions like dungeon delving. Use them to carry your extra rope, etcetera, while you have them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
Sapient wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:

It also sounds like a way to dodge an inbuilt limitation of those cantrips, in Light's case only having one lit item at once and in Shields case not being able to cast "it" after using Shield Block.

It does come with a new limit and a cost, though. Each slot is limited by the text if the spell. And multiple preps of the same cantrip reduces the number of cantrips available. This hardly feels like a cheat or a work around. I think it is a legitimate question, based on the written rules.

But it is also a workaround to dodging an in built limitation on a spell.

Look at power word stun. If each slotted spell was treated separately, then you could stun lock a creature. But you can't. Because they are temporarily immine to the spell.

Ah, but are they immune to the spell or are they immune to "it"?

/sarcasm


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
mrspaghetti wrote:
Ah, but are they immune to the spell or are they immune to "it"?/sarcasm

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is."

Yeah, using Power Word Stun as an additional example definitely makes me more inclined to a narrower reading overall, but I do not like how Power Word Stun is phrased.

Power Word Stun wrote:
You stun the target with an arcane word of power. Once targeted, the target is then temporarily immune for 10 minutes. The effect of the spell depends on the target's level.

Temporarily immune to what? Probably (most likely) the arcane word of power, or just to being targeted? (Sidebar about too good to be true) The language feels loose, even though I don't think its meant to be. And its there to avoid stun locking a creature, which would be the purview of the incapacitate trait, but you can't use that on Power Word Stun because it doesn't offer a save.

Its inelegant, but the meaning is relatively clear.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think the root of the issue - players who both want to see and want an optimized attack rotation - is where the discussion should focus, rather than whether you can finagle another spell. As has been noted above, there are all sorts of awkward implications around allowing the same spell to be considered completely separate if it's in a different spell slot.

So this party is afraid of carrying torches because they want their hands for other things.. ok.

Belt Lanterns aren't my favorite idea as lanterns get hot, and heat in my belt region makes me nervous.

Just carry a torch and get over yourself.. this I like. Darkness is a bigger impediment than carrying a smaller blade or what have you. Some view RPGs as more or less simulationist... personally I have no issue with not being able to have my "optimal build" going at all times, as the situation/circumstances may make it impractical. Mileage varies.

How about this for an option: In Exploration mode, most/all of the party has torches out (of course 1 in this case has the Light spell active on them). When combat is initiated, those who carry torches but would rather use both hands for fighting can toss their torches into nearby-but-convenient locations in the room to provide light in the area to fight by. After combat, simply pick up your torch and move on.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If I was DMing a group that threw their torches to the ground to free their hands up, I'm not sure I could resist the temptation to have something catch on fire.

Maybe not the first time they did it, but after the second or third instance I'd make it a point to describe piles of straw or that the floor had some oily sheen to it.


AnimatedPaper wrote:

If I was DMing a group that threw their torches to the ground to free their hands up, I'm not sure I could resist the temptation to have something catch on fire.

Maybe not the first time they did it, but after the second or third instance I'd make it a point to describe piles of straw or that the floor had some oily sheen to it.

I mean you can do that. But it wouldn't be very player friendly.

Granted with how ubiquitous low light or darkvision is in ancestries, it won't come up too often. My first party has 1 character that would be having to cart a lantern or something around.


This thread raises a silly question in my mind. Does this imply you can make someone immune to scrying by others by scrying them and having them succeed or critically succeed their saving throw? Or that multiple groups trying to scry something can get in the way of each other when one is saved against?

When a spell says the target is immune, is it immune to the spell in general, or immune to the spell cast by you?


Hiruma Kai wrote:

This thread raises a silly question in my mind. Does this imply you can make someone immune to scrying by others by scrying them and having them succeed or critically succeed their saving throw? Or that multiple groups trying to scry something can get in the way of each other when one is saved against?

When a spell says the target is immune, is it immune to the spell in general, or immune to the spell cast by you?

I would generally assume the "intention" is that they are immune to scrying by you. Though other situations like say, Power Word Stun make that somewhat problematic. I suppose if you have 12 lvl 16 wizards around being stun-locked is far from the worst thing that could happen to you though.


beowulf99 wrote:
I would generally assume the "intention" is that they are immune to scrying by you. Though other situations like say, Power Word Stun make that somewhat problematic. I suppose if you have 12 lvl 16 wizards around being stun-locked is far from the worst thing that could happen to you though.

Well you don't need to go all the way to level 16 to see a game difference between the possible intentions. A party of 6 players all with the guidance cantrip for example is potentially 36 uses per hour rather than 6. Not sure if thats a problem, but at low level its alot better than say the aid reaction.

Probably not game breaking, but not sure if that is intended either. The text lacks a "from you" or "from this slot" or any qualifier really.


A qualifier would be great, I agree. In some cases, like Guidance, I don't see much of an issue. And it is a cantrip which lends itself to being cast multiple times.

Scrying similarly wouldn't make much sense if a creature became immune to all Scrying after passing it's save. Sure immunity to who you passed against makes sense, but then what if a much stronger caster Scryed you? Why should their Scry attempt suffer from the failure of another?

Generally I would treat any "temporarily immune" spell as specifying against the caster in specific. I just don't see any reasonable situation where doing so either doesn't make sense or doesn't feel balanced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

If I was DMing a group that threw their torches to the ground to free their hands up, I'm not sure I could resist the temptation to have something catch on fire.

Maybe not the first time they did it, but after the second or third instance I'd make it a point to describe piles of straw or that the floor had some oily sheen to it.

As long as you telegraph this it's a decent point.

Throwing down torches for light in a cave or dungeon - normal and no consequence.

Throwing them down in a swamp - torches go out.

Throwing down torches in a wooden building/dry forest - might end poorly


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Garretmander wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

If I was DMing a group that threw their torches to the ground to free their hands up, I'm not sure I could resist the temptation to have something catch on fire.

Maybe not the first time they did it, but after the second or third instance I'd make it a point to describe piles of straw or that the floor had some oily sheen to it.

As long as you telegraph this it's a decent point.

Throwing down torches for light in a cave or dungeon - normal and no consequence.

Throwing them down in a swamp - torches go out.

Throwing down torches in a wooden building/dry forest - might end poorly

Oh of course. It’s no fun if they don’t have a good chance of seeing it coming.


In the core rule book page 453 under temporary immunity, it says that the target of the spell would be immune to that spell from any caster for the duration of the immunity.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Can same cantrip be prepared several times? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.