Paladin/Ranger Cantrips

[Oramac]

It's always bugged me that Paladins (and Rangers, to a lesser extent) don't get any Cantrips at all.

Paladins are just as much a Divine Caster as a Cleric, thematically, and even the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster both get a couple cantrips.

Does anyone know a good reason why Paladin/Ranger don't get any cantrips, other than "because WOTC said so"?

[Mjolnirbear]

My guess? Because it would be a waste.

The AT had only one attack. Using a cantrip is a valid alternative. The EK has a class feature that lets them combine attacking and casting. But the Paladin loses out on two attacks and smites . The ranger loses out on volley and... The other one whose name I can't remember, or beast attack. If they use a cantrip instead they miss out on important class features designed to make their attacks powerful.

That said I would *love* my pally to have cantrips.

[Oramac]

My guess? Because it would be a waste.

The AT had only one attack. Using a cantrip is a valid alternative. The EK has a class feature that lets them combine attacking and casting. But the Paladin loses out on two attacks and smites . The ranger loses out on volley and... The other one whose name I can't remember, or beast attack. If they use a cantrip instead they miss out on important class features designed to make their attacks powerful.

That said I would *love* my pally to have cantrips.

See I agree with you on the Ranger.

But for the Pally, having Cantrips just makes sense. ALL of the Cleric cantrips would fit with a Paladin thematically as well we mechanically, and only one of them is a damaging cantrip. AND that cantrip would give Paladins a viable ranged option other than "chuck some weapon at them". Which, to me, doesn't feel like a Paladin at all.

[Sir cryosin]

Is it really that big of a deal you can mc or magic initiative.

[Corran]

Does anyone know a good reason why Paladin/Ranger don't get any cantrips, other than "because WOTC said so"?Because they already have a stong at will. Cantrips exist so that classes like the wizard wont have to resort to bows when they are out of spell. They were created for that very reason. Hence classes with a good at will attak dont really need cantrips. Ofc cantrips also offer some for of utility, and sometimes it seems just thematic to include them (AT, EK). Paladins and rangers dont fall into this category, s they are primarily martial combatants, and their theme does not need to have them.


My guess? Because it would be a waste.
With the exception of OoA paladins. Cantrips would just make their damage sky rocket when they reached 20 level, due to their oath capstone. Until then they would be pretty useless though, or situational at best (as far as attacking cantrips go).




So cantrips are mostly a caster-thing, which was also given out to clerics (because laser clerics) and EKs and ATs (becasue theme).

[Oramac]

Is it really that big of a deal you can mc or magic initiative.

Not really. But sometimes people (myself included) want to play a pure class, which rules out multiclassing.

And paladins in general have very little room for Feats, with many Feats being more effective for them than Magic Initiate.

It's not a huge deal, and of course it's not likely to change officially, but it is something that bugged me, so I figured I'd ask the community about it.

[Corran]

Not really. But sometimes people (myself included) want to play a pure class, which rules out multiclassing.

And paladins in general have very little room for Feats, with many Feats being more effective for them than Magic Initiate.

It's not a huge deal, and of course it's not likely to change officially, but it is something that bugged me, so I figured I'd ask the community about it.
Any non-halfelf (the variant that gets the cantrip) and non-high elf OoA paladin eventually must take magic initiate for BB (plus whatever else), even if he does it at 19th level. This feat is just too good when you combine Elder champion + command + warcaster +BB, and with a good charisma score on top of that. You can just steamroll anything.

[Oramac]

Any non-halfelf (the variant that gets the cantrip) and non-high elf OoA paladin eventually must take magic initiate for BB (plus whatever else), even if he does it at 19th level. This feat is just too good when you combine Elder champion + command + warcaster +BB, and with a good charisma score on top of that. You can just steamroll anything.

You're assuming every single person that plays a Paladin goes Oath of the Ancients. What about those of us that want to play one of the other 4 Oaths?

And a ranged cantrip option is hardly broken for a paladin. Sacred Flame does 4d8 at 17th level and above. It actually scales. A Jevelin does 1d6+str at every level. Which is terrible ranged damage for a paladin.

And yes, I know they're a melee class. But eventually you're going to be in a situation that calls for ranged damage, and using a cantrip for mediocre damage is better than a Javelin for wet-noodle damage.

Again, I'm just curious here, as it seems like the Cleric cantrips fit the Paladin mold just as well. Not trying to start a huge rules fight or anything.

[Corran]

Magic initiate can still be a good feat for other oaths as well. Not a must have, but it will give you useful things (or add flavour if you are going for that). Afterall, the good thing about this edition, is that you really dont have to be very optimized (I have great plans for an high elf oathbreaker).

As for ranged attacks, as you said, they dont come up that often, nor should they since you are a melee class and want to engage in melee. However, in the rare occassions they come up, there are still useful things to do with your action, and some of these options include some spells with range (eg command). So you really are not missing much if you dont have a ranged cantrip. In the end, you have proficiency with all ranged weapons, you can always shoot with a longbow. The dexadin must enjoy some benefits every now and then.

[eastmabl]

For a paladin, "hitting the enemy with your sword twice" is a pretty solid at-will --- especially with choice of reflexive smiting.

[SharkForce]

if cantrips were only attack spells and nothing else, i could see not giving paladins and rangers cantrips. but they aren't.

for a paladin, cantrips like thaumaturgy, spare the dying, guidance, resistance, and even light just make sense. for a ranger, druidcraft and resistance both make sense, as well as possibly message, and maybe some of the EE cantrips would fit as well (though they're a bit more overtly supernatural than usual for a ranger).

for either, blade ward and true strike make far more thematic sense than they do for wizards or sorcerers (though mechanically those spells suck royally so not getting them isn't much of a loss).

[TheTeaMustFlow]

if cantrips were only attack spells and nothing else, i could see not giving paladins and rangers cantrips. but they aren't.

for a paladin, cantrips like thaumaturgy, spare the dying, guidance, resistance, and even light just make sense. for a ranger, druidcraft and resistance both make sense, as well as possibly message, and maybe some of the EE cantrips would fit as well (though they're a bit more overtly supernatural than usual for a ranger).

for either, blade ward and true strike make far more thematic sense than they do for wizards or sorcerers (though mechanically those spells suck royally so not getting them isn't much of a loss).

Indeed, it's the little bits of utility one misses, not the damage. I've been playing an Arcane Trickster for 17 levels now and I don't think I've ever used an attack cantrip, but mage hands and messages are ten a penny.

[Oramac]

if cantrips were only attack spells and nothing else, i could see not giving paladins and rangers cantrips. but they aren't.

for a paladin, cantrips like thaumaturgy, spare the dying, guidance, resistance, and even light just make sense. for a ranger, druidcraft and resistance both make sense, as well as possibly message, and maybe some of the EE cantrips would fit as well (though they're a bit more overtly supernatural than usual for a ranger).

for either, blade ward and true strike make far more thematic sense than they do for wizards or sorcerers (though mechanically those spells suck royally so not getting them isn't much of a loss).

It's interesting you say this. I'd actually focused on attack cantrips because I felt that Paladins specifically already brought a ton of utility, and the utility cantrips may have been overly powerful for them to have.

Though I do agree with you that the utility is very thematially appropriate for them.

[Corran]

It's interesting you say this. I'd actually focused on attack cantrips because I felt that Paladins specifically already brought a ton of utility, and the utility cantrips may have been overly powerful for them to have.

Though I do agree with you that the utility is very thematially appropriate for them.
Why would a paladin or ranger need attacking cantrips?
Both of these classes have extra attack and proficiency with all weapons for a reason!
Would attack cantrips perhaps lead to some small optimization regarding certain paladin and ranger builds? Yes.
That is not enough reason to give paladin and rangers attack cantrips. It does not fit with their theme, nor with the majority of the builds you can make out of them.
And more specifically for paladins, I understand how a cha based ranged cantrip could solve the issue of not having an awesome ranged attack (at least as str paladins go), but that is an inherent weakness of the class. Andd I would much better see an oath that would encourage ranged paladins, instead of just giving cha based ranged cantrips to every paladin.

[Douche]

AND that cantrip would give Paladins a viable ranged option other than "chuck some weapon at them". Which, to me, doesn't feel like a Paladin at all.

Paladins chuck hammers all the time. They're called Hammerdins

[Oramac]

And I would much better see an oath that would encourage ranged paladins

Ya know, that's an option I hadn't considered. It's a damn good idea.

[weaseldust]

I would guess it is part of an attempt to encourage playstyle differences between different classes. Not having cantrips forces Paladins and Rangers to focus on attacks and skills instead. And the rest of each class is designed to support that (e.g. Natural Explorer, Favoured Terrain, and Hunter's Mark). I also expect that, if the game had been released with Paladins being able spellcasters, there would have been a lot of grumbling from players of previous editions about the change. Apart from Thaumaturgy, giving a Paladin at-will spellcasting might make them feel like a lost Cleric subclass.

[Safety Sword]

The Paladin cantrip is called "Longsword".

[Talamare]

Paladin cantrip is the blade
Ranger cantrip is the bow

[DracoKnight]

The Paladin cantrip is called "Longsword".

This. And...HOLY HELL! Would you look at that? It scales with character level! They get two uses of it at 5th level! And they can upgrade this cantrip with magic items given to them by their one true god: Magister Carcerem*! That's totally thematic!! :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, I don't have a problem with Paladins not getting cantrips. They're one of the best classes in 5e. And if you really want cantrips, or ranged at will abilities, they can get decent range. Magic Initiate: Warlock is a great feat for them. Grab hellish rebuke as your 1st-level spell, and then eldritch blast & green-flame blade as your cantrips.

*For those who don't speak Latin, I'll save you the trouble of googling it: this means Dungeon Master :smallwink:

[GandalfTheWhite]

This. And...HOLY HELL! Would you look at that? It scales with character level! They get two uses of it at 5th level! And they can upgrade this cantrip with magic items given to them by their one true god: Magister Carcerem*! That's totally thematic!! :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, I don't have a problem with Paladins not getting cantrips. They're one of the best classes in 5e. And if you really want cantrips, or ranged at will abilities, they can get decent range. Magic Initiate: Warlock is a great feat for them. Grab hellish rebuke as your 1st-level spell, and then eldritch blast & green-flame blade as your cantrips.

*For those who don't speak Latin, I'll save you the trouble of googling it: this means Dungeon Master :smallwink:

Generally, I hate using DMPCs, but I might just have to make one now, whose name is Magister Carcerum :smallbiggrin:

[Talamare]

Magister Carcerem

Prison Teacher? Dominus Ergastulum

All this talk about Paladin spells, has anyone considered a Shillelagh Paladin?

[DracoKnight]

Prison Teacher? Dominus Ergastulum

Did I f*ck up my translation? Oops. It's supposed to say Dungeon Master :smalltongue:


All this talk about Paladin spells, has anyone considered a Shillelagh Paladin?

Shillelagh is actually really thematic of an Oath of Ancients Paladin, however, overall it's kind of wasted mechanically...since Paladins have martial weapons. It allows you to dump STR & DEX in favor of WIS, but why would you dump both SRT & DEX? :smalltongue:

[SharkForce]

Did I f*ck up my translation? Oops. It's supposed to say Dungeon Master :smalltongue:



Shillelagh is actually really thematic of an Oath of Ancients Paladin, however, overall it's kind of wasted mechanically...since Paladins have martial weapons. It allows you to dump STR & DEX in favor of WIS, but why would you dump both SRT & DEX? :smalltongue:

so you could have cha and con as primary with str or dex being the third-most important stat that you can afford to leave at 14, thus taking you from 3 stats that need to be as high as possible to only 2.

and again, there is more to cantrips than firebolt. I certainly can agree that I don't think a default paladin should be chucking firebolts all over the place, but I do think that a paladin being able to create light, or call upon their patron for guidance (or give it to others), or make their orders heard on a battlefield, are all things that fit wonderfully with the class and could easily be part of what they do.

now, if you wanted to have a rule where paladins only get a very small list of cantrips, none of which are attack cantrips, that's fine. I don't think the paladin needs shocking grasp or chill touch to be a paladin. but you shouldn't have to take feats to be able to have as much minor magic as an eldritch knight or arcane trickster has.

[JellyPooga]

Shillelagh is actually really thematic of an Oath of Ancients Paladin, however, overall it's kind of wasted mechanically...since Paladins have martial weapons. It allows you to dump STR & DEX in favor of WIS, but why would you dump both SRT & DEX? :smalltongue:

I really like the idea of an elderly OoA Paladin walking around with little but a Quarterstaff, who still kicks 9 kinds of buttock burps out of any young'un that gives him lip.

[Talamare]

Shillelagh is actually really thematic of an Oath of Ancients Paladin, however, overall it's kind of wasted mechanically...since Paladins have martial weapons. It allows you to dump STR & DEX in favor of WIS, but why would you dump both SRT & DEX? :smalltongue:

For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength
My spell casting ability is Charisma, not Wisdom.

Edit - I see Magic Initiate wouldn't allow it. I think your only option might be to multiclass Bard or Warlock

[JellyPooga]

I think your only option might be to multiclass Bard or Warlock

Or have good Cha and Wis. You're not investing in Str or Dex, so those points have got to go somewhere, right?

[Talamare]

Or have good Cha and Wis. You're not investing in Str or Dex, so those points have got to go somewhere, right?

You don't have an Armor option
Light/Medium needs Dex
Heavy needs Str

[JellyPooga]

You don't have an Armor option
Light/Medium needs Dex
Heavy needs Str

Wear Heavy and suck up the 10ft speed penalty. There's no other downside to not having the required Strength.

[Oramac]

if you wanted to have a rule where paladins only get a very small list of cantrips, none of which are attack cantrips, that's fine. I don't think the paladin needs shocking grasp or chill touch to be a paladin. but you shouldn't have to take feats to be able to have as much minor magic as an eldritch knight or arcane trickster has.

I agree with this.

[MeeposFire]

Honestly probably the biggest reason paladins and rangers lack cantrips is due to the fact that they did not have them before.

What is funny is that "lesser" casters such as EK and the AT both get cantrips (probably due to the fact that generally had them before unless you took some more unusual choices) but rangers and paladins don't.

[SharkForce]

depends on what you mean by "before".

most of the cantrips in 3.x were regular spells in 2nd AD&D, for example (which is where i started). when paladins became able to cast spells in the edition i grew up with, they could cast shillelagh, magic stone, and a variety of detect <thing> spells. of course, shillelagh and magic stone were very different spells back then, but paladins could cast them (combat, protection, divination, and healing spheres).

if you go back to even earlier editions, i seem to recall that to become a ranger you had to have thief, fighter, and magic user levels (which i suspect is why if you look at some other games, their "ranger" is far more wizard-y than the current edition of D&D rangers are). and of course, being part mage, they would have been just as capable of casting mage spells as any other magic user.

[MeeposFire]

depends on what you mean by "before".

most of the cantrips in 3.x were regular spells in 2nd AD&D, for example (which is where i started). when paladins became able to cast spells in the edition i grew up with, they could cast shillelagh, magic stone, and a variety of detect <thing> spells. of course, shillelagh and magic stone were very different spells back then, but paladins could cast them (combat, protection, divination, and healing spheres).

if you go back to even earlier editions, i seem to recall that to become a ranger you had to have thief, fighter, and magic user levels (which i suspect is why if you look at some other games, their "ranger" is far more wizard-y than the current edition of D&D rangers are). and of course, being part mage, they would have been just as capable of casting mage spells as any other magic user.

The spells you are listing were not cantrips in earlier editions. If they kept their original spell levels many of them would likely still be cast by rangers and paladins. It isn't the spells (well the specific spells anyway) I was referring to but the actual cantrips the mechanic itself.

IN 3e cantrips were lacking from these classes and was the first time that they existed as a separate mechanic. IN Dragon mag they had some older ideas that are similar to cantrips (not to be confused with the cantrip spell which was the prestidigitation spell) but I don't think those were given to paladins or rangers either.

As for the ranger unless you are remembering some Dragon Mag article I don't know about the 1st ranger was not a multiclass at all (though the bard was a dual class). It had druid and magic user spells but no thief abilities to speak of (it did have enhanced ability to surprise though). The 2e version did have stealth (sadly penalized if you were not outdoors). They could cast 1st and 2nd level magic user spells which was cool but that was the only one to do that. They could not cast from scrolls so I would not call them wizard like in any significant way though getting mirror image was nice.

Personally I would give rangers and paladins a nice list of utility cantrips but I think due to the specter of 3e in particular in this case these classes lack this ability.

[djreynolds]

Paladin cantrip is the blade
Ranger cantrip is the bow

Perfect.

Multiclassing comes to mind, or magic initiate.

There is a balance. Cantrips scale with character level.

[MeeposFire]

I don't really understand this fascination with attack cantrips. I would want cantrips with my ranger or paladin but I would certainly not waste my cantrips on attack cantrips. I would use them for cool and interesting utility cantrips. Even things like prestidigitation can be really useful, interesting, and fun additions to a character. An attack cantrip can be useful (especially ranged ones if you are a str based character) but it would certainly be a back up and I would question its general utility value.

I know people think about combat first but really attack cantrips are not what is really needed by your typical warrior type. Utility is the common complaint and this would make them have the at will utility that even lesser casters like EKs possess.

[djreynolds]

But they already have great utility and healing abilities. There must be a balance, a rogue cannot detect lying or turn undead. Ritual caster is a great means to grab utility without multiclassing, as is magic initiate, but it comes with a sacrifice. Otherwise other classes become dimished

[PoeticDwarf]

My guess? Because it would be a waste.

The AT had only one attack. Using a cantrip is a valid alternative. The EK has a class feature that lets them combine attacking and casting. But the Paladin loses out on two attacks and smites . The ranger loses out on volley and... The other one whose name I can't remember, or beast attack. If they use a cantrip instead they miss out on important class features designed to make their attacks powerful.

That said I would *love* my pally to have cantrips.

There are more cantrips than ray of frost. Like for EKs and ATs. Ever seen these using firebolt ?. Cantrips as spare the dying (pally) and druidcraft (ranger) would add something.

I don't think these cantrips are needed so yeah

[Corran]

Halfelf is a race that suits the paladin class, pick the variant that gives you a cantrip. There, an easy and cheap way to pick up a cantrip.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Halfelf is a race that suits the paladin class, pick the variant that gives you a cantrip. There, an easy and cheap way to pick up a cantrip.

One cantrip for two skills? This is a new meaning of the word `cheap` not previously known to me. (And before anyone mentions it, the same applies to Drow Magic. Darkness once per day is not that great even if you are a Warlock. And you're not a Warlock, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.)

[DracoKnight]

Here are my proposed Paladin and Ranger cantrips.

Paladin Spell List

Cantrips (0 Level)
Blade Ward
Booming Blade
Green-Flame Blade
Guidance
Light
Mending
Message
Resistance
Sacred Flame
Spare the Dying
Sword Burst
Thaumaturgy

Ranger Spell List

Cantrips (0 Level)
Blade Ward
Create Bonfire
Control Flames
Druidcraft
Mending
Message
Minor Illusion
Produce Flame
Ray of Frost
Shillelagh
Thorn Whip
Thunderclap

[Talamare]

Here are my proposed Paladin and Ranger cantrips.

Paladin Spell List

Cantrips (0 Level)
Blade Ward
Booming Blade
Green-Flame Blade
Guidance
Light
Mending
Message
Resistance
Sacred Flame
Spare the Dying
Sword Burst
Thaumaturgy

Ranger Spell List

Cantrips (0 Level)
Blade Ward
Create Bonfire
Control Flames
Druidcraft
Mending
Message
Minor Illusion
Produce Flame
Ray of Frost
Shillelagh
Thorn Whip
Thunderclap

What is way too many options. I would suggest
Paladin
Blade Ward
Guidance
Mending
Resistance
Thaumaturgy
True Strike

Ranger
Create Bonfire
Druidcraft
Magic Stone
Mold Earth
Shillelagh
Thorn Whip

[Vogonjeltz]

Andd I would much better see an oath that would encourage ranged paladins, instead of just giving cha based ranged cantrips to every paladin.

That would tread on the Rangers toes. Fighter gets goodies for all kinds of fighting (6 styles), Ranger gets TWF and Ranged goodies, Paladin gets THF, Protection, and Sword and Board goodies.

It's like the venn diagram where Paladin and Ranger get subsets of the fighting capability that only overlap a teeny bit (Defense and Dueling styles). Paladins ever getting access to the ranger goodies or vice versa is highly unlikely as that would make those classes equal in Fighting Style versatility to the Fighter.

[DracoKnight]

What is way too many options. I would suggest
Paladin
Blade Ward
Guidance
Mending
Resistance
Thaumaturgy
True Strike

Ranger
Create Bonfire
Druidcraft
Magic Stone
Mold Earth
Shillelagh
Thorn Whip

I gave them both 12 cantrip options, which is less than any full or 1/3 caster gets. I would probably scale their cantrips known in line with the Warlock.

[Talamare]

I gave them both 12 cantrip options, which is less than any full or 1/3 caster gets. I would probably scale their cantrips known in line with the Warlock.

Cleric is a full caster
Cleric has 7 cantrip options

[DracoKnight]

Cleric is a full caster
Cleric has 7 cantrip options

Okay, I did miss that. So they would have less options than everyone BUT the Cleric :smalltongue:
And I'm not saying my way is the best way, it's just how I would do it :smallsmile:

[GandalfTheWhite]

Okay, I did miss that. So they would have less options than everyone BUT the Cleric :smalltongue:
And I'm not saying my way is the best way, it's just how I would do it :smallsmile:

I think that if you wanted to give Paladins and Rangers cantrips, your way would be the way to do it, but honestly, I don't feel the class is missing anything by lacking cantrips.