Half casters - no cantrips

[nickl_2000]

Does anyone else find it odd that full casters get cantrips and 1/3 casters get cantrips, but not 1/2 casters?

I know that paladins don't really need them and the new UA artificer gets them. However, it just seems like an odd design decision.


NOTE: I realize that it isn't a big deal to take magic initiate or multiclass, just seemed odd overall.

[Kane0]

Yeah, its odd but my theory is that it’s to incentivise weapon usage over relying on cantrip attacks.

[nickl_2000]

I actually wouldn't mind seeing Rangers get 2 cantrips from a nature based list at level 2. I think it would be a nice addition to a class that is generally thought of a weaker.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Paladins and Rangers getting a pair of cantrips at 1st level was one of the first houserules I ever made in 5e, and I've never regretted it.

[Anderlith]

It comes down to class identity. Paladins & Rangers are traditionally warriors using weapon attacks. Cantrips are unneeded. Artificers do not have that distinction & so get a bare minimum

[DarkKnightJin]

Paladins and Rangers getting a pair of cantrips at 1st level was one of the first houserules I ever made in 5e, and I've never regretted it.

I might give Ranger and Paladin players in my campaign 2 cantrips from the Druid and Cleric list, respectively. For the Paladin obviously working off of Cha instead of Wis. Ranger doesn't need that concession.
Then again, I'm gonna give every player character 1 of 4 'homebrew' cantrips I've designed, based on the 4 Runes you get playing Breath of the Wild.
Because I can, pretty much.

[Kane0]

Then again, I'm gonna give every player character 1 of 4 'homebrew' cantrips I've designed, based on the 4 Runes you get playing Breath of the Wild.

Neat! Care to share?

[Lunali]

The question is, what would you intend the 1/2 casters use their cantrips for? Full casters use them as a substitute for a basic attack, 1/3 casters use them either in addition to their normal attack or for non-combat purposes.

[Unoriginal]

Does anyone else find it odd that full casters get cantrips and 1/3 casters get cantrips, but not 1/2 casters?

I know that paladins don't really need them and the new UA artificer gets them. However, it just seems like an odd design decision.


NOTE: I realize that it isn't a big deal to take magic initiate or multiclass, just seemed odd overall.

I have a question for ya:

What is an half-caster, concretely?

[Griswold]

The question is, what would you intend the 1/2 casters use their cantrips for? Full casters use them as a substitute for a basic attack, 1/3 casters use them either in addition to their normal attack or for non-combat purposes.

I imagine that they'd use them for non-combat purposes and to add an alternate backup attack. I'm sure every paladin would be happy to get their choice of light, guidance, thaumaturgy, and spare the dying, and toll the dead will come in handy if they don't have a magic weapon or a decent ranged attack.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I have a question for ya:

What is an half-caster, concretely?

Paladin, Ranger, or any other class with similar spell progression.

[Kane0]

I have a question for ya:

What is an half-caster, concretely?

When you multiclass you count half your levels for the spellcasting chart.

[Constructman]

I have a question for ya:

What is an half-caster, concretely?

A spellcaster that gains spell levels about half as fast as a Wizard, so that they gain Level 5 spells at Class Level 17.

[Unoriginal]

Paladin, Ranger, or any other class with similar spell progression.


When you multiclass you count half your levels for the spellcasting chart.


A spellcaster that gains spell levels about half as fast as a Wizard, so that they gain Level 5 spells at Class Level 17.

So in other words, people who don't have spells at lvl 1?

[Kane0]

Erm, no. None of us said that.

[JNAProductions]

So in other words, people who don't have spells at lvl 1?

That's an accurate statement, but not wholly correct.

It also includes 1/3rd casters (Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters) who DO get Cantrips.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Paladins and Rangers getting a pair of cantrips at 1st level was one of the first houserules I ever made in 5e, and I've never regretted it.

This does reinforce their magical feel without making full-casters at 1st level feel like their territory is really getting muscled in on. It reminds me of how Bards in 3.5 started with cantrips (although they weren't at-will or scaling then) and didn't get their full spells 'til 2nd level. Overall, I think that's about the right feel for a half-caster like the Ranger or Paladin.

[nickl_2000]

I have a question for ya:

What is an half-caster, concretely?

Someone who use fairly powerful magic to enhance naturally occurring abilities.

I was defining this is less of a literal rules sense and more of a idea behind the character sense.

[MeeposFire]

That's an accurate statement, but not wholly correct.

It also includes 1/3rd casters (Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters) who DO get Cantrips.

That is why my rangers and paladins do get cantrips. It is ludicrous to met that an EK gets cantrips but a ranger does not. The ranger is supposed to be slightly more skilled with magic but does not ever get cantrips just does not sit well with me. Granted I do agree that those classes are not thematically designed to use cantrips as their basic attack method so I do not grant them attack cantrips but I do give them some thematic utility options.

[sophontteks]

Well I won't speak for rangers, since they are still a broken class until they finally release an official revised ranger. But Paladins are not in need of any buffs. If they have access to cantrips it'll 100% be booming blade.

I also don't think its very ridiculous at all that 1/3 casters get cantrips, since the cantrips for EK and AT are the focus of their entire archtype. A counter argument. Why is it fair that they are not 1/2 casters themselves? Especially in this case where we are handing out the thing that previously defined them.

Finally, I don't think giving more to 1/2 casters is very fair to those classes who don't have access to magic at all.

[MeeposFire]

Well I won't speak for rangers, since they are still a broken class until they finally release an official revised ranger. But Paladins are not in need of any buffs. If they have access to cantrips it'll 100% be booming blade.

I also don't think its very ridiculous at all that 1/3 casters get cantrips, since the cantrips for EK and AT are the focus of their entire archtype. A counter argument. Why is it fair that they are not 1/2 casters themselves? Especially in this case where we are handing out the thing that previously defined them.

Finally, I don't think giving more to 1/2 casters is very fair to those classes who don't have access to magic at all.

Why would paladins get booming blade? I mean that spell seems to be associated with classes like the wizard or warlock while paladins are usually more associated with classes like cleric that do not generally get native access to that spell. Further that is not exactly a great option for your standard paladin since paladins get a bigger boost generally from attacking more rather than using booming blade.

[DarkKnightJin]

Neat! Care to share?

If I remember to do so, I'll share what I made in the appropriate forum (Homebrew), and PM you a link to that.
They still require playtesting to sort out balance issues, but I like to think I've pre-balanced them to be a bit on the 'weaker' side, so I can add power if needed instead of nerfing them.
Easier to give your players a bit more than to take something away. At least without whining.

[Darc_Vader]

How I see it is that third-casters get cantrips as a way to make them feel more magical within the constraints of a subclass. There just isn’t the same amount of conceptual space that having spells on a base class allows, and cantrips are a way to get a touch more magical flavour into what otherwise is just a martial that can cast a spell twice a day (at least at early levels). Especially when you keep in mind that attack cantrips are often sub-optimal on both third-casters that currently exist (barring the scag blade cantrips, which are their own can of poorly balanced worms), since ATs can’t sneak attack and EKs will want to be using their multitude of attacks (not to mention the seemingly low investment in Int I frequently see recommended for the two). You might take a ranged attack on a Str EK who doesn’t have the Dex to properly wield a bow, but other than that, most cantrips would probably be for utility or flavour.

Disclaimer: I have never actually seen either in play, so I could be seriously underestimating the impact cantrips have on EKs and ATs.

[some guy]

The question is, what would you intend the 1/2 casters use their cantrips for? Full casters use them as a substitute for a basic attack, 1/3 casters use them either in addition to their normal attack or for non-combat purposes.

A ranger with Message would be very fitting for the scouting role of rangers.
(others have already noted other fitting cantrips)

[nickl_2000]

So, if I were to give rangers cantrips at level 1 (or 2), what do you think of this spell list?

Control Flames
Create Bonfire
Dancing Light
Druidcraft
Gust
Infestation
Mending
Message
Mold Earth
Primal Savagery
Shape Water


This sticks mostly with the nature themes, add to their survivability in nature, and gives them a boost to some of their natural abilities.

[Cicciograna]

I have a question for ya:

What is an half-caster, concretely?

It's either a cas or a ter, of course.

[DeTess]

On my Sorcadin, one of the spells I sued most was Thaumathurgy, and I think its a spell I'd really miss if I played a straight-classed Paladin. Its just such great tool, from kicking in open doors to adding the ham to my grilled-cheese sandwich. All of its mode are great for things like dramatic speeches and blood-chilling threats, and its great for slamming open doors while the entire party makes sure they're making a bad-ass pose to intimidate the dragon that has been waiting patiently behind the door after we loudly killed his bodyguards and that promptly breathed lightning all over us. I'm not certain where I wanted to go with that, but in short, spells like thaumathurgy can make for great fun-enhancers on paladins.

[Pex]

Well I won't speak for rangers, since they are still a broken class until they finally release an official revised ranger. But Paladins are not in need of any buffs. If they have access to cantrips it'll 100% be booming blade.

I also don't think its very ridiculous at all that 1/3 casters get cantrips, since the cantrips for EK and AT are the focus of their entire archtype. A counter argument. Why is it fair that they are not 1/2 casters themselves? Especially in this case where we are handing out the thing that previously defined them.

Finally, I don't think giving more to 1/2 casters is very fair to those classes who don't have access to magic at all.

If paladins got cantrips who says Booming Blade would be on the list? They would get cleric cantrips and not necessarily all of them. For attack they would get Sacred Flame and Word of Radiance. Toll The Dead I would place behind an Oath. Perhaps all cantrips come from an Oath. Devotion gets Sacred Flame, Ancients gets Word Of Radiance, Vengeance gets Toll The Dead. It does mean paladins no longer lack a decent range attack, but it does mean no longer needing to multiclass or take a feat to get one.

[Willie the Duck]

Does anyone else find it odd that full casters get cantrips and 1/3 casters get cantrips, but not 1/2 casters?
I know that paladins don't really need them and the new UA artificer gets them. However, it just seems like an odd design decision.
NOTE: I realize that it isn't a big deal to take magic initiate or multiclass, just seemed odd overall.

Overall, I suspect thematics is the reason for the design decision. In a strange way, the 1/3rd casters are more 'caster-y' than the 1/2 casters. They are a rogue or fighter who took a little detour into wizarding (in the same way a thief rogue or champion fighter might have with a multiclassing dip), while rangers and paladins are their own things, with less feel of 'fighter who dipped cleric/druid. Obviously you might not agree (and I'm not sure I feel it had to be that way), but that's my guess at designer thought process.


The question is, what would you intend the 1/2 casters use their cantrips for? Full casters use them as a substitute for a basic attack, 1/3 casters use them either in addition to their normal attack or for non-combat purposes.

Well, there are definitely some Str-based paladins who would love a ranged cantrip, or spell-focused/medium armor ranger who wouldn't mind Wisdom-based attacks (the same PCs who are currently built with Magic Initiate). The paladin certainly doesn't need this perk (requiring a feat for a good ranged option is in fact one of the paladin's only major restraints), and this in-and-of-itself wouldn't revitalize the ranger even if they got this effective-extra-feat (mostly since it just facilitates a niche ranger design). However, I am all on board with giving both their own cantrip lists, exclusively including utility/thematic options.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well I won't speak for rangers, since they are still a broken class until they finally release an official revised ranger. But Paladins are not in need of any buffs. If they have access to cantrips it'll 100% be booming blade.
Why would you give them arcane cantrips? I have Paladins pick from the Cleric list, and Ranger pick from the Druid list. Nothing there is more combat-effective than swinging a sword, shooting a bow, or chucking a javelin.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Why would you give them arcane cantrips? I have Paladins pick from the Cleric list, and Ranger pick from the Druid list. Nothing there is more combat-effective than swinging a sword, shooting a bow, or chucking a javelin.

Plus, hey, wisdom-based rangers with shillelagh!

[sophontteks]

Why would you give them arcane cantrips? I have Paladins pick from the Cleric list, and Ranger pick from the Druid list. Nothing there is more combat-effective than swinging a sword, shooting a bow, or chucking a javelin.
I'm not giving them any cantrips. I just listed a few reasons why.

If paladins got cantrips who says Booming Blade would be on the list?
Who said it wasn't on the list? I'm pointing out that it shouldn't be.

[Willie the Duck]

Who said it wasn't on the list? I'm pointing out that it shouldn't be.

Yeah, I'm not sure anyone but you got that out of:


Well I won't speak for rangers, since they are still a broken class until they finally release an official revised ranger. But Paladins are not in need of any buffs. If they have access to cantrips it'll 100% be booming blade.



Plus, hey, wisdom-based rangers with shillelagh!

Wisdom-based rangers with shillelagh (and potentially a wisdom-based ranged attack, if they so desire) are already a thing. This saves them a feat. It's, well, already a niche character (given that many-to-most rangers are already Dex-based, and thus already have decent ranged and melee options). It makes this one type of ranger slightly better in the list of potential rangers, but certainly doesn't really move rangers in any pecking order outside of rangerdom. Although in my mind this is a good argument for giving cantrips to rangers, as it mostly incentivizes giving them utility options (in particular Guidance, which means that the fairly-MAD-and-lacking-in-the-expertise-class-feature rangers get to succeed once the DM makes them roll dice for their abilities.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Wisdom-based rangers with shillelagh (and potentially a wisdom-based ranged attack, if they so desire) are already a thing. This saves them a feat. It's, well, already a niche character (given that many-to-most rangers are already Dex-based, and thus already have decent ranged and melee options). It makes this one type of ranger slightly better in the list of potential rangers, but certainly doesn't really move rangers in any pecking order outside of rangerdom. Although in my mind this is a good argument for giving cantrips to rangers, as it mostly incentivizes giving them utility options (in particular Guidance, which means that the fairly-MAD-and-lacking-in-the-expertise-class-feature rangers get to succeed once the DM makes them roll dice for their abilities.

Of course it's a niche character. Opening up weird, not overpowered niches is a good goal to have, I think.

[Man_Over_Game]

You'll note that 1/3 casters also get martial weapon proficiencies. They also generally have a 1d10 hit die. They don't need cantrips, as their weapons are generally better.

Or, put another way, you could probably afford to make Paladins have cantrips, if you took away their martial proficiency and limited them to medium armor. But...who would do that?

I think Rangers are close to being in the "I deserve cantrips" category, they'd probably have to reduce the hit die to 1d8 to justify it, though. But at that point, you're just looking at a less magical Druid.

[sophontteks]

Yeah, I'm not sure anyone but you got that out of:

If paladins had access to cantrips they would 100% pick booming blade. The question was wether they should have cantrips. No one mentioned which ones they should have. Before we go into the yes or no responses this seems pretty important.

Booming blade, eldritch strike, guidance etc. There are a lot of cantrips that they definately should not have because its not just flavor, its a mechanical advantage they don't need. So of course paladins don't get booming blade, as if guidance is any more reasonable. Guidance is practically a cleric/druid class ability.

[Aaron Underhand]

It is a significant boost for characters and it changes the feel, plus beware of unintended consequences:

Paladin - getting Cha based cantrips from cleric list
Say: Sacred flame (yea! ranged attack, and radiant damage!!) + guidance

Druid - getting Wis based cantrips from Druid list
Say: Shillelagh (yea! Wis based Melee attack plus magical weapon) + guidance

Other options are possible... vHumans can now have a light cantrip offsetting no darkvision

Unintended... now your lore bard can get charisma based sacred flame as a magical secret at 6th level!

[ProsecutorGodot]

It is a significant boost for characters and it changes the feel, plus beware of unintended consequences:

Paladin - getting Cha based cantrips from cleric list
Say: Sacred flame (yea! ranged attack, and radiant damage!!) + guidance

Druid - getting Wis based cantrips from Druid list
Say: Shillelagh (yea! Wis based Melee attack plus magical weapon) + guidance

Other options are possible... vHumans can now have a light cantrip offsetting no darkvision

Unintended... now your lore bard can get charisma based sacred flame as a magical secret at 6th level!

Bard's always cast the spells they gain through magical secrets as if it were a Bard spell, with Charisma. Imagine touting Sacred Flame as a "consequence". Oh boy. You know they could pick any cantrip right? Any one at all. Toll the Dead, Fire Bolt, EB+Hex. All cast using Charisma. I probably wouldn't use my magical secrets to collect a cantrip, but you can, it says so right here.

At 6th level, you learn two spells of your choice from any class. A spell you choose must be of a level you can cast, as shown on the Bard table, or a cantrip. The chosen spells count as bard spells for you but don’t count against the number of bard spells you know.

Paladins are already able to gain Sacred Flame casting with Charisma, via multiclassing Celestial Warlock or Divine Soul Sorcerer*. Rangers (I assume you meant "Ranger" and not "Druid" getting Druid spells) can get wisdom based Shillelagh through either MC Druid or MI Druid.
*This is of course assuming that you're playing using the Xanathar's Guide to Everything additions.

Vhuman's can already have Light... by being a Cleric, Wizard, Bard or Sorcerer. Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickers also can learn light. You could also be any class and choose Magic Initiate for any of those 4 classes. Light (when used purely as a light source) doesn't require your spell casting modifier to be useful. Guidance is the same, if Guidance is an issue it won't be because of their casting stat.

So, not only are these "unintended" consequences incorrect, they're also already possible to do without allowing half casters to have cantrips by default.

[SLOTHRPG95]

If paladins had access to cantrips they would 100% pick booming blade. The question was wether they should have cantrips. No one mentioned which ones they should have. Before we go into the yes or no responses this seems pretty important.

Booming blade, eldritch strike, guidance etc. There are a lot of cantrips that they definately should not have because its not just flavor, its a mechanical advantage they don't need. So of course paladins don't get booming blade, as if guidance is any more reasonable. Guidance is practically a cleric/druid class ability.

Paladins can already get Booming Blade via Magic Initiate or being a High Elf, or even splashing to get it from somewhere else. Nobody was saying "paladins/rangers should have access to all cantrips" (since that's not how any class works) and pretty much everyone else has assumed that those they'd gain would be drawn largely from the Cleric/Druid list (resp.), neither of which contain Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade. I fail to see why this is such a big deal.


It is a significant boost for characters and it changes the feel, plus beware of unintended consequences:

Paladin - getting Cha based cantrips from cleric list
Say: Sacred flame (yea! ranged attack, and radiant damage!!) + guidance

Druid - getting Wis based cantrips from Druid list
Say: Shillelagh (yea! Wis based Melee attack plus magical weapon) + guidance

Other options are possible... vHumans can now have a light cantrip offsetting no darkvision

Unintended... now your lore bard can get charisma based sacred flame as a magical secret at 6th level!

Variant Humans can already pick Magic Initiate and get Light (and another cantrip, and Shield or whatever 1/long rest) if they so choose. If they do, that's fine. They're trading a valuable cantrip pick to make up for the fact that they're one of the minority of core races (along w/ Halflings and Dragonborn) without darkvision. Honestly, I think I'd rather rely on torches and save the cantrip pick for something better.

Sacred Flame is fine, but I don't think it's cause for concern. Radiant damage can be useful against certain types of undead, but that's sort of niche, and Paladins already get native access to radiant damage via their smite ability. Also, lore bard already gets CHA-based Sacred Flame if they choose it as a magical secret, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. The spells they learn via that feature are counted as Bard spells for them, and hence are CHA-based.

[Man_Over_Game]

Paladins can already get Booming Blade via Magic Initiate or being a High Elf, or even splashing to get it from somewhere else. Nobody was saying "paladins/rangers should have access to all cantrips" (since that's not how any class works) and pretty much everyone else has assumed that those they'd gain would be drawn largely from the Cleric/Druid list (resp.), neither of which contain Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade. I fail to see why this is such a big deal.

An important thing to note is that "balance" really just comes down to "Stealing the right amount of spotlight".

Make someone too effective in one particular category, and it steals too much spotlight from the rest of the party. The more solutions a character has, the more it's able to steal the spotlight. Note that the Arcane Trickster has a TON of tricks at its disposal...yet the subclass does very little in combat. The Cleric has armor proficiencies, weapon proficiencies, a 1d8 hit die, full casting AND powerful subclass features....yet its spell list is entirely focused on making sure OTHERS steal the spotlight.

See, the Paladin already has armor proficiencies, weapon proficiencies, a high hit die, spells, powerful damage, non-combat abilities that aren't reliant on spell slots, prepared casting, auras and subclass resources. They have a LOT.

Paladins already have non-combat spell options available, they just usually choose to ignore them in lieu of Divine Smite. Or, put another way, they choose not to use spell slots for non-combat spells, because they have something so much better that they can do. What you're suggesting is removing their need to choose. You can give them more non-combat toys to play with (that they already don't need or care about), but doing so will detract from other classes who have significantly less (Barbarians, Fighters).

[SLOTHRPG95]

Just looking at core and XGE (since that's all I have on hand at the moment), here's what I'd give to Paladins and Rangers as far as cantrips, w/ both starting with one cantrip at 1st level, gaining a second cantrip and 2nd level, and a third cantrip at 11th:

Paladin
Light
Mending
Resistance
Sacred Flame
Spare the Dying
Word of Radiance

Ranger
Create Bonfire
Frostbite
Mending
Poison Spray
Produce Flame
Resistance
Thorn Whip

It could easily be argued that it's simpler and not actually worrisome to just let them pick freely from any/all Cleric and Druid cantrips (resp.) but I figured I'd be more conservative, and also stave off some potential concerns about Guidance and Wis-based weapon attacks. For anyone wondering, I didn't include Thaumaturgy or Druidcraft since I view those as the thematic cornerstones of Clerics and Druids, resp. I also don't give Thaumaturgy to Tieflings when I DM (letting them pick a different cantrip instead), and discourage EK/AT from taking Prestidigitation.

[JNAProductions]

Guidance doesn't work on ANY attacks. Just Ability Checks.

[Kane0]

Paladin: Choose two from Blade Ward, Light, Mending, Resistance, Thaumaturgy, True Strike

Ranger: Choose two from Control Flames, Create Bonfire, Druidcraft, Frostbite, Gust, Magic Stone, Mending, Mold Earth, Primal Savagery, Resistance, Shape Water, Shillelagh, Thorn Whip.
Gain a third at level... I dunno, 10 or 11?

[sophontteks]

Paladins can already get Booming Blade via Magic Initiate or being a High Elf, or even splashing to get it from somewhere else. Nobody was saying "paladins/rangers should have access to all cantrips" (since that's not how any class works) and pretty much everyone else has assumed that those they'd gain would be drawn largely from the Cleric/Druid list (resp.), neither of which contain Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade. I fail to see why this is such a big deal.
Nobody wasn't saying paladins/rangers should have access to all cantrips either. There is no consensus on what they should and shouldn't have here.
Perfectly fine for them to invest in it, and a great argument for why paladins don't need cantrips for free.
It's a pretty big deal to give Paladins shillelagh and guidance for free. Those are extremely powerful cantrips that are a big part of the cleric's and Druid's identity.
We are essentially buffing paladins, and they don't need a buff.

[Man_Over_Game]

Nobody wasn't saying paladins/rangers should have access to all cantrips either. There is no consensus on what they should and shouldn't have here.
[...]
We are essentially buffing paladins, and they don't need a buff.

I dunno, I thought I gave a pretty compelling analysis as to why they shouldn't have any cantrips. Could have been summarized to: Sure, give Paladins pretty toys, but then give Barbarians more.

[sophontteks]

I dunno, I thought I gave a pretty compelling analysis as to why they shouldn't have any cantrips. Could have been summarized to: Sure, give Paladins pretty toys, but then give Barbarians more.
You did! I agree. If paladins are getting more toys it leaves the non-casters in a worse spot. They already have trouble contributing outside combat.

[MeeposFire]

There is certainly a concern of not wanting to take away the thematic parts of some classes but personally I do not see cantrips themselves as being a thematic part of particular classes rather as now being thematic of being a caster. So to me the lack of cantrips tends to disrupt the theme for me. That being said I do think there is a right to be concerened about certain cantrips. For instance I would not want eldritch blast given to the wizard in general because it is a cantrip that has been associated with the warlock for 3 editions. I also think since the paladin and ranger are warriors they should not be normally given attack cantrips since they thematically warriors first casters second.

So in that vein I would not give them attack cantrips (this would include weapon cantrips) and cantrips that are either heavily associated with a class or are maybe too good to hand out to someone who does not cast as a primary skill (examples could include guidance). I like fun and utilitarian cantirps on them like message, mending, or prestidigitation (clean your armor and make it shiny).

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I dunno, I thought I gave a pretty compelling analysis as to why they shouldn't have any cantrips. Could have been summarized to: Sure, give Paladins pretty toys, but then give Barbarians more.

I think it's a good summary for paladins. Paladins are pretty strong! I'm not seeing the problem with rangers getting guidance, though, outside maybe making small dips in ranger more attractive.

[Willie the Duck]

If paladins had access to cantrips they would 100% pick booming blade. The question was wether they should have cantrips. No one mentioned which ones they should have. Before we go into the yes or no responses this seems pretty important.

Yes, we got it. Everyone gets that paladins, if they had a druther, and suddenly given the opportunity to pick cantrips (wide open field) would probably pick combat cantrips, and get even better at smackdown. It's not that hard a concept.

What no one else saw was your comment, "but Paladins are not in need of any buffs. If they have access to cantrips it'll 100% be booming blade," as a particularly good expression of the point, "Who said it wasn't on the list? I'm pointing out that it shouldn't be," since that would be, at best, an extremely strained interpretation of your comments.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Nobody wasn't saying paladins/rangers should have access to all cantrips either. There is no consensus on what they should and shouldn't have here.


I mean, at least some people did say that they shouldn't have access to any and all cantrips. In fact, you called out several cantrips that you think they shouldn't have. I've posted a tentative list, which (being that it doesn't say "all cantrips ever") implicitly excludes the majority of existing cantrips. But most importantly, spell lists don't work that way. No class gets to freely pick whatever cantrips they want, they have class lists. That's why I was saying that I don't understand the point that you're trying to make. Why should we discuss Booming Blade at all unless the consensus is that it'd be on the Paladin list? And from what I've read, the consensus is the opposite. I don't think we're really in disagreement here. Neither of us is suggesting that Paladins should have Booming Blade as a class cantrip.

[Angelalex242]

Well...in Homebrew, you can do anything that's fun for your table. By all means rule 0 as you wish!

...In AL, it's a moot argument, and until 6e comes along, it's all in vain.

[DarkKnightJin]

Paladin: Choose two from Blade Ward, Light, Mending, Resistance, Thaumaturgy, True Strike

Ranger: Choose two from Control Flames, Create Bonfire, Druidcraft, Frostbite, Gust, Magic Stone, Mending, Mold Earth, Primal Savagery, Resistance, Shape Water, Shillelagh, Thorn Whip.
Gain a third at level... I dunno, 10 or 11?

So.. Ranger gets almost the entire list of Druid cantrips to pick from. And Paladin effectively gets to pick 2 between Light, Mending, and Thaumaturgy.
Because nobody is going to pick Resistance and True Strike. And Blade Ward is almost as bad as True Strike.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So.. Ranger gets almost the entire list of Druid cantrips to pick from. And Paladin effectively gets to pick 2 between Light, Mending, and Thaumaturgy.
Because nobody is going to pick Resistance and True Strike. And Blade Ward is almost as bad as True Strike.

well we can't give them SCAG cantrips because they'd always take Booming Blade, we can't give them ranged cantrips because being martial is their only weakness and we don't want to give them guidance because Guidance is a cleric/druid class feature

Sarcasm aside, I agree that the list needs to be vetted heavily. Sacred Flame and Word of Radiance both seem like safe, thematic choices for Paladins to have. It runs bonus for those (admittedly few) Paladins who take the minimum requirement in Charisma, being cantrips that actually require their spellcasting stat where Guidance and Booming Blade don't.

[Kane0]

If we're at the point of giving ranger and pally cantrips you may as well fix up the terrible ones while you're at it.