Actually, even though you said that jokingly, .. cantrips are like giving weapon attacks to casters. That's why I don't like them.
What does that really mean, though, considering that casters have /always had weapon attacks/. Clerics and their maces, Druids and their sickle-shaped scimitars, wizards throwing pub darts, gnome illusionists dual-wielding daggers (OK, maybe not that last one). 3e gave them better weapon attacks, with the ubiquitous simple light crossbow, to fairly minimal controversy, even praise, IIRC - and 3.5 gave us the at-will eldritch-blasting warlock, which was controversial just as a break with tradition. 4e at-wills for casters were not really among its most controversial changes, but nothing 4e did - even things D&D had always done - escaped at least some desultory condemnation in the course of the edition war. In 5e, at-will cantrips get only a little faint condemnation now and then, but they do get some...
And it seems like a lot of other people don't like them as well: I can't tell you how many times I've heard the player of a spellcaster say, "Well, I guess I'll use (insert damage cantrip)" in a tone of bored resignation.
Bored resignation is a thing, and when it finally slips out varies wildly with the player, but I think it's fair to say that there's a minimum set of conditions to get there:
1) You did something last round, and the result wasn't too dramatic.
2) This round that same something is clearly your best option.
3) There's no prospect that same something will have a dramatic result this round, nor that your best option next round will be any different.
In the grand sweep of D&D history, playing a fighter has prettymuch meant that you are qualified to evince bored resignation from the 2nd round on, in every combat. But, y'know. Fighter player, real man, stiff upper lip and all that.
For a caster, it can kick in when the fight isn't important enough to 'waste' spells on, and/or you don't have a worthwhile spell for the situation memorized, then you fall back to the mode of bleak existence the fighter is in 24/7. With 3.x Sorcerers and 5e casters, it can also kick in when you have exactly /one/ spell prepared that just barely worth the slot to cast in the situation, so you end up 'spamming' it - in spite of the fact you are, in that situation, being more 'powerful' and less limited than all other D&D casters in the game's history. In prior eds you'd have to intentionally memorized the same spell repeatedly - or have a wand - to end up 'spamming.' In 4e, it'd take some system mastery, help from a 'leader,' and/or questionable DM rulings/forgotten errata, to cast the same Encounter or Daily spell twice in a row, let alone the prospect of 3+ times in a row to qualify you for bored resignation.
Did they have the same tone in AD&D when they were forced to throw a dart or swing a staff? Maybe. I don't remember.
My feeling about throwing darts at the time was that it was funny. I was a kid, I didn't know the 'darts' were essentially small Roman/Celtic javelins, I was picturing pub darts - and, I mean, you threw /three/ of them per round. Bring Gandalf a beer, he's playing darts. But, hey, you made three attack rolls/round, which doesn't exactly suck, especially if crits were bein used (woo-hoo 2-6 damage instead of 1-3!), sometimes the damage might even make a difference. And, depending on how DMs felt like doling out exp, making an attack roll or inflicting a point of damage was necessary to get a share of the experience.
Besides, the Cleric's healing would be burned through fairly quickly, and it'd be rest-or-die, and you'd get your spell back.
Sure as heck didn't 'feel magical' though. Unless you count the nostalgia sense.
In 4e & 5e, having viable at-will magic lets you present your character as 'magical' even when it's not some big all-in, challenge that demands a dramatic spell. And, it's not like you only get /one/ at-will option. 4e casters got two, E+ Mages three, and humans could get a bonus one. 5e casters can choose two or more attack cantrips, or pick one and load up on other sorts.
No, not all the classes in 4e played the same, even though they all used the same power acquisition structure. If you think a (let's just stick with the original 4e Player's Handbook) Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Warlord(*) all play the same...
Hey, at least go with Paladin, Rogue, & Wizard if you're going choose Warlord for the leader, get the Divine source in there, too.
But, yes, each role played very differently, and each source played & felt quite different. (Even Ranger & Rogue played differently, in spite of both being 'Martial Strikers.')
On top of that, you were free not just to describe your character's physical appearance and gear how you liked (within reason), as in 3e (and 5e AFAIK), but to describe your powers & class features how you liked (within reason, and short of changing keywords), as well.
I mean, I distinctly remember my very first 4E campaign had eight players, and each of them played the eight different classes in the PH. And I never got the "these classes all feel the same!" vibe from them. It was only in subsequent campaigns when we incorporated PH2, PH3, and powers found within the Character Builder that every began becoming more mushy as far as class separation and distinction were concerned.
Hmm. Ironic, given that PH3 introduced classes with different power structures (psionic power points instead of encounter powers).
Things like illusions for example-- in the non-4E games you can decide to "get creative" and use illusions during combat in all kinds of creative ways based purely upon the player's imagination...
Well, and the DM's judgement about that, and the rules of "Disbelieving" and saving throws …
… one of the more annoying things I recall from DMing back in the old days was "I disbelieve!" being more than a little over-used.
Of course, you /could/ get 'creative' about an illusion if you wanted to - or anything else - using an improvised action and with the same DM complicity you'd've needed back in the day. Thing is, 4e DMing was just plain easier and the mechanics just worked, so the impetus for the DM to go above-and-beyond that way wasn't there, and the DM pool hadn't been trial-by-fire screened for remarkable dedication the way it used to be.
but in 4E illusions were strictly one-concept "the 'illusion' does this X grid-related function". You didn't get to decide how to use the illusion, the 'illusion' created an image of a pit on the ground and anyone in the radius fell prone as the 'illusion' made them think they were falling. Which is the exact same effect as any number of other powers that did the same thing.
IDK, things like Phantom Chasm & Visions of Avarice were pretty unique in what they did. There were lots of powers that pulled or knocked prone, but not that created zones that did so, under the circumstances those did.
That they always worked the way they were supposed to was also a plus.
An old-school illusion /could/ be used creatively and to good effect, sometimes, if the DM liked the way you used it (and could be used fiendishly by the DM, to deceive the /players/ rather than just the senses of the characters), but they could also be completely wasted if the DM didn't go for it.
IDK, how popular were illusionists in the circles you gamed in back in the day?
IMX, not very.
