D&D 5E Adding cantrips to paladin and ranger.

[MechaPilot]

As long as we're talking about damaging cantrips, and as long as those cantrips take your action to cast, thus precluding you from using your extra attack feature, there's virtually no net gain and, as I see it, no reason not to just allow it at no cost (provided you have no issue with increasing the abundance of magic at your table). Non-damaging cantrips would need to be assessed individually before allowing them for free.

 

[FrogReaver]

As long as we're talking about damaging cantrips, and as long as those cantrips take your action to cast, thus precluding you from using your extra attack feature, there's virtually no net gain and, as I see it, no reason not to just allow it at no cost (provided you have no issue with increasing the abundance of magic at your table). Non-damaging cantrips would need to be assessed individually before allowing them for free.

This was the issue that prompted me to suggest a cast per day limit. Out of combat cantrips. I am totally unopposed to a free attack cantrip or 2.

 

[FrogReaver]

As long as we're talking about damaging cantrips, and as long as those cantrips take your action to cast, thus precluding you from using your extra attack feature, there's virtually no net gain and, as I see it, no reason not to just allow it at no cost (provided you have no issue with increasing the abundance of magic at your table). Non-damaging cantrips would need to be assessed individually before allowing them for free.

This was the issue that prompted me to suggest a cast per day limit. Out of combat cantrips. I am totally unopposed to a free attack cantrip or 2.

 

[AngryGreek]

Great compromise.

 

[GreenTengu]

I think it would be relatively fair to allow an individual player to swap out Fight Style for Cantrips as an alternate class feature. The trade-off ought to be pretty fair and even out.

 

[Dylan Wight]

Thematically, a Paladin should have access to one or two cantrips, but not at the cost of their fighting style. After all, an Eldritch Knight has access to the excellent Wizard cantrips. If you also pick up Magic Initiate on an EK, you can take a couple of Cleric cantrips which gives the EK extreme combat versatility. Why should a paladin not have access to the same combat versatility as an EK? Isn't it their very job to dispose of the unhallowed?
For example, there is no good reason for a Paladin _not_ to have access to Blade Ward. While Sacred Flame may be redundant given the Paladin's features, a spell like Blade Ward would allow it to better fulfill its role as a frontline fighter.
The only real advantage a Paladin has over an EK as a frontline combatant is its ability to better resist certain types of enemies; even then, those enemies don't always come up which leaves you running short compared to an EK in combat most of the time.

 

[Ancalagon]

Thematically, a Paladin should have access to one or two cantrips, but not at the cost of their fighting style. After all, an Eldritch Knight has access to the excellent Wizard cantrips. If you also pick up Magic Initiate on an EK, you can take a couple of Cleric cantrips which gives the EK extreme combat versatility. Why should a paladin not have access to the same combat versatility as an EK? Isn't it their very job to dispose of the unhallowed?
For example, there is no good reason for a Paladin _not_ to have access to Blade Ward. While Sacred Flame may be redundant given the Paladin's features, a spell like Blade Ward would allow it to better fulfill its role as a frontline fighter.
The only real advantage a Paladin has over an EK as a frontline combatant is its ability to better resist certain types of enemies; even then, those enemies don't always come up which leaves you running short compared to an EK in combat most of the time.

Thread necromancy!!!

... but you do have an excellent point. Why does the EK and arcane trickster, both "1/3" casters, have cantrips, while rangers and paladins, who are 1/2 casters, do not? Hmmmm

I've been long intrigued by the differences between half casters and 1/3 casters. Half-casters have magic as a class feature, use divine (or divine-ish) magic and don't have cantrips. 1/3 casters *do* have cantrips, are a sub-class feature, and are arcane (int) based. Some of those design choices are very... interesting.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Agreed. I'd tell the PC she only has so much time. She can either learn to manipulate magic or how to be a Duellist. She can't do both.

What OP suggests is abrely a power bump. Using extra attack will be noticeably better most of the time, and a cantrip will never be noticeably better than their attack action.

Making them give up something like a fighting style would make it strictly a net loss. For what? Even if you allow the melee weapon cantrips, they just keep pace with extra attack, at best.

I’d let a player learn 1 or 2 cantrips, and I already let both classes have the ritual caster trait.

 

[Zilong]

I gave Rangers and Paladins cantrips in my home game and the players seem happy with them and they aren't overpowered. Granted the majority of my players don't even know what power gaming is and they certainly don't know how to optimize to that extent. So ymmv on giving out cantrips to the 1/2 casters.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Paladins already have a cantrip. It's called Smite.