D&D 5E Artificers, Paladins, and Rangers, oh, MY! (Concerning Cantrips)

[Lycurgon]

There is a big difference between Artificers and Paladins and Rangers, and there is a good reason that there is a difference in their access to cantrips.

Paladins and Rangers are martials that have a lot of other powers that boost their combat abilities. Paladins are very powerful and Rangers, with the changes in Tasha's and some of the better subclasses, can be quite powerful in combat too. Artificer on the other hand are not as good at combat and are more a support class. Even the combat oriented subclasses are less damage focused and more support/defensive.

Paladins and Rangers do not need the boost of having cantrips added to what they can already do, they are already powerful enough.
Artificers are not all that powerful. There are some builds that can do quite well in combat but paladins will outshine them in combat.

So no, I don't think WotC will ever give paladins and Rangers cantrips (without using their fighting style to get them) without a major rebalancing of all the classes. Fighters, Rogues, Monks, and barbarians, at the least, would need a boost to compensate, as would Artificers too.

 

[humble minion]

I think a lot of the reasoning for not giving cantrips to rangers/paladins by default is that WotC would prefer that the best ranged option for the more martial classes remains weapon attacks rather than spell attacks.

If I'm a stereotypical heavy-armour-and-GWM paladin, I've likely got a low Dex, so my best ranged option is a thrown weapon like a javelin - which has fairly significant limitations around range and (if your GM strictly enforces object handling rules) getting the most out of Extra Attack. On the other hand, if i have access to Sacred Flame or similar, then it's based on Cha (which I've most likely got a decent score in) and while its damage is pretty meh up to 5th level, it rapidly outpaces javelins after that. And carrying around the weight of 15-20 javelins is no joke even for a very high-Str PC, especially if you're already wearing heavy armour.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The whole point of cantrips is to give casters a basic attack that isn't poking the monsters with a tiny dagger.

If a character has a sword, they don't need a cantrip.

If you really want a cantrip it's easy enough for anyone to pick one up in 5e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The whole point of cantrips is to give casters a basic attack that isn't poking the monsters with a tiny dagger.

If a character has a sword, they don't need a cantrip.

If you really want a cantrip it's easy enough for anyone to pick one up in 5e.

What about non-offense cantrips? There are plenty of those and some are quite fun (prestidigitation or thaumaturgy, for example.)

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yes, there is, but even if it gives them cantrips, IIRC they never gain any more. As where normal spell progression grants additional cantrips at higher levels.

And, frankly, I would hate for those classes to sacrifice one of their key lower level features for something Artificers get for free...

Artificers sacrifice quite a bit of power compared to Rangers, and very much so compared to Paladins. Why do you believe that their access to cantrips was not takin into account for the class power budget?

I mean if you take into account the way Lay on Hands covers healing that would otherwise require spell slots to perform, Paladins are considerably better spellcasters than Artificers already.

Granting cantrips to Rangers and Paladins is certainly do-able, but it is quite a boost to Ranger and Paladin capability compared to Artificers.
What have Artificers been getting up to in your games, that you think they were too much better than those other classes?

 

[TwiceBorn2]

What about non-offense cantrips? There are plenty of those and some are quite fun (prestidigitation or thaumaturgy, for example.)

Fun? Sure. But do we really need to further homogenize different classes by creating increasing overlap in their capabilities?

For me the answer is no, but you and others evidently see it differently.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What about non-offense cantrips? There are plenty of those and some are quite fun (prestidigitation or thaumaturgy, for example.)

Flavour fluff. And easy enough to pick up if you think your character concept requires it.

I don't see many ranger players thinking "what my character really needs to fit my idea of a ranger is glowing eyes".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Granting cantrips to Rangers and Paladins is certainly do-able, but it is quite a boost to Ranger and Paladin capability

Eh?

Unless you are talking about shillelagh wisdom rangers, they are pretty much always better using a weapon.

Artificers get a cantrip at first level because throwing a flask of oil fits the concept better than using a weapon.

 

[Minigiant]

Eh?

Unless you are talking about shillelagh wisdom rangers, they are pretty much always better using a weapon.

Artificers get a cantrip at first level because throwing a flask of oil fits the concept better than using a weapon.

Cantrips are weaker than a paladin or ranger's normal attack. Cantrips would be mostly useful for utility and support. The exceptions are

1. Wisdom Rangers using magic stone or shillelagh
2. Paladins who want a ranged attack via sacred flame
3. Los Dexerity High Wisdom Rangers who want a ranged attack and cannot multiclass out ranger

Artificers has spells as their MO over weapons.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Artificers has spells as their MO over weapons.

That one depends on subclass.

Paladins who want a ranged attack via sacred flame

All the cool kobold paladins have Fire Bolt!