Why no 0-lvl spells for paladins and rangers?

[Brennin Magalus]

It doesn't make sense to me that paladins and rangers don't get 0-lvl spells like bards. Instead, the designers made several 0-lvl spells into 1st lvl paladin and ranger spells, which makes no sense.

 

[Dark Psion]

An even better question is why did they remove 0 level powers from Psions in the XPH?

These were a very nice aspect of psions, especially since they did not use power points. Even if you were tapped out, you still had a finger of fire up your sleeve.

 

[Diirk]

Paladins and rangers are warrior type classes with a smattering of spells, whereas bards are casters in their own rights, with some combat ability on the side.. similair to clerics, altho a bit less magic focused.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I agree, all casters should have 0th level spells. Having to pay a 1st level spell slot for a 0th level effect as a Ranger really sucks.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I agree, all casters should have 0th level spells. Having to pay a 1st level spell slot for a 0th level effect as a Ranger really sucks.

I agree. Consider this particular stupidity:

A paladin can cast Virtue as a 1st-level spell, granting the target 1 temporary hit point, that lasts for 1 minute.

OR

A paladin can cast Cure Light Wounds as a 1st-level spell, granting the target 1d8 +caster level (up to 5) hit points of standard magical healing.

Has there ever been, in the history of 3.x D&D, a paladin that's chosen to cast Virtue? Why on earth would you ever want to? Why on earth would the designers put the spell on the paladin's 1st-level spell list, unless it's to pad the list so it seems longer while having relatively few viable options?

Ugh.