Inspired by this question: Would granting every PC the choice of a feat or a cantrip be unbalancing?

Some classes get cantrips, some don't. Some races get a free cantrip (such as via the high elf's "Cantrip" racial feature or via the tiefling's "Infernal Legacy" feature), and some don't.

What would be the consequences regarding balance of giving every PC a free cantrip at level 1, regardless of their race or class? In each case, it would be restricted to a relevant spell list (e.g. druid spell list for wood elves, wizard spell list for rock gnomes, etc), where "relevant" is defined as "what arbitrarily makes sense to the DM" (i.e. what makes sense to me), which I'm not going to explore in this question (beyond the above example).

Also, for races that already get a cantrip (since some classes get an arguably less useful cantrip, such as an Aasimar who gets light), let's say that they can choose a different one from a related spell list (cleric in this case) if they wish (they don't get 2 cantrips "for free"; if they want more, they can pick a spellcasting class and get more that way). Furthermore, I don't care about if a variant human picks Magic Initiate to start with 3 cantrips, since they burned their level 1 feat to get those extra cantrips.

Although this was inspired by another question, I'm already doing something similar on a smaller scale in my home games; all elves get the "Cantrip" racial feature, not just high elves (unless they have a cantrip already, such as drow and their "Drow Magic" feature; also note that, unlike my above suggestion, I haven't been giving the option of swapping that out, so drow are stuck with dancing lights, for example), so I thought it might be worth asking this question to see what the effects of what I'm already doing are (although I can say that, because my player's elves tend to be spellcasters, and on reflection they tend to be high elves as well, so far the effects of my houserule haven't really been very noticable to us).

It's only slightly more powerful than normal, but would make existing spellcasters less special.

To begin with, you're giving every character something else on top of their race, class and background abilities. This is by definition going to make them more powerful or versatile than standard, if only slightly.

How much more powerful? Not hugely. Cantrips are already available to a 1st-level party and elves already get one wizard cantrip for free, so it's not entirely beyond the range of capabilities of a 1st-level character.

In terms of effectiveness, assuming the players will naturally choose optimal spells:

• The fighter normally deals 1d8 with a longbow or 1d10 with a heavy crossbow. A fighter who learns fire bolt will deal 1d10 damage. At higher levels they will deal more damage, but they would have had multiple attacks with weapons anyway.


• The fighter who takes true strike will use it to gain advantage at the start of every combat encounter where they party has the element of surprise to prepare buff spells. However, in such a situation they may already be ruled to have advantage from having surprise.


• Any character might take spare the dying, which will prevent wounded characters from dying. This seems entirely reasonable to me.


• More characters will find it easier to deal elemental type damage against creatures who are resistant to weapons.


• More characters will be able to inflict tactical penalties like shocking grasp preventing reactions or thorn whip's ability to pull creatures closer.

All in all, this isn't massively overpowered (but beware of of other sourcebooks, which may add spells intended for a wizard that are overpowered in the hands of a fighter).

The main issue here is that you're handing out other classes' abilities, which makes spellcasters less special. A wizard at 1st level has only two 1st level spells per day and his main utility after that consists of three cantrips. If you give everyone a cantrip, you're breaking the separation of party roles and making the party's arcane spellcasters less important.

No, with an "if"

If you're giving each player a free cantrip then it's okay. If, as you state, you'd only be giving one to those that don't already get one then that is unfair, the races that get one already do not get it "for free", it is always in place of other racial features or additional boons. For example, high elves get a cantrip where dwarves get +1HP per level so you'd essentially be giving the dwarf a new racial trait and punishing the high elf for already having said trait.

This video ranks the races based on race points for each feature, such as bonus stats, features, etc. it is however just one opinion but I feel it is a good example of race evaluation that highlights adding a cantrip would increase the value of one race over another


A single cantrip isn't that big of a deal for PvE. You'd still have to choose to use your action in combat to cast it over attacking another way, which for non-magic folk will probably be better used on a weapon attack or class feat and for magic users its just another weapon in their arsenal. The one time it'd be useful really is if a melee character is out of range, but they'd most likely be positioned to be in the fray where they need to be.

Is it a nice little boon? Yes

Does it cause unbalance? I don't believe so.