Why does the ranger have a spells known limit?

[VoxRationis]

So I played 5e for the first time (I've looked at the rulebooks and SRD a fair amount prior to this, as well as frequented the 5e subforum, but haven't actually played until now) as a paladin. My father was playing a ranger in the same group, and he complained for a time that he had only a few spells known. I assured him that he was misreading things, since after all paladins don't have a spells known limit, and paladins and rangers have historically been sort of parallel to one another, particularly where spellcasting is concerned. But then I looked at the ranger table and I saw he was right!

This perplexed me. After all, they both are mostly-combat classes that use spells to supplement their prowess, or for utilitarian purposes, rather than as a direct means of attack. They act as somewhat more martially-inclined versions of clerics and druids, or alternatively like clerical or druidic fighters. Their spell level progression is the same as well, and the casting classes they resemble most closely both use prepared spells, rather than spells known. Thus, it seems odd to me that rangers would have a short list of known spells, rather than the ability to prepare spells from their class list (as they used to do in previous editions). Does anyone know why this is?

[Fishyninja]

Fully with you, both Martial classes in nature however prepare for a Fluff Argument from me.

When you look at Paladins, they are looking to obliterate evil and uphold justice and what is good (according to the PHB), and to do this they take an Oath. A Sacred Vow, whether it is to a god or deity or too themselves I do not know but the fact that the it is an Oath, a powerful bond and promise, this imbues them with power.

A Ranger is in essence a wildman with a mix of skills and martial magic developed from their time in nature protecting civillisation. Rangers gain their magic through their observations of the Natural world.

In conclusion, Rangers gain their spells through insight, knowledge and practice (hence Wisdom) and Paladins get their magic from a spoken or written Oath (Promise) (therefore based on Charisma).

[Ninja_Prawn]

Rangers definitely got the short end of the stick, huh? You can sort of see some fluffy arguments for why rangers are spells known and paladins are spells prepared, if you squint, but I doubt it would break the game if you just let rangers prepare whatever they liked every day.

[MeeposFire]

Honestly I think they were trying to differentiate the paladin and ranger more in their casting and thought that one half caster should be prepared and the other spontaneous. Personally in that case I would have gone the other way and had the ranger be prepared and the paladin spontaneous but that shipped sailed already officially (I think rangers actually use their spell slots for spells more so I think they should have gotten the benefit of more spell versatility).


Now if it was up to me then I would mostly eliminate spontaneous casting all together since the current prepared casting does everything that I really want from it already and is fun to boot. The only class off the top of my head that perhaps should keep it as written is the bard and only because it is supposed to be a dabbler in many ways and I think that its current casting model shows that off well (sorcerers should get a mildly changed prepared mechanic).

[Naanomi]

While mechanically it unfortunate, it fits for me... Rangers aren't so much 'spellcasters' to me as they are versatile folks who pick up a few tricks from anywhere... their magic is more 'Aragorn with the Kingsfoil' than 'Druid-Lite' to me

[georgie_leech]

While mechanically it unfortunate, it fits for me... Rangers aren't so much 'spellcasters' to me as they are versatile folks who pick up a few tricks from anywhere... their magic is more 'Aragorn with the Kingsfoil' than 'Druid-Lite' to me

My signature is quasi relevant!

[Nifft]

What I do for Rangers is give them access to the Land Druid spells for one Land type, in addition to their few specific known spells.

They learn the spells for another land type when they get another favored terrain.

Makes their terrain knowledge feature a bit more integral.

[Naanomi]

My signature is quasi relevant!
Heh my mind has them more like 'naturey bards'... most settings have Druids that can 'piss off nature' and lose their casting; I don't picture rangers the same way. Same trappings, but not the same source for rangers + druids (this is headcannon though nothing 'official', especially not in FR default setting where everyone has their patron God and all that)

[VoxRationis]

While mechanically it unfortunate, it fits for me... Rangers aren't so much 'spellcasters' to me as they are versatile folks who pick up a few tricks from anywhere... their magic is more 'Aragorn with the Kingsfoil' than 'Druid-Lite' to me

This argument is common, but requires a set of blinders to work. Ranger spells include spells which teleport animals out of nowhere, spells which animate plants at range to entangle foes, spells which negate all sound in an area, and spells which teleport the ranger several hundred feet. These aren't just tricks of woodland lore.

Edit: Well, not entangle, oddly enough. The rest still stand, though.

[georgie_leech]

This argument is common, but requires a set of blinders to work. Ranger spells include spells which teleport animals out of nowhere, spells which animate plants at range to entangle foes, spells which negate all sound in an area, and spells which teleport the ranger several hundred feet. These aren't just tricks of woodland lore.

To an extent. Originally Conjure Animals just called up some animals from the area; those wolves just happened to be there and answered the Ranger's call. Likewise, Entangle was about how if you listened carefully you could 'learn' the language of the trees and plants and they would come to your aid.

I got nothing on the teleportation though. :smalltongue:

[Arkhios]

I believe ranger's spells are kind of special tricks they've learned during their travels instead of something they prayed or meditated for. It's a small but arguably relevant distinction.

[Naanomi]

This argument is common, but requires a set of blinders to work. Ranger spells include spells which teleport animals out of nowhere, spells which animate plants at range to entangle foes, spells which negate all sound in an area, and spells which teleport the ranger several hundred feet. These aren't just tricks of woodland lore.
Eh in a magic world I'm fine with them learning 'magic trips' the same way bards sort of pick up magic along the way... just not tied to Druidic spirits/personified nature/Gods or whatever

[PhoenixPhyre]

I rationalized the difference between druids and rangers (as far as spell-casting goes) for my setting as follows:

Both learn spells by making contracts with nature spirits. A contract is an agreement with a specific spirit to produce an effect in exchange for a small packet of spell-stuff (aether). Druidic contracts are instrumental and temporary--while meditating in the morning they reach out to the spirits around them. Except in the most twisted areas the density of spirits is such that all the basic contracts (ie the published spells) are always available. The next day, the druid may decide to make a different contract. (Most) druids see themselves as symbiotic with the spirits of nature--neither the master nor the servant. Each plays their part and the balance is kept.

Rangers, on the other hand, don't reach out to local spirits. They bind a few spirits to them and carry them along for the ride. This explains the beastmaster's pet--they use the animal as a carrier for the contracted spirits. The other archetypes may use their weapons, etc as spirit vessels. Since these contracts are long-term and personal, switching them out takes effort (ie can only be done at level up). Rangers see their contracts as personal friendships.

This allows me to represent tribal shamans (NPCs) as essentially having a mix of druidic and ranger casting.

As to why rangers and paladins have different casting--I'm sure part of it is just wanting to have a mix of spontaneous and prepared casting. Another element that makes sense to me is that paladins traditionally were pseudo-clerical--thus making them more like clerics makes sense. Beyond that...I'm as lost as anyone.

[Breltar]

In my worlds I DM in and how I explain it to my players is like this.

Druid: is like a priest of the land, yeah they might have a nature god they revere, but their power comes from nature not from adherence to strict rules the deity puts forth. They are servants of nature and aren't out to convert followers so much as protect what they serve.

Ranger: is not a paladin. They aren't out to be protectors of the people, they are the to nature as a rogue is to city streets. They know their craft, they don't serve it like a druid but can use it like one. They don't care as much if others follow their beliefs, they know what nature is and that is that. They can draw on some of it's power through their interaction with it, but not like a druid.

TL;DR Paladins and Clerics are about the faith and people, Druids and Rangers are about nature and nothing else.

[Sigreid]

IMO it's because a ranger's spells are less like traditional spells and more like tricks they pick up that push the limits of what could be considered "just an exceptional understanding of nature". I suppose I think of them as gifts and tricks taught/given to them by the creatures of the faewild when they are alone, deep in the wilderness.

[mealar]

from a more practical standpoint classes which have a "spells known" such as bard, Ek and ranger means that they don't actually need any of their spell casting stat. so a ranger can take multiple spells that don't rely on any checks like hunters mark and conjure animals and not bother with Wis (i know this is really useful for ranger skills but think more EK stats).

why the ranger was decided to be one of these classes i'm not sure but think there are certain ranger build more focused on physical stuff than magic and this way the number of spells is the same it just limits the type of spell

[djreynolds]

What I do for Rangers is give them access to the Land Druid spells for one Land type, in addition to their few specific known spells.

They learn the spells for another land type when they get another favored terrain.

Makes their terrain knowledge feature a bit more integral.

Yes I did this for their favored terrains


Rangers definitely got the short end of the stick, huh? You can sort of see some fluffy arguments for why rangers are spells known and paladins are spells prepared, if you squint, but I doubt it would break the game if you just let rangers prepare whatever they liked every day.

Now I just them prepare whatever, its not game breaking and its cool to see how the spells are used.

I like to see players get to use all the little spells

[Citan]

So I played 5e for the first time (I've looked at the rulebooks and SRD a fair amount prior to this, as well as frequented the 5e subforum, but haven't actually played until now) as a paladin. My father was playing a ranger in the same group, and he complained for a time that he had only a few spells known. I assured him that he was misreading things, since after all paladins don't have a spells known limit, and paladins and rangers have historically been sort of parallel to one another, particularly where spellcasting is concerned. But then I looked at the ranger table and I saw he was right!

This perplexed me. After all, they both are mostly-combat classes that use spells to supplement their prowess, or for utilitarian purposes, rather than as a direct means of attack. They act as somewhat more martially-inclined versions of clerics and druids, or alternatively like clerical or druidic fighters. Their spell level progression is the same as well, and the casting classes they resemble most closely both use prepared spells, rather than spells known. Thus, it seems odd to me that rangers would have a short list of known spells, rather than the ability to prepare spells from their class list (as they used to do in previous editions). Does anyone know why this is?
Hi!

Well...

Fully with you, both Martial classes in nature however prepare for a Fluff Argument from me.

When you look at Paladins, they are looking to obliterate evil and uphold justice and what is good (according to the PHB), and to do this they take an Oath. A Sacred Vow, whether it is to a god or deity or too themselves I do not know but the fact that the it is an Oath, a powerful bond and promise, this imbues them with power.

A Ranger is in essence a wildman with a mix of skills and martial magic developed from their time in nature protecting civillisation. Rangers gain their magic through their observations of the Natural world.

In conclusion, Rangers gain their spells through insight, knowledge and practice (hence Wisdom) and Paladins get their magic from a spoken or written Oath (Promise) (therefore based on Charisma).
Not only this explain the different casting stat, but also imo why one gets learned spells, whereas the other gets prepared spells.
In the first case, the Ranger learned "by himself" how to weave and appropriate himself environmental magic. It's an "internal source".
In the latter, the Paladin actually borrows magical effects bestowed upon him by his deity (well, I know there are not technically "subjugated" to a specific deity contrarily to Cleric, but there is still in my view that kind of strong link). It's an "external" source.

Or at least it is one way to look at it, which seems very acceptable for me.
You could probably make a similarly strong case to argue that Paladin actually "learn" their spells similar to a Ranger, but because they are part of an Order and follow Oaths, they benefit from dedicated teachings provided by their fellows. So because they have actual teachers and follow rigorous selection and guided training, they can learn all the spells of their order.

As for mechanical reasons to make a difference between them...
My only (wild) guess is that because Paladin already has a strong competitor for spell use in Divine Smite, WoTC didn't want to further burden their restriction by using a "spell known".
Or maybe they were taking Druid into account and were fearing that Ranger would "eat too much" at Druid if he had access to the same width of spells.
Or maybe they felt that having spell known was fine for a Ranger because he had so many non-spellcasting features also, and they wanted to keep the WIS dependency to a minimum...

Honestly though, I cannot think of a good reason balance-wise, but I admit not having ever really put much thought into it. ;)

What I do for Rangers is give them access to the Land Druid spells for one Land type, in addition to their few specific known spells.

They learn the spells for another land type when they get another favored terrain.

Makes their terrain knowledge feature a bit more integral.
Interesting houserule. I will keep it in mind for when a player wants to play a very magic-geared Ranger. ;) Thanks.


I rationalized the difference between druids and rangers (as far as spell-casting goes) for my setting as follows:

Both learn spells by making contracts with nature spirits. A contract is an agreement with a specific spirit to produce an effect in exchange for a small packet of spell-stuff (aether). Druidic contracts are instrumental and temporary--while meditating in the morning they reach out to the spirits around them. Except in the most twisted areas the density of spirits is such that all the basic contracts (ie the published spells) are always available. The next day, the druid may decide to make a different contract. (Most) druids see themselves as symbiotic with the spirits of nature--neither the master nor the servant. Each plays their part and the balance is kept.

Rangers, on the other hand, don't reach out to local spirits. They bind a few spirits to them and carry them along for the ride. This explains the beastmaster's pet--they use the animal as a carrier for the contracted spirits. The other archetypes may use their weapons, etc as spirit vessels. Since these contracts are long-term and personal, switching them out takes effort (ie can only be done at level up). Rangers see their contracts as personal friendships.

This allows me to represent tribal shamans (NPCs) as essentially having a mix of druidic and ranger casting.

As to why rangers and paladins have different casting--I'm sure part of it is just wanting to have a mix of spontaneous and prepared casting. Another element that makes sense to me is that paladins traditionally were pseudo-clerical--thus making them more like clerics makes sense. Beyond that...I'm as lost as anyone.
Very great way to fluff/rationalize the difference between both. Thanks for sharing!

[Kish]

and paladins and rangers have historically been sort of parallel to one another, particularly where spellcasting is concerned.
I think that's exactly it: they wanted to differentiate paladins and rangers more, so that they look more like two separate classes, no more connected to each other or to the fighter class than they are to, e.g., the rogue class, and less like two answers to "what do you get if you add a little divine spellcasting to the fighter."

[Fishyninja]

Not only this explain the different casting stat, but also imo why one gets learned spells, whereas the other gets prepared spells.

Thank you, I'm quite proud of my five second fluff argument.