Why aren't Rangers prepared spellcasters?

[jaappleton]

Clerics, Druids, Paladins and Rangers all use Divine magic.

And Rangers are the only ones that aren't prepared casters.

Clerics and Druids get a number of spells each day equal to their class level, plus their Wisdom modifiers.

Paladins get half their class level, plus their Charisma modifier.

Rangers get a set limit, progressing as they level up. I have honestly no idea why its done this way. Is it some carryover from older editions?

Why? Why is Ranger spellcasting done this way? And how much more improved do you think their Spellcasting will be if it were treated as their Divine brethren?

[Tanarii]

Because it's more thematic?

Seriously though, that's the only reason I can think of. I mean, it doesn't make a lot of sense that EKs or ATs are known spells instead of prepared either, really.

Otoh you might be looking at it backwards. All non-full casters except Paladins just know spells. Paladins are the outliers, not Rangers.

[erok0809]

It's not a holdover from 3.5e; they were prepared casters that could prepare from their entire list like a cleric did. I don't know why they changed it. I also don't know if it was changed for 4e, I never played that edition, so maybe it was something from that?

[Tanarii]

In 4e Rangers were Martial power source. So they were spell-less Rangers.

Honestly, thinking of it in terms of 1/3 & 1/2 casters, it does seem the "standard" is for them to be known spell casters, not prepared, regardless of the base source for the learning. As I said, Paladins seem to be the outliers, not Rangers. My guess is for EKs, ATs, and Rangers supposed to represent a little knowledge picked up here and there, but not an extensive opportunity to study & pray & meditate. They learn a trick or two, they don't learn to access the full spectrum of access to the source of power.

[Millstone85]

I also don't know if it was changed for 4e, I never played that edition, so maybe it was something from that?
In 4e Rangers were Martial power source. So they were spell-less Rangers.Also, 4e clerics and druids were not prepared spellcasters. I think only wizards were. Definitely not the edition to look at to understand the current design of ranger spellcasting.

[The Ship's dog]

Also, 4e clerics and druids were not prepared spellcasters. I think only wizards were. Definitely not the edition to look at to understand the current design of ranger spellcasting.

I definitely agree with you here, 4e is very different from any other edition and it's a very bad idea to compare power sources and ways of spellcasting from that edition to any other edition. In fact, the Wizard only prepared daily spells and their modifiers didn't come into preparing spells anywhere. Really the only crossovers that I can see from 4e into other editions are some class features being turned into spells (Hex, Hunter's Mark etc.) And making spell attacks rather than spells only having save DCs.

As for the OP, I'm just going to echo what's already been said as it seems reasonable to me that the 1/2 and 1/3 casters are just using knowledge picked up here and there; Paladins being the exception probably because they lived their life in a church most likely where they probably had to study holy writ and such-like.

[CrimsonConcerto]

Prepared casting is awful. Why would you want even MORE classes to have it? At least it's not as bad this edition as it was in some others.

[JackPhoenix]

Because it's more thematic?

Seriously though, that's the only reason I can think of. I mean, it doesn't make a lot of sense that EKs or ATs are known spells instead of prepared either, really.

Otoh you might be looking at it backwards. All non-full casters except Paladins just know spells. Paladins are the outliers, not Rangers.

I agree that the paladin is a outlier, but for a different reason: it is the only Cha-caster with prepared spells, bard, sorcerer and warlock all use spells known. And vice versa, ranger is the only wis-caster with spells known instead of prepared, unlike druid and cleric. IMO, they should be the other way around. It would also make more sense fluff-wise, as druids, clerics and rangers gets their spells from praying to higher power, while the paladin does draw his power from his own conviction. On a similar note, I could see a reason for warlock to use spells prepared with the same justification, he recieves them from his patron instead of from his own power, though pact magic is unique amongst casting classes overall. Int casters could go both ways, though I think fluff for EK's and AT's sounds like wizard-lite, or fighters/rogues who studied wizardly stuff on the side, so it would make sense for them to have spellbooks.


Prepared casting is awful. Why would you want even MORE classes to have it? At least it's not as bad this edition as it was in some others.

Prepared casting is much better than spells known in 5e where you don't have to prepare the same spell in 3 slots to cast it 3 times. With prepared casting, you have more versatility, whether you choose your daily spell selection from whole class list (cleric, druid, paladin) or some other list (wizard). With spell known, you can only change spells on level-up. You play a sorcerer that knows he's about to visit the Plane of Fire tomorrow? Sucks to be you when you've selected Fireball instead of Lightning Bolt as one of your few spells known. Meanwhile, the wizard will prepare loadout tailored to what he's expecting to fight when he takes his long rest.

[Tanarii]

I agree that the paladin is a outlier, but for a different reason: it is the only Cha-caster with prepared spells, bard, sorcerer and warlock all use spells known. And vice versa, ranger is the only wis-caster with spells known instead of prepared, unlike druid and cleric. IMO, they should be the other way around. It would also make more sense fluff-wise, as druids, clerics and rangers gets their spells from praying to higher power, while the paladin does draw his power from his own conviction. On a similar note, I could see a reason for warlock to use spells prepared with the same justification, he recieves them from his patron instead of from his own power, though pact magic is unique amongst casting classes overall. Int casters could go both ways, though I think fluff for EK's and AT's sounds like wizard-lite, or fighters/rogues who studied wizardly stuff on the side, so it would make sense for them to have spellbooks.I don't think it's a fluke at all. I think someone came along and thought, hey these guys (AT, EK, Rangers) are guys who have picked up a few tricks. Heavy studying and messing around with books and meditating don't fit them. OTOH praying and meditating makes sense for a Paladin, just like it does for Cleric and Druid. Cha vs Wis vs Int is about how they drive the magic, not how they approach the magic. There's no particular reason for it to be tied to prepared or known.

However, Warlocks certainly could fit as Spellbook casters with prepared spells. Per the PHB, the also tend towards scholarly-ness/delving into secrets, at least before they get their power. But realistically, what really matters is after they get their power, they take that power (ie a few tricks that becomes a lot of tricks) and run with it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Clerics, Druids, Paladins and Rangers all use Divine magic.

And Rangers are the only ones that aren't prepared casters.

Clerics and Druids get a number of spells each day equal to their class level, plus their Wisdom modifiers.

Paladins get half their class level, plus their Charisma modifier.

Rangers get a set limit, progressing as they level up. I have honestly no idea why its done this way. Is it some carryover from older editions?

Why? Why is Ranger spellcasting done this way? And how much more improved do you think their Spellcasting will be if it were treated as their Divine brethren?

Another way to look at it:

Cleric, Druid, Paladin prepare; Rangers know

Wizards prepare; Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks know

3/1
1/3

Another way of looking at it is to examine the Spellcasting Ability sections of the classes:

Bards, Eldritch Knights, and Arcane Tricksters pick up and memorize spells
Clerics, Druids, and Paladins pray and meditate for spells
Way of the Four Elements Monks trained and practiced.
Rangers are attuned to nature.
Sorcerers just will their magic.
Warlocks get taught by their Patron.
Wizards write spells down and are just memorizing as much as they can.

So by and large three reasons are:
Memory/Training (Bards, EKs, ATs, WotFE, Warlocks, Wizards)
Praying (Clerics, Druids, Paladins)
Feeling it (Rangers, Sorcerers)

What I find more interesting is that the Ranger knows fewer spells than the EK or AT.

What I am curious about is how most players approach spell choice. Do they only pick utility spells, since the Ranger is going to be a melee/ranged combatant first and foremost? Spells to augment combat? 50/50?

I'd be inclined to think the Ranger spells are an opportunity to pick up what are functionally long-rest class features.

Beyond which, they only have 8 unique spells (so they could get all of them + 3)

1st
Ensnaring Strike
Hail of Thorns
Hunter's Mark

2nd
Cordon of Arrows

3rd
Conjure Barrage
Lightning Arrow

5th
Conjure Volley
Swift Quiver

[xyianth]

In my opinion, it makes sense for rangers to use the known spells mechanic. What doesn't make sense is basing their spellcasting on wisdom. Rangers study specific creatures to learn their weaknesses (favored enemy) and terrains to become expert navigators/explorers. (natural explorer) When did anything remotely related to nature become an automatic justification for wisdom? Studying creatures to learn their weaknesses, studying terrains to learn their secrets, and studying spells to learn their nuances are all behaviors that should be governed by intelligence. Further, tracking is based off the survival skill, which is for same insane reason also tied to wisdom. How does wisdom teach you how to follow tracks and identify edible flora? Oh right, it doesn't. Survival should be an intelligence based skill as well.

You know what happens when you make rangers an int based class? Now the PHB has a dex/wis class (monk), a str/cha class (paladin), and a dex/int class (ranger). Instead of int being a dump stat for EVERYONE except wizards, int becomes a viable second stat for ranger based martials.

As best as I can tell, rangers are wisdom based because of tradition and/or nature. Neither of which constitute good reasons.

[Tanarii]

As best as I can tell, rangers are wisdom based because of tradition and/or nature. Neither of which constitute good reasons.
It's because of AD&D 2e.
That's when they went from being Int & Wis to wisdom only. And from using magic-user and Druid spells to Nature-only spells.
And they're Dex because of 2e as well. In 1e they were Str warriors only, not Dex.

In 1e, they required:
Str 13, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 14.
cast both Druid (at 8th) and Magic User (at 9th) spells.

In 2e:
Str 13, Dex 13, con 14, Wis 14
Cast animal and plant sphere only spells starting at lvl 8.

[Sigreid]

I think it's because spell is the mechanic used, but they're more of meant to represent secrets learned in the wild from their experiences, and they only learn so many secrets.

[Captain Morgan]

In my opinion, it makes sense for rangers to use the known spells mechanic. What doesn't make sense is basing their spellcasting on wisdom. Rangers study specific creatures to learn their weaknesses (favored enemy) and terrains to become expert navigators/explorers. (natural explorer) When did anything remotely related to nature become an automatic justification for wisdom? Studying creatures to learn their weaknesses, studying terrains to learn their secrets, and studying spells to learn their nuances are all behaviors that should be governed by intelligence. Further, tracking is based off the survival skill, which is for same insane reason also tied to wisdom. How does wisdom teach you how to follow tracks and identify edible flora? Oh right, it doesn't. Survival should be an intelligence based skill as well.

You know what happens when you make rangers an int based class? Now the PHB has a dex/wis class (monk), a str/cha class (paladin), and a dex/int class (ranger). Instead of int being a dump stat for EVERYONE except wizards, int becomes a viable second stat for ranger based martials.

As best as I can tell, rangers are wisdom based because of tradition and/or nature. Neither of which constitute good reasons.

For better or worse, Wisdom has been tied to beasts, observation, and nature in D&D for a long time now. It's a key stat for both druids and rangers, but it's also the only mental stat most mundane animals have a positive modifier in. D&D seems to tie wisdom as much to instinct as it does applied learning. You could could just as easily say "how does being wise make you better at hearing footsteps in the darkness." Ultimately it's an abstraction for your awareness and instincts. In practice, this can mean:

-Figuring out an NPC is lying, either because you notice a subtle twitch of the mouth or because your gut just screams they are lying, something you see in their eyes which speaks to you.

-Noticing that the sand in front of you is loose and you were about to step on a quick sand pit.

-Having a decent sense of direction, especially when navigating natural terrain. Noticing the subtle marking of the bark on a tree you've already passed.

In D&D terms, Wisdom is really about instinct and application. The Nature skill might let you remember which direction moss grows on trees, and a reasonable DM could allow that to assist on a Survival check, but by RAW the wise survivalist ranger is still your best bet for figuring things out on the ground.

You could argue that all this could get wrapped up into intelligence, much as you could argue will saves in 3e should have been tied to charisma instead of wisdom. But if you going to have Wisdom as a mental stat at all than there's no reason not to tie it's associated skills into it.

On favored enemy: At a glance, it bestows no combat advantage in 5e. Also, the Ranger gets advantage on both Wisdom AND intelligence checks relating to favored enemies and terrain. But even if this was 3.5, rangers aren't better at fighting dragons because they read that a dragon's belly is weak in a book or did their thesis study observing dragon mating habits. The ranger on an instinctual level how they move and how they hurt.

Intelligence might let you know that the berries of the jup jup tree are nutritious, but it takes wisdom to actually spot said berries.

Finally, as to the the caster/stat stuff, we already have a STR/INT and DEX/INT caster. They are called the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. Given the Monk isn't really a caster, they've pretty much hit their sweet spot.

[xyianth]

For better or worse, Wisdom has been tied to beasts, observation, and nature in D&D for a long time now. It's a key stat for both druids and rangers, but it's also the only mental stat most mundane animals have a positive modifier in. D&D seems to tie wisdom as much to instinct as it does applied learning.

That's basically what I mean by tradition, though I had not considered the wisdom = instinct bit.


Figuring out an NPC is lying, either because you notice a subtle twitch of the mouth or because your gut just screams they are lying, something you see in their eyes which speaks to you.

This is one of those grey areas for me. On one hand, treating this as an instinct-driven ability could justify the use of wisdom. On the other hand, there are entire libraries of science about the art of lie detection based on facial muscles, nervous ticks, etc... You can just as easily argue that this could be intelligence driven as you can argue for wisdom. Personally, I'd allow a character to use either perception/insight or investigation/knowledge for this, assuming an appropriate knowledge skill existed in the campaign. (History, Nature, or Religion might work dependent on how you came to learn it)


Noticing that the sand in front of you is loose and you were about to step on a quick sand pit.

I agree if you are talking about passive perception here. If you are actively checking for terrain dangers, then this is more in the realm of investigation(int) isn't it?


Having a decent sense of direction, especially when navigating natural terrain. Noticing the subtle marking of the bark on a tree you've already passed.

I disagree strongly here. Even the PHB disagrees. The Keen Mind feat gives you this ability and bumps your intelligence, not your wisdom. What you describe as sense of direction is not an instinct, it is an applied form of investigation. In animals, it might very well be an alternate form of perception given that they tend to have an internal compass of sorts that literally perceives magnetic shifts. But in human(oid)s it involves actively looking for cues that indicate direction.


In D&D terms, Wisdom is really about instinct and application. The Nature skill might let you remember which direction moss grows on trees, and a reasonable DM could allow that to assist on a Survival check, but by RAW the wise survivalist ranger is still your best bet for figuring things out on the ground.

I know what the RAW says... My argument is that the RAW is wrong.


You could argue that all this could get wrapped up into intelligence, much as you could argue will saves in 3e should have been tied to charisma instead of wisdom. But if you going to have Wisdom as a mental stat at all than there's no reason not to tie it's associated skills into it.

Well I kind of am, but I am not arguing that wisdom has no place. I like the idea that wisdom is a measure of applied understanding and instinct. Clerics and Druids should continue to use wisdom as the main stat as they derive their magic through a spiritual connection with their power source. Knowing that such a connection is possible (int) is not enough to actually use it. The insight skill and perception skill both make perfect sense to be wisdom based. Medicine and survival are somewhat hybrid skills that could easily be driven by both intelligence and wisdom. Animal handling could honestly be tied to int, wis, cha, str, or dex.


On favored enemy: At a glance, it bestows no combat advantage in 5e. Also, the Ranger gets advantage on both Wisdom AND intelligence checks relating to favored enemies and terrain.

Assuming we aren't using any of the proposed revisions from UA, they do not grant a combat advantage until 20th level. Given that multiple revisions have been proposed because WotC has outright admitted that the PHB Ranger falls well short of it's intended goal, those features do provide meaningful combat advantages to the ranger.


But even if this was 3.5, rangers aren't better at fighting dragons because they read that a dragon's belly is weak in a book or did their thesis study observing dragon mating habits. The ranger on an instinctual level how they move and how they hurt.

I think this is actually the crux of our disagreement. I do not envision the ranger as the warrior that fights on honed instinct. (that is actually a closer description of the barbarian for me) To me, a ranger is as studious as a wizard, but rather than reading dusty tomes in some wizarding academy rangers study the land and beasts in nature. By meticulously learning all the habits, mannerisms, and abilities of a given creature, rangers learn to track that creature and perfect the ability to adapt their fighting style to counter and prey upon that creature.

That said, if you instead think of a ranger as a warrior that fights using expertly honed natural instincts, then I can understand why wisdom is a better fit. Truth be told, I think the best answer is allowing both concepts to coexist.


Intelligence might let you know that the berries of the jup jup tree are nutritious, but it takes wisdom to actually spot said berries.

If you, like so many others do, completely overload the perception skill to render the investigation skill irrelevant than sure. To me, if you lack the knowledge of what to look for; who cares if you can see it? Intelligence drives what to look for, where to look for it, and actually searching an area for it. Wisdom drives the ability to notice it when not actively looking for it. Without wisdom, you still have all the tools to find it. Without intelligence, how do you even know that the berries you saw are useful?


Finally, as to the the caster/stat stuff, we already have a STR/INT and DEX/INT caster. They are called the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. Given the Monk isn't really a caster, they've pretty much hit their sweet spot.

If you are counting EK and AT as casters, then monk is just as much of one. The main reason I don't consider EK/AT as fitting the bill is that those archetypes are actually worse than multiclassing wizard with your martial of choice. If their spell list wasn't so ridiculously narrow, it wouldn't be so bad. Because their spell list is so narrow, even characters that use them often pick spells that don't rely on your casting stat. The effect of which is that all too often your EK and AT characters end up dumping intelligence too. At least the monk class pretty much forces you to not dump wisdom.

Bottom line, intelligence is the dump stat of 5e, and that annoys me to no end. By using the revised ranger from UA and further altering it to be int based, this could be changed. I am disappointed that this is not RAW, but ultimately I have no issue with using homebrew rules. At this point, I am very nearly approaching the point where I have more homebrew than RAW at my table.

[Tanarii]

This is one of those grey areas for me. On one hand, treating this as an instinct-driven ability could justify the use of wisdom. On the other hand, there are entire libraries of science about the art of lie detection based on facial muscles, nervous ticks, etc... You can just as easily argue that this could be intelligence driven as you can argue for wisdom. Personally, I'd allow a character to use either perception/insight or investigation/knowledge for this, assuming an appropriate knowledge skill existed in the campaign. (History, Nature, or Religion might work dependent on how you came to learn it)Intelligence is about memory recall & reason. Wisdom is about attunement to the world around you, perception, and intuition.

Animal Handling & Survival are great examples of things that depend on how attuned you are to the world around you, as well as a good dose of intuition. Yes, there are cases where a Charisma (Animal Handling) or Intelligence (Survival) check make perfectly good sense ... and the PHB has an optional rule that allows variant checks like that.


I agree if you are talking about passive perception here. If you are actively checking for terrain dangers, then this is more in the realm of investigation(int) isn't it?No, actively looking for signs of things that might be terrain dangers is perception, or possibly survival. That's a perceptive task, or one of being attuned to the world around you. Actively deducing the most logical place for there to be specific terrain danger after having spotted signs that something is awry, or figuring how to bypass the danger, is Intelligence, possibly with Investigation.

It's a subtle difference, but an important one. It works the same way with traps. I used to think that Intelligence (Investigation) was the searching for traps skill, mainly because all my AL DMs used it that way when I first started playing. But that's too simplistic, and actually would suck anyway because you need the front liner's to find traps, not Rogues.

The way it works is Wisdom (Perception), the skill for, well, perceptiveness & awareness, allows you to see something is awry, or (typically) spot either trigger or trap device, whichever is more spot-able. This is great, because it's a stat/skill front-liners (Clerics & Fighters & Barbarians especially) are good at. Then the Rogue or Wizard or whatever moves up to investigate by using Intelligence (Investigation) (gasp!) and figures out how the trap works, possibly including deducing where the trigger or trap device is (whichever wasn't spotted), and how to disable it or bypass it. Then it's thieves tools or whatever time.

(Of course, Rogues and Rangers and Monks area actually pretty good at Perception themselves due to skill and/or attributes, but I wanted to make a clear cut in the process to show the difference between the attributes.)

Of course, player skill allows you to bypass any and all of these checks, but that's another topic entirely.


I know what the RAW says... My argument is that the RAW is wrong.The RAW isn't 'wrong'. You just don't like it. :smallyuk:

[xyianth]

The RAW isn't 'wrong'. You just don't like it. :smallyuk:

Tow-may-tow, tow-ma-tow. :smallwink:

But I see your points. In my personal experience, DMs tend to not require intelligence/investigation checks as much as they should, often letting players use wisdom/perception instead. It annoys me. My players find out quickly that intelligence is not and should not be a dump stat.

[Miffles]

Because paladins are🤔

[Captain Morgan]

I don't know what the norms for knowledge checks are in 5e, but as I've seen DMs use them intelligence still seems like a fine attribute, even if it's become the charisma of this edition. Survival might be better for navigation, but it won't let me recognize what a monster is or figure out how to fight it. I might see foot prints, but I won't ascertain useful information about what kind of struggle took place without investigation. Nor will it help you navigate planes or crazy mystic things.

Honestly, I'm not convinced all 6 attributes are necessary anymore I could dig getting rid of constitution for example so people can point into more interesting, proactive things. Make strength saves the new constitution/fortitude save. But that's not going to happen because having the six attributes is one of the most recognizable aspects of d&d. Which means there's probably going to be a weakest stat unless they really finely tune saving throws to different spells or some such.

[Arkhios]

Rangers, being wilderness survivalists, wouldn't have the time to meditate or pray when at every corner a danger lurks (which begs for a question, how can these paranoid characters even sleep? :smalltongue:)

[Vogonjeltz]

In my opinion, it makes sense for rangers to use the known spells mechanic. What doesn't make sense is basing their spellcasting on wisdom. Rangers study specific creatures to learn their weaknesses (favored enemy) and terrains to become expert navigators/explorers. (natural explorer) When did anything remotely related to nature become an automatic justification for wisdom? Studying creatures to learn their weaknesses, studying terrains to learn their secrets, and studying spells to learn their nuances are all behaviors that should be governed by intelligence. Further, tracking is based off the survival skill, which is for same insane reason also tied to wisdom. How does wisdom teach you how to follow tracks and identify edible flora? Oh right, it doesn't. Survival should be an intelligence based skill as well.

You know what happens when you make rangers an int based class? Now the PHB has a dex/wis class (monk), a str/cha class (paladin), and a dex/int class (ranger). Instead of int being a dump stat for EVERYONE except wizards, int becomes a viable second stat for ranger based martials.

As best as I can tell, rangers are wisdom based because of tradition and/or nature. Neither of which constitute good reasons.

Nature is an Intelligence check. Which is what would be used to recall lore about plants and animals.

Survival is Wisdom because it relies on Intuition and perceptiveness (which are Wisdom traits) and not Recall and Memory (which are Intelligence traits).

Bah, in after the buzzer

[djreynolds]

Honestly, as DM I just let them.

And really its because I want to see those oft used spells in play. Otherwise it is essentially the same spell layout for every ranger

Also, with original ranger, I just gave them domains spells based off their favored terrain same as druid of the appropriate level... why not?

I hate the known spell thing, why? Its boring. I even give my sorcerers extra spells, I want to see what my players do stuff.

There are some spells left un-used.