D&D 5E Why Are Rangers Arcane Spellcasters?

Shiroiken · Nov 20, 2016

I am one of those annoyed that the Ranger is a spontaneous caster, rather than a preparation caster, and that they don't have any focus available. I would rather have seen them done the same as the paladin (or the paladin done the same as them), getting Druidic foci.

If you actually want to discuss Arcane vs. Divine for the ranger, I'd argue they should be both (as they were in 1E)!

Redthistle · Nov 20, 2016

SkidAce said:
I use the fact that rangers have to "choose" their spells to differentiate between orders(groups) of rangers in my world.

There is one group, The Lightning Rangers, that use arcane spells exclusively (house group / house rule).

I like the idea of variation among groups of rangers. Kind of like edition-preferences among D&D fans, eh?

Willie the Duck · Nov 21, 2016

I'm A Banana said:
There's not really a such thing as "arcane" or "divine" casting anymore. All casting is spellcasting, and each class defines how they use spellcasting.

SkidAce said:
As @guachi states, pg 205 does call spells "divine".

shintashi said:
when i was growing up. we didn't have any of these new fangled categories of arcane and divine or whatever. You had cleric spells, illusionist spells, druid spells, and magic user spells. Rangers had magic user spells AND druid spells. 3rd level druid, and 2nd level Magic User.

SkidAce, you missed I'm a Banana's point, and shintashi sums it up nicely. Rangers are declared to be divine casters, but the word has no meaning anymore, and it is now like it was in the old days, were each spellcasting class had different lists and cast under different rules.

Sword of Spirit · Nov 21, 2016

I wouldn't say no meaning. Creature types have no meaning either...unless something refers to them. Gender has no meaning...except for story and role-playing purposes.

There is no mechanical difference between arcane and divine spells, but there is a whole lot of meaning in the difference.

Gadget · Nov 21, 2016

Normally I am very resistant to the thematic idea that Ranger = Nature Paladin; but in this case I'm much more amendable to the arguments of the OP. It does seem like the Ranger was screwed over somewhat in spells know in relation to other partial caster class; especially since what arguably should be a class feature (Hunter's Mark) is part of their limited spell list. I'm tempted to have the Ranger follow the Paladin spell casting progression and see how that plays out.

Sword of Spirit · Nov 21, 2016

Gadget said:
I'm tempted to have the Ranger follow the Paladin spell casting progression and see how that plays out.

I expect the answer is "perfectly fine", since even with the revised ranger option in the works, they don't and won't get anything to make their non-spellcasting elements better than the paladin's non-spellcasting elements.

Chaosmancer · Nov 22, 2016

Gadget said:
I'm tempted to have the Ranger follow the Paladin spell casting progression and see how that plays out.

I've been running it that way for over a year, and none of my player's Ranger characters have felt too powerful. In practice they tend to keep the same spells they would have gotten anyways, and this just opens up options for them to switch if necessary.

Also, it does tend to allow them 1 or 2 more spells than they would have normally gotten. Which again, opens up possibilities but generally doesn't feel too obvious or different. If I was playing a Ranger instead of DMing for them, I would probably feel the difference a lot more, since I would be actively considering my spell selection instead of just reacting to what the ranger brought to the party today.

Stefen Swanner · Sep 24, 2017

If you look at the fine details of the PHB, Rangers are in fact divine spellcasters. It says in the spellcasting ability that they gain their spells in the same way as druids, reverance of nature and it's balance. Though their spell list is mich shorter, this is reflected in their lack of focus and their ability to maintain a fight without relying on spells too heavily. Plus in EVERY edition, Wisdom is only used for Divine spellcasting and Rangers have always had it. I think it's nice to make them spotaneous instead of prepared casters like every othe divine class.

gyor · Sep 24, 2017

Stefen Swanner said:
If you look at the fine details of the PHB, Rangers are in fact divine spellcasters. It says in the spellcasting ability that they gain their spells in the same way as druids, reverance of nature and it's balance. Though their spell list is mich shorter, this is reflected in their lack of focus and their ability to maintain a fight without relying on spells too heavily. Plus in EVERY edition, Wisdom is only used for Divine spellcasting and Rangers have always had it. I think it's nice to make them spotaneous instead of prepared casters like every othe divine class.

Not every divine class, Favoured Souls are divine spontous casters as well. Okay technically a subclass not a class, but Favoured Soul changes the Sorceror so much that its practically a new class (changing its type of magic from Arcane to Divine, giving it a form of metamagic like ability that scream Cleric, cleric spells, an ability that is basically minor divine miracles once per short rest, then turns you basically into an Angel at level 14, Other sorcerors are Merlin, the Favoured Soul Jesus).

Still is their some advantage beyond less bookeeping to spontasous casters like the Ranger and Favoured Soul compared to preparation casters like Clerics, Druids, and Paladins.

Vael · Sep 24, 2017

I really miss Primal as a power source, it was one of 4e's better innovations. For me, Druids and Rangers are Primal spellcasters, it helps separate them from their Divine counterparts, Clerics and Paladins.