D&D 5E Why Are Rangers Arcane Spellcasters?

[BookBarbarian]

I think the real question is why can Rangers cast spells at all? Like, what character from any genre that would be described of as a ranger can cast spells?

I would definitely describe Geralt of Rivia from the Witcher novels and video games, and upcoming Netflix series as a ranger that casts spells. In his role as a professional monster hunter nature skills, alchemical skills, combat prowess, and spells all have an part to play.

In a world where magic exists, and can be taught and learned it makes sense that one who hunts down mythical and often unpredictable creatures would learn some useful magic as a part of their well rounded kit for dealing with said monsters.

I assume they wanted to give them a little bit of extra customization and a few abilities. As to limiting them to spells from any pre existing classes, that doesn't bother me at all, its the effects we want to represent that are important. I've always taken their spells known to represent less magic they cast and more tricks and skills they've picked up over the years.

I think the the Ranger's spells live best in the gray area where they can be explained as magic, or explained as uncanny wilderness know-how.

 

[Gwarok]

I think the the Ranger's spells live best in the gray area where they can be explained as magic, or explained as uncanny wilderness know-how.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Valetudo]

Says who? Thats only one perspective. They are also historiens, loremasters, and skalds. The point I was kinda making is thats wizards can be too linear in their class designs.

 

[makmaloko]

I don't know if it has been commented, but there is a section of the PHB called The Weave of Magic that states that the magic used by rangers is divine in nature. It is not defined anywhere else because it makes no mechanical difference, where there used to be in previous editions, but the definition of divine and arcane magic does exist even in 5e

 

[makmaloko]

I can't understand where you got that Rangers are treated as arcane casters. The rules don't treat arcane and divine casters differently. They all get to use the same resource, they all evolve at the same rate and if you multiclass you will evolve your resource pool as if you where still following just one class. The spells each class gets are based on the classes themselves, not in the fact that a spell is arcane or divine in nature.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Arcane and divine are just fluff. Mechanically they don't do anything. So you can just say some classes use primal or quantum power source and mechanically it doesn't change anything.

 

[Jmarso]

Squints and leans on cane Huff! Back in my day a ranger couldn't cast a single spell until he was 8th Level! And we liked it!

 

[ECMO3]

I don't think the new rules make a distinction between "divine" or "arcane", but the original 1E Ranger got both wizard and druid spells so I think it is a throwback to the original.

 

[Parmandur]

Okay, the rules don't literally say they are arcane casters instead of divine casters. I don't think it mentions it for any spellcasters.

Yeah, because it's not a mechanical or flavor thing in 5E. Some Subclasses of different Classes even have different apparent flavors, authentic as Divine Soul Sorcerers or Arcane Clerics.

 

[ECMO3]

It seems like it gives Paladins a major boost over Rangers when it comes to spells. In online discussions of Rangers, their spell list, aside from Hunter's Mark, rarely comes up in discussions of Ranger play or balance.

I suspect, given the limitations of Ranger spell choice, that there are many Ranger spells that just don't get taken. It's not really choice; it's the illusion of choice. (Like how at level two you get two spells but one of them is almost assuredly going to be Hunter's Mark. So really your choices are Hunter's Mark and one other spell). It's like Rangers are a half-caster where the caster part is so very minor.

You are right hunters mark is the only one that comes up but I don't think you are right about power. I think Hunters Mark is a weak spell. Even at 1st level, there are simply better options.

I think HM is mediocre at low levels but completely outclassed and largely a waste of concentration at higher levels, especially when things like Summon Fey and Guardian of Nature come online. Although hunters mark does more damage than favored foe, it uses a bonus action and a spell slot and that is not worth the paltry damage difference.

To be honest I think ensnaring strike is a better 1st level spell than HM because it at least immobilizes an opponent or can take it out of the sky if it is flying.

Rangers have a ton of awesome spells, including goodberry, ensnaring strike, pass without a trace ..... and really HM was taken all the time a few years ago in my games, but hardly taken at all now.