Contrast with Aragorn, for whom the ranger is more or less 1-1 based on him.
Aragorn is in no way actually a 1-1 analogue to Rangers. He actually does almost nothing that could be specifically called ranger in the books. He does a whole lot that is Fighter however. I am aware that he is called one by the books and they are treated as mysterious. But just about everything he does is standard fighter with a bit of elven influence mixed in. He even admits that what little he knows about herbs and such is because of his time with the elves at one point. He only dual wields once even in the books and that's at the beginning and something that a fighter can do as well. He has no real connection to nature past what he has gained from spending years amongst the elves. The Only other thing he does is Track some Tracks which is not an exclusive skill either and Legolas actually does it better. Legolas is the 1 for 1 Ranger Analogue in the story. About the only thing that Legolas doesn't do in the books is have a constant animal companion with him.
So While Aragorn is pointed at as a possible source of inspiration for making one. He's on some levels better for a Paladin of the Ancients in 5e terms (He even wields what is effectively a Holy Sword to finish out the books) than he is for anything Ranger. And he's certainly better for several different fighter Subclasses.
Gandalf as depicted is a lot of things. What he is not, is a "wizard".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Drizzt originally broke all the rules of being a ranger so they got redefined to fit him over time, such as dual wielding which didn't exist for any class before him but the ranger actually got bonuses to doing it after the changes. And he still doesn't entirely fit. Then again his race is Drow as well and yet if you really go over his characteristics with a fine tooth comb the Only thing that really makes him a Drow is his appearance.
So while I am aware you might have meant it sarcastically to say they both are. Your actually right on a completely different level on the other side of things.
When Drizzt was originally written in 1e, I think he was more or less legal.
EDIT: Pg 70 of the 1e DMG gave rules on DW. I think there was an article in dungeon or dragon that allowed drow specifically, to DW long blades, and I think another one that removed the penalty that DW caused for rangers. In 2e he was not legal, as 2x scimitars were not a legal DW option for rangers. I think the only actual rule change to accomodate him was demoting scimitars (and by extension, arming swords) from d8 weapons to d6 weapons. That said, a light, finesse DW slasher was needed, so scimitar fit the bill.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Gandalf as depicted is a lot of things. What he is not, is a "wizard".
That is a very strong statement. What exactly prevents him from being one ? Just remember that Wizards don't need a spellbook to function, for example. And sometimes wielding a swor (which occurs so rarely in the books anyway) is not prevented by being a wizard.
The fact that he almost never uses magic. It's implied that he can, but not shown. A D&D wizard would be using magic nearly constantly. That's certainly not what Gandalf does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
If you say so. I think you're making the worst argument ever, but hey, feel free to disagree. The fact is, magic is a key part of being a wizard and Gandalf rarely, if ever, uses any of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Guys! What are we even arguing about? Gandalf is an NPC. Done. He's an NPC with the Celestial creature type, who can cast Bard, Wizard and Cleric spells and has martial ability. Literally the only way to do Gandalf justice, in terms of power level, is to make him an NPC. If he was a PC, all his stats would have to be 20, since he's wise, intelligent, quick, can swing a longsword very well, persuasive and intimidating and has enough hp to 1v1 a Balrog despite his abilities requiring him to take classes with low hit die. There is no way to play Gandalf without him being overpowered, or inaccurate to the character. He's an NPC.
There's a reason why AiME doesn't have any magic using classes...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Gandalf as depicted is a lot of things. What he is not, is a "wizard".
That is a very strong statement. What exactly prevents him from being one ? Just remember that Wizards don't need a spellbook to function, for example. And sometimes wielding a swor (which occurs so rarely in the books anyway) is not prevented by being a wizard.
The fact that he almost never uses magic. It's implied that he can, but not shown. A D&D wizard would be using magic nearly constantly. That's certainly not what Gandalf does.
Oh, he used Magic plenty, he just did it by telling stories or singing and there were no visual special effects so nobody noticed it directly since none of them were proficient in Arcana and didn’t pass their checks. 😉 But nowhere in the entire trilogy did he ever crack open anything even remotely resembling a “spell book” of any kind whatsoever. The closest he might have been to a Wiz would be a Sorcerer, but frankly, I vote Bard all day long.
Tons of them, re-read my posts and you will find all the relevant extracts from the books. The fact is that he rarely does this in front of other characters and we do mostly do not witness it directly, but in addition to his own accounts that we do not have any reason to disregard, there are some 3rd hand accounts that we can trust, like Aragorn (from the battle with the Ringwraiths). And this is in addition to obvious spellcasting for example when meeting Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas in Fangorn. Or banishing Saruman. Or in the Pelenor Fields. You should read the book...
I have read the book. Many, many times. You admit though that you don't see him use magic, it's all implied. That's not very wizardly. Thanks, please drive through.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
He does use magic all the time. His actual spells are more wizardly than bardy, conjuring mostly light and fire. Saruman is the one who uses his voice a lot. And I place him as school of enchantment.
- a shaft of light. Super impressive that. Absolutely /screams/ wizard. (more like cleric, but I'll give it to you)
- Finally, you found one. YAY. Unfortunately, this too is more like cleric than wizard.
Nothing about Gandalf says wizard, at all. You can rant and rave all you want, but he does very little "wizardy" things. That's by design on Tolkein's part, but doesn't give you much to work with. It's also why 4e created the Invoker class; it was to better represent Gandalf. Again, I will point out that there's a reason that AiME did not include magic using classes. because you see little to no magic in Tolkein's work. It's implied to exist, and /mostly/ to be a device of the enemy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
And Tolkien himself has said, that's because magic was dying out in the world. Other than a title, Gandalf does nothing wizardly through out the books...certainly nothing that equates to anything expected by any fantasy RPG definition of the word.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
- Lots of people are mysterious and clever. That is not the providence of wizards. Aragorn for example is also both mysterious and clever.
- Fire you can make an argument for from the Hobbit. When did Gandalf use lightning? Aragorn made some comments that hint at Gandalf's power but there were a lot of times some of that power would have been mighty handy, and Gandalf declines to use it.
- I have a robe, and can get a pointy hat. Does that make me a wizard too? Hell, I even have a sword I can hit things with too, although it certainly does not have Glamdring's heritage.
- I also have a staff. I can't cast spells through it, but I'd argue we don't see much of that from Gandalf either. the only reason we know the staff is important is because Saruman's was broken (which didn't seem to rob him of his power as seen in the scouring of the Shire) and because it wasn't confiscated before Gandalf went to see Theoden. Then, he used some magic, which looked suspiciously like an exorcism, which is...clerical in nature rather than wizardly.
Most of the RPG's set in middle earth were /also/ set in older times when the blood of Numenor still retained its power. Most of the MERP material I have seen was set early in the third age before the fall of Arthedain. By the end of the third age, we have no reason to believe that magic was common at all aside from elvish magic, which was failing. There were plenty of ancient magical relics around, but spell casters? Not visible. Gandalf and Saruman are the only ones we see, and they are maia...and neither of them does much magical casting regardless of your attestations to the contrary. Certainly, no overt, wizardly spell casting and there were a lot of times when that sort of thing would have been useful.
EDIT: Going to unfollow this thread, because I am tired of the argument. I made a simple statement that Gandalf is a lot of things, but a wizard isn't one of them. I've given you my reasons for saying that and frankly I do not give a flying F whether you agree or not. I assert that Gandalf doesn't openly wield wizardly magic and I stand by that because you've not shown anything wizardly in the things he does. He's far move of a cleric than he is a wizard, down to the "working for a God" thing (or perhaps an Angel), in this case, Manwe.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
When Drizzt was originally written in 1e, I think he was more or less legal.
EDIT: Pg 70 of the 1e DMG gave rules on DW. I think there was an article in dungeon or dragon that allowed drow specifically, to DW long blades, and I think another one that removed the penalty that DW caused for rangers. In 2e he was not legal, as 2x scimitars were not a legal DW option for rangers. I think the only actual rule change to accomodate him was demoting scimitars (and by extension, arming swords) from d8 weapons to d6 weapons. That said, a light, finesse DW slasher was needed, so scimitar fit the bill.
Drow was a thing long before, They were created by Gary Gygax to my understanding sometime in the early 80's if not sooner so they were already solidified well before Drizzt became a thing. And DW was technically in the earlier DMG but it was not exactly meant to be used by characters as things in DMG's tend to kind of be (in that DMG's can allow this stuff or not allow it at their leisure or hand it out as rewards or only use it in their bad guys and like some monster traits it did allow some room for DM's to give it to players (And Gary Gygax himself often approved of doing such things)but it was not actually an option that base characters could just do at that time. But the first dmg's were also almost entirely centered around various information needed purely to run games and bad guys and the like. So When he was created in 1986 or 1987. He was not legal for a ranger. His sudden popularity was such that they actually changed the class to suit him. Even Dragon magazine touched on some of this at one point because they were getting requests on how to create him. Because a lot of people were having an issue back then that they liked Drizzt but could not actually make a character like him. The early rangers were mostly bow and magic focused with martial backup and they actually removed monks completely when they did the second edition in 1989. Which is actually after Drizzt first appearances and his sudden very high popularity in those that read the books and played the game. Which is not bad for a spur of the moment creation litterally minutes before a meeting to replace a character that couldn't work for the series that R.A. Salvatore was writing.
EDIT: Going to unfollow this thread, because I am tired of the argument. I made a simple statement that Gandalf is a lot of things, but a wizard isn't one of them. I've given you my reasons for saying that and frankly I do not give a flying F whether you agree or not. I assert that Gandalf doesn't openly wield wizardly magic and I stand by that because you've not shown anything wizardly in the things he does. He's far move of a cleric than he is a wizard, down to the "working for a God" thing (or perhaps an Angel), in this case, Manwe.
Certainly, like a cleric, with a holy symbol, in armor with a mace and praying all the time. Sure.
Could be an Arcana Domain Cleric, using their staff as a spellcasting focus (sure, it's technically not legal, but who wouldn't allow an Arcana Domain Cleric to use an Arcane Focus?). Then he'd still have access to spells like dawn (to show the pillars of light), sacred flame (as the light/flame combination), and some wizard spells. That would explain his lack of spellbook, his service to divinity, and revival from the death as a changed being (through Divine Intervention).
He doesn't have to pray, that is just flavor text, IMO. If you do have an ironclad requirement for clerics to pray to change their spells, maybe he didn't ever change the spells he had prepared during the series.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
- Lots of people are mysterious and clever. That is not the providence of wizards. Aragorn for example is also both mysterious and clever.
- Fire you can make an argument for from the Hobbit. When did Gandalf use lightning? Aragorn made some comments that hint at Gandalf's power but there were a lot of times some of that power would have been mighty handy, and Gandalf declines to use it.
- I have a robe, and can get a pointy hat. Does that make me a wizard too? Hell, I even have a sword I can hit things with too, although it certainly does not have Glamdring's heritage.
- I also have a staff. I can't cast spells through it, but I'd argue we don't see much of that from Gandalf either. the only reason we know the staff is important is because Saruman's was broken (which didn't seem to rob him of his power as seen in the scouring of the Shire) and because it wasn't confiscated before Gandalf went to see Theoden. Then, he used some magic, which looked suspiciously like an exorcism, which is...clerical in nature rather than wizardly.
Most of the RPG's set in middle earth were /also/ set in older times when the blood of Numenor still retained its power. Most of the MERP material I have seen was set early in the third age before the fall of Arthedain. By the end of the third age, we have no reason to believe that magic was common at all aside from elvish magic, which was failing. There were plenty of ancient magical relics around, but spell casters? Not visible. Gandalf and Saruman are the only ones we see, and they are maia...and neither of them does much magical casting regardless of your attestations to the contrary. Certainly, no overt, wizardly spell casting and there were a lot of times when that sort of thing would have been useful.
EDIT: Going to unfollow this thread, because I am tired of the argument. I made a simple statement that Gandalf is a lot of things, but a wizard isn't one of them. I've given you my reasons for saying that and frankly I do not give a flying F whether you agree or not. I assert that Gandalf doesn't openly wield wizardly magic and I stand by that because you've not shown anything wizardly in the things he does. He's far move of a cleric than he is a wizard, down to the "working for a God" thing (or perhaps an Angel), in this case, Manwe.
Gandalf and Sarumon are not the only wizards we see. Just the main ones that we see. The others however do not even come close to the same level. Wormtongue is a skilled magician by the standards of the end of the third age when magic is all but gone from the world. And the shape shifting Madman in the Hobbit is technically one as well. Though Wormtongue is insideous with his magic and mostly uses it for subtle curses and creating illnesses and the shape shifting madman is cursed.
Also there is nothing to stop Wizards.. Or even Druids which in some ways is more fitting to Gandalf from serving "Gods". Eleminster is the favored worshiper of Mystara for example and given many special powers because of it. Though he is always identified as a Wizard. Though realistically if we look at the novels there is no actual seperation between Wizards and Clerics/Priests. There is no Divine and Arcane sides to magic like in previous editions of D&D. There is more that some casters are considered divine or Arcane but magic is magic and muddled and mixed between them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aragorn is in no way actually a 1-1 analogue to Rangers. He actually does almost nothing that could be specifically called ranger in the books. He does a whole lot that is Fighter however. I am aware that he is called one by the books and they are treated as mysterious. But just about everything he does is standard fighter with a bit of elven influence mixed in. He even admits that what little he knows about herbs and such is because of his time with the elves at one point. He only dual wields once even in the books and that's at the beginning and something that a fighter can do as well. He has no real connection to nature past what he has gained from spending years amongst the elves. The Only other thing he does is Track some Tracks which is not an exclusive skill either and Legolas actually does it better. Legolas is the 1 for 1 Ranger Analogue in the story. About the only thing that Legolas doesn't do in the books is have a constant animal companion with him.
So While Aragorn is pointed at as a possible source of inspiration for making one. He's on some levels better for a Paladin of the Ancients in 5e terms (He even wields what is effectively a Holy Sword to finish out the books) than he is for anything Ranger. And he's certainly better for several different fighter Subclasses.
Aragorn is as much as a ranger as Drizzt
Gandalf as depicted is a lot of things. What he is not, is a "wizard".
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Drizzt originally broke all the rules of being a ranger so they got redefined to fit him over time, such as dual wielding which didn't exist for any class before him but the ranger actually got bonuses to doing it after the changes. And he still doesn't entirely fit. Then again his race is Drow as well and yet if you really go over his characteristics with a fine tooth comb the Only thing that really makes him a Drow is his appearance.
So while I am aware you might have meant it sarcastically to say they both are. Your actually right on a completely different level on the other side of things.
When Drizzt was originally written in 1e, I think he was more or less legal.
EDIT: Pg 70 of the 1e DMG gave rules on DW. I think there was an article in dungeon or dragon that allowed drow specifically, to DW long blades, and I think another one that removed the penalty that DW caused for rangers. In 2e he was not legal, as 2x scimitars were not a legal DW option for rangers. I think the only actual rule change to accomodate him was demoting scimitars (and by extension, arming swords) from d8 weapons to d6 weapons. That said, a light, finesse DW slasher was needed, so scimitar fit the bill.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
No. He is Maiar, which essentially is an immortal Archangel/demi god.
The fact that he almost never uses magic. It's implied that he can, but not shown. A D&D wizard would be using magic nearly constantly. That's certainly not what Gandalf does.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
If you say so. I think you're making the worst argument ever, but hey, feel free to disagree. The fact is, magic is a key part of being a wizard and Gandalf rarely, if ever, uses any of it.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Guys! What are we even arguing about? Gandalf is an NPC. Done. He's an NPC with the Celestial creature type, who can cast Bard, Wizard and Cleric spells and has martial ability. Literally the only way to do Gandalf justice, in terms of power level, is to make him an NPC. If he was a PC, all his stats would have to be 20, since he's wise, intelligent, quick, can swing a longsword very well, persuasive and intimidating and has enough hp to 1v1 a Balrog despite his abilities requiring him to take classes with low hit die. There is no way to play Gandalf without him being overpowered, or inaccurate to the character. He's an NPC.
What spells does he cast?
There's a reason why AiME doesn't have any magic using classes...
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Oh, he used Magic plenty, he just did it by telling stories or singing and there were no visual special effects so nobody noticed it directly since none of them were proficient in Arcana and didn’t pass their checks. 😉 But nowhere in the entire trilogy did he ever crack open anything even remotely resembling a “spell book” of any kind whatsoever. The closest he might have been to a Wiz would be a Sorcerer, but frankly, I vote Bard all day long.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
I have read the book. Many, many times. You admit though that you don't see him use magic, it's all implied. That's not very wizardly. Thanks, please drive through.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
He does use magic all the time. His actual spells are more wizardly than bardy, conjuring mostly light and fire. Saruman is the one who uses his voice a lot. And I place him as school of enchantment.
Beardy druid.
Very beardy druid. With a cap.
- Amon sul, implied. we don't see it.
- a shaft of light. Super impressive that. Absolutely /screams/ wizard. (more like cleric, but I'll give it to you)
- Finally, you found one. YAY. Unfortunately, this too is more like cleric than wizard.
Nothing about Gandalf says wizard, at all. You can rant and rave all you want, but he does very little "wizardy" things. That's by design on Tolkein's part, but doesn't give you much to work with. It's also why 4e created the Invoker class; it was to better represent Gandalf. Again, I will point out that there's a reason that AiME did not include magic using classes. because you see little to no magic in Tolkein's work. It's implied to exist, and /mostly/ to be a device of the enemy.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Actually, to be more mysterious than simply 'magic'. Like Galadriel said (elf-magic anyway).
Beardy druid.
Very beardy druid. With a cap.
And Tolkien himself has said, that's because magic was dying out in the world. Other than a title, Gandalf does nothing wizardly through out the books...certainly nothing that equates to anything expected by any fantasy RPG definition of the word.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
- Lots of people are mysterious and clever. That is not the providence of wizards. Aragorn for example is also both mysterious and clever.
- Fire you can make an argument for from the Hobbit. When did Gandalf use lightning? Aragorn made some comments that hint at Gandalf's power but there were a lot of times some of that power would have been mighty handy, and Gandalf declines to use it.
- I have a robe, and can get a pointy hat. Does that make me a wizard too? Hell, I even have a sword I can hit things with too, although it certainly does not have Glamdring's heritage.
- I also have a staff. I can't cast spells through it, but I'd argue we don't see much of that from Gandalf either. the only reason we know the staff is important is because Saruman's was broken (which didn't seem to rob him of his power as seen in the scouring of the Shire) and because it wasn't confiscated before Gandalf went to see Theoden. Then, he used some magic, which looked suspiciously like an exorcism, which is...clerical in nature rather than wizardly.
Most of the RPG's set in middle earth were /also/ set in older times when the blood of Numenor still retained its power. Most of the MERP material I have seen was set early in the third age before the fall of Arthedain. By the end of the third age, we have no reason to believe that magic was common at all aside from elvish magic, which was failing. There were plenty of ancient magical relics around, but spell casters? Not visible. Gandalf and Saruman are the only ones we see, and they are maia...and neither of them does much magical casting regardless of your attestations to the contrary. Certainly, no overt, wizardly spell casting and there were a lot of times when that sort of thing would have been useful.
EDIT: Going to unfollow this thread, because I am tired of the argument. I made a simple statement that Gandalf is a lot of things, but a wizard isn't one of them. I've given you my reasons for saying that and frankly I do not give a flying F whether you agree or not. I assert that Gandalf doesn't openly wield wizardly magic and I stand by that because you've not shown anything wizardly in the things he does. He's far move of a cleric than he is a wizard, down to the "working for a God" thing (or perhaps an Angel), in this case, Manwe.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Drow was a thing long before, They were created by Gary Gygax to my understanding sometime in the early 80's if not sooner so they were already solidified well before Drizzt became a thing. And DW was technically in the earlier DMG but it was not exactly meant to be used by characters as things in DMG's tend to kind of be (in that DMG's can allow this stuff or not allow it at their leisure or hand it out as rewards or only use it in their bad guys and like some monster traits it did allow some room for DM's to give it to players (And Gary Gygax himself often approved of doing such things)but it was not actually an option that base characters could just do at that time. But the first dmg's were also almost entirely centered around various information needed purely to run games and bad guys and the like. So When he was created in 1986 or 1987. He was not legal for a ranger. His sudden popularity was such that they actually changed the class to suit him. Even Dragon magazine touched on some of this at one point because they were getting requests on how to create him. Because a lot of people were having an issue back then that they liked Drizzt but could not actually make a character like him. The early rangers were mostly bow and magic focused with martial backup and they actually removed monks completely when they did the second edition in 1989. Which is actually after Drizzt first appearances and his sudden very high popularity in those that read the books and played the game. Which is not bad for a spur of the moment creation litterally minutes before a meeting to replace a character that couldn't work for the series that R.A. Salvatore was writing.
Could be an Arcana Domain Cleric, using their staff as a spellcasting focus (sure, it's technically not legal, but who wouldn't allow an Arcana Domain Cleric to use an Arcane Focus?). Then he'd still have access to spells like dawn (to show the pillars of light), sacred flame (as the light/flame combination), and some wizard spells. That would explain his lack of spellbook, his service to divinity, and revival from the death as a changed being (through Divine Intervention).
He doesn't have to pray, that is just flavor text, IMO. If you do have an ironclad requirement for clerics to pray to change their spells, maybe he didn't ever change the spells he had prepared during the series.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Gandalf and Sarumon are not the only wizards we see. Just the main ones that we see. The others however do not even come close to the same level. Wormtongue is a skilled magician by the standards of the end of the third age when magic is all but gone from the world. And the shape shifting Madman in the Hobbit is technically one as well. Though Wormtongue is insideous with his magic and mostly uses it for subtle curses and creating illnesses and the shape shifting madman is cursed.
Also there is nothing to stop Wizards.. Or even Druids which in some ways is more fitting to Gandalf from serving "Gods". Eleminster is the favored worshiper of Mystara for example and given many special powers because of it. Though he is always identified as a Wizard. Though realistically if we look at the novels there is no actual seperation between Wizards and Clerics/Priests. There is no Divine and Arcane sides to magic like in previous editions of D&D. There is more that some casters are considered divine or Arcane but magic is magic and muddled and mixed between them.