The ranger always drew from other spell lists, 5e may be the first where it actually had its own (4e doesn’t count since no one really had spell lists just spell like abilities. ) moving the hunter back into the core class is,IMO, a mistake. It was the original subclass as the ranger moved out of the fighter class back in 2e and still one of the stronger subclasses. I understand why some folks want to move it back into the core since it is the most martial subclass and some are primarily interested in the martial aspect of the class.
Creating whole new spells that are balanced (potentially across multiple classes/subclasses) is not that easy. Granted they have a bit of a backlog of possibilities from previous editions,it’s still not a quick, easy fix to update them to use in 5e for new subclasses or as class exclusives so they are going to do a lot of borrowing from what they have. Rangers have the lowest number of spells available across all the classes. The Paladin (at L20 and max stat) can have 15 prepared spells, the AT and EK both max out at 13. IMO, the ranger, of any subclass, should have at least 15 spells available - that is what the subclass known spells lists do. By giving a L17+ ranger 5 more spells known they end up with 16 known matching with the Paladin and beating the AT/EK. Where those spells come from is, to me, not worth arguing over as long as all subclasses get them.
Tough to say. The final playtest packet had them start their "subclass" at 2nd-level with their Favored Enemy (which was basically just a prescribed Hunter path). They were one-half-spellcasters who were prepared, like the paladin. But unlike the paladin, their spellcasting began at 3rd-level instead of 2nd-level.
If I had to guess, it was to keep them less reliant on magic, turning them into sort of magical knacks, and trying to keep everyone different. We now have Intelligence full-, half-, and third-casters who either prepare and can cast rituals or are spontaneous. We have Wisdom full-casters who prepare and perform rituals, like the full- and half-Intelligence casters, but the half-caster is spontaneous with no ritual casting. And the two full Charisma casters are both spontaneous, but only one has access to ritual magic, and the lone half-caster is prepared. And then the warlocks, who are special snowflakes.
No two classes learns or prepares spells, and casts them, the same way. It keeps each one feeling unique.
Tough to say. The final playtest packet had them start their "subclass" at 2nd-level with their Favored Enemy (which was basically just a prescribed Hunter path). They were one-half-spellcasters who were prepared, like the paladin. But unlike the paladin, their spellcasting began at 3rd-level instead of 2nd-level.
If I had to guess, it was to keep them less reliant on magic, turning them into sort of magical knacks, and trying to keep everyone different. We now have Intelligence full-, half-, and third-casters who either prepare and can cast rituals or are spontaneous. We have Wisdom full-casters who prepare and perform rituals, like the full- and half-Intelligence casters, but the half-caster is spontaneous with no ritual casting. And the two full Charisma casters are both spontaneous, but only one has access to ritual magic, and the lone half-caster is prepared. And then the warlocks, who are special snowflakes.
No two classes learns or prepares spells, and casts them, the same way. It keeps each one feeling unique.
Why are you using spontaneous caster for fifth edition? I love that you’re using that term but how are you applying it?
also, my understanding is only the cleric, paladin, druid, wizard, and artificer can prepare their spells. The bard, EK, AT, warlock, sorcerer, and ranger all have spells known.
Prepared casting got a hugh boost in 5e once they decided to abandoned the vancian model and the spells known what 3rd edition called spontaneous casters which was originally just the sorcerer) mechanic lost the only design boon it had which was the ability to cast more spells in a day. The first versions of spontaneous were considered so strong that the progression of spell level were delayed and that game metamagic worked different for spontaneous.
While I can appreciate the attempt to use the mechanics to reinforce the class fantasies they really need to be more even in design weight.
I remember in one of the UA articles before Tashas came out one of the optional class features was to allow known casters to switch out one spell every time they long rest. Jeremy Crawford even went so far as to address that specific play test rule on a video for DND beyond. Obviously it never saw the light of day passed play testing. So what happen with that?
Tough to say. The final playtest packet had them start their "subclass" at 2nd-level with their Favored Enemy (which was basically just a prescribed Hunter path). They were one-half-spellcasters who were prepared, like the paladin. But unlike the paladin, their spellcasting began at 3rd-level instead of 2nd-level.
If I had to guess, it was to keep them less reliant on magic, turning them into sort of magical knacks, and trying to keep everyone different. We now have Intelligence full-, half-, and third-casters who either prepare and can cast rituals or are spontaneous. We have Wisdom full-casters who prepare and perform rituals, like the full- and half-Intelligence casters, but the half-caster is spontaneous with no ritual casting. And the two full Charisma casters are both spontaneous, but only one has access to ritual magic, and the lone half-caster is prepared. And then the warlocks, who are special snowflakes.
No two classes learns or prepares spells, and casts them, the same way. It keeps each one feeling unique.
Why are you using spontaneous caster for fifth edition? I love that you’re using that term but how are you applying it?
also, my understanding is only the cleric, paladin, druid, wizard, and artificer can prepare their spells. The bard, EK, AT, warlock, sorcerer, and ranger all have spells known.
Spontaneous is a term originating from 3rd edition and the subsequent OGL that gave rise to spin-offs like Pathfinder. It's a term which refers to any spellcaster which simply learns their spells and doesn't need to prepare them. Previously, prepared spellcasters needed to assign their spells to specific spell slots, and attaching various metamagic options might alter the spell slot.
In this instance, it applies to any spellcaster who doesn't prepare spells. That includes the bard, ranger, sorcerer, warlock classes; as well as the arcane trickster and eldritch knight subclasses.
Thank you both for the explanation. I am very familiar with spontaneous casting as a mechanic, I just wasn’t sure why was being used in the context of this conversation.
Wizard - prepared Spells - 25+5 cantrips - Intelligence - rituals if in spellbook
clearly the ranger needs the extra spells from the subclass lists just to stay competitive with the Paladin, AT, & EK. Further, a full rewrite should give them (and the Paladin) cantrips as well as a clear way to use rituals ( yes the ritual caster feat solves that problem for all the questionable classes but it should be made clear for all that you need that feat or it should be built into the class in some way.. Again, I’m less concerned with where the spells come from (ranger/Druid/Wizard/other lists) than with the fact that they show up for all subclasses.
I remember in one of the UA articles before Tashas came out one of the optional class features was to allow known casters to switch out one spell every time they long rest. Jeremy Crawford even went so far as to address that specific play test rule on a video for DND beyond. Obviously it never saw the light of day passed play testing. So what happen with that?
Loadbering mechanics and enhancements and replacements. I feel too many people try for altering loadbearing parts of the ranger or base game mechanics. realistically most features will get subtle enhancements not huge ones for the reasons stated in the video. This kind of gives a design scale.
You want features that solve multiple problems with the least amount of change possibe. They also need to feel naratively relevant.
This is why I belive an animal only resurection spell is needed in the game. it would improve stories for several builds not just the phb ranger. And we can hope it wont recreate thor's goat.(or maybe hope it can)
I remember in one of the UA articles before Tashas came out one of the optional class features was to allow known casters to switch out one spell every time they long rest. Jeremy Crawford even went so far as to address that specific play test rule on a video for DND beyond. Obviously it never saw the light of day passed play testing. So what happen with that?
I think I remember reading something about it stepping on prepared casters, specifically the wizard (who got the ability to swap cantrips from the entire list during a rest). I think it was a case of designer bias. Mearls and Thompson discussed some of the times that the bias of the designers got into the way during the playtest cycled.
I remember in one of the UA articles before Tashas came out one of the optional class features was to allow known casters to switch out one spell every time they long rest. Jeremy Crawford even went so far as to address that specific play test rule on a video for DND beyond. Obviously it never saw the light of day passed play testing. So what happen with that?
I think I remember reading something about it stepping on prepared casters, specifically the wizard (who got the ability to swap cantrips from the entire list during a rest). I think it was a case of designer bias. Mearls and Thompson discussed some of the times that the bias of the designers got into the way during the playtest cycled.
I can’t believe that it wouldn’t. They could do 1000 play tests, but the “dev ego” has got exist for everyone, at least on some level.
I remember in one of the UA articles before Tashas came out one of the optional class features was to allow known casters to switch out one spell every time they long rest. Jeremy Crawford even went so far as to address that specific play test rule on a video for DND beyond. Obviously it never saw the light of day passed play testing. So what happen with that?
I think I remember reading something about it stepping on prepared casters, specifically the wizard (who got the ability to swap cantrips from the entire list during a rest). I think it was a case of designer bias. Mearls and Thompson discussed some of the times that the bias of the designers got into the way during the playtest cycled.
in the video they specifically mention Dan Dillon as a part of the change crew. As several people here will atest Dan Dillon is verry much on the side of rangers.
I still belive the community philosopy around spells and builds have gone down a path the design team did not orriginally intend and rangers wouldn't feel as bad if spell scrolls and other feature were treated more reasonably by the community.
If designer bias exists so does player bias. I for one don't want all the classes to feel the same or have the same solutions to problems. The base ranger does have an intresting lack of flexibility when it comes to spells but...... They have a lot of flexibility when it comes to tools, equipment, and weapons. Even armor is pretty flexible. If you also assume summons as a utility there is huge flexibility and a way of problem solving by using various forms of nature to get many types of jobs done. changing spells is one thing. Getting a pack wolves to help track or giant eagles to help travel is a huge boon and the ranger can kind of *****trade them out on the fly*** no resting required.
******* this can be mundane, purchased pets, or spell related**********
still when playing a ranger if i am not getting enough out of my spells There are options already in the game. feats, MC, racial choices.
I remember in one of the UA articles before Tashas came out one of the optional class features was to allow known casters to switch out one spell every time they long rest. Jeremy Crawford even went so far as to address that specific play test rule on a video for DND beyond. Obviously it never saw the light of day passed play testing. So what happen with that?
I think I remember reading something about it stepping on prepared casters, specifically the wizard (who got the ability to swap cantrips from the entire list during a rest). I think it was a case of designer bias. Mearls and Thompson discussed some of the times that the bias of the designers got into the way during the playtest cycled.
I can’t believe that it wouldn’t. They could do 1000 play tests, but the “dev ego” has got exist for everyone, at least on some level.
Some of it wasn't so much ego, but the difference in how they played or understood aspect of the game as they came from different editions and that colored what dnd was for them.
And for many people. The current styles of play in this game are vast and varied, and we all get railroaded into our own circles and preferences even more than before with online algorithms.
I can tell you that, from my perspective, the way some folks on these forums describe their typical experiences with D&D 5E sound just like some kind of first person shooter video game.
I remember in one of the UA articles before Tashas came out one of the optional class features was to allow known casters to switch out one spell every time they long rest. Jeremy Crawford even went so far as to address that specific play test rule on a video for DND beyond. Obviously it never saw the light of day passed play testing. So what happen with that?
I think I remember reading something about it stepping on prepared casters, specifically the wizard (who got the ability to swap cantrips from the entire list during a rest). I think it was a case of designer bias. Mearls and Thompson discussed some of the times that the bias of the designers got into the way during the playtest cycled.
in the video they specifically mention Dan Dillon as a part of the change crew. As several people here will atest Dan Dillon is verry much on the side of rangers.
I still belive the community philosopy around spells and builds have gone down a path the design team did not orriginally intend and rangers wouldn't feel as bad if spell scrolls and other feature were treated more reasonably by the community.
If designer bias exists so does player bias. I for one don't want all the classes to feel the same or have the same solutions to problems. The base ranger does have an intresting lack of flexibility when it comes to spells but...... They have a lot of flexibility when it comes to tools, equipment, and weapons. Even armor is pretty flexible. If you also assume summons as a utility there is huge flexibility and a way of problem solving by using various forms of nature to get many types of jobs done. changing spells is one thing. Getting a pack wolves to help track or giant eagles to help travel is a huge boon and the ranger can kind of *****trade them out on the fly*** no resting required.
******* this can be mundane, purchased pets, or spell related**********
still when playing a ranger if i am not getting enough out of my spells There are options already in the game. feats, MC, racial choices.
The odd thing about that is that they lack heavy armor so STR builds are at the cost of WIS which feels bad tbh
Wizard - prepared Spells - 25+5 cantrips - Intelligence - rituals if in spellbook
clearly the ranger needs the extra spells from the subclass lists just to stay competitive with the Paladin, AT, & EK. Further, a full rewrite should give them (and the Paladin) cantrips as well as a clear way to use rituals ( yes the ritual caster feat solves that problem for all the questionable classes but it should be made clear for all that you need that feat or it should be built into the class in some way.. Again, I’m less concerned with where the spells come from (ranger/Druid/Wizard/other lists) than with the fact that they show up for all subclasses.
Since you had some question marks, I'll fill this in for you, assuming casters have max casting stats and they're level 20. Note on syntax: X + Y cantrips known means X leveled spells known/prepared and Y cantrips known. Unless otherwise noted, subclass spells are locked in by the subclass. I will not add subclass spells for classes where only occasional subclasses offer spells. Bards, Druids, and Sorcerers all have subclass spells conceptually, but there's insufficient commonality to include below in a sane fashion.
Artificer - 15 prepared from full list + 4 cantrips + 10 prepared from subclass + 12/6(8 if armoror) infusions - Intelligence - ritual if prepared
Total spells on tap: 29
Bard - 16 known + 4 cantrips + 6 known from any list and can be leveled or cantrips - Charisma - rituals if known
Total spells on tap: 28
Cleric - 25 prepared from full list + 5 cantrips + 10 prepared from subclass - Wisdom - rituals if prepared
Total spells on tap: 40
Druid - 25 prepared from full list + 4 cantrips - Wisdom - rituals if prepared
Total spells : 29
Fighter (Eldritch Knight) - 9 known from limited schools + 4 known from any school (wizard list for both) + 3 cantrips - Intelligence - NOT A RITUAL CASTER
Total spells: 16
Paladin - 15 prepared from full list + 2 cantrips if style chosen (from Cleric list) + 10 prepared from subclass- Charisma - NOT A RITUAL CASTER
Total Spells: 25-27
Ranger - 11 known (16 if subclass list exists) + 2 cantrips if style chosen (from Druid list) - Wisdom - NOT A RITUAL CASTER
Total spells: 11/13/16/18, depending.
Rogue (Arcane Trickster) - 9 known from limited schools + 4 known from any school (wizard list for both) + 4 cantrips, one of which must be Mage Hand - Intelligence - NOT A RITUAL CASTER
Total spells: 17
Sorcerer - 15 known + 6 cantrips - Charisma - NOT A RITUAL CASTER
Total spells: 21
Warlock - 15 known + 4 cantrips + 10 known from subclass + 8 invocations + 4 arcana - Charisma - NOT A RITUAL CASTER in general, but has a Pact Boon for better-than-anyone-else ritual casting; arcana and many invocations grant castable spells without directly interacting with the spells known mechanic
Total spells: 29 known + 4 castable 1/day + 0-8 invocations that simulate spells, so theoretical maximum 41 (ignoring subclasses that grant even more), plus every ritual in the game if they take their Ritual Pact Boon (or +1 if they take a different boon that grants Find Familiar as a ritual).
Wizard - 25 prepared from known leveled spells; automatically knows 44 spells and can know up to every leveled wizard spell + 5 cantrips - Intelligence - rituals if known, which means every ritual wizard spell if permitted access.
Total spells: 30 + all wizard rituals they can obtain
As you can see, Clerics are the masters of prepared spells, while Wizards are the masters of ritual spells unless a Warlock decides to steal their throne. The most competent spell-knower is the Bard, but they pale in comparison to Clerics even before you remember that knowing is worse than preparing.
Something lost in the data above is that spell-knowers don't know spells based on their casting stat, unlike spell-preparers - known spells is always a class- and level-dependent constant, whereas prepared spells always depend on casting stat. To my knowledge WOTC has never deigned to explain this. All know-casters would be improved if they were allowed to know as many spells as prepare-casters can prepare, because prepare-casters always prepare level (divided by 2 if half caster) plus ability mod spells, and only Bards get ahead of this curve at all, due to magical secrets - meaning if you let them keep their Magical Secrets class ability and only upgraded their genuine baseline spells known, they'd also jump from 16 known to 25 (and then Magical Secrets up to 31).
I remember in one of the UA articles before Tashas came out one of the optional class features was to allow known casters to switch out one spell every time they long rest. Jeremy Crawford even went so far as to address that specific play test rule on a video for DND beyond. Obviously it never saw the light of day passed play testing. So what happen with that?
I think I remember reading something about it stepping on prepared casters, specifically the wizard (who got the ability to swap cantrips from the entire list during a rest). I think it was a case of designer bias. Mearls and Thompson discussed some of the times that the bias of the designers got into the way during the playtest cycled.
in the video they specifically mention Dan Dillon as a part of the change crew. As several people here will atest Dan Dillon is verry much on the side of rangers.
I still belive the community philosopy around spells and builds have gone down a path the design team did not orriginally intend and rangers wouldn't feel as bad if spell scrolls and other feature were treated more reasonably by the community.
If designer bias exists so does player bias. I for one don't want all the classes to feel the same or have the same solutions to problems. The base ranger does have an intresting lack of flexibility when it comes to spells but...... They have a lot of flexibility when it comes to tools, equipment, and weapons. Even armor is pretty flexible. If you also assume summons as a utility there is huge flexibility and a way of problem solving by using various forms of nature to get many types of jobs done. changing spells is one thing. Getting a pack wolves to help track or giant eagles to help travel is a huge boon and the ranger can kind of *****trade them out on the fly*** no resting required.
******* this can be mundane, purchased pets, or spell related**********
still when playing a ranger if i am not getting enough out of my spells There are options already in the game. feats, MC, racial choices.
The odd thing about that is that they lack heavy armor so STR builds are at the cost of WIS which feels bad tbh
Your comment kind of skips over the bulk of my point but i'll play along. IMO since rangers dont have heavy armor str builds are discouraged but not impossible. on that same note str builds only gain so much and dont really have good ranger synergy. Heavy armor is not needed. (frank will probably disagee with at least some of my conclusions as he has more experience with str rangers)
also, the cost doesn't have to be wisdom. you just choose it to be that.
The ranger always drew from other spell lists, 5e may be the first where it actually had its own (4e doesn’t count since no one really had spell lists just spell like abilities. ) moving the hunter back into the core class is,IMO, a mistake. It was the original subclass as the ranger moved out of the fighter class back in 2e and still one of the stronger subclasses. I understand why some folks want to move it back into the core since it is the most martial subclass and some are primarily interested in the martial aspect of the class.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Creating whole new spells that are balanced (potentially across multiple classes/subclasses) is not that easy. Granted they have a bit of a backlog of possibilities from previous editions,it’s still not a quick, easy fix to update them to use in 5e for new subclasses or as class exclusives so they are going to do a lot of borrowing from what they have. Rangers have the lowest number of spells available across all the classes. The Paladin (at L20 and max stat) can have 15 prepared spells, the AT and EK both max out at 13. IMO, the ranger, of any subclass, should have at least 15 spells available - that is what the subclass known spells lists do. By giving a L17+ ranger 5 more spells known they end up with 16 known matching with the Paladin and beating the AT/EK. Where those spells come from is, to me, not worth arguing over as long as all subclasses get them.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Do we know why the rangers were designed with so few spells known? Not opinions or hunches, but actual knowledge of the reason.
Tough to say. The final playtest packet had them start their "subclass" at 2nd-level with their Favored Enemy (which was basically just a prescribed Hunter path). They were one-half-spellcasters who were prepared, like the paladin. But unlike the paladin, their spellcasting began at 3rd-level instead of 2nd-level.
If I had to guess, it was to keep them less reliant on magic, turning them into sort of magical knacks, and trying to keep everyone different. We now have Intelligence full-, half-, and third-casters who either prepare and can cast rituals or are spontaneous. We have Wisdom full-casters who prepare and perform rituals, like the full- and half-Intelligence casters, but the half-caster is spontaneous with no ritual casting. And the two full Charisma casters are both spontaneous, but only one has access to ritual magic, and the lone half-caster is prepared. And then the warlocks, who are special snowflakes.
No two classes learns or prepares spells, and casts them, the same way. It keeps each one feeling unique.
Why are you using spontaneous caster for fifth edition? I love that you’re using that term but how are you applying it?
also, my understanding is only the cleric, paladin, druid, wizard, and artificer can prepare their spells. The bard, EK, AT, warlock, sorcerer, and ranger all have spells known.
Prepared casting got a hugh boost in 5e once they decided to abandoned the vancian model and the spells known what 3rd edition called spontaneous casters which was originally just the sorcerer) mechanic lost the only design boon it had which was the ability to cast more spells in a day. The first versions of spontaneous were considered so strong that the progression of spell level were delayed and that game metamagic worked different for spontaneous.
While I can appreciate the attempt to use the mechanics to reinforce the class fantasies they really need to be more even in design weight.
I remember in one of the UA articles before Tashas came out one of the optional class features was to allow known casters to switch out one spell every time they long rest. Jeremy Crawford even went so far as to address that specific play test rule on a video for DND beyond. Obviously it never saw the light of day passed play testing. So what happen with that?
Start at 00:06:08 https://youtu.be/v7A6-yOZC_s
Spontaneous is a term originating from 3rd edition and the subsequent OGL that gave rise to spin-offs like Pathfinder. It's a term which refers to any spellcaster which simply learns their spells and doesn't need to prepare them. Previously, prepared spellcasters needed to assign their spells to specific spell slots, and attaching various metamagic options might alter the spell slot.
In this instance, it applies to any spellcaster who doesn't prepare spells. That includes the bard, ranger, sorcerer, warlock classes; as well as the arcane trickster and eldritch knight subclasses.
Thank you both for the explanation. I am very familiar with spontaneous casting as a mechanic, I just wasn’t sure why was being used in the context of this conversation.
I like the term spontaneous caster too - anyway:
Artificer - prepared spells - 15+4 cantrips + 12/6(8 if armoror) infusions - Intelligence - ritual if prepared
Bard - known spells - 22+4 cantrips - Charisma - rituals if known
Cleric - prepared spells - 25+5 cantrips - Wisdom - rituals if prepared
Druid - prepared spells - 25+4 cantrips - Wisdom - rituals if prepared
Fighter (Eldritch Knight) - known spells - 13+3 cantrips - Intelligence - rituals? (Should be able to if known and ritual tag)
Paladin - prepared spells - 15 - Charisma - rituals? (If prepared?)
Ranger - known spells - 11 (16 if subclass list exists) - Wisdom - rituals? (If known?)
Rogue (Arcane Trickster) - known spells - 13+4 cantrips - Intelligence - rituals? (If known?)
Sorceror - known spells - 15+6 cantrips - Charisma - rituals? ( if known?)
Warlock - known spells - 15+4 cantrips + 8 invocations +4 arcanum +5 patron spells - Charisma - rituals? ( if known?)
Wizard - prepared Spells - 25+5 cantrips - Intelligence - rituals if in spellbook
clearly the ranger needs the extra spells from the subclass lists just to stay competitive with the Paladin, AT, & EK. Further, a full rewrite should give them (and the Paladin) cantrips as well as a clear way to use rituals ( yes the ritual caster feat solves that problem for all the questionable classes but it should be made clear for all that you need that feat or it should be built into the class in some way.. Again, I’m less concerned with where the spells come from (ranger/Druid/Wizard/other lists) than with the fact that they show up for all subclasses.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I really like the terms set out in this video
Loadbering mechanics and enhancements and replacements. I feel too many people try for altering loadbearing parts of the ranger or base game mechanics. realistically most features will get subtle enhancements not huge ones for the reasons stated in the video. This kind of gives a design scale.
You want features that solve multiple problems with the least amount of change possibe. They also need to feel naratively relevant.
This is why I belive an animal only resurection spell is needed in the game. it would improve stories for several builds not just the phb ranger. And we can hope it wont recreate thor's goat.(or maybe hope it can)
I think I remember reading something about it stepping on prepared casters, specifically the wizard (who got the ability to swap cantrips from the entire list during a rest). I think it was a case of designer bias. Mearls and Thompson discussed some of the times that the bias of the designers got into the way during the playtest cycled.
I can’t believe that it wouldn’t. They could do 1000 play tests, but the “dev ego” has got exist for everyone, at least on some level.
in the video they specifically mention Dan Dillon as a part of the change crew. As several people here will atest Dan Dillon is verry much on the side of rangers.
I still belive the community philosopy around spells and builds have gone down a path the design team did not orriginally intend and rangers wouldn't feel as bad if spell scrolls and other feature were treated more reasonably by the community.
If designer bias exists so does player bias. I for one don't want all the classes to feel the same or have the same solutions to problems. The base ranger does have an intresting lack of flexibility when it comes to spells but...... They have a lot of flexibility when it comes to tools, equipment, and weapons. Even armor is pretty flexible. If you also assume summons as a utility there is huge flexibility and a way of problem solving by using various forms of nature to get many types of jobs done. changing spells is one thing. Getting a pack wolves to help track or giant eagles to help travel is a huge boon and the ranger can kind of *****trade them out on the fly*** no resting required.
******* this can be mundane, purchased pets, or spell related**********
still when playing a ranger if i am not getting enough out of my spells There are options already in the game. feats, MC, racial choices.
Some of it wasn't so much ego, but the difference in how they played or understood aspect of the game as they came from different editions and that colored what dnd was for them.
And for many people. The current styles of play in this game are vast and varied, and we all get railroaded into our own circles and preferences even more than before with online algorithms.
I can tell you that, from my perspective, the way some folks on these forums describe their typical experiences with D&D 5E sound just like some kind of first person shooter video game.
The odd thing about that is that they lack heavy armor so STR builds are at the cost of WIS which feels bad tbh
Since you had some question marks, I'll fill this in for you, assuming casters have max casting stats and they're level 20. Note on syntax: X + Y cantrips known means X leveled spells known/prepared and Y cantrips known. Unless otherwise noted, subclass spells are locked in by the subclass. I will not add subclass spells for classes where only occasional subclasses offer spells. Bards, Druids, and Sorcerers all have subclass spells conceptually, but there's insufficient commonality to include below in a sane fashion.
Rogue (Arcane Trickster) - 9 known from limited schools + 4 known from any school (wizard list for both) + 4 cantrips, one of which must be Mage Hand - Intelligence - NOT A RITUAL CASTER
Sorcerer - 15 known + 6 cantrips - Charisma - NOT A RITUAL CASTER
Warlock - 15 known + 4 cantrips + 10 known from subclass + 8 invocations + 4 arcana - Charisma - NOT A RITUAL CASTER in general, but has a Pact Boon for better-than-anyone-else ritual casting; arcana and many invocations grant castable spells without directly interacting with the spells known mechanic
Wizard - 25 prepared from known leveled spells; automatically knows 44 spells and can know up to every leveled wizard spell + 5 cantrips - Intelligence - rituals if known, which means every ritual wizard spell if permitted access.
As you can see, Clerics are the masters of prepared spells, while Wizards are the masters of ritual spells unless a Warlock decides to steal their throne. The most competent spell-knower is the Bard, but they pale in comparison to Clerics even before you remember that knowing is worse than preparing.
Something lost in the data above is that spell-knowers don't know spells based on their casting stat, unlike spell-preparers - known spells is always a class- and level-dependent constant, whereas prepared spells always depend on casting stat. To my knowledge WOTC has never deigned to explain this. All know-casters would be improved if they were allowed to know as many spells as prepare-casters can prepare, because prepare-casters always prepare level (divided by 2 if half caster) plus ability mod spells, and only Bards get ahead of this curve at all, due to magical secrets - meaning if you let them keep their Magical Secrets class ability and only upgraded their genuine baseline spells known, they'd also jump from 16 known to 25 (and then Magical Secrets up to 31).
Your comment kind of skips over the bulk of my point but i'll play along. IMO since rangers dont have heavy armor str builds are discouraged but not impossible. on that same note str builds only gain so much and dont really have good ranger synergy. Heavy armor is not needed. (frank will probably disagee with at least some of my conclusions as he has more experience with str rangers)
also, the cost doesn't have to be wisdom. you just choose it to be that.
Rangers are better melee strength combatants than paladins are ranged and dexterity combatants.
Strength rangers are a lot of fun! Yes, they don’t get heavy armor, so they potentially have one less AC.