Melee attack, ranged attack, battlefield control caster, healer, scouting, face, - The Ranger can do all of that and do it all well, if you optimize for any one of those areas he can rival the best class in the game for it while still being servicable at the others. On the flip side if you build a generalist he can be a solid "good" at all of those.
The only roles that I am not sure you can do really well with a Ranger is blaster and maybe tank. I say he can't be a really good tank but I have never really tried it. With d10 hit dice I am not actually convinced that you can't do that even. I know in some parties my Ranger has been forced into the front line role because we did not have other front liner. It was not easy and he was not "good" at it, but he also was wearing light armor and was not really built for tanking ... even so, he was not awful at it either.
Druids and paladins get their spells from a divine source. The spells are given to them by something divine when they prepare spells. To me a ranger is someone who learns skills to survive and fight. He studies and trains to improve his chances to win a fight or survive the wild. He doesn’t serve a divine being to ask for spells each day. To me a ranger can’t wake up, dump the knowledge in his mind, and have new knowledge just appear in his mind.
That's an interesting way of thinking about it. Rangers are technically divine casters (citation: PHB), and druids and paladins don't necessarily have a particular deity either, but I think you've made a valid point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
Though really I think that all casters should be able to, just as they should all be able to perform spells as rituals if they know any. It's just unnecessarily annoying for new and existing players to have some classes that can change their spells and some that can't, some that can do rituals and others can't etc. Much better to have them all function the same way (except for the short rest element of Warlock) for simplicity.
If a player wants to restrict their character's spell preparation to reflect some difference in how they learn magic, that should be up to them. Likewise if a DM wants to add conditions to when some characters can prepare a whole new spell list (e.g- only divine mages and only proficiency spells may change) to reduce "load-out swapping" and so-on.
But for the general rules it's better to be more flexible and let players/DMs restrict themselves IMO.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I am still of the opinion that the only reason ranger is a spell known character is to place more different between in and paladin. That and from the various interviews with designers they had a clearer image of what the paladin is for the game. That combined with a "don't step on toes of other classes approach" really limited the design space in the beginning.
Spells known casting really got the short end of the stick once they decided to move away from spell prepared vancian model of earlier additions. If we were still dealing with preparing a spell to a slot with (domain/oath spells working as the old spontaneous casting from 3.5) then maybe spells known would be a design strength as oppose to a weakness.
My assumption is they will be prepared casters in the 2024 update.
We will see if it happens but I think it's one of those things you look back on and really don't have a great answer to the "why" behind the design choice that makes a lot of good sense.
I can see that being possible they have some different designers from the original design team and as the game ages they seem to be a bit least restrained on their designs.
No, Rangers to me have always been a jack of all trades type of concept, acting as a back up for the other party members. Rangers are a Nature based Martial/Magic hybrid class with a strong focus on Martial stuff. Rangers spend more of their apprenticeship on learning physical combat than Druids do, and so learn just the basics of spell casting. Druids are also a Nature based Martial/Magic hybrid class which is more evenly balanced between the 2 with a slight emphasis on Magic due to Druids studying magic in greater depth than Rangers do.
Rangers should continue with the limited spell selection centered on Nature based buff/debuff, with a little bit of healing thrown in, all done in an improvised rough and ready kind of way stemming from magical training lasting several months. The Wizards, Druids, and Clerics should continue as the Spell Casters with Spell Preparation because those characters would have magical training lasting several years
I've thought about the "no" answers I've been getting, and my question is, if rangers shouldn't prepare spells, why can artificers? The artificer learns magical tricks over time as it expands its work, making it harder to believe that it can "dump all the knowledge in its brain and replace it" on a day-to-day basis either. It doesn't have an entity or a spellbook to use as a source of information, so it can't reference that. And it's a half-caster with infusions and other powerful features.
If it's the artificer and not the ranger that's flawed, I might need to mention this topic in that forum, but I think that this should be considered.
Also, as a side note, the warlock has both an entity and a spellbook (if you take the Pact of the Tome feature) to seek information from, but it can't prepare spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
I've thought about the "no" answers I've been getting, and my question is, if rangers shouldn't prepare spells, why can artificers?
Simple answer is because it's entirely arbitrary.
Artificer's are a good case though for why I think WotC will ultimately ditch "known" casting entirely in 5.5e and just let everyone be prepared casters; because so many features of the artificer are supposed to be about hard work and invention, yet they take almost no time at all. A Battle Smith for example can completely construct a new Steel Defender over a long rest with literally no other cost (no access to materials even). An Armorer can create a new suit of Arcane Armor simply by wearing any suit of armour. That is insanely fast until you realise it actually allows for more player agency in character building; if you want to RP a Battle Smith who physically constructs their Steel Defender from the ground up, and for whom it cannot simply be replaced, then you are free to do that, i.e- you choose to play several days without the defender while you gather materials or harvest the remains of the last one etc., but you're not forced to in the rules as provided.
This is why I think prepared casting will become the standard, because you'll still be free to impose your own character-driven restrictions if you want to, but for people who just want to have fun without getting bogged down in that kind of thing they don't need to. I think ritual casting will go the same way (every caster will be able to ritual cast) because it's silly that some can't and it really adds nothing to the game to deny some characters the ability to do it (especially when there are ways for even non-casters to pick it up).
It's not unlike being able to use a spellcasting focus/component pouch to replace material components; iirc in older editions you had to track all your material components (at least in RAW) and while some people will enjoy the added detail of tracking them, and needing to acquire them, or even consuming some of them with every spell cast (e.g- you need more than just the one pork rind if you want keep casting grease) etc., mechanically we don't have to. We just can if we want to, or if that's how the DM wants to run their game, or if it makes sense for the character etc.
We can also kind of see this trend in how WotC have been treating races recently; while I don't agree with the way that most of the changes have been made there, the intention seems to be to make races into just another tool for character building, and players are left to impose whatever restrictions they want. That said, I wish they'd still supply the recommendations, i.e- default ability scores, suggested alignment, age/height/weight etc. for those that want some guidance, but with the Tasha's Cauldron "pick whatever scores you want" option as standard for those that want it.
When it comes to spell-casting, if they keep one of the most weirdly arbitrary, annoying "features" of the current game in 5.5e I'll be very surprised, as I've yet to encounter a group that actually enforces it; I've never had a DM who wouldn't let you swap out a spell or two if you're not happy with a build.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'll mention it, even though people are tired of me saying it, but the ranger spell list on a spell to spell ratio, is way more potent than either the paladin and/or artificer spell list. Both of those spell lists are more like neat things they can do with their spells, with many doing very similar things like "healing". The ranger spell list is vary diverse and rather completely game changing. Changing their spell list as a prepared caster would allow them to go from martial damage powerhouse, to battlefield/horde control master, to nature wizard, to exploration expert. As it is now, it's more of a signature spell thing. Kind of a fill the gap, but not all of the gaps, role for their spell casting.
I've thought about the "no" answers I've been getting, and my question is, if rangers shouldn't prepare spells, why can artificers? The artificer learns magical tricks over time as it expands its work, making it harder to believe that it can "dump all the knowledge in its brain and replace it" on a day-to-day basis either. It doesn't have an entity or a spellbook to use as a source of information, so it can't reference that. And it's a half-caster with infusions and other powerful features.
In part because Rangers are the most powerful half casters in the game and artificers are the weakest half casters in the game.
In part because Rangers are the most powerful half casters in the game and artificers are the weakest half casters in the game.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? I would think most people would argue Paladins are the strongest (as they're simultaneously good healers, support characters and damage powerhouses without casting a single spell).
Artificer vs. Ranger is a lot harder, but infusions alone make Artificers seriously good, and for combat they have three very good sub-classes. While it's true that for Artificers their spell casting can be more secondary or out of combat focused, that also makes them less resource bound than Rangers can be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I've thought about the "no" answers I've been getting, and my question is, if rangers shouldn't prepare spells, why can artificers? The artificer learns magical tricks over time as it expands its work, making it harder to believe that it can "dump all the knowledge in its brain and replace it" on a day-to-day basis either. It doesn't have an entity or a spellbook to use as a source of information, so it can't reference that. And it's a half-caster with infusions and other powerful features.
In part because Rangers are the most powerful half casters in the game and artificers are the weakest half casters in the game.
I'm honestly getting tired of seeing this brought up, time and time again, because I just don't see it. And it's something FRGG also alludes to, but come one. Just how many spells, on the Ranger's spell list, are exclusive to the class? How many can be learned by druids, or specific subclasses for other classes? And they can all be purloined by bards of sufficient level.
It also ignores how you choose to define "power" in the game. Being able to adjust your known spells every day is tremendously powerful. It gives you options and different ways to approach a problem. You can adapt and shift genres and styles of play each adventuring day. On the other hand, a ranger is comparatively fixed. They can only learn one additional spell every few levels, and they can only swap one spell at a time after leveling up.
A 9th-level ranger knows only six spells. Just of those from the PHB, there are 37 possible spells they could know. Eleven of those are 3rd-level spells, of which they can only know two. That's 110 possible combinations of just those two. But if you only listen to optimizers, how many people are going to pick the likes of daylight, lightning arrow, nondetection, plant growth, wind wall? Never mind how all of those can be learned by someone else at a lower level, and they all compete with the much-celebrated conjure animals.
Would rangers be “better” if they could prepare their spouse? Yes. Absolutely.
Would Rangers be “better “if they could prepare their spells? Yes. Absolutely.
Can other classes and subclasses gain access to most, if not all, of the Spells on the Rangers spell list? Yes. Of course.
A bard, druid, fighter, or whatever, no matter what spells they’re able to gain access to, are not going to play like a Ranger. Options that feature more spells are going to be less of a martial combatant, and options that are better martial combatants aren’t nearly as capable of spellcaster.
If rangers could prepare their spells it would be a flat out upgrade. No question.
When people who believe Rangers are underpowered compare the class to others, 100% of the time I see them comparing the baseline class to other baseline classes, with nothing else. Casting spells is almost never taken in consideration, nor are subclass abilities. The Ranger, more than just about any other class, relies on their spells being cast as part of their overall kit, as well as their subclass.
If rangers could prepare their spells it would be a flat out upgrade. No question.
When people who believe Rangers are underpowered compare the class to others, 100% of the time I see them comparing the baseline class to other baseline classes, with nothing else. Casting spells is almost never taken in consideration, nor are subclass abilities. The Ranger, more than just about any other class, relies on their spells being cast as part of their overall kit, as well as their subclass.
No one is saying it wouldn't be better for them. That's beside the issue. The issue is it doesn't make sense. The design choice appears to be arbitrary. No two classes cast, learn, or prepare spells in precisely the same way. If anything, the ranger fills a specific niche of being the only half-spellcaster who cannot prepare their spells.
If rangers could prepare their spells it would be a flat out upgrade. No question.
Is that an argument for or against? Because I don't see that it really makes a difference; Rangers are kind of already a bit of a jack of all trades (most half casters are), but unlike the others who can change things easily when choices aren't working, Rangers are simply stuck with them (barring a single swap out on levelling). Sure it's an "upgrade", but it's an incredibly minor one, as the Ranger is ultimately still a half caster, and swapping spells is only a benefit when you know what to expect.
Your argument that casting is more primary to the Ranger actually makes more of a case for why they should be prepared and the others shouldn't be, because we get so few spell choices that forcing Rangers to make hard choices about whether they go for versatility or specialise only makes it harder to play casually, as every choice is a potential mistake you can't get out of without the DM letting you. I like to take trap spells on a Ranger, and normally I'll argue they're some of the best spells you can take (as it's a niche Rangers can carve out in most parties) but I can also count the number of times I've been unable to actually use them and wish I'd taken something else instead, and it's worse when you know you're heading into a situation where you won't get to use them, and there's nothing you can do about it; I don't mind being challenged with unexpected twists, but feeling like you f'ed up isn't fun.
There's really nothing to be gained by being too restrictive, or making spellcasting more confusing by having every caster function slightly differently; if you want to commit more to your choices for a Ranger then you have full freedom to still do that if you want, just as a DM can ask players to limit their spell list swapping if it's getting out of hand (everybody is changing spell lists on every long rest and nobody ever knows what their spells are). I think realistically you find even prepared casters fall into a set of go-to spells they always take, and the actual swapping is minimal, and that core of spells can be for a variety of reasons (character or otherwise).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think rangers being a known caster is fine. It would only be a quality of life improvement if they could prepare. But I agree with you that 90% of the time, prepared casters don’t change spells prepared. Even when they do, that is an 8 hour minimum wait time to do so. I’m not convinced that is as useful as some would make it out to be.
If rangers could prepare their spells it would be a flat out upgrade. No question.
Is that an argument for or against? Because I don't see that it really makes a difference; Rangers are kind of already a bit of a jack of all trades (most half casters are), but unlike the others who can change things easily when choices aren't working, Rangers are simply stuck with them (barring a single swap out on levelling). Sure it's an "upgrade", but it's an incredibly minor one, as the Ranger is ultimately still a half caster, and swapping spells is only a benefit when you know what to expect.
Your argument that casting is more primary to the Ranger actually makes more of a case for why they should be prepared and the others shouldn't be, because we get so few spell choices that forcing Rangers to make hard choices about whether they go for versatility or specialise only makes it harder to play casually, as every choice is a potential mistake you can't get out of without the DM letting you. I like to take trap spells on a Ranger, and normally I'll argue they're some of the best spells you can take (as it's a niche Rangers can carve out in most parties) but I can also count the number of times I've been unable to actually use them and wish I'd taken something else instead, and it's worse when you know you're heading into a situation where you won't get to use them, and there's nothing you can do about it; I don't mind being challenged with unexpected twists, but feeling like you f'ed up isn't fun.
There's really nothing to be gained by being too restrictive, or making spellcasting more confusing by having every caster function slightly differently; if you want to commit more to your choices for a Ranger then you have full freedom to still do that if you want, just as a DM can ask players to limit their spell list swapping if it's getting out of hand (everybody is changing spell lists on every long rest and nobody ever knows what their spells are). I think realistically you find even prepared casters fall into a set of go-to spells they always take, and the actual swapping is minimal, and that core of spells can be for a variety of reasons (character or otherwise).
Exactly it makes more sense for them theme wise to be swapping things to better prepare for the day ahead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Ranger is really a do-it-all character.
Melee attack, ranged attack, battlefield control caster, healer, scouting, face, - The Ranger can do all of that and do it all well, if you optimize for any one of those areas he can rival the best class in the game for it while still being servicable at the others. On the flip side if you build a generalist he can be a solid "good" at all of those.
The only roles that I am not sure you can do really well with a Ranger is blaster and maybe tank. I say he can't be a really good tank but I have never really tried it. With d10 hit dice I am not actually convinced that you can't do that even. I know in some parties my Ranger has been forced into the front line role because we did not have other front liner. It was not easy and he was not "good" at it, but he also was wearing light armor and was not really built for tanking ... even so, he was not awful at it either.
That's an interesting way of thinking about it. Rangers are technically divine casters (citation: PHB), and druids and paladins don't necessarily have a particular deity either, but I think you've made a valid point.
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
Yes.
Though really I think that all casters should be able to, just as they should all be able to perform spells as rituals if they know any. It's just unnecessarily annoying for new and existing players to have some classes that can change their spells and some that can't, some that can do rituals and others can't etc. Much better to have them all function the same way (except for the short rest element of Warlock) for simplicity.
If a player wants to restrict their character's spell preparation to reflect some difference in how they learn magic, that should be up to them. Likewise if a DM wants to add conditions to when some characters can prepare a whole new spell list (e.g- only divine mages and only proficiency spells may change) to reduce "load-out swapping" and so-on.
But for the general rules it's better to be more flexible and let players/DMs restrict themselves IMO.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I am still of the opinion that the only reason ranger is a spell known character is to place more different between in and paladin. That and from the various interviews with designers they had a clearer image of what the paladin is for the game. That combined with a "don't step on toes of other classes approach" really limited the design space in the beginning.
Spells known casting really got the short end of the stick once they decided to move away from spell prepared vancian model of earlier additions. If we were still dealing with preparing a spell to a slot with (domain/oath spells working as the old spontaneous casting from 3.5) then maybe spells known would be a design strength as oppose to a weakness.
My assumption is they will be prepared casters in the 2024 update.
We will see if it happens but I think it's one of those things you look back on and really don't have a great answer to the "why" behind the design choice that makes a lot of good sense.
I can see that being possible they have some different designers from the original design team and as the game ages they seem to be a bit least restrained on their designs.
No, Rangers to me have always been a jack of all trades type of concept, acting as a back up for the other party members. Rangers are a Nature based Martial/Magic hybrid class with a strong focus on Martial stuff. Rangers spend more of their apprenticeship on learning physical combat than Druids do, and so learn just the basics of spell casting. Druids are also a Nature based Martial/Magic hybrid class which is more evenly balanced between the 2 with a slight emphasis on Magic due to Druids studying magic in greater depth than Rangers do.
Rangers should continue with the limited spell selection centered on Nature based buff/debuff, with a little bit of healing thrown in, all done in an improvised rough and ready kind of way stemming from magical training lasting several months. The Wizards, Druids, and Clerics should continue as the Spell Casters with Spell Preparation because those characters would have magical training lasting several years
I've thought about the "no" answers I've been getting, and my question is, if rangers shouldn't prepare spells, why can artificers? The artificer learns magical tricks over time as it expands its work, making it harder to believe that it can "dump all the knowledge in its brain and replace it" on a day-to-day basis either. It doesn't have an entity or a spellbook to use as a source of information, so it can't reference that. And it's a half-caster with infusions and other powerful features.
If it's the artificer and not the ranger that's flawed, I might need to mention this topic in that forum, but I think that this should be considered.
Also, as a side note, the warlock has both an entity and a spellbook (if you take the Pact of the Tome feature) to seek information from, but it can't prepare spells.
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
Simple answer is because it's entirely arbitrary.
Artificer's are a good case though for why I think WotC will ultimately ditch "known" casting entirely in 5.5e and just let everyone be prepared casters; because so many features of the artificer are supposed to be about hard work and invention, yet they take almost no time at all. A Battle Smith for example can completely construct a new Steel Defender over a long rest with literally no other cost (no access to materials even). An Armorer can create a new suit of Arcane Armor simply by wearing any suit of armour. That is insanely fast until you realise it actually allows for more player agency in character building; if you want to RP a Battle Smith who physically constructs their Steel Defender from the ground up, and for whom it cannot simply be replaced, then you are free to do that, i.e- you choose to play several days without the defender while you gather materials or harvest the remains of the last one etc., but you're not forced to in the rules as provided.
This is why I think prepared casting will become the standard, because you'll still be free to impose your own character-driven restrictions if you want to, but for people who just want to have fun without getting bogged down in that kind of thing they don't need to. I think ritual casting will go the same way (every caster will be able to ritual cast) because it's silly that some can't and it really adds nothing to the game to deny some characters the ability to do it (especially when there are ways for even non-casters to pick it up).
It's not unlike being able to use a spellcasting focus/component pouch to replace material components; iirc in older editions you had to track all your material components (at least in RAW) and while some people will enjoy the added detail of tracking them, and needing to acquire them, or even consuming some of them with every spell cast (e.g- you need more than just the one pork rind if you want keep casting grease) etc., mechanically we don't have to. We just can if we want to, or if that's how the DM wants to run their game, or if it makes sense for the character etc.
We can also kind of see this trend in how WotC have been treating races recently; while I don't agree with the way that most of the changes have been made there, the intention seems to be to make races into just another tool for character building, and players are left to impose whatever restrictions they want. That said, I wish they'd still supply the recommendations, i.e- default ability scores, suggested alignment, age/height/weight etc. for those that want some guidance, but with the Tasha's Cauldron "pick whatever scores you want" option as standard for those that want it.
When it comes to spell-casting, if they keep one of the most weirdly arbitrary, annoying "features" of the current game in 5.5e I'll be very surprised, as I've yet to encounter a group that actually enforces it; I've never had a DM who wouldn't let you swap out a spell or two if you're not happy with a build.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'll mention it, even though people are tired of me saying it, but the ranger spell list on a spell to spell ratio, is way more potent than either the paladin and/or artificer spell list. Both of those spell lists are more like neat things they can do with their spells, with many doing very similar things like "healing". The ranger spell list is vary diverse and rather completely game changing. Changing their spell list as a prepared caster would allow them to go from martial damage powerhouse, to battlefield/horde control master, to nature wizard, to exploration expert. As it is now, it's more of a signature spell thing. Kind of a fill the gap, but not all of the gaps, role for their spell casting.
In part because Rangers are the most powerful half casters in the game and artificers are the weakest half casters in the game.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? I would think most people would argue Paladins are the strongest (as they're simultaneously good healers, support characters and damage powerhouses without casting a single spell).
Artificer vs. Ranger is a lot harder, but infusions alone make Artificers seriously good, and for combat they have three very good sub-classes. While it's true that for Artificers their spell casting can be more secondary or out of combat focused, that also makes them less resource bound than Rangers can be.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Paladins are overrated. You say no spells, but smite uses slots and is not a good use of them.
I'm honestly getting tired of seeing this brought up, time and time again, because I just don't see it. And it's something FRGG also alludes to, but come one. Just how many spells, on the Ranger's spell list, are exclusive to the class? How many can be learned by druids, or specific subclasses for other classes? And they can all be purloined by bards of sufficient level.
It also ignores how you choose to define "power" in the game. Being able to adjust your known spells every day is tremendously powerful. It gives you options and different ways to approach a problem. You can adapt and shift genres and styles of play each adventuring day. On the other hand, a ranger is comparatively fixed. They can only learn one additional spell every few levels, and they can only swap one spell at a time after leveling up.
A 9th-level ranger knows only six spells. Just of those from the PHB, there are 37 possible spells they could know. Eleven of those are 3rd-level spells, of which they can only know two. That's 110 possible combinations of just those two. But if you only listen to optimizers, how many people are going to pick the likes of daylight, lightning arrow, nondetection, plant growth, wind wall? Never mind how all of those can be learned by someone else at a lower level, and they all compete with the much-celebrated conjure animals.
Would rangers be “better” if they could prepare their spouse? Yes. Absolutely.
Would Rangers be “better “if they could prepare their spells? Yes. Absolutely.
Can other classes and subclasses gain access to most, if not all, of the Spells on the Rangers spell list? Yes. Of course.
A bard, druid, fighter, or whatever, no matter what spells they’re able to gain access to, are not going to play like a Ranger. Options that feature more spells are going to be less of a martial combatant, and options that are better martial combatants aren’t nearly as capable of spellcaster.
If rangers could prepare their spells it would be a flat out upgrade. No question.
When people who believe Rangers are underpowered compare the class to others, 100% of the time I see them comparing the baseline class to other baseline classes, with nothing else. Casting spells is almost never taken in consideration, nor are subclass abilities. The Ranger, more than just about any other class, relies on their spells being cast as part of their overall kit, as well as their subclass.
I don't want to know why this was going through your head.
No one is saying it wouldn't be better for them. That's beside the issue. The issue is it doesn't make sense. The design choice appears to be arbitrary. No two classes cast, learn, or prepare spells in precisely the same way. If anything, the ranger fills a specific niche of being the only half-spellcaster who cannot prepare their spells.
Is that an argument for or against? Because I don't see that it really makes a difference; Rangers are kind of already a bit of a jack of all trades (most half casters are), but unlike the others who can change things easily when choices aren't working, Rangers are simply stuck with them (barring a single swap out on levelling). Sure it's an "upgrade", but it's an incredibly minor one, as the Ranger is ultimately still a half caster, and swapping spells is only a benefit when you know what to expect.
Your argument that casting is more primary to the Ranger actually makes more of a case for why they should be prepared and the others shouldn't be, because we get so few spell choices that forcing Rangers to make hard choices about whether they go for versatility or specialise only makes it harder to play casually, as every choice is a potential mistake you can't get out of without the DM letting you. I like to take trap spells on a Ranger, and normally I'll argue they're some of the best spells you can take (as it's a niche Rangers can carve out in most parties) but I can also count the number of times I've been unable to actually use them and wish I'd taken something else instead, and it's worse when you know you're heading into a situation where you won't get to use them, and there's nothing you can do about it; I don't mind being challenged with unexpected twists, but feeling like you f'ed up isn't fun.
There's really nothing to be gained by being too restrictive, or making spellcasting more confusing by having every caster function slightly differently; if you want to commit more to your choices for a Ranger then you have full freedom to still do that if you want, just as a DM can ask players to limit their spell list swapping if it's getting out of hand (everybody is changing spell lists on every long rest and nobody ever knows what their spells are). I think realistically you find even prepared casters fall into a set of go-to spells they always take, and the actual swapping is minimal, and that core of spells can be for a variety of reasons (character or otherwise).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think rangers being a known caster is fine. It would only be a quality of life improvement if they could prepare. But I agree with you that 90% of the time, prepared casters don’t change spells prepared. Even when they do, that is an 8 hour minimum wait time to do so. I’m not convinced that is as useful as some would make it out to be.
Exactly it makes more sense for them theme wise to be swapping things to better prepare for the day ahead.