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).
I come to that conclusion due to the crapton spells and abilities they get. If you are only considering the class abilities Paladins are probably about their equal, but if you are considering what they get with the more powerful subclasses Rangers are well ahead.
Nature's Viel is extremely powerful even at the tier 3 level you get it.
They get a lot of spells with primal awareness and subclass spells and with free castings they can cast nearly as many spells a day as a full caster in tier 2 and tier 3.
A climb speed and a swim speed as well as the ability to ignore non-magical difficult terrain means they have a crap ton more mobility in combat than Paladins and that translates to more effectiveness in combat because they can get where they need to go (melee, cover whatever).
They are better healers than Paladins. With goodberry the can cast the night before and have 10x slots left berries the next day (in additon to not needing rations the next day either). At 8th level for example Ranger who goes to bed with all his spell slots has 70 points of healing on tap the next day before using a single spell slot, the 8th level Paladin with Lay on Hands has 40. Now sure that is if he goes the entire day before not casting a spell, but that is not that uncommon and the flip side is he does not need spell slots for damage, so he will have more regular slots for healing spells like aid too. Finally they give themselves temp hps multiple times a day.
Then you get into subclasses:
Paladins have smite which is a ton of damage using spell slots, and for a single nova round that is higher. The good Rangers subclasses on the other hand get consistent damage boosts for free, they don't have to use their spells to buff their combat power and instead can use them for other things.
A few examples of subclass abilities that rock.
A Gloomstalker gets a free attack every single battle and that attack does an extra 1d8 damage. He is invisible to anyone using darkvision to find him, meanign he is hitting a lot more often..
A Fey Wanderer can bypass the concentration mechanic both with abilities that don't use it that normally would (frighten, Charm for one minute) and the ability to spam Summon Fey. This is in addition to an extra psychic damage once a turn if he hits .... every turn. A Fey Wanderer with an Army of Fey has the entire battlefield frightened and charmed in a few turns, in addition to dealing high damage while not worrying about concentration to hold it at all.
Swarm keeper does at will damage every turn in addition to forced movement. Combined with spike Growth this is an extra 12d4+1d6 extra damage every round for a single 2nd level spell slot until he loses concentration (1d6 swarm damage, 6d4 movement damage, 6d4 damage for the bad guy to move back into combat). This is in addition to controlling the battlefield, setting difficult terrain and damaging other enemies as well, with its casting.
Yes. Known spells only? Yes. But rangers all get additional spell like, resource free, straight up boosts at level 3. Yes. I know all subclasses for all classes get stuff at levels. But rangers have resource free subclass boosts. That is a win from a resource management perspective. Do you like paladin level 3 subclass abilities? How many of them require using an existing resource, like a spell slot or channel divinity, or their yet limited resource? Almost all. Same with fighter, monk, barbarian, etc.
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).
I come to that conclusion due to the crapton spells and abilities they get. If you are only considering the class abilities Paladins are probably about their equal, but if you are considering what they get with the more powerful subclasses Rangers are well ahead.
I don't see how that's true, considering the ranger (A) doesn't have more spell slots than an artificer or paladin and (B) has fewer spells per level than they do. Rangers actually have the least. At least with an artificer or paladin, they can prepare more spells and use their spellcasting ability modifier to add to that list. The ranger's, on the other hand, is fixed. And once you factor in the bonus spells (of which the ranger objectively gets the fewest), it just makes them look even worse, as spellcasters, by comparison.
Honestly, your claim reads so incredulously that I don't know where you're going with the rest of this. But, okay, I'll bite.
Nature's Veil* is extremely powerful even at the tier 3 level you get it.
They get a lot of spells with primal awareness and subclass spells and with free castings they can cast nearly as many spells a day as a full caster in tier 2 and tier 3.
A climb speed and a swim speed as well as the ability to ignore non-magical difficult terrain means they have a crap ton more mobility in combat than Paladins and that translates to more effectiveness in combat because they can get where they need to go (melee, cover whatever).
Those are all optional class features; which are at best a sidegrade to the Player's Handbook features they replace. They can be mixed and matched, utilized to any conceivable degree, and should not be assumed. What's more, just like Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, and Hide in Plain Sight, these optional features have their own strengths and weaknesses. Invoking them doesn't do for your argument what you think it does.
They are better healers than Paladins. With goodberry the can cast the night before and have 10x slots left berries the next day (in additon to not needing rations the next day either). At 8th level for example Ranger who goes to bed with all his spell slots has 70 points of healing on tap the next day before using a single spell slot, the 8th level Paladin with Lay on Hands has 40. Now sure that is if he goes the entire day before not casting a spell, but that is not that uncommon and the flip side is he does not need spell slots for damage, so he will have more regular slots for healing spells like aid too. Finally they give themselves temp hps multiple times a day.
Then you get into subclasses:
You're making a lot of, in my opinion, shortsighted assumptions about potential healing. It doesn't matter how many berries the ranger can make; only how many get used. And yes, a ranger can certainly tap themselves out of spell slots before settling in for a long rest. However, the possibility of a random encounter during their long rest means they risk depriving the party of a valuable resource. I don't think you want to be that person. And rations aren't the big deal you seem to think they are. The ranger has other means of dealing with everyone needing food and water throughout the day. So would a cleric, druid, or anyone with the Outlander background. And so does literally everyone else with even the tiniest bit of gold, and spare room in their backpack or other container, at their disposal.
Spell slots aren't hammers, not every potential problem a spell can solve is a nail, and you really don't want to get into a discussion on subclasses.
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).
I come to that conclusion due to the crapton spells and abilities they get. If you are only considering the class abilities Paladins are probably about their equal, but if you are considering what they get with the more powerful subclasses Rangers are well ahead.
I don't see how that's true, considering the ranger (A) doesn't have more spell slots than an artificer or paladin and (B) has fewer spells per level than they do.
A Ranger can cast more SPELLS per day than an equal level Paladin or Artificer because of the casting he gets that don't use slots through Primal awareness (not to mention the Fey Wanderer Subclass if he takes that).
For example an 9th level Ranger can cast 12 spells a day, an 9thLevel Paladin or artificer can cast 9 spells a day. A 9th level full caster can cast 14spells a day (not including slots gained through metamagic, arcane recovery or channel divinity).
Rangers actually have the least. At least with an artificer or paladin, they can prepare more spells and use their spellcasting ability modifier to add to that list. The ranger's, on the other hand, is fixed. And once you factor in the bonus spells (of which the ranger objectively gets the fewest), it just makes them look even worse, as spellcasters, by comparison.
They are better spellcasters because they can cast more spells per day and compared to a Paladin have better spells on their list and do not need to use spells to boost damage.
They do have less known vs prepared if those two classes max their casting stat. But it is easier for a Ranger to max wisdom than it is for a Paladin to Max charisma because the Ranger can make a build to use wisdom on attacks and damage and the Paladin can't do that unless he multiclasses. This means Paladins will generally be running a lower charisma than a Ranger is Wisdom and needs to use his spell slots to boost damage, while the Ranger doesn't.
The artificer is much closer as a caster, probably better even as a straight caster despite being able to cast fewer spells a day. But the artificer does not get d10 hit dice, a fighting style or as many/good combat abilities.
Honestly, your claim reads so incredulously that I don't know where you're going with the rest of this. But, okay, I'll bite.
Those are all optional class features; which are at best a sidegrade to the Player's Handbook features they replace. They can be mixed and matched, utilized to any conceivable degree, and should not be assumed. What's more, just like Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, and Hide in Plain Sight, these optional features have their own strengths and weaknesses. Invoking them doesn't do for your argument what you think it does.
We are comparing the power in the class, I am using the most powerful features from that class. While I am at it though, Lands Stride is not an optional feature it is in the players handbook and when combined with Roving from deft explorer it has a huge effect on the battlefield. The Ranger is going to scurry across the difficult terrain and then climb the wall to the bad guy while the Paladin plods along. If there is a lake between the two of you it does not slow the Ranger down AND he can swing his greatsword in the lake without disadvantage because he has a swim speed.
If your game is heavily focused on exploration then natural explorer and Primeval Awareness can even up with Deft Explorer and Primal Awareness, but it has to be an exploration heavy game for that to be true. However an exploration-heave game is going to favor the Ranger hands down. There is no competition at all where if we are talking Paladin-vs-Ranger in terms of exploration.
The only place where Paladin-vs-Ranger is a significant argument is in combat and the features I mentioned are much better in combat and generally better overall.
They are better healers than Paladins. With goodberry the can cast the night before and have 10x slots left berries the next day (in additon to not needing rations the next day either). At 8th level for example Ranger who goes to bed with all his spell slots has 70 points of healing on tap the next day before using a single spell slot, the 8th level Paladin with Lay on Hands has 40. Now sure that is if he goes the entire day before not casting a spell, but that is not that uncommon and the flip side is he does not need spell slots for damage, so he will have more regular slots for healing spells like aid too. Finally they give themselves temp hps multiple times a day.
Then you get into subclasses:
You're making a lot of, in my opinion, shortsighted assumptions about potential healing. It doesn't matter how many berries the ranger can make; only how many get used.
And it doesn't matter how much lay on hands the Paladin can do, only how much gets used. They get the same number of free slots, the Ranger has better healing spells on his list, the Ranger has less need to use his slots on other things and the Ranger can start with a similar (sometimes larger, sometimes smaller) pool of "free" healing by casting goodberry before resting.
The only advantage the Paladin has in this regard is the ability to prepare spells. So he has the opportunity to prepare healing when it is needed versus making long-term choices between things like Aid and Spike Growth or cure wounds and ensnaring strike. That is a significant advantage in favor of the Paladin, but he loses that advantage of you make Rangers prepared casters. As a matter of fact if we did this Rangers could get goodberry just to outheal the Paladin the following day and then toss it for the other spells. Preparing would actually give the Ranger an even better mechanism for this.
And yes, a ranger can certainly tap themselves out of spell slots before settling in for a long rest. However, the possibility of a random encounter during their long rest means they risk depriving the party of a valuable resource.
Not really we are talking about one possible encounter. Technically they can do this right before the end of the long rest anyway as that is when the spell slots refresh. In my games we just generally do it before we bed down. I should have said he can cast goodberry right before his long rest ends instead of right before he goes to bed.
Spell slots aren't hammers, not every potential problem a spell can solve is a nail,
Spike Growth, Summon Fey and Conjure Woodland Beings are all pretty effective Hammers and if you have enough spells prepared and the slots to cast them spells can solve just about every problem you will face.
That is why Rangers should not be spell preparers. With the combination of the spells on their list and their high combat ability, they could largely hammer in nails, screw in screws and bolt on bolts. Limiting their spells known limits their ability to do this and keeping them from being prepared casters prevents them from switching between silence when they will be facing mages, spike growth before a big brawl and pass without trace before sneaking into the keep.
and you really don't want to get into a discussion on subclasses.
Sure I do! Rangers get HUGE and often resource free boosts from their subclasses.
I don't see how that's true, considering the ranger (A) doesn't have more spell slots than an artificer or paladin and (B) has fewer spells per level than they do.
A Ranger can cast more SPELLS per day than an equal level Paladin or Artificer because of the casting he gets that don't use slots through Primal awareness (not to mention the Fey Wanderer Subclass if he takes that).
For example an 9th level Ranger can cast 12 spells a day, an 9thLevel Paladin or artificer can cast 9 spells a day. A 9th level full caster can cast 14spells a day (not including slots gained through metamagic, arcane recovery or channel divinity).
Now you're just being dishonest. If you're making an allowance for a ranger who has Primal Awareness instead of Primeval Awareness, then you must also make an allowance for a paladin with Harness Divine Power. You're also ignoring the flexibility of the latter, since three of those ranger spells are locked. You cannot guarantee that a ranger will reliably be able to use speak with animals, beast sense, and speak with plants every day. Conversely, a 9th-level paladin not only has 11 potential spell slots, but their choice between any combination of two expended 1st-level and 2nd-level spell slots. Both are useful additions, but they come with sizable asterisks.
Your obvious bias is obvious. And this is coming from an ardent defender of the class for years.
I don't see how that's true, considering the ranger (A) doesn't have more spell slots than an artificer or paladin and (B) has fewer spells per level than they do.
A Ranger can cast more SPELLS per day than an equal level Paladin or Artificer because of the casting he gets that don't use slots through Primal awareness (not to mention the Fey Wanderer Subclass if he takes that).
For example an 9th level Ranger can cast 12 spells a day, an 9thLevel Paladin or artificer can cast 9 spells a day. A 9th level full caster can cast 14spells a day (not including slots gained through metamagic, arcane recovery or channel divinity).
Now you're just being dishonest. If you're making an allowance for a ranger who has Primal Awareness instead of Primeval Awareness, then you must also make an allowance for a paladin with Harness Divine Power.
If you notice, I said at the end of the quote "not including slots ..... gained through channel divinity". Harness divine power uses CD. Sure they can use their channel divinity to gain back a spell slot.
Sure a Paladin can use another limited use ability to get back a slots. This is a maximum of three times a day at 15 level, it and that requires a minimum of 2 short rests to do as well as burning your channel divinity uses for it .... and even with that maxed out he is still behind the Ranger.
I also want to point out that you said earlier that "you really don't want to get in a discussion about subclass" .... why don't we talk about subclasses with the assumption you are using all your CD to get back spell slots? I mean you basically just eliminated all of their subclass abilities before level 7 and 80% of them above it to get back a few (3 or less) spell slots and get you to where the Paladin is only slightly behind a Ranger in spells per day.
The Ranger gets those extra spells for free, and on top of it gets subclass abilities that blow away a Paladins, even if they do use CD.
You're also ignoring the flexibility of the latter, since three of those ranger spells are locked. You cannot guarantee that a ranger will reliably be able to use speak with animals, beast sense, and speak with plants every day. Conversely, a 9th-level paladin not only has 11 potential spell slots, but their choice between any combination of two expended 1st-level and 2nd-level spell slots. Both are useful additions, but they come with sizable asterisks.
Only if he gets at least one short rest and burns his CD twice to do it. Moreover compared to the good Ranger subclasses he has to use either spell slots or CD to keep up in general damage in combat with a Ranger who uses no resources.
Your obvious bias is obvious. And this is coming from an ardent defender of the class for years.
It is not bias it is playing experience and mathematics.
this isn't a discussion of power levels {although power appearance affects some peoples votes, it is only a piece of the puzzle} I think a holistic approach is better than focusing on one aspect.
so far I have seen these are the decision points brought up so far or the ones I thought of in the moment :
Theme/story implications { the nature of how spells are acquired and what known spells means narratively.}
class relative "power" and versatility.
mechanical Consistency and ease of use.
Mechanical roles { most people accept the ranger as a versatile responder or tactical Jack-of-all-scenarios} {also the value of its unique spells and features}
Gameplay "meta" { encouraged behaviors and how it might affect DMS response}
call backs to previous editions.
Below is an in depth OPINION. take it with a grain of salt or skip that's fine either way. TLDR . I think known is better for all areas but 1 but there are some valid points for prepared.
Theme/story implications: I value how it affects the narrative as 2/5 for level of importance. There is some value to asking about the logical narrative. questions like, why is a skill expert suddenly learning or forgetting skills. But In the end I think flavor is free and explanations could be brought up either way. In the end story makes me personally lean towards Known. its a good balance between those who want to thematically treat their ranger as non magical or different from other casters and those that don't care.
class relative "power" and versatility: This isHighly subjective because the tools we use to value dpr and defense Cannot Be measured accurately. The value of unquantifiable skills makes it difficult to comprehend things like "daily hold-overs", stealth features, skills and their combat effects and non white-room instances. Still even then I believe all classes should be around the same power scope, And I think 5e does this relatively ok with only a few outliers. Now many people "feel" The ranger class is weak but others feel its too strong.(even some of the people who claim its weak say they constantly nerf multiple ranger abilities from their valid interpretations)
There is also the question of how much power is added by making a known caster prepared. I find most druids take the same spells routinely and they still almost never take certain spells except for narrative scenarios. This gets even more complex to determine with scrolls and magic items. many magic items make preparing certain spells stupid because you can cast them other ways but druids get a lot more than rangers.
So, normally I would vote prepared {for this category} and any one who wanted known could handy cap themselves could. I also have no problem increasing the power of rangers to unquestionably compete with other classes for best adventurer but I have an honest fear it would lead to more DM power nerfs and the value I would get out of it would be minimal. MY vote: spells known 4/5 for importance
mechanical Consistency and ease of use. almost every one agrees that rangers are complex. The wording is finicky and the features require a deep understanding of the game mechanics and play. many people called the ranger the DM's class or the advanced Class in the early years of dnd. Some people want it moved to be in line with others making it easier to understand /and explain . some people like the complexity or the advanced class status. My problem is (IMO) neither prepared or Known actually solves the ranger complexity they still have weird gameplay interactions. There are also wildly different builds for many ranger players. because There are so many possible ranger configurations already I lean towards pick your spells and be done. continue your strategy around it and keep playing. if there is a problem switching spells daily probably wont fix it and you'll need to talk to your dm.
I think making it prepared For ease of understanding/game consistency could equate to huge dissatisfaction. spells with saves work well only if you have prepared for them. skills you have chosen loose value if "there's a spell for that." meaning I think there become more trap options not less. 4/5 for importance but I have to vote Known.
Mechanical roles rangers fill a unique roll in the party. many people disagree what a ranger means or needs to feel like a ranger. but certain things float to the surface. versatility is one, travel/tracking expert is another. They act a lot like team managers. They are expected to fill a lot of roles and have good information. going into a new biome ask the ranger what we should expect and how to prepare. however some builds leave things to be desired. alot of rangers players feel bad about certain stats being low. what ever dump stat you have atleast one scenario you will feel the loss of that choice. However, the ranger has spells to make up for it. alarm and locate spells for players that needed lower wisdom or Intelligence. non-detection or passwithout a trace for those whose dex is lower because they wanted strength weapons. snare for rangers who need to capture targets alive but took only leathal damage options. On and on it goes. I also find it sad that some ranger spells never get used. Prepared would help allow players to try those out more. For the ranger role I prefer prepared. 4/5 for importance
Gameplay "meta"
The meta around rangers is interesting. In particular, I value Hold-overs a lot. So I tend to use Huntersmark to save slots and almost always have some left over at night. These leftovers i use for goodberry, alarm, and primeval awareness. This helps me get through the next day quite well. I also focus rangers on consumables and take advantage of down time. crafting potions, collecting/making goods for trade or use. Buying scrolls for spells I don't know. Harvesting poison from every creature I can. Sadly much of the community dose not do this and it creates a distinct difference of experience. I've been at tables where rangers were asked to tone it down because they were out shining the others. I've seen players try and mimic the results and not have such a good time. the difference in these experiences concerns me because if you add "power" to bring the lower one up then the good players just have more to leverage. I would rather see the value of consumables and non-spell combat preparation return to the experience of play. spell casting is already a powerful feature and the community usually agrees, but the desire to let the "martials" compete seems unfulfilled. by encouraging consumables and hold-overs in play, other parts of the game shine a bit more.
I stated before I see nerfs all the time to rangers. Removal or weakening of certain spells, removal of downtime features, Dms handing out magic items that are more suited to other classes. dms nope-ing out on things a ranger can take advantage of. {no you cant have death saves, harvest poison, use fogcloud rules, use downtime }. I don't want power bribes to cover for the things that were taken away. no thanks.
Thirdly. the community response. to be honest I am sick of rewrites and wotc doesn't want to invalidate older printings if they can help it. The ranger community already has so much going on I don't think we need other changes. revised ranger, tasha's builds, PHb Builds, differing interpretations of spells and features. The ability to say "this is how its printed so this is what were sticking to" is freeing and better for the "ranger brand." it means better compatibility and function. If wotc wants to do prepared they can but it should be a completely separate entry.(which may happen with 5.5) It makes sense for them it makes sense for us as players.
For the meta category I say stick to known there are other non class changes that fix the perceived problem. level of importance 3/5
Call backs to previous editions.
I don't know enough about older editions. I think They were known in the past for most of the editions with rangers+ spellcasting. I think it is a point that they have a dnd history of being known but I wouldn't make any final decisions based on that. I guess 3.5 had prepared. still it leans to known. however the level of importance to me is minimal. 1/5 (Note its not a 0)
Nature's Viel is extremely powerful even at the tier 3 level you get it.
Nature's Veil is a very nice ability, but I'd hardly say it makes them the most powerful half-caster in the game; you only get proficiency uses per long rest, so maintaining it over multiple rounds means it will run out very quickly. Don't get me wrong, having a way to gain advantage/impose disadvantage for a few rounds is very nice, but I don't think it changes the equation.
They get a lot of spells with primal awareness and subclass spells and with free castings they can cast nearly as many spells a day as a full caster in tier 2 and tier 3.
This is a weird argument to make; by this logic the Alchemist Artificer is the most powerful half caster in the game because they effectively get the same number of spell slots as a full caster (as elixirs are basically all free 1st-level spells, and they get free casts of lesser restoration, greater restoration and heal for something like 11-12 additional "slots").
Now while I don't believe for a moment the Alchemist is as weak as many people obsessively claim, I'd never pretend it's the strongest half-caster; these types of "free spell slots" are only free spell slots when you actually get to use them. Sometimes there are simply no plants to talk to, or at least none that are going to be of any help.
A climb speed and a swim speed as well as the ability to ignore non-magical difficult terrain means they have a crap ton more mobility in combat than Paladins and that translates to more effectiveness in combat because they can get where they need to go (melee, cover whatever).
Mobility is often highly situational, and on a Ranger can be somewhat overrated anyway as many rangers will just be shooting from a range. All you're highlighting here is a difference between the classes, not a specific advantage, as Paladins will usually be more durable and when they get up close will deal more damage where it's needed, and that should surprise no-one; Paladins are not Rangers, it's just a difference in how they play, it's also very campaign dependent (many DMs don't do varied battlefields well).
They are better healers than Paladins. With goodberry the can cast the night before and have 10x slots left berries the next day (in additon to not needing rations the next day either). At 8th level for example Ranger who goes to bed with all his spell slots has 70 points of healing on tap the next day before using a single spell slot, the 8th level Paladin with Lay on Hands has 40. Now sure that is if he goes the entire day before not casting a spell, but that is not that uncommon and the flip side is he does not need spell slots for damage, so he will have more regular slots for healing spells like aid too. Finally they give themselves temp hps multiple times a day.
This is a weird argument; goodberries heal 1 hp at a time, and require the target's action to use, that extra (theoretical) healing isn't going to get someone back into the fight. While a Paladin has to sacrifice their own action to heal someone during a fight, they can be bringing that person back at 40 hp to fight on, and that costs them zero spell slots that day or the one before; it's not reliant upon anything other than being a Paladin. It's also not taking up one of their limited spell choices.
Goodberry is fine for a party maintenance option, good even, but it's a really weird thing to compare to Lay On Hands like the total number is all that matters, especially when it's something you'd have to choose to take and cast, whereas the Paladin gets Lay On Hands for free. You'd have to spend the entire previous day doing nothing (or forcing your party to pull your weight by casting no spells) just to accumulate that many berries, which is a big assumption; a Paladin could spend that same day questing, make a bunch of gold and buy a sackful of potions and rations with it if the party needs more out of combat healing and food. You also can't guarantee you won't get the opposite situation; where you completely drained after several desperate battles and so can't prepare any goodberries before your long rest, so to access that healing you've got to burn slots the next day.
Actually it's a good case for why Rangers could do with being prepared casters, as you could prepare goodberry only when you know that food/healing resources are going to be scarce, rather than taking it and potentially being stuck in situations where you can't make the most of it.
Paladins have smite which is a ton of damage using spell slots, and for a single nova round that is higher. The good Rangers subclasses on the other hand get consistent damage boosts for free, they don't have to use their spells to buff their combat power and instead can use them for other things.
Again this is just a difference; consistent damage throughout the day is of only minor benefit if you're facing some big monster that you need to take down as fast as possible. Paladins are not Rangers, Rangers are not Paladins, they're not supposed to fulfil the same duties in the same way.
To be clear, I didn't say that I personally think that Paladins are the strongest, just that that usually seems to be the consensus because they get a lot of kit that makes them good in multiple roles without any real cost (they're fighters, healers and support before you even pick any spells or sub-classes). My view is that all the half-casters are solid, so much so that there is no clear winner between them because they all play very differently; the point is that there is no justification for why two should be prepared and one isn't, which is what this topic is supposed to be about. 😝
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 like having sharp distinctions between classes. If we continue blurring the distinctions then we have a circumstance where every PC has all of the abilities of every class.
I like having sharp distinctions between classes. If we continue blurring the distinctions then we have a circumstance where every PC has all of the abilities of every class.
Yes! 100%
I've heard this referred to as "the great singularity". Boring, IMHO.
I like having sharp distinctions between classes. If we continue blurring the distinctions then we have a circumstance where every PC has all of the abilities of every class.
I'm not sure making Rangers prepared casters is going to be the slippery slope you're worried about. Being a non-prepared caster isn't exactly a defining feature of the Ranger, and I'd wager more players find it annoying/confusing than characterful; we're not talking about some unique feature of the Ranger here, just that they get the same prepared spell freedom as the other half-casters. Rangers would still have their unique features and spells, which are the important parts to making the class what it is.
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 like having sharp distinctions between classes. If we continue blurring the distinctions then we have a circumstance where every PC has all of the abilities of every class.
I'm not sure making Rangers prepared casters is going to be the slippery slope you're worried about. Being a non-prepared caster isn't exactly a defining feature of the Ranger, and I'd wager more players find it annoying/confusing than characterful; we're not talking about some unique feature of the Ranger here, just that they get the same prepared spell freedom as the other half-casters. Rangers would still have their unique features and spells, which are the important parts to making the class what it is.
Agreed... It's not defining enough to make that an issue IMO.
Rangers already have a fair amount if distinct spells and features even enough this won't be an issue.
Nature's Viel is extremely powerful even at the tier 3 level you get it.
Nature's Veil is a very nice ability, but I'd hardly say it makes them the most powerful half-caster in the game; you only get proficiency uses per long rest, so maintaining it over multiple rounds means it will run out very quickly. Don't get me wrong, having a way to gain advantage/impose disadvantage for a few rounds is very nice, but I don't think it changes the equation.
Consider this at the level you get it you get 4 uses a day. A Paladin who uses his entire spell selection for devine smite is going to use divine smite 9 times a day (not counting smites gained back through channel divinity. Further it is a free ability that uses a bonus action.
So if we are comparing that is 4 entire rounds where you are invisible giving you advantage on all your attacks, giving your enemies disadvantage on all their attacks and making it so you can't be targeted with spells that require you to be seen. Compare that to 9 attacks total that a Paladin can use smite on and then on top of that the Paladin is out of spells.
No one goes around saying smite is a nice ability but it only lets you plus up a few attacks a day.
A climb speed and a swim speed as well as the ability to ignore non-magical difficult terrain means they have a crap ton more mobility in combat than Paladins and that translates to more effectiveness in combat because they can get where they need to go (melee, cover whatever).
Mobility is often highly situational, and on a Ranger can be somewhat overrated anyway as many rangers will just be shooting from a range. All you're highlighting here is a difference between the classes, not a specific advantage, as Paladins will usually be more durable and when they get up close will deal more damage where it's needed, and that should surprise no-one; Paladins are not Rangers, it's just a difference in how they play, it's also very campaign dependent (many DMs don't do varied battlefields well).
Mobility is extremelyy good and having a swim speed means the Ranger can swing a pole arm or greatsword underwater with no disadvantage.
Provided they have the same stats other than Wisdom and Charisma Paladins will not usually be any moreduarable because they do not have the defensive abilities Rangers do - specifically they do not have temporary hit points on tap, they do not have nature's veil and they don't have equivalent subclass abilities in this respect. They do have better saves, and a slightly better AC.
Until level 8 Paladins will do less damage in melee than most Rangers with the same stats would do unless they use smites, and that is before you consider the Ranger will get into melee faster because of their superior mobility.
They are better healers than Paladins. With goodberry the can cast the night before and have 10x slots left berries the next day (in additon to not needing rations the next day either). At 8th level for example Ranger who goes to bed with all his spell slots has 70 points of healing on tap the next day before using a single spell slot, the 8th level Paladin with Lay on Hands has 40. Now sure that is if he goes the entire day before not casting a spell, but that is not that uncommon and the flip side is he does not need spell slots for damage, so he will have more regular slots for healing spells like aid too. Finally they give themselves temp hps multiple times a day.
This is a weird argument; goodberries heal 1 hp at a time, and require the target's action to use, that extra (theoretical) healing isn't going to get someone back into the fight.
Sure it will. We use goodberry all the time to bring back people in a fight. Lay on Hands and Cure Wounds are both actions too, so there is no eifference there. I think every healing spell or ability the Paladin has in an action. Goodberry is better than cure wounds at this because for a 1st-level slot you cast yesterday can be used to bring someone back into the fight 10 times today and you can hand them out to the party to use.
Cure Wounds and
While a Paladin has to sacrifice their own action to heal someone during a fight, they can be bringing that person back at 40 hp to fight on, and that costs them zero spell slots that day or the one before; it's not reliant upon anything other than being a Paladin. It's also not taking up one of their limited spell choices.
Sure and if the Dragon breathes fire on him again next turn he is down and the Paladin can't bring him back at all after that. The Ranger can bring him back every single round for 80 rounds if he cast goodberry 8 times last night.
Not taking up limited spell choices is the whole point of this thread. If I can prepare spells I can get my 80 goodberries and then take it off the list the next day. That is an example of why we should not do this.
Again this is just a difference; consistent damage throughout the day is of only minor benefit if you're facing some big monster that you need to take down as fast as possible. Paladins are not Rangers, Rangers are not Paladins, they're not supposed to fulfil the same duties in the same way.
Well the Ranger has a lot of spell choices that are going to keep up with Smite pretty well - upcast ensaring Strike and spike growth being two obvious examples, while also enhancing your attacks or your allies attacks or both. And they can combine those with their other damage riders while the Paladin smite is a 1-shot deal.
Smite is more versatile in that almost always will work while in some cases other spells like those above won't, but it won't do more damage overall.
I paladin has to smite multiple times and frequently to just deal damage on par with any ranger subclass using only hunter's mark.
Paladins NEED the flexibility of prepared casting as they have few slots to cast spells due to NEEDING to smite to keep up in damage.
Whenever the game gets harder, ranger pull ahead. Longer combat days? Favor rangers. Terms of engagements for great distances? Favor rangers. More than one enemy? Favor rangers. Interesting and challenging combat terrains? Favor rangers.
I paladin has to smite multiple times and frequently to just deal damage on par with any ranger subclass using only hunter's mark.
Paladins NEED the flexibility of prepared casting as they have few slots to cast spells due to NEEDING to smite to keep up in damage.
Whenever the game gets harder, ranger pull ahead. Longer combat days? Favor rangers. Terms of engagements for great distances? Favor rangers. More than one enemy? Favor rangers. Interesting and challenging combat terrains? Favor rangers.
If your smites are only doing the same damage as hunters you're doing the math wrong I think....
I paladin has to smite multiple times and frequently to just deal damage on par with any ranger subclass using only hunter's mark.
Paladins NEED the flexibility of prepared casting as they have few slots to cast spells due to NEEDING to smite to keep up in damage.
Whenever the game gets harder, ranger pull ahead. Longer combat days? Favor rangers. Terms of engagements for great distances? Favor rangers. More than one enemy? Favor rangers. Interesting and challenging combat terrains? Favor rangers.
If your smites are only doing the same damage as hunters you're doing the math wrong I think....
Probably. A level 5 and/or 10 hunter ranger with colossus slayer, longbow, and hunter's mark versus a level 10 paladin with a greatsword and using divine smite (at least one 1st level slot per battle).
I paladin has to smite multiple times and frequently to just deal damage on par with any ranger subclass using only hunter's mark.
Paladins NEED the flexibility of prepared casting as they have few slots to cast spells due to NEEDING to smite to keep up in damage.
Whenever the game gets harder, ranger pull ahead. Longer combat days? Favor rangers. Terms of engagements for great distances? Favor rangers. More than one enemy? Favor rangers. Interesting and challenging combat terrains? Favor rangers.
If your smites are only doing the same damage as hunters you're doing the math wrong I think....
Probably. A level 5 and/or 10 hunter ranger with colossus slayer, longbow, and hunter's mark versus a level 10 paladin with a greatsword and using divine smite (at least one 1st level slot per battle).
I paladin has to smite multiple times and frequently to just deal damage on par with any ranger subclass using only hunter's mark.
Paladins NEED the flexibility of prepared casting as they have few slots to cast spells due to NEEDING to smite to keep up in damage.
Whenever the game gets harder, ranger pull ahead. Longer combat days? Favor rangers. Terms of engagements for great distances? Favor rangers. More than one enemy? Favor rangers. Interesting and challenging combat terrains? Favor rangers.
If your smites are only doing the same damage as hunters you're doing the math wrong I think....
Probably. A level 5 and/or 10 hunter ranger with colossus slayer, longbow, and hunter's mark versus a level 10 paladin with a greatsword and using divine smite (at least one 1st level slot per battle).
That's not hunters mark alone then...
We covered this several posts back. Paladins get their combat kit from their class and using spell slots for divine smite. Ranger get much of their combat kit from casting spells and their subclass.
I paladin has to smite multiple times and frequently to just deal damage on par with any ranger subclass using only hunter's mark.
Paladins NEED the flexibility of prepared casting as they have few slots to cast spells due to NEEDING to smite to keep up in damage.
Whenever the game gets harder, ranger pull ahead. Longer combat days? Favor rangers. Terms of engagements for great distances? Favor rangers. More than one enemy? Favor rangers. Interesting and challenging combat terrains? Favor rangers.
If your smites are only doing the same damage as hunters you're doing the math wrong I think....
Probably. A level 5 and/or 10 hunter ranger with colossus slayer, longbow, and hunter's mark versus a level 10 paladin with a greatsword and using divine smite (at least one 1st level slot per battle).
That's not hunters mark alone then...
We covered this several posts back. Paladins get their combat kit from their class and using spell slots for divine smite. Ranger get much of their combat kit from casting spells and their subclass.
And paladin get Channel Divinity which can increase damage too...
Vengeance Paladin gets to get ADV on all attacks vs a creature.
Devotion adds CHA to damage
Not to mention you get to see the roll before smite do you can wait for a crit and do amazing damage.
You start with a disengenous premise you get a disengenous answer...
This is all true. But stretched out over 3, 6, or 9 rounds or more of multiple combats those 1 minute or less abilities thin out drastically. Yes, smites get to see the attack hit before use, and we can account for that with more than one attack and a chance to hit, similar to advantage on one attack. Take a 4-round combat, or 3 4-round combats, and average out damage per round sustained, and you'll find the paladin kit is nova damage only, and that's not taking into account loss of damage output on any round spend dashing or using an action to activate many of these wonderful paladin channel divinity actions while a ranger is active from the start of round 1. Rangers also build towards a higher initiative order and being surprised less frequently than a paladin, all while having more and better opportunities to surprise the enemy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I come to that conclusion due to the crapton spells and abilities they get. If you are only considering the class abilities Paladins are probably about their equal, but if you are considering what they get with the more powerful subclasses Rangers are well ahead.
Nature's Viel is extremely powerful even at the tier 3 level you get it.
They get a lot of spells with primal awareness and subclass spells and with free castings they can cast nearly as many spells a day as a full caster in tier 2 and tier 3.
A climb speed and a swim speed as well as the ability to ignore non-magical difficult terrain means they have a crap ton more mobility in combat than Paladins and that translates to more effectiveness in combat because they can get where they need to go (melee, cover whatever).
They are better healers than Paladins. With goodberry the can cast the night before and have 10x slots left berries the next day (in additon to not needing rations the next day either). At 8th level for example Ranger who goes to bed with all his spell slots has 70 points of healing on tap the next day before using a single spell slot, the 8th level Paladin with Lay on Hands has 40. Now sure that is if he goes the entire day before not casting a spell, but that is not that uncommon and the flip side is he does not need spell slots for damage, so he will have more regular slots for healing spells like aid too. Finally they give themselves temp hps multiple times a day.
Then you get into subclasses:
Paladins have smite which is a ton of damage using spell slots, and for a single nova round that is higher. The good Rangers subclasses on the other hand get consistent damage boosts for free, they don't have to use their spells to buff their combat power and instead can use them for other things.
A few examples of subclass abilities that rock.
A Gloomstalker gets a free attack every single battle and that attack does an extra 1d8 damage. He is invisible to anyone using darkvision to find him, meanign he is hitting a lot more often..
A Fey Wanderer can bypass the concentration mechanic both with abilities that don't use it that normally would (frighten, Charm for one minute) and the ability to spam Summon Fey. This is in addition to an extra psychic damage once a turn if he hits .... every turn. A Fey Wanderer with an Army of Fey has the entire battlefield frightened and charmed in a few turns, in addition to dealing high damage while not worrying about concentration to hold it at all.
Swarm keeper does at will damage every turn in addition to forced movement. Combined with spike Growth this is an extra 12d4+1d6 extra damage every round for a single 2nd level spell slot until he loses concentration (1d6 swarm damage, 6d4 movement damage, 6d4 damage for the bad guy to move back into combat). This is in addition to controlling the battlefield, setting difficult terrain and damaging other enemies as well, with its casting.
Yes. Known spells only? Yes. But rangers all get additional spell like, resource free, straight up boosts at level 3. Yes. I know all subclasses for all classes get stuff at levels. But rangers have resource free subclass boosts. That is a win from a resource management perspective. Do you like paladin level 3 subclass abilities? How many of them require using an existing resource, like a spell slot or channel divinity, or their yet limited resource? Almost all. Same with fighter, monk, barbarian, etc.
I don't see how that's true, considering the ranger (A) doesn't have more spell slots than an artificer or paladin and (B) has fewer spells per level than they do. Rangers actually have the least. At least with an artificer or paladin, they can prepare more spells and use their spellcasting ability modifier to add to that list. The ranger's, on the other hand, is fixed. And once you factor in the bonus spells (of which the ranger objectively gets the fewest), it just makes them look even worse, as spellcasters, by comparison.
Honestly, your claim reads so incredulously that I don't know where you're going with the rest of this. But, okay, I'll bite.
Those are all optional class features; which are at best a sidegrade to the Player's Handbook features they replace. They can be mixed and matched, utilized to any conceivable degree, and should not be assumed. What's more, just like Natural Explorer, Primeval Awareness, and Hide in Plain Sight, these optional features have their own strengths and weaknesses. Invoking them doesn't do for your argument what you think it does.
*Edited for spelling
You're making a lot of, in my opinion, shortsighted assumptions about potential healing. It doesn't matter how many berries the ranger can make; only how many get used. And yes, a ranger can certainly tap themselves out of spell slots before settling in for a long rest. However, the possibility of a random encounter during their long rest means they risk depriving the party of a valuable resource. I don't think you want to be that person. And rations aren't the big deal you seem to think they are. The ranger has other means of dealing with everyone needing food and water throughout the day. So would a cleric, druid, or anyone with the Outlander background. And so does literally everyone else with even the tiniest bit of gold, and spare room in their backpack or other container, at their disposal.
Spell slots aren't hammers, not every potential problem a spell can solve is a nail, and you really don't want to get into a discussion on subclasses.
A Ranger can cast more SPELLS per day than an equal level Paladin or Artificer because of the casting he gets that don't use slots through Primal awareness (not to mention the Fey Wanderer Subclass if he takes that).
For example an 9th level Ranger can cast 12 spells a day, an 9thLevel Paladin or artificer can cast 9 spells a day. A 9th level full caster can cast 14spells a day (not including slots gained through metamagic, arcane recovery or channel divinity).
They are better spellcasters because they can cast more spells per day and compared to a Paladin have better spells on their list and do not need to use spells to boost damage.
They do have less known vs prepared if those two classes max their casting stat. But it is easier for a Ranger to max wisdom than it is for a Paladin to Max charisma because the Ranger can make a build to use wisdom on attacks and damage and the Paladin can't do that unless he multiclasses. This means Paladins will generally be running a lower charisma than a Ranger is Wisdom and needs to use his spell slots to boost damage, while the Ranger doesn't.
The artificer is much closer as a caster, probably better even as a straight caster despite being able to cast fewer spells a day. But the artificer does not get d10 hit dice, a fighting style or as many/good combat abilities.
We are comparing the power in the class, I am using the most powerful features from that class. While I am at it though, Lands Stride is not an optional feature it is in the players handbook and when combined with Roving from deft explorer it has a huge effect on the battlefield. The Ranger is going to scurry across the difficult terrain and then climb the wall to the bad guy while the Paladin plods along. If there is a lake between the two of you it does not slow the Ranger down AND he can swing his greatsword in the lake without disadvantage because he has a swim speed.
If your game is heavily focused on exploration then natural explorer and Primeval Awareness can even up with Deft Explorer and Primal Awareness, but it has to be an exploration heavy game for that to be true. However an exploration-heave game is going to favor the Ranger hands down. There is no competition at all where if we are talking Paladin-vs-Ranger in terms of exploration.
The only place where Paladin-vs-Ranger is a significant argument is in combat and the features I mentioned are much better in combat and generally better overall.
And it doesn't matter how much lay on hands the Paladin can do, only how much gets used. They get the same number of free slots, the Ranger has better healing spells on his list, the Ranger has less need to use his slots on other things and the Ranger can start with a similar (sometimes larger, sometimes smaller) pool of "free" healing by casting goodberry before resting.
The only advantage the Paladin has in this regard is the ability to prepare spells. So he has the opportunity to prepare healing when it is needed versus making long-term choices between things like Aid and Spike Growth or cure wounds and ensnaring strike. That is a significant advantage in favor of the Paladin, but he loses that advantage of you make Rangers prepared casters. As a matter of fact if we did this Rangers could get goodberry just to outheal the Paladin the following day and then toss it for the other spells. Preparing would actually give the Ranger an even better mechanism for this.
Not really we are talking about one possible encounter. Technically they can do this right before the end of the long rest anyway as that is when the spell slots refresh. In my games we just generally do it before we bed down. I should have said he can cast goodberry right before his long rest ends instead of right before he goes to bed.
Spike Growth, Summon Fey and Conjure Woodland Beings are all pretty effective Hammers and if you have enough spells prepared and the slots to cast them spells can solve just about every problem you will face.
That is why Rangers should not be spell preparers. With the combination of the spells on their list and their high combat ability, they could largely hammer in nails, screw in screws and bolt on bolts. Limiting their spells known limits their ability to do this and keeping them from being prepared casters prevents them from switching between silence when they will be facing mages, spike growth before a big brawl and pass without trace before sneaking into the keep.
Sure I do! Rangers get HUGE and often resource free boosts from their subclasses.
Now you're just being dishonest. If you're making an allowance for a ranger who has Primal Awareness instead of Primeval Awareness, then you must also make an allowance for a paladin with Harness Divine Power. You're also ignoring the flexibility of the latter, since three of those ranger spells are locked. You cannot guarantee that a ranger will reliably be able to use speak with animals, beast sense, and speak with plants every day. Conversely, a 9th-level paladin not only has 11 potential spell slots, but their choice between any combination of two expended 1st-level and 2nd-level spell slots. Both are useful additions, but they come with sizable asterisks.
Your obvious bias is obvious. And this is coming from an ardent defender of the class for years.
If you notice, I said at the end of the quote "not including slots ..... gained through channel divinity". Harness divine power uses CD. Sure they can use their channel divinity to gain back a spell slot.
Sure a Paladin can use another limited use ability to get back a slots. This is a maximum of three times a day at 15 level, it and that requires a minimum of 2 short rests to do as well as burning your channel divinity uses for it .... and even with that maxed out he is still behind the Ranger.
I also want to point out that you said earlier that "you really don't want to get in a discussion about subclass" .... why don't we talk about subclasses with the assumption you are using all your CD to get back spell slots? I mean you basically just eliminated all of their subclass abilities before level 7 and 80% of them above it to get back a few (3 or less) spell slots and get you to where the Paladin is only slightly behind a Ranger in spells per day.
The Ranger gets those extra spells for free, and on top of it gets subclass abilities that blow away a Paladins, even if they do use CD.
Only if he gets at least one short rest and burns his CD twice to do it. Moreover compared to the good Ranger subclasses he has to use either spell slots or CD to keep up in general damage in combat with a Ranger who uses no resources.
It is not bias it is playing experience and mathematics.
this isn't a discussion of power levels {although power appearance affects some peoples votes, it is only a piece of the puzzle} I think a holistic approach is better than focusing on one aspect.
so far I have seen these are the decision points brought up so far or the ones I thought of in the moment :
Below is an in depth OPINION. take it with a grain of salt or skip that's fine either way. TLDR . I think known is better for all areas but 1 but there are some valid points for prepared.
Theme/story implications: I value how it affects the narrative as 2/5 for level of importance. There is some value to asking about the logical narrative. questions like, why is a skill expert suddenly learning or forgetting skills. But In the end I think flavor is free and explanations could be brought up either way. In the end story makes me personally lean towards Known. its a good balance between those who want to thematically treat their ranger as non magical or different from other casters and those that don't care.
class relative "power" and versatility: This is Highly subjective because the tools we use to value dpr and defense Cannot Be measured accurately. The value of unquantifiable skills makes it difficult to comprehend things like "daily hold-overs", stealth features, skills and their combat effects and non white-room instances. Still even then I believe all classes should be around the same power scope, And I think 5e does this relatively ok with only a few outliers. Now many people "feel" The ranger class is weak but others feel its too strong.(even some of the people who claim its weak say they constantly nerf multiple ranger abilities from their valid interpretations)
There is also the question of how much power is added by making a known caster prepared. I find most druids take the same spells routinely and they still almost never take certain spells except for narrative scenarios. This gets even more complex to determine with scrolls and magic items. many magic items make preparing certain spells stupid because you can cast them other ways but druids get a lot more than rangers.
So, normally I would vote prepared {for this category} and any one who wanted known could handy cap themselves could. I also have no problem increasing the power of rangers to unquestionably compete with other classes for best adventurer but I have an honest fear it would lead to more DM power nerfs and the value I would get out of it would be minimal. MY vote: spells known 4/5 for importance
mechanical Consistency and ease of use. almost every one agrees that rangers are complex. The wording is finicky and the features require a deep understanding of the game mechanics and play. many people called the ranger the DM's class or the advanced Class in the early years of dnd. Some people want it moved to be in line with others making it easier to understand /and explain . some people like the complexity or the advanced class status. My problem is (IMO) neither prepared or Known actually solves the ranger complexity they still have weird gameplay interactions. There are also wildly different builds for many ranger players. because There are so many possible ranger configurations already I lean towards pick your spells and be done. continue your strategy around it and keep playing. if there is a problem switching spells daily probably wont fix it and you'll need to talk to your dm.
I think making it prepared For ease of understanding/game consistency could equate to huge dissatisfaction. spells with saves work well only if you have prepared for them. skills you have chosen loose value if "there's a spell for that." meaning I think there become more trap options not less. 4/5 for importance but I have to vote Known.
Mechanical roles rangers fill a unique roll in the party. many people disagree what a ranger means or needs to feel like a ranger. but certain things float to the surface. versatility is one, travel/tracking expert is another. They act a lot like team managers. They are expected to fill a lot of roles and have good information. going into a new biome ask the ranger what we should expect and how to prepare. however some builds leave things to be desired. alot of rangers players feel bad about certain stats being low. what ever dump stat you have atleast one scenario you will feel the loss of that choice. However, the ranger has spells to make up for it. alarm and locate spells for players that needed lower wisdom or Intelligence. non-detection or passwithout a trace for those whose dex is lower because they wanted strength weapons. snare for rangers who need to capture targets alive but took only leathal damage options. On and on it goes. I also find it sad that some ranger spells never get used. Prepared would help allow players to try those out more. For the ranger role I prefer prepared. 4/5 for importance
Gameplay "meta"
The meta around rangers is interesting. In particular, I value Hold-overs a lot. So I tend to use Huntersmark to save slots and almost always have some left over at night. These leftovers i use for goodberry, alarm, and primeval awareness. This helps me get through the next day quite well. I also focus rangers on consumables and take advantage of down time. crafting potions, collecting/making goods for trade or use. Buying scrolls for spells I don't know. Harvesting poison from every creature I can. Sadly much of the community dose not do this and it creates a distinct difference of experience. I've been at tables where rangers were asked to tone it down because they were out shining the others. I've seen players try and mimic the results and not have such a good time. the difference in these experiences concerns me because if you add "power" to bring the lower one up then the good players just have more to leverage. I would rather see the value of consumables and non-spell combat preparation return to the experience of play. spell casting is already a powerful feature and the community usually agrees, but the desire to let the "martials" compete seems unfulfilled. by encouraging consumables and hold-overs in play, other parts of the game shine a bit more.
I stated before I see nerfs all the time to rangers. Removal or weakening of certain spells, removal of downtime features, Dms handing out magic items that are more suited to other classes. dms nope-ing out on things a ranger can take advantage of. {no you cant have death saves, harvest poison, use fogcloud rules, use downtime }. I don't want power bribes to cover for the things that were taken away. no thanks.
Thirdly. the community response. to be honest I am sick of rewrites and wotc doesn't want to invalidate older printings if they can help it. The ranger community already has so much going on I don't think we need other changes. revised ranger, tasha's builds, PHb Builds, differing interpretations of spells and features. The ability to say "this is how its printed so this is what were sticking to" is freeing and better for the "ranger brand." it means better compatibility and function. If wotc wants to do prepared they can but it should be a completely separate entry.(which may happen with 5.5) It makes sense for them it makes sense for us as players.
For the meta category I say stick to known there are other non class changes that fix the perceived problem. level of importance 3/5
Call backs to previous editions.
I don't know enough about older editions. I think They were known in the past for most of the editions with rangers+ spellcasting. I think it is a point that they have a dnd history of being known but I wouldn't make any final decisions based on that. I guess 3.5 had prepared. still it leans to known. however the level of importance to me is minimal. 1/5 (Note its not a 0)
Nature's Veil is a very nice ability, but I'd hardly say it makes them the most powerful half-caster in the game; you only get proficiency uses per long rest, so maintaining it over multiple rounds means it will run out very quickly. Don't get me wrong, having a way to gain advantage/impose disadvantage for a few rounds is very nice, but I don't think it changes the equation.
This is a weird argument to make; by this logic the Alchemist Artificer is the most powerful half caster in the game because they effectively get the same number of spell slots as a full caster (as elixirs are basically all free 1st-level spells, and they get free casts of lesser restoration, greater restoration and heal for something like 11-12 additional "slots").
Now while I don't believe for a moment the Alchemist is as weak as many people obsessively claim, I'd never pretend it's the strongest half-caster; these types of "free spell slots" are only free spell slots when you actually get to use them. Sometimes there are simply no plants to talk to, or at least none that are going to be of any help.
Mobility is often highly situational, and on a Ranger can be somewhat overrated anyway as many rangers will just be shooting from a range. All you're highlighting here is a difference between the classes, not a specific advantage, as Paladins will usually be more durable and when they get up close will deal more damage where it's needed, and that should surprise no-one; Paladins are not Rangers, it's just a difference in how they play, it's also very campaign dependent (many DMs don't do varied battlefields well).
This is a weird argument; goodberries heal 1 hp at a time, and require the target's action to use, that extra (theoretical) healing isn't going to get someone back into the fight. While a Paladin has to sacrifice their own action to heal someone during a fight, they can be bringing that person back at 40 hp to fight on, and that costs them zero spell slots that day or the one before; it's not reliant upon anything other than being a Paladin. It's also not taking up one of their limited spell choices.
Goodberry is fine for a party maintenance option, good even, but it's a really weird thing to compare to Lay On Hands like the total number is all that matters, especially when it's something you'd have to choose to take and cast, whereas the Paladin gets Lay On Hands for free. You'd have to spend the entire previous day doing nothing (or forcing your party to pull your weight by casting no spells) just to accumulate that many berries, which is a big assumption; a Paladin could spend that same day questing, make a bunch of gold and buy a sackful of potions and rations with it if the party needs more out of combat healing and food. You also can't guarantee you won't get the opposite situation; where you completely drained after several desperate battles and so can't prepare any goodberries before your long rest, so to access that healing you've got to burn slots the next day.
Actually it's a good case for why Rangers could do with being prepared casters, as you could prepare goodberry only when you know that food/healing resources are going to be scarce, rather than taking it and potentially being stuck in situations where you can't make the most of it.
Again this is just a difference; consistent damage throughout the day is of only minor benefit if you're facing some big monster that you need to take down as fast as possible. Paladins are not Rangers, Rangers are not Paladins, they're not supposed to fulfil the same duties in the same way.
To be clear, I didn't say that I personally think that Paladins are the strongest, just that that usually seems to be the consensus because they get a lot of kit that makes them good in multiple roles without any real cost (they're fighters, healers and support before you even pick any spells or sub-classes). My view is that all the half-casters are solid, so much so that there is no clear winner between them because they all play very differently; the point is that there is no justification for why two should be prepared and one isn't, which is what this topic is supposed to be about. 😝
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 like having sharp distinctions between classes. If we continue blurring the distinctions then we have a circumstance where every PC has all of the abilities of every class.
Yes! 100%
I've heard this referred to as "the great singularity". Boring, IMHO.
I'm not sure making Rangers prepared casters is going to be the slippery slope you're worried about. Being a non-prepared caster isn't exactly a defining feature of the Ranger, and I'd wager more players find it annoying/confusing than characterful; we're not talking about some unique feature of the Ranger here, just that they get the same prepared spell freedom as the other half-casters. Rangers would still have their unique features and spells, which are the important parts to making the class what it is.
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.
Agreed... It's not defining enough to make that an issue IMO.
Rangers already have a fair amount if distinct spells and features even enough this won't be an issue.
Consider this at the level you get it you get 4 uses a day. A Paladin who uses his entire spell selection for devine smite is going to use divine smite 9 times a day (not counting smites gained back through channel divinity. Further it is a free ability that uses a bonus action.
So if we are comparing that is 4 entire rounds where you are invisible giving you advantage on all your attacks, giving your enemies disadvantage on all their attacks and making it so you can't be targeted with spells that require you to be seen. Compare that to 9 attacks total that a Paladin can use smite on and then on top of that the Paladin is out of spells.
No one goes around saying smite is a nice ability but it only lets you plus up a few attacks a day.
Mobility is extremelyy good and having a swim speed means the Ranger can swing a pole arm or greatsword underwater with no disadvantage.
Provided they have the same stats other than Wisdom and Charisma Paladins will not usually be any more duarable because they do not have the defensive abilities Rangers do - specifically they do not have temporary hit points on tap, they do not have nature's veil and they don't have equivalent subclass abilities in this respect. They do have better saves, and a slightly better AC.
Until level 8 Paladins will do less damage in melee than most Rangers with the same stats would do unless they use smites, and that is before you consider the Ranger will get into melee faster because of their superior mobility.
Sure it will. We use goodberry all the time to bring back people in a fight. Lay on Hands and Cure Wounds are both actions too, so there is no eifference there. I think every healing spell or ability the Paladin has in an action. Goodberry is better than cure wounds at this because for a 1st-level slot you cast yesterday can be used to bring someone back into the fight 10 times today and you can hand them out to the party to use.
Cure Wounds and
Sure and if the Dragon breathes fire on him again next turn he is down and the Paladin can't bring him back at all after that. The Ranger can bring him back every single round for 80 rounds if he cast goodberry 8 times last night.
Not taking up limited spell choices is the whole point of this thread. If I can prepare spells I can get my 80 goodberries and then take it off the list the next day. That is an example of why we should not do this.
Well the Ranger has a lot of spell choices that are going to keep up with Smite pretty well - upcast ensaring Strike and spike growth being two obvious examples, while also enhancing your attacks or your allies attacks or both. And they can combine those with their other damage riders while the Paladin smite is a 1-shot deal.
Smite is more versatile in that almost always will work while in some cases other spells like those above won't, but it won't do more damage overall.
I paladin has to smite multiple times and frequently to just deal damage on par with any ranger subclass using only hunter's mark.
Paladins NEED the flexibility of prepared casting as they have few slots to cast spells due to NEEDING to smite to keep up in damage.
Whenever the game gets harder, ranger pull ahead. Longer combat days? Favor rangers. Terms of engagements for great distances? Favor rangers. More than one enemy? Favor rangers. Interesting and challenging combat terrains? Favor rangers.
If your smites are only doing the same damage as hunters you're doing the math wrong I think....
Probably. A level 5 and/or 10 hunter ranger with colossus slayer, longbow, and hunter's mark versus a level 10 paladin with a greatsword and using divine smite (at least one 1st level slot per battle).
That's not hunters mark alone then...
We covered this several posts back. Paladins get their combat kit from their class and using spell slots for divine smite. Ranger get much of their combat kit from casting spells and their subclass.
And paladin get Channel Divinity which can increase damage too...
Vengeance Paladin gets to get ADV on all attacks vs a creature.
Devotion adds CHA to damage
Not to mention you get to see the roll before smite do you can wait for a crit and do amazing damage.
You start with a disengenous premise you get a disengenous answer...
This is all true. But stretched out over 3, 6, or 9 rounds or more of multiple combats those 1 minute or less abilities thin out drastically. Yes, smites get to see the attack hit before use, and we can account for that with more than one attack and a chance to hit, similar to advantage on one attack. Take a 4-round combat, or 3 4-round combats, and average out damage per round sustained, and you'll find the paladin kit is nova damage only, and that's not taking into account loss of damage output on any round spend dashing or using an action to activate many of these wonderful paladin channel divinity actions while a ranger is active from the start of round 1. Rangers also build towards a higher initiative order and being surprised less frequently than a paladin, all while having more and better opportunities to surprise the enemy.