I understand mechanically how they work differently. Rangers can only cast up to fourth level spells, only learning how to even cast spells at level four. I am also aware there are different spell lists for each, but what I am curious to is if there's a metaphysical explanation for the differences between the source of the nature-centric divine magic between the two classes.
For example, is a hunter pulling from two different sources (mechanically they are) or are they simply casting divine nature magic with a wider variety of spells at a weaker eventual output of spell "power" (meaning spell level)
I imagine this is maybe not something that has a hard ruling on the explanation for, but I'm curious to what the community thinks.
How are Inquisitor spells different form Cleric spells? How are Wizard spells different from Magus spells? The answer is, I think, whatever the player and the GM decide.
My 2 cp? I think it could be that Rangers draw from the same divine source as Druids, but because of their different needs, they channel that divine power into a different set of spells. They don't have the devotion to nature a Druid has, so they don't get a full 9 levels of magic. However, that looser devotion gives them more flexibility. They can learn some more combat-oriented spells that wouldn't normally be part of a Druid's training.
Similar to how an Inquisitor has the ability to bend the rules of their faith, so they get some sneakier spells that aren't part of regular Cleric training.
I don't think Hunter's are drawing from a different source, more that they're halfway between Druids and Rangers. More connected to nature than a Ranger, but not so connected that they can't bend the druid-y rules a bit, or access higher level nature-magic.
While Rangers use the power of Nature, I see Druids becoming that power. Druids are inside Nature letting the magic out, while Rangers (and probably Hunters too) are tapping that same source from the outside.
That's how the difference "feels" to me anyway.
Ok thank you guys I'm really digging what you have to say on it. It makes a lot of sense!
How are Inquisitor spells different form Cleric spells? How are Wizard spells different from Magus spells? The answer is, I think, whatever the player and the GM decide.
Ooh that's a really good point. I'm now wondering what the difference between the wizard, magus and arcanist. Thoughts? Is it just a matter in a difference of studying how to apply magic?
Ok thank you guys I'm really digging what you have to say on it. It makes a lot of sense!
How are Inquisitor spells different form Cleric spells? How are Wizard spells different from Magus spells? The answer is, I think, whatever the player and the GM decide.Ooh that's a really good point. I'm now wondering what the difference between the wizard, magus and arcanist. Thoughts? Is it just a matter in a difference of studying how to apply magic?
Contemplating the difference between the wizard and the magus reminds me of a story from the Young Justice comic book. A teenage superheroine, Arrowette, real name Suzanne "Cissie" King-Jones, had retired from superheroing and from the Young Justice team. As a former archery-based superhero, Cissie tried becoming a normal athlete in archery contests. And she was unexpectedly bad at target archery, despite being able to reliably hit bad guys in non-vital spots during her hero days. Her mother, who was also her coach, figured out the problem. As Arrowette, she always shot on the run or even during a leap or somersault. She had no experience with shooting while standing still. Cissie developed a dynamic always-in-motion style during her athletic competitions and did quite well.
A magus has a more dynamic style than a wizard. A wizard prefers to cast in a safe space with room for somatic components and quiet for verbal components. A magus casts from the front line, mere feet away from a roaring orc barbarian intent on slicing him with a battleaxe, with a sword in one hand. I can imagine that a magus uses a more abbreviated version of the somatic and verbal components. Some spells can't adapt to the abbreviated version, so the magus cannot ordinarily cast them. Of course, a magus could practice the more complete wizardly gestures and phrases, and that is what the Spell Blending arcana represents.
An arcanist learns spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, which I guess should be called the arcanist/sorcerer/wizard spell list these days, :-) Though an arcanist has a different way of storing spells in his mind, this apparently makes no difference.
Back to the issue of ranger versus druid spells. I played a 4th-level gnome ranger in a Rise of the Runelords campaign back when the Core Rulebook was the only source of ranger and druid spells. The 1st-level CRB ranger spells are mostly terrible: Alarm, Animal Messenger, Calm Animals, Charm Animal, Delay Poison, Detect Animals or Plants, Detect Poison, Detect Snares and Pits, Entangle, Hide from Animals, Jump, Magic Fang, Pass without Trace, Read Magic, Speak with Animals, and Summon Nature's Ally I. Three spells, Longstrider, Endure Elements, and Resist Energy, were okay, so my gnome prepared two of them. First-level spells cast with first-level duration and first-level saves are supposed to be pathetic, but since the ranger's other abilities were fourth level, they suffered in comparison. Why spend a spell to cast Magic Fang on an underpowered animal companion (the Boon Companion feat didn't exist yet) when my ranger already had a +1 shortsword in hand?
Then the Advanced Player's Guide was published. My ranger retroactively gained the Guide archetype. And he had many more good spells, such as Aspect of the Falcon, Gravity Bow, Hunter's Howl, Keen Senses, and Lead Blades. Six new ranger spells were not druid spells: Dancing Lantern, Gravity Bow, Hunter's Howl, Lead Blades, Residual Tracking, and Tireless Pursuit. Only one CRB ranger spell, Alarm, was not on the druid list.
The Core Rulebook was designed for backwards compatibility with Dungeons & Dragons 3.5. In the Advanced Player's Guide, the imagination of the Paizo developers was unleashed. They decided to shake the ranger out of its rut as a woodlands-specialist martial class that gains watered-down druid abilities later. The ranger was built up as its own class, going back to its roots in the elven and quarter-elven magic of Legolas and Aragorn.
I would claim that druid magic is nature magic, and ranger magic is wood elf magic. Traditional wood elf magic is based on nature, so it greatly resembles druid magic, but it is cultural rather than natural.
A lot of it is going to depend on the exact character and maybe different from campaign to campaign. For example if you are playing under the assumption that all divine classes have to have a deity that is a lot different than one where druids are not required to have a deity. The core rule book allows both types of druids so even two different druids may have different sources of power. The rules don’t state what the source of a rangers spells are other than being divine. This would also allow both options for rangers.
A druid of the Green faith is probably drawing directly from nature for its spells, but druid of Gozreh would draw from Gozreh for his spells. The same is true with the ranger. You could have a druid and a ranger both drawing from the same source, or they could be drawing from different sources.
I understand mechanically how they work differently. Rangers can only cast up to fourth level spells, only learning how to even cast spells at level four. I am also aware there are different spell lists for each, but what I am curious to is if there's a metaphysical explanation for the differences between the source of the nature-centric divine magic between the two classes.
For example, is a hunter pulling from two different sources (mechanically they are) or are they simply casting divine nature magic with a wider variety of spells at a weaker eventual output of spell "power" (meaning spell level)
I imagine this is maybe not something that has a hard ruling on the explanation for, but I'm curious to what the community thinks.
As I see it, a ranger is sort of a "jack of all trades" and at higher levels s/he gets some attunement to the forces of nature (whether gods, spirits, or whatever works in your setting) that lets them tap in the power of the natural world and the elements and thus cast spells. Druids focus on nature magic, which is why they are much better. The spell list differences could be explained by rangers mostly focusing on just certain aspects of nature magic that are more likely to help them in what they do.
There are a few inconsistencies, of course - personally, I am a little miffed that rangers can´t cast Shillelagh, for example, because I have a soft spot for staff-using warriors.
I would like it if there were some synergy between the casting of similar classes, kind of how BAB from all classes stacks. Maybe caster level stacks or something. However, due to the power of spells some other changes would have to happen as well