D&D General Druid, Ranger & Barbarian: What distinguishes the magic of the Primal classes?

[Rocker26a]

just reposting ranger thoughts cause they seem relevant to the discussion

honestly i entirely vibe with what @CleverNickName is saying about 'rangers being the wizards of nature', rangers aren't strong because they have a ton of brute magical or physical power like the druid and barbarian respectively, rangers are strong because they think their way through and around problems, they have a range of abilities that do a range of specific things and they plan things to use what they do have to get what they need/want.

I definitely agree with some of this, Ranger's virtues not being all in phyiscal nor magical power, but in their intuition and flexibility certainly.
But I do still kinda dislike the comparison of Rangers to Wizards, and the idea that they pick up magic just because it's useful that tends to go along with it. Maybe it isn't a fair reading, but to me it feels like suggesting Rangers take on magic solely as another of their several helpful tools, another "arrow in their quiver" if you like. And I think being in touch with nature and Primal magic ought to be more meaningful than that. I said something sorta like that the other night;

Doing things to get more tools, get more power, that's Warlocks and Wizards. I think it's not great to have a dispassionate Ranger. They should be a Ranger because it's who they are. In an overly flowery sorta way.

 

[Minigiant]

This is mostly a guess, happy to be proven wrong, but. Would it be fair to say that part of the problem here is, Ranger leaning more into the nature side doesn't much capture the fantasy that Ranger fulfills for you? Or ought to fulfill at least

It's more that the ranger that leans that much into primal, not using weapons and and armor...

is a Druid or Barbarian in D&D.

 

[Rocker26a]

It's more that the ranger that leans that much into primal, not using weapons and and armor...

is a Druid or Barbarian in D&D.

Okay, sure, I think that's fair to say. I do think they should lean into it comparably to the other two, though.
What might be a workable way to bring them more thematically into the Primal sphere in that case? I guess particularly, with an aspect centered around their spellcasting that's also somewhat distinct from Druid.

Though also I will say, I don't think not using weapons and armour is a necessary part of the package. Something I leaned into quite a bit for one of my Rangers is, they did things like forming daggers from the bones of creatures they killed, their leather armour was from the hide of a monster they fought. Doubles as a trophy. Nothing wasted!

 

[CreamCloud0]

I definitely agree with some of this, Ranger's virtues not being all in phyiscal nor magical power, but in their intuition and flexibility certainly.
But I do still kinda dislike the comparison of Rangers to Wizards, and the idea that they pick up magic just because it's useful that tends to go along with it. Maybe it isn't a fair reading, but to me it feels like suggesting Rangers take on magic solely as another of their several helpful tools, another "arrow in their quiver" if you like. And I think being in touch with nature and Primal magic ought to be more meaningful than that. I said something sorta like that the other night;

i mean, i wasn't saying the ranger treats their magic as a tool (even if they do) but the point is they treat everything available as a tool, that's the ranger mindset, but their primal magic is still an extention of their deep genuine understanding and connection with nature.

 

[Rocker26a]

i mean, i wasn't saying the ranger treats their magic as a tool (even if they do) but the point is they treat everything available as a tool, that's the ranger mindset

I somewhat dislike this, even if it's true.

their primal magic is still an extention of their deep genuine understanding and connection with nature.

I like this though!

 

[Minigiant]

Okay, sure, I think that's fair to say. I do think they should lean into it comparably to the other two, though.
What might be a workable way to bring them more thematically into the Primal sphere in that case? I guess particularly, with an aspect centered around their spellcasting that's also somewhat distinct from Druid.

Though also I will say, I don't think not using weapons and armour is a necessary part of the package. Something I leaned into quite a bit for one of my Rangers is, they did things like forming daggers from the bones of creatures they killed, their leather armour was from the hide of a monster they fought. Doubles as a trophy. Nothing wasted!

That's not supported by 5e D&D.

 

[Incenjucar]

That's not supported by 5e D&D.

PC lizardfolk cover it a bit.

 

[Rocker26a]

PC lizardfolk cover it a bit.

Yeah that's what inspired it, in part.

 

[Laurefindel]

This has been driving me nuts for some time. I discussed it in another thread a little while ago about whether Rangers should have spellcasting at all. I strongly feel they should, but I hate that they have no unique identity as a spellcaster. Their magic just exists as an extension of the Druid's. It's the same magic, just weaker because they have martial abilities as a primary focus. Their only difference from Druid is mechanical. There's no thematic niche they fill. Unlike Paladins to Druids, who are quite distinct. Then there's Barbarian, who I really like as a class to form the trinity of Primal magic classes. But they have the same problem, their spellcasting flavour just feels like repackaged stuff from other classes. Literally so in the case of Wild Magic Barbarian.
(...)

I'm not sure if I agree with your vision of druid/ranger/barbarian (but than again, I tend to view these thing differently than most), but I agree that they all draw more or less from the same power source. That's how I see primal magic; as an unrefined power source that exist within nature but isn't nature itself.

Consequently, I don't see druids, rangers or barbarians to be "one with nature", at least not intrinsically. They can be, and it's probably easier for them to be "one with nature" than other characters, but primal is were they get their magic. They don't even need to like nature - they can despise it - but they tap from it to work their spells. A druid can be in tune with its world, try to gently tame its its energy, or try to dominate it. They differ from wizards in the way they work their magic; in the primary "ingredients" they use for it. Druid's magic source is more raw, extracted from nature (carefully or recklessly, depends on druid), and therefore their magic tends to me limited to natural and elemental themes. Wizard's magic is more refined, processed, manipulated, and the scope of their magic is broader even if they lost a few things in the translation (healing for one).

Ranger's magic is one step removed, drawing primal energy from specific natural elements that contains it (whereas the herbalist would be two steps removed, using the primal energy of plants but without drawing it themselves)

Barbarians are martial characters. Some subclass can draw on primal magic, not unlike a fighter's subclass can wield arcane magic, but there's no primal in the base class other than figurative imagery.

 

[Minigiant]

PC lizardfolk cover it a bit.

But that's a racial archetype trumping a class one right?7

Like is a high elf fighter spamming Cantrips mean fire bolt is a fighter element?