Why do you lke the Primal source?

[AverageCitizen]

Frankly, I kinda hate it. It has always been my least favorite of the sources, next to divine. When I found out that PHB 3 has both of those I almost spat nails.

But I have noticed that a lot of people on here really like it, and so maybe your enthusiasm will be contagious.

So if you like it I'd like to know

1. Why you like it

and

2. Whether or not you use the story as written, and if not how do you fit Primal into the game world?

Note: I'm primarily a DM, so that is where I am coming from.

 

[Tallifer]

It is an obvious way to categorize the Powers of the World.

There are the fighters and other hard bitten, plain, no nonsense men at arms.

There are the gods and their fanatical and idealistic worshippers.

There are the insane seekers of arcane secrets and forgotten horrors, delvers in things which ought not to be named.

And then there are the barbaric spirits of the dark, fantastic, haunted forest, servants of Mother Earth and friends with ents.

(Although if you do not see a place even for the divine in a fantasy world...)

 

[RefinedBean]

It feels wholly separate from the other sources. That was my main worry when I heard about it. I never really felt any difference between how a fighter and a barbarian swing a sword, except one's yelling a lot more. Now, I can really feel the difference both in fluff and play.

Also, I like how they integrated the Primal source into the PoL setting. It has connections to EVERYTHING, which it should.

 

[AverageCitizen]

(Although if you do not see a place even for the divine in a fantasy world...)

I see your point about the symmetry. And I do see a place for the divine characters, as well as primal, but I think I have a problem with the implementation of both sources and the fluff for pretty much all of primal. I don't want to get too into it because I'm really not trying to be negative here. Thanks for your post.

It feels wholly separate from the other sources. That was my main worry when I heard about it. I never really felt any difference between how a fighter and a barbarian swing a sword, except one's yelling a lot more. Now, I can really feel the difference both in fluff and play.

Also, I like how they integrated the Primal source into the PoL setting. It has connections to EVERYTHING, which it should.

I guess it is a good thing that it feels different. I just wish the barbarian didn't have so many elemental attacks. I know that its an advantage system-wise but it seems really corny to me.

 

[Nifft]

I've always liked animism and animist "powers". It was one of the things I liked about the 3.5e Binder class, that it hinted at a fundamentally animist universe.

I prefer animist religions in D&D because, if you're going to have 12 gods and 54 demigods already, you might as well extend that down to 10,000 spirits -- because doing so makes a lot of traditional D&D magic make a lot more sense.

For instance: Commune with Nature. You get to chat with the spirit of whatever terrain you're on. If spirits have general rules of behavior and what they care about, the DM has a leg to stand on when adjudicating stuff, and the PC's expectations are easier to handle.

Finally, spirits = spirit POLITICS. I can't stress this enough. Games are made of conflict, and animism adds a whole new layer of conflict to the world.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

I've always liked animism and animist "powers". It was one of the things I liked about the 3.5e Binder class, that it hinted at a fundamentally animist universe.

...


Finally, spirits = spirit POLITICS. I can't stress this enough. Games are made of conflict, and animism adds a whole new layer of conflict to the world.

This.

About five years or so ago, I got into Exalted big time. Exalted uses Spirits very heavily. It is very influenced by Shintoism/Hinduism. I dug it so hard. The stories, the politics, the variety, and the types of powers manifesting.

I had all ready used spirits in my campaigns before I even found out that the Primal source used them. So when I found out it did, I was very happy. I was rather looking forward to the Shaman class, but was a little disappointed in its execution (I was anticipating something else).

4e's use of Spirits is a little more hippy "We're in tuned with nature we're all relaxed and we don't want worshippers" than I'd like. I make my spirits a little more... demanding, a little bit more personable.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Why I like it:

I feel it gives druids and barbarians a more suitable place to hang out and helps differentiate druids from clerics and barbarians from fighters.

It takes the idea of spirits and really establishes them in the D&D world in an interesting way. It also has a strong Greyhawk vibe to me - users of the Primal power source are adherents to the "Old Faith" that predates worship of the gods.

The primal power source helps "explain" why demons/elementals don't run roughshod over creation, or why the gods tend to be distant from the world.

How I use it:

The Primal source has yet to be a focus of my games, but I'll pretty much use the basic story behind it. However, I'm still deciding if I want spirits in my games to be emergent entities of the world or if I want them to be specifically created by the primordials or gods to be the processes of the world.

I may use a bit of both - something about the primordials' act of creation or the gods' Astral influence allowed the natural processes of the world to develop autonomy and self-awareness. In a way, the spirits would be like computer programs or "machines" that became sentient and then told their former masters to hit the road.

 

[Klaus]

I see your point about the symmetry. And I do see a place for the divine characters, as well as primal, but I think I have a problem with the implementation of both sources and the fluff for pretty much all of primal. I don't want to get too into it because I'm really not trying to be negative here. Thanks for your post.



I guess it is a good thing that it feels different. I just wish the barbarian didn't have so many elemental attacks. I know that its an advantage system-wise but it seems really corny to me.

Primal Power added a lot of non-elemental barbarian powers. So you can have the barbarian that just channels an ungodly rage, or you can have a barbarian that channels totems like the Winter Wolf or the Black Dragon.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

I like the Primal source not so much in and of itself, but the way it interplays with the 'factions' of the game. In some ways, I wonder if the promotion of Primal along with its opposite Shadow/Aberrant isn't the designers' (possibly subconscious) homage to the old nine-point alignment system. Broadly speaking, the Divine-Primordial axis represents good and evil whereas the Primal-Aberrant axis is order or 'natual law' and disorder or the lack of 'natural law.' Thus a character's relationship to these sources is a sort of alignment without calling forth difficult and murky ethics* debates.

*Not that I don't like murky ethics in RPGS, but if I want that, I'll go play Dogs in the Vineyard. I like my D&D black and white. YMMV.

 

[Rechan]

Primal Power added a lot of non-elemental barbarian powers. So you can have the barbarian that just channels an ungodly rage, or you can have a barbarian that channels totems like the Winter Wolf or the Black Dragon.

The Barbarian Essentials article on DDi I also aded a lot of non-magical rages.