D&D General What is appropriate Ranger Magic

[Minigiant]

The magical power sources of D&D are so ill-defined it doesn't really matter what you would call any of it. Cleric magic is Divine because it comes from the gods. But Paladin magic is now no longer from the gods, so why are they still Divine? And why do gods get their own power source definition? They are merely Outer Planar beings that grant magic, so why is their magic different than other ones? One would think that Warlock magic should also then be Divine, since demons and devils and celestials are from the Outer Planes too, granting magic to Prime creatures. But Warlocks are Arcane for some reason? The same power that Bards generate their magic from? That doesn't make sense.

And why is it that Ranger's magic is Primal... even Fey Wanderer Rangers... and yet Fey Pact Warlocks are Arcane? At what point does the magic that comes in from the Feywilds turn Primal in one case but Arcane in another? How does that make sense? It doesn't. Because no one at WotC has ever bothered to truly work this stuff out.

That's why it's hard for me to get all worked up about the "Magic of D&D" and whether some classes uses it or don't, and ones use one type and others use another so-called type. It's all so nebulous and wishy-washy that there really is not any point in worrying about it or trying to define it.

Let's be honest.

The Magic of D&D is only incoherent and ill-defined because Wizards of the Coast do not want to make new classes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It certainly used to me more coherent than it is now, for my money. In my games it still is.

Cue the responses letting me know it was never the way I think it was.

Whether it was coherent or not I would suppose would be determined on the kind of "system" a person was expecting or looking for. So I'm sure everyone has their own determinations, based upon what they feel is important in these things. So I wouldn't disagree with your feelings on the matter at all.

For instance, I would say that for myself that the "magical power sources" were more coherent back in AD&D when there was only really two classes that had power sources really defined-- the Cleric and the Magic-User-- both of whom had a very clear demarcation between the spells that appeared in one list versus the other. And the other classes that had spells it was never really worried about what their "source" was per se. So the coherency was clear... but it also didn't really matter.

Whereas an edition like 4E was very much about the power sources and why some classes fell into the ones they did, plus there being narrative definitions regarding what was what. I still disagreed with their choices-- I will always believe that Clerics and Warlocks being different power sources makes no sense-- but at least they made their choices clear. But now in 5E they've gone back to not being all that concerned, just treating magic as magic, and less about power sources at all. Which of course is part of the reason why I found the initial OneD&D playtest when they tried to introduce the three power source spell lists to be a "Really? Why are we bothering with this now?" situation. But I also know that some other people actually liked having those lists, so everyone's feelings on this are different.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Let's be honest.

The Magic of D&D is only incoherent and ill-defined because Wizards of the Coast do not want to make new classes.

I do not think adding classes would help define anything. Rather, they would need to make decisions about where each type of magic comes from to define things.

 

[James Gasik]

For instance, I would say that for myself that the "magical power sources" were more coherent back in AD&D when there was only really two classes that had power sources really defined-- the Cleric and the Magic-User-- both of whom had a very clear demarcation between the spells that appeared in one list versus the other. And the other classes that had spells it was never really worried about what their "source" was per se. So the coherency was clear... but it also didn't really matter.

Maybe I shouldn't mention it, but also Psionics.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Maybe I shouldn't mention it, but also Psionics.

Based on the number of players who were ever able to get a character able to qualify for psionics in AD&D times... pretty much nobody was mentioning it.

 

[Minigiant]

I do not think adding classes would help define anything. Rather, they would need to make decisions about where each type of magic comes from to define things.

The Magic is modeled because you have multiple spell and subclasses bridging from the same classes while the lore stays cage on all three.

Whereas in 1e-4e, these concepts would be their own classes and thus require a more explaned definition of how it works because of roleplay requirements.

Starting with 4e Essentially everything got muddled as vastly different concepts spawned from the same class.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The Magic is modeled because you have multiple spell and subclasses bridging from the same classes while the lore stays cage on all three.

Whereas in 1e-4e, these concepts would be their own classes and thus require a more explaned definition of how it works because of roleplay requirements.

Starting with 4e Essentially everything got muddled as vastly different concepts spawned from the same class.

Meh. The fact that Druids were defined as Divine casters in AD&D and 2E with no definitions as to why, and then morphed into a Primal caster in 4E and a whole new explanation being created for Druids, Barbarians, Wardens, and Shaman belies your sentiment in my opinion. There's been very little rhyme or reason to any of it, and adding new classes to 5E would not clear things up as far as I'm concerned. We'd still have the hodge-podge of Artificer, Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard as Arcane casters for some reason, not to mention a non-god-granted Paladin falling under the Divine heading.

But as is usually the case for narrative issues (rather than mechanical ones)... a person's mileage may vary.

 

[James Gasik]

Based on the number of players who were ever able to get a character able to qualify for psionics in AD&D times... pretty much nobody was mentioning it.

It's fair, but it did exist. In fact, 1e had plenty examples of classes that didn't have defined power sources, but could perform extraordinary tasks beyond the norm*. The Monk being the ur-example, of course, at least pre-Oriental Adventures, and many many examples from Dragon magazine (if you believe those count, of course. I do, and played some of them, but YMMV).

*Whatever the "norm" is for AD&D characters- or D&D characters in any edition of the game, since that's still a topic of serious debate.

 

[James Gasik]

Meh. The fact that Druids were defined as Divine casters in AD&D and 2E with no definitions as to why, and then morphed into a Primal caster in 4E and a whole new explanation being created for Druids, Barbarians, Wardens, and Shaman belies your sentiment in my opinion. There's been very little rhyme or reason to any of it, and adding new classes to 5E would not clear things up as far as I'm concerned. We'd still have the hodge-podge of Artificer, Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard as Arcane casters for some reason, not to mention a non-god-granted Paladin falling under the Divine heading.

But as is usually the case for narrative issues (rather than mechanical ones)... a person's mileage may vary.

It's just my head canon, as I wasn't present when the Druid was created, but I think they were a stand-in for "pagan" and animistic belief systems for whom the heavily armored warrior priest would not be a good fit for- at least until they got around to creating more variants, by which time the Druid had become established as it's own class.

I'm still highly dubious of Nature Clerics to this day, because precious little about the Cleric class feels like a "natural" (if you'll forgive the pun) fit for the servants of a deity of plenty, plants, animals, the harvest, so on and so forth.

 

[Corinnguard]

Let's be honest.

The Magic of D&D is only incoherent and ill-defined because Wizards of the Coast do not want to make new classes.

It may not be that they don't want to make new classes. Each of the character classes in D&D is built around a particular concept. Barbarians are known for their ability to rage. Bards are known to inspire others through music and other performative arts. And so forth. If you were to come up with a new class concept, you are going to have ask yourself as to what makes your class concept different and distinct from the other concepts that were used to make the other classes. What features will set it apart from the others? How close are my class's features to those belonging to a different class?

If you feel confident that your class concept can stand on its' own and not tread on another class's concept, then you got a new class that you can publish and spread around to those who might be interested in playing it.

However, you might discover that your class concept is too close to the concept belonging to another class, and there is no way to separate the two. In this case, it might be better to take your concept and make it into a subclass/archetype of the other class.

This is a problem that all RPG companies have to deal with whenever they want to make a new character class.

Pathfinder 1st edition's Advanced Class Guide actually has a chapter on how to design new classes and class archetypes.