Rocker26a
Adventurer
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.
So yeah. Should any folks bite, I wanna talk about that. How are the magic of the primal classes distinct from eachother? How (ought) one be different from the other two and vice versa)? What I'm hoping is, someone'll say something and it'll nudge my brain into an idea that I love, or someone'll say something that I love and I can integrate into my own understanding of the classes.
I may disown these thoughts if they do not help me reach a satisfying conclusion, and people are free to ignore them, but these are things I think just on the face of it:
So yeah. Should any folks bite, I wanna talk about that. How are the magic of the primal classes distinct from eachother? How (ought) one be different from the other two and vice versa)? What I'm hoping is, someone'll say something and it'll nudge my brain into an idea that I love, or someone'll say something that I love and I can integrate into my own understanding of the classes.
I may disown these thoughts if they do not help me reach a satisfying conclusion, and people are free to ignore them, but these are things I think just on the face of it:
- There is magic in all of nature. Not all of nature harnesses it as directly as the awakened races can, but it's there. Even beings that have distinctly out of nature origin points (Tieflings, Aasimar etc.) can find connection within nature if they open themselves to it.
- Druids are in touch with the whole, even if they embody a singular facet of nature's processes. It's all intertwined. I think that's the generally agreed upon interpretation of Druids?
- Rangers in my personal reckoning, best I've been able to express in words, find peace in their particular part of nature rather than seeking to connect to the whole directly. They're a branch, they don't seek to become the whole tree. I think it makes sense if instinct plays into their magic somehow. Like, it may not be something they intellectually understand, but their intent reaches that wellspring within themselves and it produces the desired effect.
(just don't ask me why that couldn't necessarily apply to or be the case for the other two). - Barbarians are more awkward to pin down.
Obviously not all Barbarians are magical and not necessarily all magic ones are Primal ones, but for the sake of this discussion.You could maybe say, what connects Barbarians to nature is that essential drive to survive? Y'know, like Guts put it; "We humans are fragile and mortal. But even if we are wounded or tortured, we must continue to live". But I don't know how magic figures into that.
Last edited: