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

[Rocker26a]

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:

• 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.

That's what I got as it stands! I hope at least most of all that makes sense. Someone talk about it also! I need others to either relieve this irritation by presenting a solution I like, or at least share in the irritation with me!

 

[Scribe]

How are the magic of the primal classes distinct from eachother? How (ought) one be different from the other two and vice versa)?

At a super high level.

Druid - One with nature.
Ranger - Protection of civilization from nature.
Barbarian - Survival within, but still separate from nature.

Ranger would be pushing the frontier, but they are not part of nature at all. Barbarians live within it, are influenced by it, but not part of it. Druids are all in.

 

[Minigiant]

I always saw it as

Druids are one with nature. All that jazz.
Rangers are attuned with parts of nature and the primal. They are still civilized and deal with nature as men. It can be any relationship they want. Beneficial, cooperative, dominant, or adversarial,
Barbarians, the modern interpretation of them, are "Primal Sorcerers". Primal energies become part of their body and blood and this fuels their rage. It's not a necessarily intentional act.

 

[Rocker26a]

Ranger would be pushing the frontier, but they are not part of nature at all. Barbarians live within it, are influenced by it, but not part of it. Druids are all in.

I'd disagree that Rangers and Barbarians aren't fundamentally a part of nature. Most mundane things are. You don't have to live in the woods or talk to the trees to be a part of nature! I guess it depends on the definition of "a part of nature" you're working from. But yeah, it feels like that thing where people forget that humans are still animals. Paradoxically outside of nature yet hopelessly within it.

Ranger - Protection of civilization from nature.

I recognise that this is the definition that the books themselves give of Rangers, but I just think it's vague to the point of being unworkable? Particularly it doesn't much play into the magic side of the equation, which is what's really bugging me personally.

 

[Scribe]

I'd disagree that Rangers and Barbarians aren't fundamentally a part of nature.

Both stand apart, at least in comparison to druids who want to be fully part of it.

Barbarians are still an 'other' in regards to nature, at lest to me.
Rangers certainly stand apart. They are not there to be one with nature, but to subvert it in a way. Infiltration of nature for the benefit of civilization? Something like that.

Druids are just all 'lets grow some plants, and turn into animals'. They are all together more involved, more 'in tune' with it.

All imo of course.

For magic specifically.

If you are not into spell less ranger. I would see it as using natures power (primal source) against it self. Druids are there to benefit nature, and Barbarians, channel a portion of nature, the more hard core edgy side that yells a lot.

 

[Rocker26a]

I always saw it as

Druids are one with nature. All that jazz.
Rangers are attuned with parts of nature and the primal. They are still civilized and deal with nature as men. It can be any relationship they want. Beneficial, cooperative, dominant, or adversarial,
Barbarians, the modern interpretation of them, are "Primal Sorcerers". Primal energies become part of their body and blood and this fuels their rage. It's not a necessarily intentional act.

I think that's generally fair to say, though I'm maybe a little cynical about the Barbarian's defining. That, as you say, does sound more like a Sorcerer thing than anything else. I'm trying to pin down what lets them stand on their own, and it sucks to have to constantly say "like the druid" or "like the sorcerer" or etc.

 

[Rocker26a]

Rangers certainly stand apart. They are not there to be one with nature, but to subvert it in a way. Infiltration of nature for the benefit of civilization? Something like that.

For magic specifically.

If you are not into spell less ranger. I would see it as using natures power (primal source) against it self. Druids are there to benefit nature, and Barbarians, channel a portion of nature, the more hard core edgy side that yells a lot.

I personally really dislike this as a direction to lead Ranger. At least as a blanket standard for all Rangers to work from. I just don't think most people who give a damn about Rangers want to be opposed to or duplicitous towards nature. I feel most Ranger players would agree with that Mongolian guy when he says "The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair" is what's best in life, and that Conan was way off base when he said all that "lamentations of their women" stuff.

Not to be combative about it or anything of course, just yeah. The idea of that being the foundation Ranger works from saddens me. Like, "subverting and using nature's power against itself", that reminds me of the notion that Demogorgon created Chimeras by combining different animals into a new twisted horror. Or Hyenas becoming vessels for Gnolls under Yeenoghu's influence. In other words, literally the domain of evil, of the enemy.

 

[Minigiant]

I think that's generally fair to say, though I'm maybe a little cynical about the Barbarian's defining. That, as you say, does sound more like a Sorcerer thing than anything else. I'm trying to pin down what lets them stand on their own, and it sucks to have to constantly say "like the druid" or "like the sorcerer" or etc.

A barbarian is a warrior who can enter a bestial Rage. That Rage attracts primal energy or spirits which infuse their body with primal energy.

Barbarians are not one with nature. Nature sticks to barbarians because they act like beasts.
This should happen to exceptional animals and plants as well... but... you know.

 

[billd91]

I personally really dislike this as a direction to lead Ranger. At least as a blanket standard for all Rangers to work from. I just don't think most people who give a damn about Rangers want to be opposed to or duplicitous towards nature. I feel most Ranger players would agree with that Mongolian guy when he says "The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair" is what's best in life, and that Conan was way off base when he said all that "lamentations of their women" stuff.

Not to be combative about it or anything of course, just yeah. The idea of that being the foundation Ranger works from saddens me. Like, "subverting and using nature's power against itself", that reminds me of the notion that Demogorgon created Chimeras by combining different animals into a new twisted horror. Or Hyenas becoming vessels for Gnolls under Yeenoghu's influence. In other words, literally the domain of evil, of the enemy.

I think that it's safe to say that Scribe's take on the ranger isn't necessarily widespread. I don't see it as subverting nature or necessarily protecting civilization from nature, per se. That's excessively oppositional. Rather, the ranger operates in nature, in the wilds, to protect people (civilization) from the threats that also operate within or emerge from the wilds. Those threats may be no more a part of nature than the ranger himself or the civilizations he protects - such as a war band of orcs.
And I think it's entirely reasonable to look at a ranger as a civilization-protecting warrior who prefers that kind of environment to a standing army or operating in a garrison because that's what's best in life, etc.

 

[Scribe]

I personally really dislike this as a direction to lead Ranger. At least as a blanket standard for all Rangers to work from. I just don't think most people who give a damn about Rangers want to be opposed to or duplicitous towards nature. I feel most Ranger players would agree with that Mongolian guy when he says "The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair" is what's best in life, and that Conan was way off base when he said all that "lamentations of their women" stuff.

I'd say both of them are Barbarians, more so than Ranger (or Rogue). They are out there in nature, but its more a state of personal freedom, than any intent at civilization or protection against nature.

I think that it's safe to say that Scribe's take on the ranger isn't necessarily widespread. I don't see it as subverting nature or necessarily protecting civilization from nature, per se. That's excessively oppositional. Rather, the ranger operates in nature, in the wilds, to protect people (civilization) from the threats that also operate within or emerge from the wilds. Those threats may be no more a part of nature than the ranger himself or the civilizations he protects - such as a war band of orcs.

Great distinction, I was not putting into words well at all. There's still a difference in intent/focus (the Civilization part) but yes its not the Ranger VS Nature, but Ranger VS "Whatever is not within Civilization" bit. Meanwhile the Druid doesnt care about Civilization as long as it doesnt intrude upon Nature.

---

None of which really is speaking to the magic side which as I think on it more, doesnt really care. The source (primal/nature) is the same. Its just what its being used for that differs.