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

[doctorbadwolf]

In a ideal world, there would be many types of magics and magic systems and every class would have different sets of magics.

Why would that be ideal? I would find it quite absurd and forced if clerics and paladins did magic completely differently from eachother, or rangers and Druids, and even if the primary pillars of magic had nothing to do with each other.

Each magic class should have supernatural abilities that aren’t spells, alongside spells, but I see no reason that any current Spellcasting class shouldn’t be, except maybe Bard and Sorcerer. (Bard should have songs and words which are a bit more open in what they can do, while sorcers should use magic skills and only learn spells as shortcuts they can learn during play by spending downtime studying magic.

I'm not saying rangers lack magic.

I didn’t think you were.

I'm saying that the modus operendi of the D&D ranger is to track a foe down, ambush them, stab or shoot the foe in the face with a sword or arrow, then escape.

Sure. Using magic, and skills.

And if Step 1,2, 3, or 4 is revealed to be hard,the cast primal magic to increase or allow success.

Kinda. Magic isn’t back pocket, it’s just part of the toolkit, though. And critically, it’s part of how they relate to nature itself.

For the ranger, Primal Magic is a multiplier. An addition on top of their high skill and high lethality.
A druid's primal spells and wildshape and a barbarian's rage are their default modes and the bulk of their power.

Or in simpler terms, the bulk or the ranger's damage, accuracy, defense, and skill comes from the nonmagical part of the ranger. The magic is the "Things got real" 1d6 extra damage or advantage.

Its not a Half Damage or a newly enabled special beast or lightning attacks.

I have no idea what you mean to communicate in the last sentence here. Can you elaborate?

But also…um…most ranger cast I see in game (my own, others’, streamed, etc) is utility magic. Pass Without Trace is iconic to the point I’d be happy to take it away from the Druid and make it a Ranger Spell.


Also, tangentially, reading the Phb fluff for rangers reminds me how much I’d love to play a falconer ranger. I might see how that works with the playtest Ranger, soon.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I believe the distinction form the last few posts is.

Supernatural = Magic
Magic = Spells
Supernatural != Spells

Well mostly, except the middle part, because not all magic is spells. Stuff that does a spell effect should just be a spell, IMO, and I don’t care at this point that some folk hate that Druids use components and spell levels and spell slots.

 

[Scribe]

Well mostly, except the middle part, because not all magic is spells. Stuff that does a spell effect should just be a spell, IMO, and I don’t care at this point that some folk hate that Druids use components and spell levels and spell slots.

Yeah, wrong order on my part. Should have been Spells are Magic.

All of this is obviously up to our own interpretation and view on this. Druidic Magic, is still Magic, just coming from Nature, to me. Why wouldnt Druids use components.

Ah well, to each their own I guess.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Less and less by the day, considering how much they've offloaded class features into spells and how much more they're doing that in "One D&D."

They're literally turning Warlock pacts into spells now. Not even joking.

They floated the idea, sure. And it works better than the 2014 versions, and also I’m pretty sure it’s more that each pact grants a cantrip that conjures the pact boon. Like oh no it can be Counterspell Ed technically? I’m not convinced that it makes any actual difference, in the s universal

I actually have asked? A lot? I even put up a poll? And the vast majority of responses were either that magic is the end-all, be-all of supernatural, or that magic covers almost everything supernatural.

Magic does cover everything supernatural. Supernatural = magical. That’s what magic is.

That doesn’t mean that supernatural = spells.

I don't know what more you want from me.

Evidence to support your claim.

 

[Minigiant]

I have no idea what you mean to communicate in the last sentence here. Can you elaborate?

A barbarian's rage or a druid's spellsarepowerfulelements players and characters expect to be using all the time.

A ranger's magic is not powerful. It adds to existing power for special occasions.

The ranger deals 1d8+5 Twice and has a +5 to +8 (+8 to +11 in 2024) to Survival. Hunter's Mark just adds 1d6 damage and Advantage.

For Rangers, the magic is the cherry on top.
For Druids and Barbarians, the magic is the cupcake.

 

[Minigiant]

Why would that be ideal? I would find it quite absurd and forced if clerics and paladins did magic completely differently from eachother, or rangers and Druids, and even if the primary pillars of magic had nothing to do with each other.

Each magic class should have supernatural abilities that aren’t spells, alongside spells, but I see no reason that any current Spellcasting class shouldn’t be, except maybe Bard and Sorcerer. (Bard should have songs and words which are a bit more open in what they can do, while sorcers should use magic skills and only learn spells as shortcuts they can learn during play by spending downtime studying magic.

The bolded is what I meant.
The Barbarian has Rage. the Druid has Wildshape/Channel Nature. TheArtificer has Infusions. The Warlock has Invocations.

The Sorcerer should have Sorcery. The Bard Songs.

The Ranger is missing its own formofmagic because Rangers don't have to be druidic. Their magic can be fey, elemental, draconic, or have a straight scientific approach to nature. The approach to nature for a ranger and druid is different. Nature can just be a tool for a ranger. A druid cannot see nature as just a tool, they are too entwined in nature to disassociate itself from nature at that level.

 

[Rocker26a]

Nature can just be a tool for a ranger. A druid cannot see nature as just a tool, they are too entwined in nature to disassociate itself from nature at that level.

I still dislike this sentiment! I'm not gonna say you're flat-out wrong, but. All I'll say is I personally can't imagine conceptualizing/playing a Ranger who doesn't appreciate the world they live in in that way. Unless it's specifically a part of their backstory, and overcoming that jadedness is a part of their character journey or whatever.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A barbarian's rage or a druid's spellsarepowerfulelements players and characters expect to be using all the time.

A ranger's magic is not powerful. It adds to existing power for special occasions.

The ranger deals 1d8+5 Twice and has a +5 to +8 (+8 to +11 in 2024) to Survival. Hunter's Mark just adds 1d6 damage and Advantage.

For Rangers, the magic is the cherry on top.
For Druids and Barbarians, the magic is the cupcake.

The distinction you’re trying to make is, INO, completely insignificant.

The bolded is what I meant.
The Barbarian has Rage. the Druid has Wildshape/Channel Nature. TheArtificer has Infusions. The Warlock has Invocations.

The Sorcerer should have Sorcery. The Bard Songs.

Sure, and spells.

The Ranger is missing its own formofmagic because Rangers don't have to be druidic.

Sure they are. Otherwise, you’re talking about scouts.

Their magic can be fey, elemental, draconic, or have a straight scientific approach to nature.

The first 3, sure, just like Druids can be those things. Scientific naturalism is an off-brand take that the game doesn’t need to directly make room for. I’ve had a naturalist Druid in my group. It was fun. But it was an oddball subversion, not a normal part of the class identity.

The approach to nature for a ranger and druid is different. Nature can just be a tool for a ranger. A druid cannot see nature as just a tool, they are too entwined in nature to disassociate itself from nature at that level.

You’re projecting stuff onto both classes that is just your preference and POV, not anything inherent to either class.

 

[Minigiant]

I still dislike this sentiment! I'm not gonna say you're flat-out wrong, but. All I'll say is I personally can't imagine conceptualizing/playing a Ranger who doesn't appreciate the world they live in in that way. Unless it's specifically a part of their backstory, and overcoming that jadedness is a part of their character journey or whatever.

You mean a ranger can't see nature and the wilderness as a cruel monster that needs to be controlled like the wild beast it is?

"Out there? Out the there is the filth of nature. I shall protect us civilized peoples from it. From the lying fey. From the feral beast. From the thoughtless vines. From the cruel stone. From the accursed seas. I shall protect you in your journey through it. With these chains of proper men, elves, dwarves, and other human likes."

Because 2014 rangers can take beasts, plants, and fey as favored enemies.

 

[Rocker26a]

You mean a ranger can't see nature and the wilderness as a cruel monster that needs to be controlled like the wild beast it is?

"Out there? Out the there is the filth of nature. I shall protect us civilized peoples from it. From the lying fey. From the feral beast. From the thoughtless vines. From the cruel stone. From the accursed seas. I shall protect you in your journey through it. With these chains of proper men, elves, dwarves, and other human likes."

Because 2014 rangers can take beasts, plants, and fey as favored enemies.

I won't say they can't, but I do dislike it. Because that's an incomplete picture in my reckoning, it lacks a true knowing of nature's, uh. Nature. Which a Ranger should have, by virtue of being a Ranger.

"Nature has it's own clarity. It lives without marking the time, dies in a way that renews itself... Nature is violence without malice, and peace without understanding".