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

[Minigiant]

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".

It might not be ideal but it is a valid belief on nature. Seeing it as feral and bestial but too powerful to allowed to go uncontrolled and uncorralled. Much how a warlock needs not to love nor like their patron.

 

[Rocker26a]

It might not be ideal but it is a valid belief on nature. Seeing it as feral and bestial but too powerful to allowed to go uncontrolled and uncorralled.

I just think this sort of view can be how you end up cutting the head off the Forest Spirit, and unleashing the Night-Walker in your hubris!

Much how a warlock needs not to love nor like their patron.

That's definitely true of Warlocks of course, in fact I feel like it's more the standard than the deviation a lot of the time. But that's what I was saying before, Druids and Rangers should have fundamentally different relationships to their source of power than Warlocks or Wizards or etc. If it was about control, power, from a source they could regard dispassionately, they'd be Warlocks or Wizards.

 

[Minigiant]

That's definitely true of Warlocks of course, in fact I feel like it's more the standard than the deviation a lot of the time. But that's what I was saying before, Druids and Rangers should have fundamentally different relationships to their source of power than Warlocks or Wizards or etc. If it was about control, power, from a source they could regard dispassionately, they'd be Warlocks or Wizards.

But that's my point in one of my earlier posts.

You are forcing Rangers to be Druidic in mind and magic then inquiring the difference of thought and spells between Druids and Rangers.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Sure the stereotypical ranger might have a Druidic mindset. But they could have an utilitarian mindset about nature. Or a practical one. Or a carefree one. Or a scholarly one. Or a dominant one. Or a hostile one. Or only focus on a single aspect of nature and be disdainful or apathetic to the rest of nature. Because a ranger is not a druid.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Sure, and spells.

i think the point they're trying to get at is that rangers (and to a lesser extent sorcerers and bards) already have spells, what they lack is a signature magic/magic adjecent core class ability that isn't spell-based, like what they said: Rage, Wildshape, Eldritch Invocations and Artificer Infusions.

The ranger doesn't have anything quite equivalant, Favoured Enemy, Natural explorer and Primal Awareness are the closest they get, yet those are all highly situational abilities which are near useless in situations where they're not relavant as well as being possible to be traded out for less flavourful abilities that i think most players are more likely to take.

 

[Rocker26a]

But that's my point in one of my earlier posts.

You are forcing Rangers to be Druidic in mind and magic then inquiring the difference of thought and spells between Druids and Rangers.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Sure the stereotypical ranger might have a Druidic mindset. But they could have an utilitarian mindset about nature. Or a practical one. Or a carefree one. Or a scholarly one. Or a dominant one. Or a hostile one. Or only focus on a single aspect of nature and be disdainful or apathetic to the rest of nature. Because a ranger is not a druid.

I still think there's a workable solution in there somewhere! I just... Haven't arrived at it yet.

If the stereotypical Ranger is/can be the Druidic mindset, I feel like it ought to be workable without just making them a Druid in all but name, mechanics and behaviour, y'know?

 

[Minigiant]

I still think there's a workable solution in there somewhere! I just... Haven't arrived at it yet.

If the stereotypical Ranger is/can be the Druidic mindset, I feel like it ought to be workable without just making them a Druid in all but name, mechanics and behaviour, y'know?

It's the word "can"

A ranger "can" have a Druidic mindset. It is not required. A ranger "can" have different types of relationships with Nature. This is why rangers have some civilized and arcane spells in the ranger spell list.

There is nothing Primal about summoning weapons.

 

[Rocker26a]

There is nothing Primal about summoning weapons.

It's neither here nor there, but. Do they summon weapons? Does anyone, particularly? As a part of their thing? I guess Blade Warlock arguably, but. Beyond that all I can think of is Shadow Blade, Spiritual Weapon, and uhh. I guess Mord's Sword. Maybe some others, I forget.

A ranger "can" have a Druidic mindset. It is not required. A ranger "can" have different types of relationships with Nature. This is why rangers have some civilized and arcane spells in the ranger spell list.

Fair, fair. That's just my preference, and what I'd like to try and make work. I'd happily take some advice on it if you've got any thoughts!

 

[CreamCloud0]

It's neither here nor there, but. Do they summon weapons? Does anyone, particularly? As a part of their thing? I guess Blade Warlock arguably, but. Beyond that all I can think of is Shadow Blade, Spiritual Weapon, and uhh. I guess Mord's Sword. Maybe some others, I forget.

maybe rangers don't 'summon' weapons so much but they do have a significant number of weapon oriented spells:
ensnaring strike
hail of thorns
searing strike
zephyr strike
cordon of arrows? i guess this is more setting a trap, if it counts i think the snare spell would also count?
magic weapon
conjour barrage
elemental weapon
flame arrows
lightning arrow
conjour volley
steel wind strike
swift quiver

Fair, fair. That's just my preference, and what I'd like to try and make work. I'd happily take some advice on it if you've got any thoughts!

i'm still not quite sure what exactly it is you want to make work out here?

 

[Rocker26a]

i'm still not quite sure what exactly it is you want to make work out here?

It bugs me that Rangers, as it stands, have a source of magic that's identical to Druid, except they're weaker. I do think a Ranger's power should still be backed by a connection to nature, but an expression of it that's at least a little different from Druid would be good. So you don't have that thing of "Well what's the point? Why can't a Druid do what a Ranger does?" But I'm struggling putting anything definitive down off my own back, because it's a complicated, vague notion currently. And I also personally dislike the notion of Ranger's relationship with nature being dispassionately drawing power from it, like tapping a tree or drilling for oil. If any of that makes sense.

 

[Rocker26a]

maybe rangers don't 'summon' weapons so much but they do have a significant number of weapon oriented spells:
ensnaring strike
hail of thorns
searing strike
zephyr strike
cordon of arrows? i guess this is more setting a trap, if it counts i think the snare spell would also count?
magic weapon
conjour barrage
elemental weapon
flame arrows
lightning arrow
conjour volley
steel wind strike
swift quiver

Admittedly I've come to the same conclusion about Cordon of Arrows, Conjure Barrage & Volley. I think you could spin at least some of the others as being nature-y, but those 3 are a write-off in my mind. They're not very nature-y and don't fit the theme especially well beyond the superficial "Rangers stereotypically use bows". That's why 1. I refuse to use them on my Ranger characters, and 2. I was incandescent with rage when Playtest 6 made two of those class features you couldn't opt out of.