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

[Minigiant]

It is incredibly stupid to me that things like Hunter's Mark, Hex, pact boons, smites, and other such things have been, or are being, turned into spells. They're locked into the rigid mechanical and thematic structure of spells. These things should be their own distinct things, allowed the mechanical and thematic freedom to take whatever form makes sense, not beholden to working the way Wizards work. That's why they're distinct things, mechanically and thematically, and not something just any old Wizard could learn!

Because "Wait. I'll have to learn more than one subsystem! No."

It's funny that we have a "When the fiction doesn't match the mechanics" thread on the page at this time.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Oh well sure, I didn't mean to say Rangers get their magic literally from Druids necessarily. But they do get it as Druids do.

this sounds like you might say wizard and sorcerer magic is the same because they're both arcane, but it's not.

druid and ranger magic is the same as wizard and sorcerer magic, just because they're both primal casters that doens't make their magic the same.

 

[Rocker26a]

this sounds like you might say wizard and sorcerer magic is the same because they're both arcane, but it's not.

druid and ranger magic is the same, just because they're both primal casters that doens't make their magic the same.

Sorcerers cast arcane spells. The same spells as wizards. They don't cast spells like a wizard.

But Wizards and Sorcerers are really distinct despite both being Arcane casters! Artificer too! They're an example of what I think Druid and Ranger lack in relation to eachother!

 

[Minigiant]

Oh well sure, I didn't mean to say Rangers get their magic literally from Druids necessarily. But they do get it as Druids do.

but they don't.

It says that "rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature’s power, much as a druid does." not "rangers cast druidic magic."

Sorcerers cast arcane spells. The same spells as wizards. They don't cast spells like a wizard.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

The Rangers does have, they just aren’t any good mechanically. Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

but they don't.

It says that "rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature’s power, much as a druid does." not "rangers cast druidic magic."

Sorcerers cast arcane spells. The same spells as wizards. They don't cast spells like a wizard.

You’re exaggerating an implied distinction, here.

They cast the same kind of magic as Druids.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because "Wait. I'll have to learn more than one subsystem! No."

It's funny that we have a "When the fiction doesn't match the mechanics" thread on the page at this time.

It's not a subsystem. It's literally just that class's mechanics.

Unless you mean to define each and every one of Second Wind, Action Surge, Indomitability, Unarmored Defense, Cunning Action, Reliable Talent, and Extra Attack as completely separate new subsystems that must be learned.

I doubt that's what you mean to do.

 

[Minigiant]

You’re exaggerating an implied distinction, here.

They cast the same kind of magic as Druids.

Yes.
The Ranger and Druid both cast Primal spells.
My point is the ranger is not required to use the Druidic path to learn those Primal spells. They can use Utilitarian, Dark, Fey, Dragons, Scholarly, Barbaric, Spiritual, Religious, Dominant, or Codependent mindsets on Nature into Primal Magic Or a mix of mindsets.

That's what separates them from Druids. A Druid has to be Druidic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes.
The Ranger and Druid both cast Primal spells.
My point is the ranger is not required to use the Druidic path to learn those Primal spells. They can use Utilitarian, Dark, Fey, Dragons, Scholarly, Barbaric, Spiritual, Religious, Dominant, or Codependent mindsets on Nature into Primal Magic Or a mix of mindsets.

Not really. They can use a Druidic approach, which includes Fey, elemental, spiritual, barbaric (not really a thing), and even draconic power, and dominant is not part of the fiction of the class at all, and codependent is not a term people describe magic with. Science I’ve already replied to. Religious is only there in terms of D&D 5e continuing the nonsense tradition of making nature magic Divine, same as the Druid.

That's what separates them from Druids. A Druid has to be Druidic.

Druidic can be all the same things that are actually part of the fiction of the ranger.

 

[Rocker26a]

Not really. They can use a Druidic approach, which includes Fey, elemental, spiritual, barbaric (not really a thing), and even draconic power, and dominant is not part of the fiction of the class at all, and codependent is not a term people describe magic with. Science I’ve already replied to. Religious is only there in terms of D&D 5e continuing the nonsense tradition of making nature magic Divine, same as the Druid.

Druidic can be all the same things that are actually part of the fiction of the ranger.

It's nice when someone else says what I'd like to convey, but I'm not sure I have the right words or line of thought for.