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

[CreamCloud0]

hmmmm, here's my shot at distinguishing them:
The Druid is conciously attuned with the wild, and intentionally seeks to strengthen their connection and works in it's interests, they see themselves as just another part of a system keeping it all in balance.
The Ranger is conciously attuned with the wild, but intentionally keeps themselves distanced from it to a degree, they see it as all of a versatile resource to be used, a delicate thing to be protected from being destroyed and a unpredictable force to be watched to be kept in line.
The Barbarian is unconciously attuned with the wild, they embody the instinctual part of nature, an untamed force that lives on the edge trading raw flight-or-flight driven blows that push the body past limits it didn't even know it had.

 

[Rocker26a]

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.

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.

That's part of my thinking though, as I say I know it's what the D&D books say, but I'm not sure the "protecting civilization" thing is necessarily the whole thing for Ranger. Or at least it shouldn't be to me. I'd argue being a free spirit and all that sits closer to the heart of being a Ranger than specifically protecting civilization (even if Rangers do literally do that often).

Also it's neither here nor there, but. I do feel like that Mongolian guy isn't super Barbarian-y even without that. Y'know, it's a part of why he didn't give the "correct" answer that Conan did, they see the world differently n' all.

None of which really is speaking to the magic side

Yeah I was literally just about to say, we've veered off towards the Ranger's more general identity rather than their magic, which is what's particularly bugging me. Not that I don't enjoy discussing Ranger's more general identity.

The source (primal/nature) is the same. Its just what its being used for that differs.

I think that could be a fine way round it, just yeah. I'm personally dubious about it strictly revolving around protecting civilization. Even just on a practical level, nature itself is under threat from civilization just as often (if not more depending on the setting/story, Middle Earth for example). I think it'd be weird if Rangers wouldn't take an equally oppositional stance to that. Hell, that's what actual (park/forest) Rangers do in the real world (in an over-simplified sense)!

 

[Minigiant]

That's part of my thinking though, as I say I know it's what the D&D books say, but I'm not sure the "protecting civilization" thing is necessarily the whole thing for Ranger. Or at least it shouldn't be to me. I'd argue being a free spirit and all that sits closer to the heart of being a Ranger than specifically protecting civilization (even if Rangers do literally do that often).

It's more about being still tied to civilization than protecting it.

A ranger uses Civilizations' weapons: Weapons
A ranger uses Civilizations' armor: Armor
A ranger uses Civilizations' languages
A ranger uses Civilization' skills
A ranger is willing to tell their companion is being a Bad Dog. Down. DOWN!

Druid's animal companion would be the untrained wild thing marking everything. Or a summoned intelligent fey in the shaped of a beast.

 

[Rocker26a]

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.

I think that's getting warmer to something I can fully get behind. Like, I think you mentioned in one of the other topics that the main pop culture guy for Barbarians (besides Guts) is the Hulk. That kinda reminds me of that thing in The Immortal Hulk, where he's regularly discussed as something brought about by the world's collective rage. If that makes any sense at all. Which it may not, I find I can get my thoughts into a tangled thicket when in a discussion like this.

 

[Rocker26a]

It's more about being still tied to civilization than protecting it.

Yeah, that's closer to where I'd place the Ranger. They're a contradiction, kinda. They're both of their halves, civil and primal.
Which is why I think the "protecting civilization" thing is just kinda not great. Feels symptomatic of WOTC also struggling to get a bead on the Ranger, and going with an easy but boring answer.

A ranger is willing to tell their companion is being a Bad Dog. Down. DOWN!

Possibly true, though I reckon calming or comforting a companion beast that's become wary in an unfamiliar place is closer to the ideal. Ubiquitous mention of Aragorn doing the Ranger thing being discussed.

 

[Stormonu]

I think spellcasting rangers should be a subclass, like Eldritch Knight for Fighter or Arcane Trickster for Rogue. I think the primary ability of the ranger is that they are default THE Battlemaster class, getting combat and out of combat knacks - they should be the skirmish and ambush fighters. Where the Fighter takes the Battlemaster as a subclass, the Ranger should have the Maneuvers by default, and the subclasses add magical tricks, companions or lean even further into more Maneuvers and special Maneuvers only that subclass can access. This pushes the Ranger back the the "Special Forces" aspects of being a martial character instead of an Aragorn wannabe.

To me, the Barbarian is the blunt weapon, with subclasses leaning into durability, damage output or shamanistic/supernatural aspects.

This gives the martial classes a sort of parallel to the Fighter as the martial Wizard (variety), the Ranger as the martial Sorcerer (sculptor) and the Barbarian as the martial Warlock (repeatability).

 

[Tonguez]

1 Druids are about Communing with Nature - they open themselves up to commune with the Spirit of Primal Nature and thus become symbiotic with its aspects. When I roleplay Druids they dont cast spells as such instead I’ll “focus on the spirits of the air to let me pass without trace” or “call upon the spirits of the woods to extend their entangling vines”. Wildshape is taking the symbiosis to a natural conclusion.

2 Ranger I prefer skill-based instead of ‘magic’, and many of the Rangers utility spells should be recast as skill-based Abilities rather than spells. That said the Ranger is primarily a martial hunter and wanderer whose time in the DnD wilderness has exposed them to Primal powers that some have learnt to utilise as useful aspects of their environment.

3 Barbarians channel the ferocity of the Wild spirits, most often the Beast totems, but also the Storm (elemental) spirits. This channeling of Wild spirits links them to some Aspects of Primal Nature

 

[Rocker26a]

hmmmm, here's my shot at distinguishing them:
The Druid is conciously attuned with the wild, and intentionally seeks to strengthen their connection and works in it's interests, they see themselves as just another part of a system keeping it all in balance.
The Ranger is conciously attuned with the wild, but intentionally keeps themselves distanced from it to a degree, they see it as all of a versatile resource to be used, a delicate thing to be protected from being destroyed and a unpredictable force to be watched to be kept in line.
The Barbarian is unconciously attuned with the wild, they embody the instinctual part of nature, an untamed force that lives on the edge trading raw flight-or-flight driven blows that push the body past limits it didn't even know it had.

I think those are generally good readings of the classes, though they don't much tie into their magic. Which is what I'm hoping and praying for some inspiration in. I've said it a handful of times I feel like, but; Everyone can say what the actual difference is between a Cleric's and Paladin's source of power is, they're clearly delineated despite being conceptually close. The same is not true for Druid and Ranger (and Barbarian where applicable).

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, that's closer to where I'd place the Ranger. They're a contradiction, kinda. They're both of their halves, civil and primal.
Which is why I think the "protecting civilization" thing is just kinda not great. Feels symptomatic of WOTC also struggling to get a bead on the Ranger, and going with an easy but boring answer.

More 75% Civilization 25%Nature.

Rangers do things the ways of civilized. They fight like fighters. They sneak like rogues.
They don't summon fire to damage foes or turn into mice to hide.

Ranger magic is a bonus. Something on top.
Because each and every ranger is a man first.
Primal magic is a tool. A ranger attunes to the wild to get it. Love or dedication to nature, the wild, or the primal spirits is not required but common.

A ranger cast Speak with Animals because animals are the only nonhostile beings in the wild and TSR and WOTC are too lame to make rangers polygots.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How are the magic of the primal classes distinct from eachother?

They aren’t, except in focus.

How (ought) one be different from the other two and vice versa)?

They shouldn’t be, except in focus.


I don’t see any distinction in magic between the Cleric and Paladin, either. They could have the same spells and I’d never notice the change.

The Paladin is more distinct than the Ranger as a class, not in the specific context of Spellcasting compared to other classes with the same casting “source”. Primal magic is primal magic.

The distinction comes in with the class features, where the Ranger can hyperfocus on a single target and has (hopefully) some other unique tactical and weapon oriented spells. But there’s no reason Beast Bond should be Ranger specific. It should just be Primal. Likewise, the Druid (sadly) has no way to get a true animal companion like the ranger can, and the ranger cannot use Wild Shape, barring a multiclass in either case.

But again, the spells shouldn’t be distinct outside of a few “this would be a class feature if we felt it was smoother design to make them features, but it’s easier to make them spells” iconic and exclusive spells. Any primal caster should be able to talk to animals, summon a beast, or create a magical bon with a beast.

What needs more distinction is primal and divine magic.