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

[Rocker26a]

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.

Just for the sake of clarity, I don't necessarily mean the literal magic. Like, the spell lists and what-not. I meant more in-context. Cleric and Paladin are both fuelled by belief, Clerics are empowered by a deity they have faith in, and Paladins are walking embodiments of ideology that turn that belief into real power. That's what I'm getting at with Druid and Ranger, the difference between them in that sorta sense is difficult. Or at least I can't pin it down in a concise way.

What needs more distinction is primal and divine magic.

Though yes I do agree there.

 

[JAMUMU]

Druids. Brown robes. Nature is as much a part of them as they are a part of nature. Annoying a druid is like sticking your face into a hornet nest and yelling "go away". It might look cool, but your face is gunna suffer. 1000% Primal.

Ranger. Brown cloaks. Protecting nature is part of their remit but so is protecting civilisation from the worst impulses of nature. Annoying a ranger is likely to get you a grim smirk, but better wear that iron collar to bed and sleep well inside from where the town stops and the grass starts. 100% Primal.

Barbarians. Brown loincloths and furry boots. Live with nature and live off nature but nature maybe doesn't care so much about them. Annoying a barbarian is like annoying any other heavily armed person with anger issues and drunken backup. 75% Primal.

 

[Rocker26a]

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.

Can depend I reckon! You can have a Ranger that prowls like a Wolf or savages like a Bear! I know those are just Barbarian totems but for the sake of example!

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.

I think you're probably right, though I dislike it. Doing things to get more tools, get more power, that's Warlocks and Wizards. I think it's not great to have a dispassionate Ranger. They should be a Ranger because it's who they are. In an overly flowery sorta way.

 

[Scribe]

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).

There are heretics who imply that Clerics and Paladins are the same.

 

[Rocker26a]

There are heretics who imply that Clerics and Paladins are the same.

Perhaps, though even if they were correct (which I don't think they are because those reasons I said), surely they'd agree that it'd be better if the two were distinct?
That's what I'm advocating for (in part). When you're pitching a class to a new player, you shouldn't have to explain them in relation to another. Or when you're in-game, talking about the occupants of the fantasy world you're taking part in, you shouldn't have to make up fluff to say "well you see, these people are kind of like these other people, except they swing weapons and don't have as good magic".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Just for the sake of clarity, I don't necessarily mean the literal magic. Like, the spell lists and what-not. I meant more in-context.

So do I. I don’t believe that the two have any distinction that isn’t just semantics between the concepts of their magic.

Cleric and Paladin are both fuelled by belief, Clerics are empowered by a deity they have faith in, and Paladins are walking embodiments of ideology that turn that belief into real power.

Those are both Faith, though. Not only that, both are strongly associated with gods and their churches,

That's what I'm getting at with Druid and Ranger, the difference between them in that sorta sense is difficult. Or at least I can't pin it down in a concise way.

On that I agree. Their magic is the same, more or less.

Though yes I do agree there.

My answer is always to take away from the cleric, but that’s just because I dislike the class.

There are heretics who imply that Clerics and Paladins are the same.

Perhaps, though even if they were correct (which I don't think they are because those reasons I said), surely they'd agree that it'd be better if the two were distinct?

I would not agree. It’s good that the overall classes are distinct. It’s also good that their Spellcasting really isn’t.

 

[Scribe]

Perhaps, though even if they were correct (which I don't think they are because those reasons I said), surely they'd agree that it'd be better if the two were distinct?
That's what I'm advocating for (in part). When you're pitching a class to a new player, you shouldn't have to explain them in relation to another. Or when you're in-game, talking about the occupants of the fantasy world you're taking part in, you shouldn't have to make up fluff to say "well you see, these people are kind of like these other people, except they swing weapons and don't have as good magic".

I think the problem is that you need to first define.

1. What the magic type are, if anything beyond 'magic'.
2. What the classes are.
3. Then you can define how the classes, interact with the various (if applicable) types of magic.

 

[Rocker26a]

1. What the magic type are, if anything beyond 'magic'.

Well, typically in 5E, it's just Divine and Arcane. I like Primal as a third in that equation. Gives the relevant classes a bit more legitimacy, I think.

2. What the classes are.

Druid, Ranger and sometimes Barbarian. I'm sure some folks would rather Wild Magic Barbarian not be inextricably tied to Primal magic. Totem Warrior's always been leaning in that direction, then they also reworked into "Wildheart" in BG3. So yeah I think they work as a trio.

 

[jgsugden]

In my homebrew:

Divine, Arcane a Nature/Primal magic all are delivered via the same Magic Weave. It originates at the heart of the Positive Energy Plane and Ends in the Heart of the Negative Energy Plane. Arcane casters pull the magic from the weave and craft it - either through skill (wizards) or force of will (sorcerers, bards, and warlocks - with warlocks getting some help). Divine casters receive their powers as gifts delivered through the weave, either delivered through patient and calm embraces (wisdom) or force of will that carries the load (paladins). Nature/Primal casters do not pull from the weave or get a delivery through the weave ... they interface with the weave and become an extension of it.

Druids and Rangers become part of the weave - being agents of the powers of life and death. Beasts and plants have a natural affinity for these magics as well, thus explaining the relationship between druids/rangers and the wildlife. The Fey are beings that have drawn too close to the positive enenrgy forces and become enraptured - and somewhat addicited - to the life energy that flows from the plane (and spreads widely through the feywild.

Barbarians do not draw upon the weave. Their supernatural powers come from within, generally. Like a monk, psion or psychic warrior, the barbarian's power is a manifestation of their own soul. Thus, it is not limited by antimagic and does not detect as magic as the byproducts of the Magical Weave that clerics, druids and wizards (amongst others) would.

While the idea has evolved over the years, this fundamental approach has been in play in my homebrew world since the 1980s. When the concept of the Spell Weave was popularlized around the release of the Time of Troubles in Faerun it altered the language I used to describe the idea, but the basic concepts I describe above, as well as my simplified cosmology, appear in notes predating those modules/books. It provides a lot of distinction between druids and clerics, and gives each class a very different feel.

 

[Rocker26a]

Those are both Faith, though. Not only that, both are strongly associated with gods and their churches,

Not necessarily! It's mainly really Devotion Paladin, Conquest I guess if you want to take them in that direction but it's not part of their DNA. You wouldn't say a Vengeance Paladin or an Ancients Paladin has to be centered around a deity or church.
Besides, I'm not saying they don't have thematic overlap, they do. That's the point, they're different expressions of a core concept. Whereas Druid and Ranger are just the same thing in different amounts.