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

[CleverNickName]

To my mind:

Druid: a connection to a divine being...a creator god, ancestor god, or nature god. Works miracles, to the glory of nature. Cleric of the Wild.

Ranger: a knowledge of plants, animals, toxicology, natural medicine, hunting, gathering, first aid, and survival skills. Wizard of the Wild.

Barbarian: paragon of strength and endurance, capable of resisting extreme conditions and surviving incredible odds. Fighter of the Wild.

 

[Tonguez]

To my mind:

: a knowledge of plants, animals, toxicology, natural medicine, hunting, gathering, first aid, and survival skills. Wizard of the Wild.

except actual Wizards dont display any of those things…

 

[Scribe]

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.

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.

Right, but to me anyway, you need to start even higher than defining how they are different at a magical level. What is Primal, and what are the core visions of each class, to you.

 

[CleverNickName]

except actual Wizards dont display any of those things…

I'm saying that when they do, they look like rangers to me.

 

[Incenjucar]

There are a number of half-true answers but they contradict because the magic system lacks cohesion.

 

[Minigiant]

Can depend I reckon! You can have a Ranger that prowls like a Wolf or savages like a Bear!

But they are still sneaking and fighting in the shape of a man. And if the ranger swipes, it's a hand of a man not the claw of a bear or the lightning of a storm.

So it better have a sword in it.

A barbarian will have more fangs than a ranger. Actual fangs.

I'm saying that when they do, they look like rangers to me.

Rangers feel like primal artificers. The potions, traps, herbs, stealth suit, and night vision goggles are just Batman with Primal gadgets.

Psuedo Medieval Primal Batman.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

I said nothing at all about any class having to be centered around a deity or church.

I said, correctly, that both divine classes are associated with gods and their churches. In case it needs said, “churches” just means “the faithful, taken as a whole”.

And absolutely Vengeance Paladins make the most sense when tied in some way to a god and Church.

You’re also replying to an “also, this thing” aside while ignoring the actual point. Both magic sources are faith.

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.

Is the Ranger the voice of nature? It’s sword, sure, quite often, but the Druid is the voice of Nature. The Ranger is not thematically a shaman, or the religious leader of a society that serves the land. That’s the Druid.

The Ranger…ranges. They range over some area, protecting the borders between civilization and the wild, while being part of both and neither.

Like…the two classes are very very different.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Psuedo Medieval Primal Batman

Regardless of how strongly I disagree with your general view of the Ranger, this cracked me up.

 

[Rocker26a]

I said nothing at all about any class having to be centered around a deity or church.

You said they're strongly associated with Gods and Churches, and I'm saying that's not an essential part of the Paladin's make-up like it is for Cleric's. Faith is, but faith as religion specifically, isn't. It's strongest in the Oath of Devotion, and can apply to a couple of others, but it's not set in stone that that's what they are, unlike Ancients being particularly about nature.

And absolutely Vengeance Paladins make the most sense when tied in some way to a god and Church.

I just. Don't think that's accurate. There's nothing in Vengeance's tenets or flavour that requires a god or church. You can do that with a Paladin you want to play obviously, but.

You’re also replying to an “also, this thing” aside while ignoring the actual point. Both magic sources are faith.

I didn't ignore it, I responded to it after the stuff about Paladin. And you responded to what I said after saying that. Yes, Clerics and Paladins are both about Faith. They are not about the exact same expression of Faith, unless they're specifically played/set up to be such. Hence the fact that they don't use the same casting stat.

Is the Ranger the voice of nature? It’s sword, sure, quite often, but the Druid is the voice of Nature. The Ranger is not thematically a shaman, or the religious leader of a society that serves the land. That’s the Druid.

The Ranger…ranges. They range over some area, protecting the borders between civilization and the wild, while being part of both and neither.

Like…the two classes are very very different.

Yes, mechanically and in terms of the fantasy they're trying to fulfill, Druid and Ranger are very different. However, in this topic I'm trying to get a bead on the source of their magic. What distinguishes one from the other, despite their shared source. Similar to Clerics and Paladins.

 

[Rocker26a]

But they are still sneaking and fighting in the shape of a man. And if the ranger swipes, it's a hand of a man not the claw of a bear or the lightning of a storm. So it better have a sword in it.

Right, sure. But even still, using tools and tactics are/were our assets as creatures within nature. I don't think they necessarily require a majority stake in civilization. Even if it generally does shake out to be so.