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

[Scribe]

But even still, using tools and tactics are/were our assets as creatures within nature.

Tools and tactics, as a product of our different mind, is what directly lead to our separation from nature as a species.

We dont, pretty much as a rule, live as part of nature anymore.

 

[Rocker26a]

Tools and tactics, as a product of our different mind, is what directly lead to our separation from nature as a species.

We dont, pretty much as a rule, live as part of nature anymore.

Yeah we don't of course, but surely it's fair to say some do in a fantasy setting. If not a fair few.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Knights are part of an organization by definition. The Vengeance Paladin adds in a bit of righteous assassin (what dnd insists on calling an avenger for some reason), which are also generally (almost always) part of an organization. The entire premise of the paladin is a holy knight.

None of that means they have to be, or that the organization has to be religious in nature, but it's hardly a wild statement to say that it makes sense for them to be. They're holy knights. I can't even easily think of any characters in media that I'd naturally call a paladin that isn't associated with a god, a church, or both.

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.

You are using "strongly associated" very differently from me, then. Because it doesn't mean that the thing is an essential part. It just means that it's...associated...strongly. I genuinely don't know what could lead from one to the other.

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.

WHy on earth do you keep leaping from my non-absolute statements to absolutes made up in your own head? It's exceptionally frustrating. "Requires" has nothing at all to do with what I said.

What I said is that the Vengeance Paladin makes the most sense as part of a religious organization, and in service to a deity.
Please stop conflating what I say with the most absolutist wild statements you can think of to reinterpret what I've said as.

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.

I went back and checked. Care to point out what you said that was meant to address that they're both getting their power from faith? And frankly, they shouldn't have different casting stats, they just wanted Paladins to be good at social skills naturally, and that was the easy way to do it.

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.

Similar to cleric and paladin, not much.

They both get their magic from Nature, and what that means for each class is distinguished by class features, and to a smaller degree the differences in spell lists.

 

[Rocker26a]

I feel like you're being needlessly combative with some of your responses, and I sincerely do not care to continue talking about this with you on that basis. Have a good one.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I feel like you're being needlessly combative with some of your responses, and I sincerely do not care to continue talking about this with you on that basis. Have a good one.

So…courtesy trolling.

Cool cool cool.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Tactics and tools are unnatural. It's not how an animal fights. It is not how feral animals fight.

Man have no claws, fangs, or hides. Man without tools and tactics and weapons are WEAK.

The human body was made to climb, chase weak animals for hours, and chuck rocks. We stopped acting like animals long ago. And in fantasy, some races never acted feral nor are naturally formed.

Monkeys and apes use tools. But they are also super strong, super agile, and/or have big teeth/nails.

Rangers use the tools of man. Of civilization. To become noble warriors and assassins.
Barbarian use the power of nature. Of Primal forces. To become more like actual dangerous beasts.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Tactics and tools are unnatural. It's not how an animal fights.

Pack hunting animals use tactics. Chimpanzees fight with rocks and sticks, particularly when fighting other chimpanzees.

But the problem with your argument is simple. Humans are an animal. They differ from chimpanzees only in the detail.

 

[Minigiant]

Pack hunting animals use tactics. Chimpanzees fight with rocks and sticks, particularly when fighting other chimpanzees.

But the problem with your argument is simple. Humans are an animal. They differ from chimpanzees only in the detail.

Chimps don't fight with rocks and sticks. That is a fantastism. Apes pound and claw.

Humans are the only creatures who can accurately and quickly swing a stick or throw a rock.

 

[Umbran]

So…courtesy trolling.

Cool cool cool.

Mod Note:
It is hard to see what positive result you could have expected from this post.
How about, next time, just letting it go? Thanks.

 

[Rocker26a]

Monkeys and apes use tools.

Whenever this fact comes up, I'm inevitably reminded of that Attenborough video. Look at her go!
(The whole thing in context is actually pretty fascinating but this clip out of context is still funny to me)