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

[Rocker26a]

It could be done.

But much like in 2e and 3e when it was attempted, you'd have to trade out some many features and elements to have a worthwhile experience that it would much easier to make a new class called something else.

Must say I'm not entirely opposed to that, that's more or less what I'm doing with my current Ranger homebrew tinkerings anyway. The only thing I've held over so far besides the general template is Feral Senses. Though I like them getting it earlier and, it also just being a bit better.

Part of the reason why you might be having an issue finding the distinction between the Druid, Ranger,and Barbarian is because you have a preference of them being almost the same and disagree with the default lore around them in the edition. If youwant them to have the same features you will have issues finding the differences between them.

Might be right, I just think a lot of what exists in that regard right now, particularly for Ranger anyway, is either pretty barebones, or lacklustre, or useless.
That said, I don't think I'd want them to share exactly the same features. Outside of spell crossover I guess. I don't know. I'm trying to keep actual features out of my mind for this, makes it easier to conceptualize the lore/flavour stuff without being bogged down by actual mechanics. In theory anyway.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It shouldn't be magic in the first place.

Because "magic" means spellcasting, at least to D&D fans (as much as that frustrates me). And none of them--Druid, Ranger, or Barbarian--should be spellcasters. They should access their supernatural might through different methods because Primal =/= Divine =/= Arcane =/= Primal.

 

[Rocker26a]

It shouldn't be magic in the first place.

Because "magic" means spellcasting, at least to D&D fans (as much as that frustrates me). And none of them--Druid, Ranger, or Barbarian--should be spellcasters. They should access their supernatural might through different methods because Primal =/= Divine =/= Arcane =/= Primal.

I see what you're saying there, but I mostly think it's a semantics thing. It's fine to say that Druids, Rangers and Barbarians have a fundamentally different relationship to their magic than Wizards or whoever, it mechanically being just a spell list like any other can just be for the players' benefit. Saves you from having to create a wholly different way round it, and then learning it should you want to play one of those 3.

Though I do advocate for them having an "Internal Focus", nullify spell components with no cost. Maybe not Subtle Spell as such, but. Similar.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It shouldn't be magic in the first place.

Because "magic" means spellcasting, at least to D&D fans (as much as that frustrates me). And none of them--Druid, Ranger, or Barbarian--should be spellcasters. They should access their supernatural might through different methods because Primal =/= Divine =/= Arcane =/= Primal.

Oh come on. It's all magic.

I never said civilization and nature are antithetical just different..

Sword using guy in metal scale using human weapon styles doesn't feel naturey.

This is bizarre, to me.

This sort of thing is also why I oppose ditching primeval awareness and abilities like it.

Because the 5e PHB does, in fact, tell us that Rangers are part of nature. It does so most strongly with Ranger class features.

"
Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization—humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons. They learn to track their quarry as a predator does, moving stealthily through the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble. Rangers focus their combat training on techniques that are particularly useful against their specific favored foes.


Thanks to their familiarity with the wilds, rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature’s power, much as a druid does. Their spells, like their combat abilities, emphasize speed, stealth, and the hunt. A ranger’s talents and abilities are honed with deadly focus on the grim task of protecting the borderlands."

Not protecting cities, but the borderlands. Their spells harness nature's power, much as a druid does, as a result of their familiarity with the wilds. They hunt like a predator. They're warriors OF the wilderness.

------------------

"Or perhaps you learned your skills as part of a band of rangers affiliated with a druidic circle, trained in mystic paths as well as wilderness lore. You might be self-taught, a recluse who learned combat skills, tracking, and even a magical connection to nature through the necessity of surviving in the wilds."

They are part of nature. They are often loyal to druid circles and train with them. They hunt and fight and cast spells based on lessons learned by living within nature.

Most of their class features are great examples of supernatural nature abilities.

They're practically specialized sword druids.

 

[Minigiant]

It shouldn't be magic in the first place.

Because "magic" means spellcasting, at least to D&D fans (as much as that frustrates me). And none of them--Druid, Ranger, or Barbarian--should be spellcasters. They should access their supernatural might through different methods because Primal =/= Divine =/= Arcane =/= Primal.

In a ideal world, there would be many types of magics and magic systems and every class would have different sets of magics.

This is bizarre, to me.

This sort of thing is also why I oppose ditching primeval awareness and abilities like it.

Because the 5e PHB does, in fact, tell us that Rangers are part of nature. It does so most strongly with Ranger class features.

"
Warriors of the wilderness, rangers specialize in hunting the monsters that threaten the edges of civilization—humanoid raiders, rampaging beasts and monstrosities, terrible giants, and deadly dragons. They learn to track their quarry as a predator does, moving stealthily through the wilds and hiding themselves in brush and rubble. Rangers focus their combat training on techniques that are particularly useful against their specific favored foes.


Thanks to their familiarity with the wilds, rangers acquire the ability to cast spells that harness nature’s power, much as a druid does. Their spells, like their combat abilities, emphasize speed, stealth, and the hunt. A ranger’s talents and abilities are honed with deadly focus on the grim task of protecting the borderlands."

Not protecting cities, but the borderlands. Their spells harness nature's power, much as a druid does, as a result of their familiarity with the wilds. They hunt like a predator. They're warriors OF the wilderness.

I'm not saying rangers lack magic.

I'm saying that the modus operendi of the D&D ranger is to track a foe down, ambush them, stab or shoot the foe in the face with a sword or arrow, then escape.
And if Step 1,2, 3, or 4 is revealed to be hard,the cast primal magic to increase or allow success.
For the ranger, Primal Magic is a multiplier. An addition on top of their high skill and high lethality.
A druid's primal spells and wildshape and a barbarian's rage are their default modes and the bulk of their power.

Or in simpler terms, the bulk or the ranger's damage, accuracy, defense, and skill comes from the nonmagical part of the ranger. The magic is the "Things got real" 1d6 extra damage or advantage.

Its not a Half Damage or a newly enabled special beast or lightning attacks.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I see what you're saying there, but I mostly think it's a semantics thing. It's fine to say that Druids, Rangers and Barbarians have a fundamentally different relationship to their magic than Wizards or whoever, it mechanically being just a spell list like any other can just be for the players' benefit. Saves you from having to create a wholly different way round it, and then learning it should you want to play one of those 3.

Though I do advocate for them having an "Internal Focus", nullify spell components with no cost. Maybe not Subtle Spell as such, but. Similar.

No. I'm saying I do not want them having any relationship at all to the "spell components" thing. I don't want them to be engaging in what D&D calls spellcasting. I consider what they do to be magic. But I want it to be truly distinct from "spells." Ideally, the only spellcasters would be Arcane. Divine and Primal would each be genuinely distinct approaches to supernatural power.

It's not just a semantics thing. "Magic" being reduced to only "spellcasting" severely damages D&D's ability to embrace supernatural phenomena. Damn near everything must be a spell, and this is presented as though it were a good thing. It is not.

Oh come on. It's all magic.

There are two points you could be responding to. Since I am not sure which, I will address both.

First: "It's all magic" means "all of it is spellcasting." This is the exact issue I have. The entire length and breadth of accessible supernatural power getting reduced to exclusively things which can be squeezed into the narrow confines of spells, components, slots, upscaling, etc. We cut off an enormous swathe of both narratively and mechanically interesting things by doing this.

Second: "It's all magic" means "spellcasting and those other things are all magic." I wish more people agreed. They do not. People are pretty casual about their usage, I admit, but when you ask them what "magic" means, spellcasting is the first and last answer in almost all cases. No allowance is made for supernatural power that doesn't come from spells. I find this deeply, deeply infuriating. We embrace the nigh-unlimited potential of Fantasy, and then chain ourselves to only one little corner of it and consider that a boon. To call it merely "frustrating" is a painful understatement.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No. I'm saying I do not want them having any relationship at all to the "spell components" thing. I don't want them to be engaging in what D&D calls spellcasting. I consider what they do to be magic. But I want it to be truly distinct from "spells." Ideally, the only spellcasters would be Arcane. Divine and Primal would each be genuinely distinct approaches to supernatural power.

It's not just a semantics thing. "Magic" being reduced to only "spellcasting" severely damages D&D's ability to embrace supernatural phenomena. Damn near everything must be a spell, and this is presented as though it were a good thing. It is not.


There are two points you could be responding to. Since I am not sure which, I will address both.

First: "It's all magic" means "all of it is spellcasting." This is the exact issue I have. The entire length and breadth of accessible supernatural power getting reduced to exclusively things which can be squeezed into the narrow confines of spells, components, slots, upscaling, etc. We cut off an enormous swathe of both narratively and mechanically interesting things by doing this.

But the game has all kinds of supernatural magical stuff that isn’t spells.

Second: "It's all magic" means "spellcasting and those other things are all magic." I wish more people agreed. They do not. People are pretty casual about their usage, I admit, but when you ask them what "magic" means, spellcasting is the first and last answer in almost all cases.

I don’t believe this. At all. I’ve seen nothing to support it, it is very different from my experience discussing fantasy and gaming with people online and in person, and it just doesn’t track.

No allowance is made for supernatural power that doesn't come from spells. I find this deeply, deeply infuriating. We embrace the nigh-unlimited potential of Fantasy, and then chain ourselves to only one little corner of it and consider that a boon. To call it merely "frustrating" is a painful understatement.

I just…please back this up.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But the game has all kinds of supernatural magical stuff that isn’t spells.

Less and less by the day, considering how much they've offloaded class features into spells and how much more they're doing that in "One D&D."

They're literally turning Warlock pacts into spells now. Not even joking.

I don’t believe this. At all. I’ve seen nothing to support it, it is very different from my experience discussing fantasy and gaming with people online and in person, and it just doesn’t track.

I just…please back this up.

I actually have asked? A lot? I even put up a poll? And the vast majority of responses were either that magic is the end-all, be-all of supernatural, or that magic covers almost everything supernatural.

I don't know what more you want from me.

 

[Scribe]

I actually have asked? A lot? I even put up a poll? And the vast majority of responses were either that magic is the end-all, be-all of supernatural, or that magic covers almost everything supernatural.

I believe the distinction form the last few posts is.

Supernatural = Magic
Magic = Spells
Supernatural != Spells

 

[CleverNickName]

I never had a problem with the (Ex), (Sp), and (Su) tags of 3rd Edition. It was useful shorthand for differentiating between a barbarian's Rage, a paladin's Lay on Hands, and a wizard's Magic Missile.