D&D 5E Druids power source for 5e

[gyor]

Should Druid have Divine, Primal, Elemental, or mixed power source?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm going to file this under "flavor that the DM or whoever built the setting decides".

For me, though, it's a solid "none of the above".

 

[TerraDave]

With the approach that 5E seems to be taking...none of the above, or all of the above, would work just fine.

 

[steeldragons]

I'll click in on a "None of the Above" and exactly what Ahnehnois says.

That said, if you had included a "Nature" or "Natural" in your poll, I likely would have voted for that...and no I do not consider "Primal" the same thing.

 

[Steely_Dan]

There are no Power Sources (or powers, for that matter) in 5th Ed.

 

[1of3]

I would be pleased, if there wasn't an answer for that. The split into divine and arcane isn't really necessary for the rules to work. The required parameters are all included in the class (spell list, casting method). So no need to shoehorn things.

 

[Li Shenron]

Should Druid have Divine, Primal, Elemental, or mixed power source?

You forgot Arcane

 

[Gothikaiju]

I voted "primal," but what I really want is "nature" being the source of their power, separate and different from divine/gods.

 

[Vael]

Primal, although I'd want it to skew towards a more "nature magic", and less "worshipping Primal spirits instead of gods" of 4e. I definitely think dividing the Druid from the Divine magic was a good idea, probably on of 4e's better concepts. I like the primal power source.

 

[Lanefan]

There are no Power Sources (or powers, for that matter) in 5th Ed.

So where do they get their spells from?

I voted "primal," but what I really want is "nature" being the source of their power, separate and different from divine/gods.

Unless and until one defines nature itself as divine e.g. the Earth Mother, and you're right back where you started.

To me, Druids should be much more a sub-type of Cleric: divine casters who get their spells and abilities from nature-oriented deities who may or may not also simultaneously support other types of Clerics.

Also, along with this the name "Druid" for the class probably ought to go, as what we know as Druids in real life would merely be one tiny subset of these "Nature Clerics" in the game setting.

Lanefan

 

[howandwhy99]

None. I don't think we should have power sources, at least required ones. Make it custom, so the players create what they want.

 

[Sadrik]

DMs option. Arcane works too, depends on how the campaign defines it.

 

[howandwhy99]

If you're talking iconic D&D setting, then Druids are a religion and their power is divine. However it is of the prime material plane, which is made up of all the elements. So it is elemental as well. Primal might refer to the PM plane, but I don't know if it's actually referring to some recent game terminology.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I would call it divine, but the book doesn't have to call it anything.

 

[DM Howard]

None of the above. Never liked power sources. I put power sources in the "my way or the highway" category of 4E. Sure you can re-flavor them but you can't really get around them.

 

[slobster]

I'll click in on a "None of the Above" and exactly what Ahnehnois says.

That said, if you had included a "Nature" or "Natural" in your poll, I likely would have voted for that...and no I do not consider "Primal" the same thing.

Why? I'm actually curious about what the difference is. I always thought that "primal" was a synonym for "powered by nature".

 

[john112364]

I voted primal, but I could see an excellent case for divine. I wasn't a big fan of the power sources of 4e, but I liked the flavor they gave primal. It was basically the spirits of nature granting power to Druids and shamans etc. So in essence it is "nature" or "natural" but one could also make a case for it being a form of divine power. I guess it's all in how you define it.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Why does this question matter?

 

[steeldragons]

Why? I'm actually curious about what the difference is. I always thought that "primal" was a synonym for "powered by nature".

Well, my understanding of 4e anything is extremely limited, but I am led to believe that that is how primal was explained.

I think maybe part of the disconnect is with the fact that Druids and Barbarians were both considered "Primal" classes. When I think of those classes...there is just nothing about those two that I see common ground on.

For me the power of "Nature", as separate from "Primal" or "Divine", is that it taps into the forces/energies of the physical natural world. Not "Spirits of Nature" or "Ancient whozits that you call upon"...that strikes me as getting into the realms of the "Spirit World" and Shaman territory.

The Spirit world and the Physical world are obviously two separate things.

The way I flavor my world setting, that is simply different from the "Natural World." Mages don't really understand how Druid magic works but still believe themselves and their magic to be superior...Clerics don't really care how it works, but know it's not from the Gods, ergo Druids are heathens...or worse.

Well, that's how I see it anyway.

 

[TrippyHippy]

It's a 4E-ism that has no real importance.

Call the source of power what you want in your own game. There doesn't need to be an official 'label' for everything.