In my worlds I make a distinction between Rangers and Druids to add a little flavor. Both are clearly outdoor characters not just at home in the wilds but really thriving. They are able to connect with animals and ecology to make the most of any outdoor situation. But in my world the Rangers believe the biome is there to provide for the animals but the Druids believe it is about the plants and the animals are second to the best interests of the plants. Both sides understand there are many benefits each gain from the other, but they just see things a bit different.
The manifestation of this conflict is very subtle. Druids are likely to compel animals to fight to the death for the good of plants and Rangers are more likely to become enraged if an animal is threatened. Rangers are more likely to aid an animal or help one recover from a serious injury. Druids are more likely to shew away a heard of deer rather than let them eat everything in sight. All that being said, Rangers are omnivores and Druids often go for days without eating any meat.
I enjoy having two perspectives on nature subtly going on in the background of my stories to add a little flavor.
Interesting point of view. I guess how I've always thought of Druids and Rangers is that Druids have more of an identity with nature while Rangers seek to know and understand nature, and ultimately use it as a tool to protect society (and at times protect society from it). So Rangers feel more of a connection with society, maybe not much, while Druids see themselves as "one with" nature.
I think they're both pretty cool classes. Not many people get excited about Druids and maybe they're underrated. Sure, they might not be up front in the thick of the fight, but I like to think of them as one of the classes that rounds out the edges of a group like sandpaper. You could always use a mouse or bird for recon work after all.
Interesting point of view. I guess how I've always thought of Druids and Rangers is that Druids have more of an identity with nature while Rangers seek to know and understand nature, and ultimately use it as a tool to protect society (and at times protect society from it). So Rangers feel more of a connection with society, maybe not much, while Druids see themselves as "one with" nature.
I think they're both pretty cool classes. Not many people get excited about Druids and maybe they're underrated. Sure, they might not be up front in the thick of the fight, but I like to think of them as one of the classes that rounds out the edges of a group like sandpaper. You could always use a mouse or bird for recon work after all.
I quit playing a druid, at low level they are little more than a mushy fighter.
Thinking about it, I think for a druid to be a good class, the DM would have to randomly roll for a "creature" chart, based on the roll the Druid encounters whatever was rolled. This gives the Druid a more "dynamic" ability to involve themselves with animals that are not really a feature of games, especially diving into dungeons.
Animals, plants and nature just aren't well built into the games in my opinion. Just like religion isn't really well built into the games either. Sure religion exists, but how often do you roll play "going to church"? So Clerics are an interesting class, but don't really do anything "clerical". They just cast spells in a nominally different way from Wizards or Sorcerers.
To further illustrate, on the way to the quest, did your party encounter a loan wolf trailing them in the line of the forest? Did the druid perceive it and take advantage of this rare occurrence to add a companion to the party?
Also the "summoning" creatures kind of ruins it for me. At that point what's the difference of summoning a wolf and just summoning a meteorstorm?
Game mechanically they are no different, just a cosmetically different ability to do similar things. Damage per second.
If the Druid could ONLY gather a following of critters by charming them, and maybe they had a passive ability of being able to charm a certain number of creatures at any one time based on CR and scales to the Druid's level, then the Druid may be dramatically different both thematically and mechanically.
In my worlds I make a distinction between Rangers and Druids to add a little flavor. Both are clearly outdoor characters not just at home in the wilds but really thriving. They are able to connect with animals and ecology to make the most of any outdoor situation. But in my world the Rangers believe the biome is there to provide for the animals but the Druids believe it is about the plants and the animals are second to the best interests of the plants. Both sides understand there are many benefits each gain from the other, but they just see things a bit different.
The manifestation of this conflict is very subtle. Druids are likely to compel animals to fight to the death for the good of plants and Rangers are more likely to become enraged if an animal is threatened. Rangers are more likely to aid an animal or help one recover from a serious injury. Druids are more likely to shew away a heard of deer rather than let them eat everything in sight. All that being said, Rangers are omnivores and Druids often go for days without eating any meat.
I enjoy having two perspectives on nature subtly going on in the background of my stories to add a little flavor.
Interesting point of view. I guess how I've always thought of Druids and Rangers is that Druids have more of an identity with nature while Rangers seek to know and understand nature, and ultimately use it as a tool to protect society (and at times protect society from it). So Rangers feel more of a connection with society, maybe not much, while Druids see themselves as "one with" nature.
I think they're both pretty cool classes. Not many people get excited about Druids and maybe they're underrated. Sure, they might not be up front in the thick of the fight, but I like to think of them as one of the classes that rounds out the edges of a group like sandpaper. You could always use a mouse or bird for recon work after all.
I quit playing a druid, at low level they are little more than a mushy fighter.
Thinking about it, I think for a druid to be a good class, the DM would have to randomly roll for a "creature" chart, based on the roll the Druid encounters whatever was rolled. This gives the Druid a more "dynamic" ability to involve themselves with animals that are not really a feature of games, especially diving into dungeons.
Animals, plants and nature just aren't well built into the games in my opinion. Just like religion isn't really well built into the games either. Sure religion exists, but how often do you roll play "going to church"? So Clerics are an interesting class, but don't really do anything "clerical". They just cast spells in a nominally different way from Wizards or Sorcerers.
To further illustrate, on the way to the quest, did your party encounter a loan wolf trailing them in the line of the forest? Did the druid perceive it and take advantage of this rare occurrence to add a companion to the party?
Also the "summoning" creatures kind of ruins it for me. At that point what's the difference of summoning a wolf and just summoning a meteorstorm?
Game mechanically they are no different, just a cosmetically different ability to do similar things. Damage per second.
If the Druid could ONLY gather a following of critters by charming them, and maybe they had a passive ability of being able to charm a certain number of creatures at any one time based on CR and scales to the Druid's level, then the Druid may be dramatically different both thematically and mechanically.
Read the first chapters. Feel free to critique. Will link the next chapters at the end of the first. Two stories running so far.
Simeon Tor:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/story-lore/34598-simeon-tor-chapter-1-the-heat-of-battle
The Heart of the Drow:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/story-lore/36014-heart-of-the-drow-chapter-1