The spells of wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards are commonly called arcane magic. These spells rely on an understanding--learned or intuitive--of the workinsg of the Weave. ... Eldritch knights and arcane tricksters also use arcane magic. The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters' access to the Weave is mediated by divine power--gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath.
(Players Handbook, p 205, "The Weave of Magic")
Rangers require druidic components in Solasta. There's a distinction between divine and druidic for spell foci.
But I have found that there are 'universal' spell foci which work for any class.
5e doesn't make a mechanical distinction between arcane and divine magic. The ability to use a certain type of focus instead of material components is a special class ability noted in the class description. An ability rangers don't get*. So RAW, the only thing rangers can use is a spell component pouch.
Tasha's adds a fighting style that allows rangers to use a druidic focus, but that's they only focus they are ever able to use.
*This is also true of the spellcasting fighter and rogue subclasses. The ability to use arcane magic does not grant them the ability to use arcane spellcasting foci. An Eldritch Knight cannot use a wand.
This is PnP rules of course. Solasta allows rangers to use universal and druidic foci.
My point is that Druidic magic is divine in nature, rather than arcane. I don't think a Ranger needs to be able to use a wand, but it doesn't make sense to me that Paladin, Cleric, Ranger, and Druid wouldn't all be able to use "Holy Symbol." Their religions may be different, but the nature of their magic is divine, and the term "Holy Symbol" is generic, unlike, say "Maraike's Symbol."
I also don't think all arcane casters should be able to use wands, but they should be able to all use the Arcane Amulet, since that's linked to "the weave" or whatever.
For the sake of roleplay, grouping Rangers and Druids under divine magic allows you to come up with polytheistic organizations with different military orders under the same umbrella. With a Greek-like pantheon, Paladin's could be the religion's body guards, Battle Clerics could be their exorcists, and Rangers could be their scouts, for example. With a Pagan-like pantheon, you could swap out Battle Clerics for some combat-focused form of Druid committed to preventing the corruption of nature.
My point is that Druidic magic is divine in nature, rather than arcane.
And my point is, that has nothing to do with the ability to use a spellcasting focus instead of material components.
Also, rangers and druids are getting reverted to Primal, like 4e. So not divine casters any more.
My point is that Druidic magic is divine in nature, rather than arcane.
And my point is, that has nothing to do with the ability to use a spellcasting focus instead of material components.
Also, rangers and druids are getting reverted to Primal, like 4e. So not divine casters any more.
Okay, no one is saying they shouldn't be able to use a universal spellcasting focus. They should be able to use Holy Symbols as a focus, since their magic, like that of Druids, is divine. Also "getting reverted" and "reverted" are two different things.
As per PnP rules, rangers should NOT be able to use a use a universal focus. Because the ability to cast spells using a focus instead of a component pouch is a CLASS ABILITY rangers do not get. It has nothing to do with what kind of magic they cast.
Druids, as per PnP rules, CANNOT use divine foci, they can only use druidic foci and spell component pouches. As per 5e, druidic magic may or may not be divine, the rulebook is woolly, and makes no mechanical distinction. Druids and rangers where divine casters in 3rd edition, changed to primal in 4e, left vague in 5e, and are primal in OneD&D.
Of course, it's possible to make house rules to suit a setting. In Solasta, divine casters (clerics and paladins) are required to select a deity at character creation. Druids and rangers are not required to choose a deity, ergo, in the Solasta setting they are not divine casters.
It should also be noted that in PnP, divine casters cannot use any old divine focus. It must have the holy symbol of the right deity on it.
Wow. All these comments and not one right one. The answer to your question is simply, Duids and Rangers do not belong to any religion.
To make a long and complicated explanation of that simple reason rather short, to be able to use a religious symbol for spell casting you have to be a person of true faith in the religion of the religious symbol. Druids and Rangers are not people of faith, they are people of nature.
I understand why now. There are two ways of understanding why their magic was classified as divine in the first place, even if they don't worship nature:
- nature itself is divine, even if it isn't conscious or active like the gods; or
- they worship nature, in a wicca-like way (ie., not siding with God or the devil, but the field they fight on).
However, the thinking now is that Rangers and Druids are more in tune with the mechanics of nature. Some might worship a nature god or nature itself, but faithfulness to the gods (Cleric) or personal conviction (Paladin) isn't the source of their power; an understanding of nature is the source of their power.
The flaw with the current thinking IMO is: "Why doesn't everyone try to get in tune with nature for that power, along with faithfully worshipping a god and studying the universe/multiverse?" I guess the response would be that you need an especially high degree of communion with nature to remain in tune with it and thereby draw on its power (like physical conditioning goes away if you don't exercise consistently). This sort of opportunity cost limits how far you get with each magic source. There's likely a spiritual aspect of this link with nature/life force, but this spirituality isn't a belief system organized around a god or pantheon, even tough there are nature gods too. Also, you can't just live in a city your whole life and worship a nature god expecting to get Druid or Ranger powers. You actually have to commune with and connect to the wild. And if you stop doing that, you lose those powers.
I do like the oneDnD change though, since it helps to differentiate the third-casters, half-casters, and full-casters roles within each spell list, allowing the opportunity for more Divine classes and Primal classes to make up for the roles that the arcane collective has but they don't. Also opens up the idea of bardic, pact, and bloodline (i.e., sorceror) magic not just being arcane. Also points out how much lighter the primal spell list is than the divine and arcane spell lists, leaving room for more spells to be added to the primal list to make it more level with the other lists.
TL;DR: An understanding of or spiritual attunement with nature doesn't necessarily mean worshiping a nature god or nature itself. Rangers and Druids don't get their power from faith or conviction (even if they have it) but rather from understanding and connection to nature. The oneDnD changes are good for further developing class mechanics and potentially magic-oriented faction development. Might also explain why members of the fighter class are not just run of the mill soldiers or sellswords to, since "martial" power maybe similar to primal power, except the understanding or in-tuneness is with one's own body, something not everyone has.
Thematically, I like things that come in threes. My future parties will likely include a class specific to each spell list +1 bard or pure martial.
If you read all of that in my last post, then you might also be interested in my current headcannon for the relationship between faith and conviction. Gods reward some of the faithful with magic, but they themselves draw on mortal conviction for their power, even though mortal conviction is not just used on behalf of the gods. It's sort of like oxygen and the carbon cycle. Conviction can be converted to faith and then faith can fuel conviction. Helps differentiate battle clerics (granted power) from paladins (innate power that is being tapped by conviction). And under this thinking, theoretically gods can lose their power if they don't have sources of conviction to draw on. Lesser gods probably draw on less conviction than higher gods. Lessers could become highers, and highers could become lessers, which puts some followers in opposition to one another. ("You can't split your religious loyalties and convictions! How dare you! I declare a religious war!") Heck lesser entities and mortals could theoretically achieve godhood if they can draw on enough conviction. . . Might explain the nature of cults well, as upstart faiths without sufficient conviction and history to be full on religions. With this thinking, some pact magic users could use their cult's holy symbols as a focus, but I know warlocks are currently classified as strictly arcane, and there's a difference between arcane and occult. Also, the value of holy symbols is they prove and spread godly faith and they remind people of their personal convictions, which may align with a god's tenants.