D&D 5E Mike Mearls' AMA Summary

[Lanefan]

But your argument about the history is also self-defeating. I mean, the druid WAS a subclass of cleric. That's the "origin" of the druid. What we would now call a domain. Druid is to Cleric as Illusionist is to Wizard (Magic User).

Seconded.

But speaking only for the tables I have seen, people either want to play the druid for shapeshifting, or don't want to play it.

Not my experience at all. Though shapeshifting is popular it's by far not the only reason players choose to play Druids (Nature Clerics).

============================
Re: whether it should be Rangers or Druids that have animal companions as a thing: my preference is neither. Animal companions do nothing for me at all.

============================

If I were to do a minor re-design of the ranger, I would:

* Slightly expand their spell list with some more niche spells.
* Make them prepared casters.
* Have some of the sub-classes give bonus spells like the paladin oaths.

This would put them in a position where they would be able to adapt to different circumstances by swapping out prepared spells, and thus reward them for scouting an area before going into a dangerous situation. Need to go somewhere with sheer cliffs or otherwise vertically problematic terrain? Prep spider climb. Going into a swamp known for its poisonous snakes? Protection from poison. Looking for a particular thing? Locate object. Need to be extra sneaky? Pass without trace.

Absolutely don't care for this at all; as it merely furthers and enhances the continuing wussification of what should be first and foremost a warrior class - a fighter with extras, equivalent but different as a class to a Paladin or a Knight or a Swashbuckler.

Lan-"everlasting fan of the heavy-metal tank Ranger as a character concept"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Fortunately, D&D has moved on from these type of Roll Playing Restrictions as balancing and archetype enforcement.

The minumim stat restrictions were (and still are!) an excellent idea, in that it meant these classes would likely be uncommon in play - not every party could rely on having a Ranger, for example. And a Paladin being unable to adventure with a party contaning anyone evil is the only thing that saves me from having to DM them: my parties always have at least one evil PC, it seems.

Lanefan

 

[Dungeonosophy]

I was one who used to pummel Mearls' name because of how D&D became locked into a certain corporate model. My threads would get locked down because of the uproar.

Then Mearls pushed through the OGL, and the DM's Guild to boot. Now I admit Mearls is one of the greatest benefactors of D&D in the history of the game. He's one of the Knights of the D&D Way.

https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/blog

 

[ceiling90]

The fact that this conversation is happening with such fervor is that there is no consensus on what a Druid or Ranger should be.

I, in fact hate druids having full casting, but have wild shape - it broke in 3.5, and it's mutually exclusive in 5. I would prefer a very limited casting ability (more akin to the Warlock) and a whole butt-ton more wild shape or forms. I liked the 3.5 PHB II variant - I could be in an animal form that I could describe, my Statistics didn't go all wonky, and I certainly didn't break the game.

I don't think Rangers need beast companions - having pets was a nightmare for me as a DM. If anything I preferred the 4e version of it, than anything else.

Those are my thoughts on the matter, and really they're the most contentious talking points from this AMA it seems.

What I would want is a re-work of the Way of the Elements Monk right now - designer be damned for making such a flavorful archetype blow so much smoke.

 

[Olive]

You might not have played them in the campaign as paladins, but mechanically, they were the closest thing to a paladin that wasn't actually a paladin.

I know this wasn't a mainstream play style but in our 2e group Druids were the Priests and Rangers the Paladins (effectively) of the nature god who was probably the 2nd most important god in the campaign. That's always influenced how we've played them over 20 years now.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=17607]Pauper[/MENTION] responses in no real order

Doesn't matter if it's easier to balance a pet class than a pet subclass. They made a balanced pet subclass. It's there, it works, and it's fun.

Having a pet class would not invalidate that subclass. Nor would it invalidate the idea of giving a pet to the Druid in a subclass that can use wild shape to boost the pet magically, for instance, or a Paladin subclass that gets a more powerful Steed, or a Captain/Noble class with a subclass that gets a follower, or a pet Artificer subclass, etc.

There is plenty of room in the game for both, and for a feat that gives you a pet, and for pets gained through skill challenges, all of which work differently based on flavor and balance.

Re: Hunters, my experience is precisely the opposite. None of he players I know playing hunters have any desire to switch, except the one who took hunter because the phb beastmaster was lame, and is considering switching to BM. one player did recently choose the planes based ranger over hunter, though.

But most rangers I've seen are BM rangers, especially since he revised one came out.

As to your first statement, why is that odd? I'm not sure what dichotomy you are suggesting exists, here. I don't care about tradition/what used to be, I do care about what the current state of the concept. It's pretty straightforward. When it changed is, to me, 100% irrelevant.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What I would want is a re-work of the Way of the Elements Monk right now - designer be damned for making such a flavorful archetype blow so much smoke.

I wish it could blow smoke! That would have some utility!

 

[Hussar]

/snip

But most rangers I've seen are BM rangers, especially since he revised one came out.

As to your first statement, why is that odd? I'm not sure what dichotomy you are suggesting exists, here. I don't care about tradition/what used to be, I do care about what the current state of the concept. It's pretty straightforward. When it changed is, to me, 100% irrelevant.

Funny how anecdotal evidence varies so much. We've had 5 rangers played over the last three campaigns. One Beastmaster and 4 Hunters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Funny how anecdotal evidence varies so much. We've had 5 rangers played over the last three campaigns. One Beastmaster and 4 Hunters.

Certainly!

Out of curiosity, are any of them new enough to have been made after the revised Ranger came out? That made a big difference in the group's I know.

 

[Mistwell]

The fact that this conversation is happening with such fervor is that there is no consensus on what a Druid or Ranger should be.

Naw. We're like 1/10th of 1 percent of the player population. And an unusual portion of that population to boot - those who like to discuss the intricacies of rules. There is no reason to think we represent the consensus. Consensus isn't unanimity, it's just general agreement. We're not necessarily the general.