Mike Mearls' D&D AMA Summary: Rangers, Initiative, WotC Staff Levels, Fave Pizza

I'm really glad he can't have his way without a new editor on some of those regrets/things that big him. Bonus actions are good design.

The idea of scaling back Druids to half casters or lower is just bad.

Warlock boons and Patrons should be separate. His idea would be less good than the current very good design.

Beast masters are fine with the revised ranger. I'd love a full pet class that can be a beast master, a sha'ir, a binder, or something like the final fantasy 9 style Eidolon summoner, but as a pet having ranger, the BM is great. Especially now that the base class supports having less powerful animal allies, as well.

 

[Staffan]

Speaking of druid shape-shifting, I liked the version in 3.5e's Player's Handbook II, where the druid got a number of different forms as they advanced, and these forms gave various specific buffs and could be fluffed as all sorts of appropriate creatures. For example, you might have the Predator form for speed and attacks, a Guardian form for being defensive, a Scout form for being small and innocuous and sneaking around, and so on.

They'd need to be rebuilt for 5e of course since 5e pretty much never has "run-time" ability adjustments, which was fairly core to this sort of thing in 3e. But the idea is solid.

 

[Mercule]

In short, almost every 1e game I played had a cleric. Almost none had a druid.

Yours seems to be the norm, but I went for almost 20 years without seeing a Cleric seriously played. I don't think anyone even worried about the healbot factor -- the concept was so disinteresting that no one even cared about the mechanics.

On the other hand, I played a Druid/Magic-User (and tracked all 8 pages of spell components religiously). I think there was at least one other Druid PC and there were a couple of NPC "henchmen" (we played them more like party members, but not DMPCs). I played in a Dragon Mountain game, just before 3E came out that had a Cleric -- I think -- but it wasn't until my second 3E campaign that I actually had one played in a game I ran. I'm pretty sure there was a 2E specialty Priest, but it would have been for my god of death (repose-type, CG) and likely didn't have much in the way of healing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Valetudo]

I noticed this-

"Ranger - I'd rebuild it using the paladin as more of a model"

NO!

You are going the wrong direction, Mearls. THE WRONG DIRECTION!

yeah part of the rangers problem right now is that they tried to make it too much like the pally. Spells should be subclass instead of core class. Subclass should start at second level. Just these two changes alone would have fixed most problems they are having with ranger right now.

 

[Azzy]

Shouldn't the obvious solution then be to get rid of the redundant nature cleric rather than killing the druid and stealing their stuff?

Yes, please!

 

[Gadget]

I can't say I disagree with MM that much. The main thing about the Druid back in the day was how unique their spell list was; they had some healing like a cleric, along with a more offensive (especially at lower levels) spell list that was more unique. If I could criticize 5e, it is that there seems to be a lot more 'sameness' between spell lists, and multiple easy ways to raid another class's spells (unless you are a sorcerer). As such, a land druid feels a little more like a 'green wizard' than anything.

As for the Ranger, I've never liked pet classes, both the aesthetics and the cumbersome play that can result in play at the table. I've also never seen this a a core Ranger concept. You have Animal Friendship and Speak With Animals on your spell list, that's good enough. I'm all for moving it out of the Ranger wheel house, perhaps to some type of 'Tarzan' Barbarian class. I would also like to see a Ranger class designed more like the Paladin, not in the sense that Rangers are 'Nature Paladins' (I concept I despise), but a mechanical framework that feels more smooth and elegant. Like suggested elsewhere, maybe a Hunter's Mark ability modeled on smite and Rangers knowing all the Ranger spells.

As for the Way of Elements Monk and Way of Shadows Monk discrepancy, yes that explains a lot, but it still should have been caught in editing/play testing. This along with the expressed dislike of designing spells & feats goes a long way to explain other things about 5e that I can be problematic. Those two elements (spells & feats) are two to the worst designed elements of 5e. I appreciate the work done to reign in the LFQW, but there are a lot of stinkers in there and feats...there are issues.

I would like to his take on a new initiative system as well.

 

[Hussar]

Just as a point about druids back in the day, you do have to remember that druids in AD&D (at least 1e, not sure about 2e) needed a LOT less xp. As in, they were second, and not by much, to thieves in terms of least xp needed to level. So, IME, we saw druid shapeshifting, not as a ribbon, but, as a pretty core class element since, while it was a 7th level druid, the rest of the party was only 5th or 6th level.

Oh, and let's not forget that druids got 3rd level spells by 3rd level as well. Yikes. But, AFAIC, shapeshifting was THE defining character element. At the same time that the fighter got his second attack, the magic user got fireball and about the same time the paladin got his mount, the druid got shapeshifting.

 

[Azzy]

I can't say I disagree with MM that much. The main thing about the Druid back in the day was how unique their spell list was; they had some healing like a cleric, along with a more offensive (especially at lower levels) spell list that was more unique. If I could criticize 5e, it is that there seems to be a lot more 'sameness' between spell lists, and multiple easy ways to raid another class's spells (unless you are a sorcerer). As such, a land druid feels a little more like a 'green wizard' than anything.

I can understand the criticism of the land druid to some extent—its subclass features could be more interesting than more spells or whatever, but is the moon druid not already scratching that shapeshifter itch? It seems to me that if there's a problem with the land druid being too "nature wizard", the solution isn't to make the base class more shapeshifter and less spellcaster (especially when there's already a subclass that focuses on shapeshifting).

 

[Azzy]

Just as a point about druids back in the day, you do have to remember that druids in AD&D (at least 1e, not sure about 2e) needed a LOT less xp. As in, they were second, and not by much, to thieves in terms of least xp needed to level. So, IME, we saw druid shapeshifting, not as a ribbon, but, as a pretty core class element since, while it was a 7th level druid, the rest of the party was only 5th or 6th level.

Oh, and let's not forget that druids got 3rd level spells by 3rd level as well. Yikes. But, AFAIC, shapeshifting was THE defining character element. At the same time that the fighter got his second attack, the magic user got fireball and about the same time the paladin got his mount, the druid got shapeshifting.

While I disagree with you about shapeshifting being the defining characteristic of the AD&D druid (I certainly didn't play one for the shapeshifting), no one's suggesting taking shapeshifting away from the druid. Instead, we're asking that full spellcasting isn't taken away, and there remains subclass options for the druid that don't orbit around shapeshifting (heck, give us a proper shaman subclass that actually interacts with nature and ancestral).

 

[Maxperson]

I would argue that in the case of the Paladin, the choice says a lot about the player.

"It's like, how much more smug can a class be? And the answer is none. None more smug."

I've always been a fan of Paladins being holy warriors of their deity, with abilities that are in tune to that god. For instance, a Paladin of Mystra would not have had detect evil in 3e, but would have had detect magic instead. I had a standing offer to work with any player that wanted to play a 3e Paladin to create the non-standard Paladin with them.