Mike Mearls responds: Any chance we’ll see a 5e incarnation of the Warden?

[FlyingChihuahua]

It's called the Oath of the Ancients paladin.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's called the Oath of the Ancients paladin.

Meh. And we don't need a wizard because we have the Arcane Trickster, and we don't psionics because GOO Warlorcks are telepathic.

Like I said, kinda a bit in the same conceptual space, not at all the same design space. At least a tad defendery, though, unlike the ranger.

Really, though, the Warden looked rather conspicuously like one of the 'grid filling' classes they claimed not have done. Along with the Avenger and Invoker.

 

[cbwjm]

Yeah, oath of ancients paladin doesn't really feel like a warden to me. A change in spell list from the paladins could possibly change that feel though.

Edit: Also class abilities. Wouldn't really want radiant damage for anything but maybe that could just be a change if damage type to make it feel like the warden.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'm certainly interested in alternate uses of Wildshape or Rage.

I felt the Warden was an interesting concept in that I liked the idea of warrior who could transform into something Nature or Elemental empowered. I'm a bit disappointed on why the Primeval Guardian wasn't published, it may have needed some tweaks but I felt they should have tried to make it work (even if they had to change it to a Barbarian from Ranger).

The Seeker though was a horrible idea as a base class. That's something though that could be alright as a Ranger subclass.

 

[Satyrn]

Really, though, the Warden looked rather conspicuously like one of the 'grid filling' classes they claimed not have done. Along with the Avenger and Invoker.

They claimed to not not be filling the grid? I think every square in that grid was filled except for Martial Controller.

Anyway, one of the guys at my table played a warden, and I really liked the way it played.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I'm certainly interested in alternate uses of Wildshape or Rage.

I felt the Warden was an interesting concept in that I liked the idea of warrior who could transform into something Nature or Elemental empowered. I'm a bit disappointed on why the Primeval Guardian wasn't published, it may have needed some tweaks but I felt they should have tried to make it work (even if they had to change it to a Barbarian from Ranger).

The Seeker though was a horrible idea as a base class. That's something though that could be alright as a Ranger subclass.

Agree wholeheartedly on the Primeval Guardian (and that it might be better as a barbarian, I am not sure why ranger changing into something seems less "right" than a barbarian doing so, but that is what my gut says). Of course being ornery, I could see them doing something like the totem or storm barbarian where you had to chose the type of tree you turned into...

 

[Tony Vargas]

They claimed to not not be filling the grid? I think every square in that grid was filled except for Martial Controller.

I don't know if it was with a straight face, but that's exactly what Mearls was talking about when he said 'we don't fill grids' - he was making excuses for the conspicuous lack of a Martial Controller, even as equally (ie slightly) unintuitive source/role combos like Divine Striker and Arcane & Primal Defenders were showing up, and the Monk was shoe-horned in as a Psionic Striker, neatly filling the psionic grid.

To be fair, post-Essentials, he went on to leave the Shadow Grid un-filled (Vampire & Assassin, both Strikers), and the Elemental Grid technically empty (there were no Elemental classes, just sub-classes of Wizard & Sorcerer with Elemental stuff tacked on).

Anyway, one of the guys at my table played a warden, and I really liked the way it played.

I've run for Wardens, even built some as pregens. Like Avengers & Battleminds, I don't really feel like I 'get' them, but players do seem to enjoy them.

Of course being ornery, I could see them doing something like the totem or storm barbarian where you had to chose the type of tree you turned into...

"If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be....?"


...oh, no, wait...


"FORM OF...

...THE LARCH!"

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I was thinking oak, willow, and cedar (the evil option based on my allergies), as I recall oak and willow (I think this may have been the level 29 transformation and involved necrotic damage, but don't quote me on that) from the descriptions. Pine (grow needles) and maple (sticky) added later like the elk and tiger totems....

The only issue with the tree guy is what happens when the druid casts goodberry on you? Is that cannibalism?

[The other issue is how many times can you say "I am Groot" before the other players outright ignore any PvP rules?]

 

[AmerginLiath]

We have that with the Ranger, we even have a spell, Guardian of Nature, that grants access to hybrid forms, one plant and one beast with XGTE.

One cool thing is that it targets self so at high enough level it can be shared with a beast companion. Beast also works well with horde breaking attacks of the Hunter.

It probably would be fine for a DM to allow that spell to be added/substituted onto the Oath of the Ancients paladin (or oath bonus) spell list if a player really wanted to get the Warden feel for a character.

 

[Satyrn]

It probably would be fine for a DM to allow that spell to be added/substituted onto the Oath of the Ancients paladin (or oath bonus) spell list if a player really wanted to get the Warden feel for a character.

And I'm gonna yoink that idea for the megadungeon/setting I'm working up for when I DM next. The fey warlock patron is a tree and has a significant presence/influence in the megadungeon. It makes sense that the tree would shape the magic in this paladin's oath.

Thank you for tbe inspiration.