D&D 5E Mike Mearls Twitter Poll: "The druid gets one of the following: Spellcasting | Shapeshifting | Animal companions. Choose."

[doctorbadwolf]

I wonder if this means the feedback on the UA druids was bad. They could be looking on where to pivot--if so, I would prefer another variant on the land druid, one that is more like the totem or storm barbarian, not just a couple of different spells difference between terrains, but more of a "at X level, pick this terrain-related feature, at Y level, pick this other terrain-related feature" etc.

This would be great.

I honestly did fine the druid circles quite bland. I found these homebrew Eberron Circles much more engaging, though I haven't examined them for balance, yet. https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedA...ron_druid_circles_gatekeepers_and_wardens_of/

On a closer look, they definitely need some more iteration. Still, I'd rather do that work on them than use circles I can't even remember anything at all about off hand.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

The whole shapeshifting thing, to look to mythology, is more of a shaman thing, innit?

No, it's very closely related to druidism in Celtic lore. Lots of shapeshifting shenanigans happened. Heroes shifting into swans and bulls and frogs among others feature in Celtic tales.

 

[Patrick McGill]

No, it's very closely related to druidism in Celtic lore. Lots of shapeshifting shenanigans happened. Heroes shifting into swans and bulls and frogs among others feature in Celtic tales.

Gotta disagree. While shapeshifting (usually due to glamours or deities, and often not voluntary) is featured in Celtic lore, it's not closely tied with Druidism or druids (or bards for that matter, which often meant about the same thing). It's certainly not the first thing you associate to a druid when you think about both mythology and history. Specific druids might have transformed themselves or others with a spell, but it's not in the syllabus for Druidism 101.

While shamans on the other hand, their whole deal is a sort of primeval transfiguration into a spirit, beast, or icon using dance, music, masks and quite often psychoactive drugs.

 

[BookBarbarian]

their whole deal is a sort of primeval transfiguration into a spirit, beast, or icon using dance, music, masks and quite often psychoactive drugs.

Sounds like a great addition to a party, and maybe a D&D one too.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

Gotta disagree. While shapeshifting (usually due to glamours or deities, and often not voluntary) is featured in Celtic lore, it's not closely tied with Druidism or druids (or bards for that matter, which often meant about the same thing). It's certainly not the first thing you associate to a druid when you think about both mythology and history. Specific druids might have transformed themselves or others with a spell, but it's not in the syllabus for Druidism 101.

"In the case of S. Patrick he and his followers appeared as deer, and this power of shape-shifting was wielded both by Druids and women. The Druid Fer Fidail carried off a maiden by taking the form of a woman, and another Druid deceived Cúchulainn by taking the form of the fair Niamh. Other Druids are said to have been able to take any shape that pleased them."

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14672/14672-h/14672-h.htm

Also, the druids were gods in Celtic myth and folklore. The only reason they were demoted was because of Christianity's treatment of history.

Saying that shape-shifting is not "druidism 101", based on the lore, simply isn't supported by the evidence. Unless you have a credible source that I can't find? If so, by all means, show us.

 

[Patrick McGill]

"In the case of S. Patrick he and his followers appeared as deer, and this power of shape-shifting was wielded both by Druids and women. The Druid Fer Fidail carried off a maiden by taking the form of a woman, and another Druid deceived Cúchulainn by taking the form of the fair Niamh. Other Druids are said to have been able to take any shape that pleased them."

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14672/14672-h/14672-h.htm

Also, the druids were gods in Celtic myth and folklore. The only reason they were demoted was because of Christianity's treatment of history.

Saying that shape-shifting is not "druidism 101", based on the lore, simply isn't supported by the evidence. Unless you have a credible source that I can't find? If so, by all means, show us.

Admittedly I've never heard of or read that book or text (from 1911, wowzers!). Is it considered a legitimate authority on the subject?

Not being able to prove a negative trend or lack of something with a single source, I'll just say that in my own personal historical and mythological meanderings that simply isn't the view of druids and druidism that I have developed. Most sources on Druids and Druidism (that I've read anyway, which isn't a small amount) aren't going to highlight a preponderance of shape shifting habits. Most often the druid in the tales and myths are simple spell weavers, lore keepers, and priests.

All in all this is a difficult subject because the tales, legends, and even historical facts about the druids and their religion is so scarce. Since their own lore was oral only, the only first-hand information we have comes from Christian monks in Britain and Ireland during a time in which paganism was being stamped out, and from Roman sources who had a lot of reason to want to paint them in as bad a light as possible (cause they wanted to conquer Galls).

I doubt we'll come to consensus without piling all the sources together in one place and counting how many times it comes up in comparison with everything else.

Edit: As an aside, from a quick search it seems that source is considered extremely outdated and inaccurate by modern scholarship. That's not to say that particular excerpt is, however, just wanted to highlight that.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

Most sources on Druids and Druidism (that I've read anyway, which isn't a small amount) aren't going to highlight a preponderance of shape shifting habits.

And what sources are they? Because all the sources I know of that discuss the myths and legends of druids involve, primarily, four figures which are akin to gods and kings who quite often use shapeshifting powers. Most of the tales of Taliesin are based on those myths, and in some are almost direct reinterpretations of them.

All in all this is a difficult subject because the tales, legends, and even historical facts about the druids and their religion is so scarce. Since their own lore was oral only, the only first-hand information we have comes from Christian monks in Britain and Ireland during a time in which paganism was being stamped out, and from Roman sources who had a lot of reason to want to paint them in as bad a light as possible (cause they wanted to conquer Galls).

That's a common myth. The tales and legends of Deirdre, the Ulster Cycle, Fenian Cycle, Mythological Cycle, et al, the poems, song of Amergin, I mean there's quite a lot of surviving lore on the myths and legends of the druids. The historical sources are few and far between and tainted by the bias and, honestly, lack of actual contact with the druids of the eras in which the texts were written, but Irish folklore, from which spell-casting druids are derived and which are the source of inspiration for D&D druids, is quite rich and well documented.

Edit: As an aside, from a quick search it seems that source is considered extremely outdated and inaccurate by modern scholarship. That's not to say that particular excerpt is, however, just wanted to highlight that.

By whom? Are you just going to keep using personal anecdotes or can you provide actual evidence to back your claims?

 

[QuietBrowser]

Most often the druid in the tales and myths are simple spell weavers, lore keepers, and priests.

Here's the thing that you and the other "Druids should be Spellcasters, first and foremost!" are failing to address for we who do not feel that way. What, if anything, distinguishes "Druid" from just "Nature Priest with specific real-world cultural trappings and practices"?

The Druid as a spellcaster in D&D has been pretty much obsolete since at least 2nd edition AD&D, when "Nature Priest" was a niche opened to clerics via kits and Spheres, and their obsolescence was cemented via the Domains mechanic.

All that defines the "D&D Druid" as being seperate from the Cleric is the fact it has spellcasting magic AND shapeshifting AND an animal companion. Cut it free of everything bar the spellcasting, and you have nothing that convincingly and meaningfully distinguishes it from a Nature Cleric with a larger alternate spell-list- at least, nothing that you have shared so far.

Simply put, appealing to "tradition" has no meaning and is not a convincing argument when the end result of doing so basically portrays the Druid as nothing more than a Captain Ethnic take on the Nature Priest. Especially given arguments like "Nature Clerics can turn undead and Druids shouldn't be able to do that!"

...Excuse me? Servitors of the holy earth mother should not be empowered to put an end to creatures that mock the natural cycles through their very existence? Just... think about that for a minute or two, see if you can't see the problem with it.

 

[wedgeski]

5E druid is a *wonderful* class. Perhaps slightly OP, perhaps a bit muddled with super-powerful spells available alongside shape-shifting, but incredibly fun, and way superior to the overly-constrained 4E version. It's probably the class I've had the best time with. If there is any concern about which of its shticks define the class, just more strongly differentiate the two Circles, and job done.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Here's the thing that you and the other "Druids should be Spellcasters, first and foremost!" are failing to address for we who do not feel that way. What, if anything, distinguishes "Druid" from just "Nature Priest with specific real-world cultural trappings and practices"?

The Druid as a spellcaster in D&D has been pretty much obsolete since at least 2nd edition AD&D, when "Nature Priest" was a niche opened to clerics via kits and Spheres, and their obsolescence was cemented via the Domains mechanic.

All that defines the "D&D Druid" as being seperate from the Cleric is the fact it has spellcasting magic AND shapeshifting AND an animal companion. Cut it free of everything bar the spellcasting, and you have nothing that convincingly and meaningfully distinguishes it from a Nature Cleric with a larger alternate spell-list- at least, nothing that you have shared so far.

Simply put, appealing to "tradition" has no meaning and is not a convincing argument when the end result of doing so basically portrays the Druid as nothing more than a Captain Ethnic take on the Nature Priest. Especially given arguments like "Nature Clerics can turn undead and Druids shouldn't be able to do that!"

...Excuse me? Servitors of the holy earth mother should not be empowered to put an end to creatures that mock the natural cycles through their very existence? Just... think about that for a minute or two, see if you can't see the problem with it.

The more I read this thread, the more in tempted to make, in my game, a disctinction between Nature Cleric and the Druid. I think I'll describe the druid as a nature wizard, a sage studying in reclusion to learn the secrets of old fey magic and primordial powers. This way the nature cleric is to the druid what the arcane cleric is to the wizard. I'll let them keep wisdom-based spellcasting, but I'd be interested in a intelligence-based druid.