D&D 5E Mike Mearls' AMA Summary

[MechaTarrasque]

My gut reaction is to agree w/ lowkey13. I don't hate the Paladin, but I'm not sure what design elements Mike would want to bring over that aren't already there:
- 1/2 caster: check
- fighting style: check
- hp, skills, weapons: pretty comparable

Does he want oaths and codes of conduct? I guess I could see that, but it doesn't seem quite right.

Make one of these sentences true: Ranger is to Druid what Paladin is to Cleric. || Ranger is to Nature Cleric what Paladin is to Life Cleric. ? -- Please don't. That's probably the most ruinous thing I hear floated for the Ranger. The Ranger doesn't -- and shouldn't -- have any real tie to nature priests (of whatever class). They use nature, not worship it.

I just can't come up with any way rebuilding the Ranger modeled after the Paladin does anything meaningful without also harming it.

Something that can eat up spell slots like divine smite does for the paladin (isn't that ultimately what the "hunter's mark should be a class feature" would end up being)? Ranger knows all the rangers spells?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mercule]

Something that can eat up spell slots like divine smite does for the paladin (isn't that ultimately what the "hunter's mark should be a class feature" would end up being)? Ranger knows all the rangers spells?

I could go for the mark-as-smite idea.

 

[Zaukrie]

So, people that play video games are the culture? I can say no one I know now thinks of druids primarily as shape shifters.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To me, the most obvious way 'Ranger built like Paladin' comes across is two things: Hunter's Mark as a Smite-like damage booster that uses spell slots but is not itself a spell... and Hunter's Prey (IE the types of monsters you hunt) as the subclass divisions like the different Oaths.

There are plenty of people who hate Rangers that have spells. So to have a way to basically remove spellcasting from it by using the "spell slots" to power Hunter's Mark extra damage gives you the best of both worlds-- spells for those who want it, and non-concentration-and-thus-non-breakable extra fighting damage for those who don't.

And as far as the subclasses are concerned... he talks about how the beastmaster concept being a subclass of another class screws things up balance and damagw-wise. It probably would have been better for a Ranger to make "Oaths" or "Enemies" of certain styles of monster. So the Enemy of the Giants highlights fighting large monsters, Enemy of the Horde highlights fighting smaller packs, and Enemy of the Dark highlights fighting underground enemies, etc. etc.

The Fighter, Ranger, and Druid each have multiple "styles" of subclass mechanic, which splits the class up into two different "types" for not necessarily extra gain:

The Champion is just a generic bunch of abilities
The Battlemaster uses Superiority Dice

The Hunter focuses on specific types of enemy
The Beastmaster has an animal companion

The Circle of the Land focuses on spellcasting
The Circle of the Moon is all about combat shapeshifting

If you look at the other classes though, they don't have such a wide split between their subclass foci. They don't give Sneak Attack or Expertise to only one Rogue subclass, every Rogue gets it. They don't give Channel Divinity to only one Cleric subclass, every subclass gets it. They don't give Divine Smite or Lay on Hands to only one Paladin subclass, they don't give metamagic to only one Sorcerer subclass, and so forth.

But for those three classes in particular, they each have a huge combat-focused "thing" that only one subclass gets to use-- Superiority Dice, Animal Companions, and Wildshape. Which mnakes balancing more difficult, and closes off other design avenues going forward because you aren't coming up with more subclasses that can use those things in a special way, you have to create subclasses that are completely separate from those things because that's what the other subclasses in the game are already.

So I do think there is something to be said for animal companions to be pulled out of the ranger and given their own "thing"... and wildshaping pulled out of the "nature caster" and given their own "thing", and superiority dice given over to a class as the baseline "thing" for that class. Obviously it won't happen with 5E... or at least not in 5E any time soon. Maybe three years from now when they make another new "Big Book O' Mechanics" they go ahead and create new versions of the other classes in addition to the Ranger they're probably doing for the one in the fall.

 

[pogre]

Cyclical initiative is faster than what he is proposing. You could make a lot of cool subsystems for initiative, but cyclical is simple and works.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm incredibly troubled by his thoughts on the druid, and I am deathly worried that he won't listen to critics of his ideas but only to those who echo his sentiments (or even those who remain silent on the matter). The sort of changes he wants to make to the druid strike me as far too radical and detrimental to the history, aesthetic, and appeal of the class. In so doing what Mearls proposes, I fear that while he may attract some to the class, it also runs the serious risk of alienating others, myself included, from a class that I have long loved playing. And the result of such an endeavor may simply result in a repeat of 4E's problems with spreading the druid archetype across classes too thinly.

Why are you so concerned ("incredibly troubled" and "deathly worried" and "alienated")? It's not like he will break in your house and steal your PHB and cross out the existing druid and then paste in a new Druid. We're talking your worst case scenario being him publishing an optional alternative druid. How would an optional different druid alienate you? Is the thought that someone out there might be playing a druid you don't like really bothersome?

 

[Zaukrie]

I agree that the fighter is less interesting than 4e.

 

[Aldarc]

Dude, you're being awfully argumentative and defensive.

Paladins and rapiers, kettle. Paladins and rapiers.

But it's not like the Druid has ever been the most popular class.

Which applies to a number of classes (e.g. bard, cleric, monk, etc.) in D&D, does it not?

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).

As were the ranger and paladin subclasses of the fighter. You are welcome to subsume them back into the fighter, but this should be consistent. And it certainly seems odd, if not hypocritical, that we have no problem with so many full arcane spellcasters, but find druids and nature clerics redundant.

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. Your fun is different, and that's cool. I am simply noting that I happen to agree with what Mearls wrote. You disagree. So be it.

I have seen players, again myself included, play for both. It's part of the appeal of the druid. For me though, part of the fun of the druid is having the full magical power of nature and shapeshifting at your command. Now, even for those who want to play the druid for shapeshifting there are problems with the 5E Druid - such as preferring a particular form for the aesthetic (e.g. dire wolf, eagle, etc.) - and simply turning the druid into more of a shapeshifter would do little to address those problems with how Wild Shape is presently designed.

So I do think there is something to be said for animal companions to be pulled out of the ranger and given their own "thing"... and wildshaping pulled out of the "nature caster" and given their own "thing", and superiority dice given over to a class as the baseline "thing" for that class. Obviously it won't happen with 5E... or at least not in 5E any time soon. Maybe three years from now when they make another new "Big Book O' Mechanics" they go ahead and create new versions of the other classes in addition to the Ranger they're probably doing for the one in the fall.

I agree that the subclasses of the druid (as well as the ranger and fighter) were poorly implemented or thought-out, especially given how the capstone of the druid incentivizes the Moon Druid over the Land Druid. The 5E Druid almost comes across as "Oh, ! We have a subclasses model for classes, so let's split this core druid up!" But another, if not more pressing problem, is not simply the presence of Wild Shape but how it is designed in the first place. I would much rather explore addressing the problems of Wild Shape in 5E before resorting to a radical reconceptualization of the D&D Druid.

Why are you so concerned ("incredibly troubled" and "deathly worried" and "alienated")? It's not like he will break in your house and steal your PHB and cross out the existing druid and then paste in a new Druid. We're talking your worst case scenario being him publishing an optional alternative druid. How would an optional different druid alienate you? Is the thought that someone out there might be playing a druid you don't like really bothersome?

An additional alternative druid or a possible direction for the shape of the druid in a hypothetical 6E? To me the shape of the 6E druid (and its subsequent future) is the worst case scenario. That may be a long way off, but it will always be a lingering thought that the old-druid will be on the chopping block in favor of this neo-druid. Irrational? Perhaps. But that is my gut reaction to Mearls's comments.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*