D&D 5E Mike Mearls' AMA Summary

[Lanefan]

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.

Though on a really good day we might amount to the sergeant.

Maybe.

Lan-"order in the ranks!"-efan

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Here are some of the problems people have mentioned here and elsewhere about Wild Shape in 5E:

(1) The particular animal forms require a lot of cross-checking monster manual charts, which almost runs antithetical to the supposed streamlined simplicity of 5E.

(2) Some people have expressed a desired relevancy of preferred forms. E.g., some players may want to be a wolf, but the wolf becomes insignificant in comparison to other forms.

(3) Building on #2, there is a lack of scaling of HP, damage, and other attributes.

Someone mentioned a potentially easier (and more manageable) solution to Wild Shape that would solve a lot of these issues. Make the form itself mostly aesthetic, but then provide form archetypes: e.g. stalker, guardian, scout, etc. But these forms and attributes could either be unlocked by the subclasses or with class level (or both). The damage, bonus HP, etc. would scale with level, keeping preferred forms relevant.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Don't listen to [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] , they are the Grand Druid....biased!



(I kid, good post)

 

[SkidAce]

Wait...so is [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]...

/runs into the forest...

 

[RuinousPowers]

I too disagree on the druid. Does shapechanging alone sound like what a druid is as is understood by the world?

Since 3.0 I feel shapechanging is THE defining aspect of Druids.

 

[Greg K]

Since 3.0 I feel shapechanging is THE defining aspect of Druids.

In my opinion, shapechanging as the defining aspect of Druid is one of the issues with the 3e Druid.

 

[Staffan]

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

The way I see it, if you want a tank nature guy you either do it as a Fighter with the Outlander background, or a Paladin with the Oath of the Ancients. The Ranger should be the special-forces guy, not the tank.

And a "fighter with extras" is a rather unbalanced way of thinking about it - the fighter has her stuff, and the ranger has his. They're both good at fighting, but in different ways, and if they should ever wind up in a white-room fight the fighter should kick the rangers' butt (but the ranger is really, really good at arranging things so the fighter can't play to her strengths).

 

[Lanefan]

The way I see it, if you want a tank nature guy you either do it as a Fighter with the Outlander background, or a Paladin with the Oath of the Ancients. The Ranger should be the special-forces guy, not the tank.

Paladin of any kind as the nature guy? Surely you jest.

And a "fighter with extras" is a rather unbalanced way of thinking about it

Yes, it is. I freely admit this.

- the fighter has her stuff, and the ranger has his. They're both good at fighting, but in different ways, and if they should ever wind up in a white-room fight the fighter should kick the rangers' butt (but the ranger is really, really good at arranging things so the fighter can't play to her strengths).

Where I'd say in a white-room fight the Fighter should win more often than she loses, but not overwhelmingly and certainly not every time. This is a bit level-dependent, though: the higher their levels are, the more the advantage swings toward the Fighter.

I'm coming from a 1e perspective, where Ranger really was essentially a Fighter with extras but you had to meet some pretty strong stat reuirements in order to be one. The class was flexible enough to allow for a light stealth Ranger or a heavy tank Ranger or a herbalist Ranger - Robin Hood or Aragorn or a barbarian simply born into the lifestyle. (I never agreed with the 1e alignment restriction)

Drizz't and 2e ruined the class for me, and since then it's only got worse.

Lan-"can someone please tell me why [MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION] is running into the forest"-efan

 

[BookBarbarian]

Drizz't and 2e ruined the class for me, and since then it's only got worse.[MENTION=7706]SkidAce[/MENTION] is running into the forest"-efan

That "Ranger" did indeed ruin the name. As if using scimitars and a bow, and never casting spells, or tracking anything made one a Ranger.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*