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.

 

[Maxperson]

As for druids, I don't see why the druid has to be moved at all. It seems to me that a druid subclass or three that limit spell casting and play up shapechanging would be sufficient to give Mearls what he wants and leave the druid alone for those that like it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

What problems? The feedback was positive for the revised Ranger, because it's great, from what I've seen.

 

[Henry]

Interesting. In my long experience with OD&D / 1e, Druids were disfavored for a simple reason-

as cool as the flavor was, almost all parties needed a Cleric....

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

It's funny, but I had similar experiences with 1st edition AD&D Druids... until I read a Dragon Magazine article that deconstructed the class. (I don't remember the issue, but it was back in the 1980s) Back before the days of carefully planned builds and CharOp groups, someone took a good look at the 1e Druid and said, "My God, these guys are tough!" They could have 2HD animal companions at first level (courtesy of Animal Friendship and Speak with Animal spells); they had Faerie Fire and entangle which were VERY good back then, and they got 2nd level spells at 2nd character level, and THIRD level spells at THIRD LEVEL. Yes, third level Druids were rocking Protection from Fire and Cure Serious Wounds Spells, which Clerics couldn't get for three more levels. Plus Call Lightning at third, and that Knight-killer of a spell, Heat Metal, at 2nd level. All that, at an XP progression which eclipsed fighters by 3rd level and Clerics by 5th level.

By 12th level they were having to do the "trial by combat" thing, but to be honest most D&D campaigns I was ever aware of back then were over by 9th or 10th level, anyway.

In short, 1e Druids were the Mother Flippin' Bomb, yo.

 

[Valetudo]

What problems? The feedback was positive for the revised Ranger, because it's great, from what I've seen.

Im not saying even the OG version is unplayable or not fun. Im saying from a design perspective, the ranger is a mess. Yeah I think the revised version is better, but its still just a bandaid on a broken bone.

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

I remember MM mentioning that during the playtest the Druids Wild Shape was the most contentious Feature from all the classes, up to the very end of the playtest. He said that they would keep an eye on it even after the release, and wouldn't be surprised if issues crept up in the future.

He mentioned something like, people didn't like unlocking a small handful of options (like a cat at 1st lvl, wolf at 3rd, bear at 5th) or unlocking "forms" (They wanted to be an animal). That they wanted to feel free to change into any animal, but also have appropriate mechanical restrictions (No Fly speed untill x lvl). And polls have shown that Wild Shape is their main desire for the druid. That's a tall, tricky order.

I think they should have the Druid chassis with a low Wild Shape, and 1/3 casting. Then you can turn each feature up separately with the subclass.

Want a Wild Shaper Druid? turn Wild Shape up to high and keep spells at 1/3.
You can go ham on the Wild Shape with high CR, fly speed sooner, scaling beast. Basically the Improved Moon Druid?-ish?

Want a Magic Casting Druid? keep Wild Shape at low and ratchet up casting to full progression.
Basically the Land Druid.

Want a Low-Impact-Animal-Companion Druid? Wild Shape low, casting 2/3 (Or Wild Shape medium, casting 1/3) , and a Bunny.
For Utility, maybe even get a litter of bunnies for extra cuteness

Want a High-Impact-Animal-Companion Druid? Wild Shape low, casting 1/3, and a Balor.
This would basically take all the Beast Masters stuff, and relieve him of his burden, the poor bastard hasn't he been through enough already?

Want a Middle-of-the-Road Druid? Wild Shape medium, casting 2/3.
This could be the space for unique or quirky subclasses, I remember seeing a Fungi Druid for example.

I don't think its possible to scale down casting progression. Even if it is, it feels punitive. I'm also not sure if scaling up spell progression is possible but I think its worth trying, and the Druid would get a lot of mileage out of it, possibly the most out of any class.

 

[rabindranath72]

With nature being a domain of the cleric, I would totally support a half caster druid that specialized in other things, like shapeshifting, or elemental or pets.

That's essentially how the 13th Age druid works; it's an absolutely brilliant concept.

 

[rabindranath72]

It's funny, but I had similar experiences with 1st edition AD&D Druids... until I read a Dragon Magazine article that deconstructed the class. (I don't remember the issue, but it was back in the 1980s) Back before the days of carefully planned builds and CharOp groups, someone took a good look at the 1e Druid and said, "My God, these guys are tough!" They could have 2HD animal companions at first level (courtesy of Animal Friendship and Speak with Animal spells); they had Faerie Fire and entangle which were VERY good back then, and they got 2nd level spells at 2nd character level, and THIRD level spells at THIRD LEVEL. Yes, third level Druids were rocking Protection from Fire and Cure Serious Wounds Spells, which Clerics couldn't get for three more levels. Plus Call Lightning at third, and that Knight-killer of a spell, Heat Metal, at 2nd level. All that, at an XP progression which eclipsed fighters by 3rd level and Clerics by 5th level.

By 12th level they were having to do the "trial by combat" thing, but to be honest most D&D campaigns I was ever aware of back then were over by 9th or 10th level, anyway.

In short, 1e Druids were the Mother Flippin' Bomb, yo.

They were tough, but there was the caveat of the material components. If you followed the rules, it would have been very difficult to keep using mistletoe indefinitely; most of the time, the druid would be forced to use holly or other materials, with the result that spells would be way less powerful. Although use of material components in the game was for the DM to decide, I think the druid was designed with them in mind.

 

[PrimevalSeeker]

Some of the things he said he would like changed/doesn't like, are stuff i like having in the game.

Druid as half caster, focused on shapeshifting is a bad idea. This leaves primal magic without a full spellcaster. Maybe that twitter poll had something to do with this statement.

Also the fact that warlock patron and pact are separate choices is a great idea and i would hate to see this go. In fact i would have liked it even more if the pact had been expanded more, and offered more abilities over several levels similarly to the subclass (patron). I like classes with a lot of moving parts and the warlock with patron, pact and invocations is one of the best choices, compared to other more rigidly constructed classes in 5e.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Im not saying even the OG version is unplayable or not fun. Im saying from a design perspective, the ranger is a mess. Yeah I think the revised version is better, but its still just a bandaid on a broken bone.

And I disagree, and am saying that all the feedback I've seen, outside this forum, from people playing the ranger is that the phb ranger just needed tweaks to its execution, and that the revised ranger does what they wanted it to do, which was to fix the issues, not redesign the class. Because people like the ranger from a design perspective.

You don't, but that doesn't make it any kind of mess. It works like it should.

 

[Pauper]

Add to that, the Ranger shouldn't be choosing between utility magic and fighting, nor should it have to multiclass druid to have a companion. It's part of the class identity.

Depends who you ask -- the ranger introduced in the original Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook had no animal companion feature, nor any way to get one save for DM adjudiction with the 'follower' mechanic that the ranger used at high level (much as the fighter gained 'followers' that could be used to staff a kingdom, the ranger gained followers like copper dragons or storm giants.

The ranger with the single animal companion for most of his career didn't become a thing until 3rd Edition, and the ranger animal companion was basically his version of a wizard's familiar, even using similar advancement rules.

The 4th Edition ranger didn't have an animal companion until the Beastmaster option came out in the Martial Power splatbook; the core ranger was purely an archer or two-weapon damage dealer.

One could argue, as with a lot else about the ranger class, that the 'animal companion' aspect of the class came almost solely from Driz'zt Do'Urden -- a character who was impossible to actually build legally under core rules until D&D 5E. I don't consider anything about Driz'zt -- a character written for fiction, not actually for play -- to be part of the class identity of the ranger class.

The revised ranger is also mechanically really good as it is.

The revised ranger is an absolutely wonderful option for those who want to play a Swashbuckler rogue and splash one level of ranger to guarantee they always get Sneak Attack in the opening round of combat, since they can't also take Assassin to do that. The Hunter Conclave is mechanically identical to the core Hunter archetype in the PH, which suggests that there already wasn't much wrong with the core Ranger, but there's no reason to take it now when the Dark Stalker Conclave exists. If anything, the revised Ranger is example #1 as to why designing by opinion poll is ultimately not going to get you a better-designed game.

--
Pauper