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.

 

[bmfrosty]

The discussion of Initiative, Action, and Bonus Action are the most interesting.

I think the things that they're dissatisfied with from the core mechanics are the best indication we can have with how things will go for whatever comes later. Maybe some come up as optional rules - like Initiative. Some - like the action types may take a new version, and some, like character classes that need to be redone, really just become new classes and older versions can optionally become retired.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I didn't see anything shocking here, but I'm really curious about what specific DMS Guild (or even which specific MT Black) adventures he likes.

I also completely agree with his advice for new players. It blows my mind how fearful people get of their PCs, so fast. A memorable death beats a mechanical and humdrum 12th level any day of the week.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I noticed this-

"Ranger - I'd rebuild it using the paladin as more of a model"

NO!

You are going the wrong direction, Mearls. THE WRONG DIRECTION!

lol ok, other than your hatred of Paladins conceptually, do you have any objection to it?

Bc I rather think he means that the ranger would work mechanically more like a Paladin, which I don't really like, because Paladin subclasses are smaller than ranger Subclasses, and I want Ranger subclasses to make up about as much of the class as they currently do.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

lol ok, other than your hatred of Paladins conceptually, do you have any objection to it?

Bc I rather think he means that the ranger would work mechanically more like a Paladin, which I don't really like, because Paladin subclasses are smaller than ranger Subclasses, and I want Ranger subclasses to make up about as much of the class as they currently do.

Maybe he was talking more about extra spells like the paladin. If I remember correctly some of the new rangers have extended spell list. Maybe something like giving the Beastmaster Find Familiar, always-ready Summon Beast, giving the Hunter more scrying spells etc

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I didn't see anything shocking here, but I'm really curious about what specific DMS Guild (or even which specific MT Black) adventures he likes.

I also completely agree with his advice for new players. It blows my mind how fearful people get of their PCs, so fast. A memorable death beats a mechanical and humdrum 12th level any day of the week.

That's hardly an accurate dichotomy, though. It's a choice between a death that may or may not be memorable, and a 12th level career that may or may not be memorable. IMO, the 12th level character is much more likely to be memorable, unless the player is just really boring, because there is a lot more time to have great moments with that character.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I didn't see anything shocking here, but I'm really curious about what specific DMS Guild (or even which specific MT Black) adventures he likes.

I also completely agree with his advice for new players. It blows my mind how fearful people get of their PCs, so fast. A memorable death beats a mechanical and humdrum 12th level any day of the week.

That's hardly an accurate dichotomy, though. It's a choice between a death that may or may not be memorable, and a 12th level career that may or may not be memorable. IMO, the 12th level character is much more likely to be memorable, unless the player is just really boring, because there is a lot more time to have great moments with that character.

 

[Gadget]

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.

I'm not sure I agree. While the D&D druid has a long history of being a full spell caster, it was mainly the uniqueness of the spell list and abilities that differentiated it. With that gone, I'd like to see what they could do with this new design. I definitely agree with him on the Warlock, they tried to do to much with to small a mechanical space; see all the arguments about the blade'lock. I never really cared for the Beastmaster concept to begin with, but I think his point stands.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Azzy]

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.

Agreed.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not sure I agree. While the D&D druid has a long history of being a full spell caster, it was mainly the uniqueness of the spell list and abilities that differentiated it. With that gone, I'd like to see what they could do with this new design. I definitely agree with him on the Warlock, they tried to do to much with to small a mechanical space; see all the arguments about the blade'lock. I never really cared for the Beastmaster concept to begin with, but I think his point stands.

The Blade Pact could be fixed within the framework of Pact Boons, though. It just doesn't stand up next to the other two. If you ignore the one they didn't design as well as they thought (no shade, they did good with the rest of the class, IMO, but at least some small tweaks are needed for the blade pact to work as intended), the Pact Boon feature is an excellent part of the class, and I absolutely do not want to see a Warlock whose boon is chosen by choosing their patron. Each boon makes sense for every patron, and it should stay as it is. Especially since Invocations let you choose how much to focus or ignore your boon as you progress.

As for Beastmasters, as a person who loves the concept, the Beast Master ranger works really, really well now. The PHB version isn't great, but the revised version is excellent.
It doesn't obviate the space for a pet class, but that is a whole other thing, and I don't want a Beast Master class to be the Ranger. if it is a class, it needs to be it's own class.


Re: Druids: Again, I'm fine with reducing it's casting focus a bit, just not to the point of a half or 1/3 caster, as he suggests. The Land Druid as it exists is not a nature cleric. It is a Druid, and needs to remain something you can do with the Druid class.
And no matter what, there need to be more spells that only Druids and Rangers get (and barbarians, because I'd like a couple more Barbarian options that get spells as rituals, or even as normal spells x/day) that exemplify that tie to nature as a Force in the world, and to the spirits of nature, etc.