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.

 

[Mercule]

I am really surprised that hasn't shown up in a ranger subclass yet.

I am not sure I would be as good with that idea for druids (an ability that eats a spell slot to give your wolf form added cold damage).

Haha. I hadn't thought about doing it for Druids, but I'd really dig on that idea -- burn spell slots to shape shift. Yeah, I said to actually power the ability, not just add benefits. That might be a good way to handle the Moon Circle, though -- they don't necessarily get better forms, just the option to add on toys. That might also be a cool way to handle subclasses for a full-shifter class -- one subclass gets more forms by spending more or better slots, but another gets elemental effects for spending slots. I'm sure there are other options, too.

 

[SkidAce]

Dude, you're being awfully argumentative and defensive. You like the Druid as a full spellcaster- good for you!

But it's not like the Druid has ever been the most popular class.* There are a number of reasons for this- standard ideas of D&D as a "dungeon crawl," and thus leaving little room for outdoors specialties. Lack of great "druid" archetypes in fantasy genre literature and film. Maybe it sounds too much like dude? The druid abides?

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).

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.


*In Dungeons and Dragons. People choose differently in different games; Diablo and WoW are, of course, different games.

For us (mainly military over 30 some years, and various book store nerds) the druid has always been more popular than the cleric.

I agree that there has been a cultural (gaming) shift on the concept of the druid. We will continue to use the druid as a stonehenge priest of earth and spirit worship concept. If they come out with a druid that is mainly shapeshifting, we will call it a beastmaster, or shifter, or something, and continue to use the druid as is.

While we might momentarily lament the the culture shift and the ways of olde, we will likely just say "HUZZAH", and raise a flagon in respect to those who define druid otherwise.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

So, people that play video games are the culture?

Umm, yes? Some people play (way) more than others, sure, but I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone I know under 40 who doesn't play video games at least sometimes.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

For us (mainly military over 30 some years, and various book store nerds) the druid has always been more popular than the cleric.

I agree that there has been a cultural (gaming) shift on the concept of the druid. We will continue to use the druid as a stonehenge priest of earth and spirit worship concept. If they come out with a druid that is mainly shapeshifting, we will call it a beastmaster, or shifter, or something, and continue to use the druid as is.

While we might momentarily lament the the culture shift and the ways of olde, we will likely just say "HUZZAH", and raise a flagon in respect to those who define druid otherwise.

As a "military guy over 30 some years" myself, I don't know for sure if the druid was more popular than the cleric. I think most of the druid's popularity back in the day (at least in my experience) was because you got chain lightning at a relatively low level. And that was an awesome spell. The lack of armor certainly made a lot of people gravitate towards the cleric though. I think the druid was more for those people who wanted sort of a hybrid between cleric and magic user without having to multiclass or dual class.

On a related note, the illusionist was it's own separate class in 1e, but it has been shown to easily be incorporated into the magic user overall class. I think the same can (and has) been done with the druid. The nature domain of the cleric class isn't all that different from the original druid class. So what makes the druid more unique in later versions? Shapeshifting and pets are probably the two big ones. Therefore, I can totally see the druid being made into a half caster with a subclass for shape shifting and one for pets.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

People are free to make bad decisions in their own lives, like jumping into active volcanoes, taunting rabid sharks*, and playing Paladins. You can't cure ... smug.



*They do too exist!

LOL

You really ought to find whoever made Paladins terrible in your mind, and beat them up in a dark alley and take their wallet.

I assume it was a player of a paladin, at some point.

Paladins are good or bad depending on the player.

Clerics are always terrible. Even good Clerics would be better if they weren't Clerics.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[guachi]

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

In the 17 years I played D&D (off and on from 1983-2000) I never once played with someone who played a Druid. I guess 5e is better in the sense I'd consider playing a Druid and my current campaign has a Druid player.

If I could go back in time and force the designers to change one thing it would be to change the fighter. Separate the Champion and Battle Master into two separate classes.

This would allow a simple chassis (Champion) to put a simple fighter subclass or a magic using subclass (EK or Arcane Archer) on to. By separating Battle Master into its own class it would make superiority dice a class feature and allow greater design space for subclasses centered around that.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I am really surprised that hasn't shown up in a ranger subclass yet.

I am not sure I would be as good with that idea for druids (an ability that eats a spell slot to give your wolf form added cold damage).

Thinking about it a little more, I guess the reason I would be more suspect about the druid doing this is because "I changed into a giant lizard, added wings and fire breath" seems more in line with the sorcerer then a druid.