D&D 5E Mike Mearls Twitter Poll: "The druid gets one of the following: Spellcasting | Shapeshifting | Animal companions. Choose."

[Staccat0]

In my head, druids and clerics are still both types of "priests" and 5e seems to have taken that space and made them all clerics. I'm fine with all of that.

So, to me, a nature cleric (if not a setting specific version of one) works just fine as a non-shifting Druid.

See also: spell-less rangers vs fighter and rogues with some theme and personality.

 

[Thurmas]

Just because Shapeshifting is unique to the Druid in 5E, doesn't make it the defining aspect of what a Druid is. Spellcasting should be the defining characteristic of the class. I hear Druid, and the thought of a hermit in the woods casting spells is what comes to mind. I kind of wish the shapeshifting ability was limited to a single subclass, or at least that the Circle of the Moon shapeshifting wasn't so front loaded and powerful at lower levels. I'd also love to see a new book released with spells in it, with a number of spells that are distinctly unique to classes. Not just for Druids, but for others such as Bards and Sorcerers.

 

[steeldragons]

To be clear...I don't think anyone is saying that druid's shouldn't have shapeshifting at all. It's just that the OP specifies that -for whatever Mearlsian reasons- they only can have "one."

In that vein, if you want a shapeshifting druid, you should STILL be voting for "spellcaster" as something like "Animal Form I-thru-VI" or some such could easily be integrated into a spell list and you could shapeshift to your heart's [and spell slots'] content.

Have you cake and eat it too, as it seems folks are so fond nowadays, versus "here's a fork."

 

[Lancelot]

Huh. As a player (mostly DM) for 30+ years, my gut response would have been "spell-casting". But this is one of those rare threads which have actually made me revise my own views. I'm swayed by those who have posted previously that shape-shifting is the unique druid ability. If you can only keep one of the three, it kind of has to be the shape-shifting. If you don't, then you have to create a different class to meet this need. Which is fine, but I hate the proliferation of classes and prestige paths that we had in 3e. The current set of 11 classes is more than sufficient to meet the needs of most campaigns. The traditional druid can be modeled by a Nature cleric or a Diviner wizard or even a Lore bard.

Now, for a really hot take: "The sorcerer gets one of the following: Wild Magic (originally a wizard feature) | Metamagic (originally a wizard feature) | Draconic Origin (...I guess?). Choose... whether there's even any point to having a sorcerer as a separate class?"

I guess that's more than 140 characters, so my hopes of Mearls having it as his next Twitter poll are pretty slim.

 

[Dausuul]

...and correct. "...if [we] think of druids as a celtic [nature] priest primarily, you're probably old AND RIGHT." You forgot. No big. It starts to happen at a certain age.

Druids were also legal authorities. Clearly, these guys are the archetypes on which a proper druid class should be based.

 

[steeldragons]

Druids were also legal authorities and judges. Clearly, these guys are the archetypes on which a proper druid class should be based.

Long as "shapeshifting" isn't their primary or sole shtick, these guys are more than welcome to be druids. They can wear suits and carry briefcases...they need something in which to carry their sickles, herb pouches, and goodberries.

 

[Xeviat]

Shapeshifting and Animal Companions could both be done with Spellcasting; spellcasting could not be done with the others.

I would have liked to have seen Wild Shape balanced around spell levels. Considering the Warlock can cast 1 spell of max level (until level 11) per encounter, a druid wildshape spell could have been balanced. It would have probably been better than the moon druid's pile of HP.

 

[Jester David]

I like the shapeshifting and animal companion.
While rangers also get a beast, it feels as much a part of the druid class after 3e (if not more). They were the pet class in that edition. But they've always been the animal form class, and that was their most unique power in the past. So it makes sense to move that to the forefront.

Spellcasting... yeah, that's not their thing. Focusing on that just makes them nature based priests.

 

[AmerginLiath]

Druids should be spell-casters, first and foremost. I would even pose that through their magic, animal companions (in the sense of utility: scouting for you, tracking for you, communicating messages to other druids, etc... NOT the "I'm a Summonuh who poofs animals into existence to fight and die for me! That's a totally normal drooid!" way) would come in second place. Shapeshifting, sure is a flavorful ability...and fits well in with the whole "connection to/one with nature" thing. But it certainly shouldn't be from 2nd level on and definitely shouldn't be the PRIMARY signature ability.

Nature Magic is the druid signature ability. Casting spells that do things that Clerics don't/can't and Wizards don't/can't.

Agreed. Druids, more than any caster, should be ritual casters (consider the development of the Moots in 2e, for example), perhaps with increased abilities as nature priests to empower their spells by use of time and location. Shapeshifting is certainly worth a subclass and/or secondary ability, but it shouldn't be the core element at play,

 

[i_dont_meta]

I Twitter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk