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

[Li Shenron]

Shapeshifting has become a Druid's tradition now, it increases the identity of the Druid compared to other spellcasters. But it's not exclusive, Wizards and Sorcerers and Warlocks can also learn their version of shapeshifting through spells. I think WotC did the right thing with 5e in keeping Wild Shape a core Druid feature, but largely toning down its combat applications to all but a specific subclass.

On the other hand, a Druid with only shapeshifting and no spellcasting but be a total joke. A one-trick pony character for combat min-maxers in most cases.

Nature magic is the essence of a Druid. Taking it away would be like taking away all Clerical spells except straight healing, or taking away all Wizard spells except damaging AoE spells. Just because you can build a Cleric that does nothing but heal or a Wizard that does nothing but area damage it doesn't mean that you should be so dumb as to force every character to be that limited. It would literally shrink the class to irrelevance.

• D&D is bloated with full casters, and the Nature clerical domain has a massive conceptual overlap with the druid. Purely as a spellcaster, the druid does not need to exist.

It's pretty much the opposite: the Nature domain is redundant and does not need to exist in a fantasy setting that already has Druids.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

The druid player in my group pretty much only does shapeshifting most of the time anyway. Well okay, he also saved the day with some really useful spells from time to time. But going around as wolf to get advantage on perception or turning into some unnoticable animal to scout and not be noticed as threat is really a huge thing.

If it wasn't for him, our group didn't really have any healer, though. So he usually just uses his spell slots to heal the group between combat and then shapes back into an animals (since there are only two battles per short rest on average, you really never run out of that ability).

 

[Kobold Stew]

Utter rubbish...as is the data collection method.

They're not looking for actual data; they are looking to justify a particular answer.

 

[Aldarc]

This poll is about like asking which a wizard gets: their spellcasting or their spellbook. Both are part and parcel of the package deal and aesthetic.

That said, let's look at the "influence of WoW and Diablo" narrative, in part because the years cited are slightly off. Diablo 2 (2000) did not have a druid at launch. Diablo 2's expansion Lord of Destruction (2001) did have a druid, but its shapeshifting was not so much into animals but into were-beasts. We could still say, however, that it was a class defined by "shapeshifting," though one could build your druid without a single point in the shapeshifting talent tree, since there was also an Elemental Spells and Summoning talent trees.

World of Warcraft unquestionably has a tremendous influence on popular conceptions of the druid, with its enormous (albeit gradually declining) fanbase. But WoW was not created in an isolated vacuum. World of Warcraft was released in 2004, but the World of Warcraft game builds upon and was developed simultaneously alongside Warcraft 3. Warcraft 3 was released in 2002. (The third edition of Dungeons & Dragons and it version of the druid came out in 2000.) Warcraft 3 had shapeshifting druids, though at this time, their shapeshifting was limited to a few totem animals, namely the bear and raven. ("Vanilla" WoW would introduce the panther and sea lion. Burning Crusade would introduce the "moonkin"/owlbear and the treant.) But when one looks at Warcraft 3 (and its predecessors, Warcraft 1 and 2), one can see the influence of D&D (and Warhammer, unsurprisingly given the history of the Warcraft franchise). The "druidic" Night Elves of WC3, for example, are essentially a combination and subversion of wood elves and drow. Much like drow, for example, they are "nocturnal" elves with a gendered society, being led by a matriarchal society of priestesses to their goddess with a wizardly male class (aka the druids). (This goddess Elune, however, is less indebted to Lloth, but, rather, more to Eilistraee or the Triune of elven goddesses.) But their society was not evil or underground, but noble, druidic, and in the woodlands. The point is less about the elves, but, rather, about how D&D was a tremendous influence on 90s and early '00s fantasy games. The people who played D&D were making the games, including Warcraft and Diablo.

 

[Mecheon]

Obscure Warcraft knowledge is a thing I have

Warcraft 3 was released in 2002. (The third edition of Dungeons & Dragons and it version of the druid came out in 2000.) Warcraft 3 had shapeshifting druids, though at this time, their shapeshifting was limited to a few totem animals, namely the bear and raven. ("Vanilla" WoW would introduce the panther and sea lion. Burning Crusade would introduce the "moonkin"/owlbear and the treant.)

In prototype Warcraft 3, there was a third druid, the Archdruid, a heroic unit. It had the ability to turn into "Force of Nature", a combination of a bear, an elf, an owl, and a tree. The Archdruid was later dropped and most of its abilities given to the Keeper of the Grove, whereas its model was recycled in two ways. The Archdruid model, alternate form stripped away, became the base of the ever-updated Druid of the Talon and, in a more traditional form, the campaign hero Furion, while the Force of Nature became the Owlbear, Moonkin or whatever name they have now

(Seriously, they show up in the latest expansion as Ravenbears which is hilarious)

But when one looks at Warcraft 3 (and its predecessors, Warcraft 1 and 2), one can see the influence of D&D (and Warhammer, unsurprisingly given the history of the Warcraft franchise). The "druidic" Night Elves of WC3, for example, are essentially a combination and subversion of wood elves and drow. Much like drow, for example, they are "nocturnal" elves with a gendered society, being led by a matriarchal society of priestesses to their goddess with a wizardly male class (aka the druids). (This goddess Elune, however, is less indebted to Lloth, but, rather, more to Eilistraee or the Triune of elven goddesses.) But their society was not evil or underground, but noble, druidic, and in the woodlands. The point is less about the elves, but, rather, about how D&D was a tremendous influence on 90s and early '00s fantasy games. The people who played D&D were making the games, including Warcraft and Diablo.

Fun fact? Warcraft 3 Night Elf concept art, the earliest stuff, flat out just calls them "Dark elves"

 

[Flamestrike]

Im thinking we'll be seeing a Druid circle in the not so distant future with an animal companion (land druids = casters, moon = shifters).

 

[Hussar]

I gotta admit, I'm not a huge fan of Druid as a pet Class. Leave that to the ranger afaic. Gives rangers a nice niche. Druids as shape shifters and casters works for me.

Or maybe a more plant based Druid that animates trees and stuff. That might be cool. I'd argue for a more pure elementalist Druid but that would look a lot like a wizard.

 

[Li Shenron]

If you are going butcher a class, you might as well keep the part that is relatively unique.

IMO if you remove spellcasting you butcher the Druid. If you remove shapeshifting you do not butcher it, although you do remove an important and unique feature, but it's not butchered. There have been across editions many gaming groups looking for non-shapeshifting versions of the Druid, but groups wanting a non-spellcasting version are almost unheard of.

But anyway, why butchering? I don't see why we should give any fuel at all to an idea that would only damage the game for no benefit whatsoever, except maybe catering to a few people who never play the game but only talk about changing it, because it's the only thing related to D&D they can do. All this is just about a casual Twitter question that Mearls woke up with one day. There is no chance they would drop all the design work behind the Druid for a withered version of it.

At least I'm happy that the pet is the least voted option.

 

[Leatherhead]

But anyway, why butchering? I don't see why we should give any fuel at all to an idea that would only damage the game for no benefit whatsoever, except maybe catering to a few people who never play the game but only talk about changing it, because it's the only thing related to D&D they can do. All this is just about a casual Twitter question that Mearls woke up with one day. There is no chance they would drop all the design work behind the Druid for a withered version of it.

People were wondering why Shapeshifting is winning despite Spell Casting being far more powerful and arguably able to encapsulate all other options. And it's really all about the message itself.

As opposed to a question like "What element of the druid do you consider to be the most important?", this isn't a question at all. Instead it's a statement followed by a command (and a hashtag, but that's not really part of the message). This causes the tweet to be worded in a way that implies consequence, namely the consequence of losing the two options you don't pick. Is it a limitation of the medium? Probably. The limited character space is one of the worst features of Twitter.

Now, because people are naturally loss adverse, the language of this tweet causes people to examine how best they could minimize the losses presented by it. There are numerous other ways to obtain full spellcasting (or even partial spellcasting) with a nature theme. There are also numerous ways (though not as many) to obtain a combat pet. Shapeshifting isn't something that is so easily covered by any other option. Yes, there are spells that can cover it, but the animal shaped ones don't come online until level 7, which is mid-to-end of the playtime experience for most characters. So you aren't going to start out with animal shapeshifting, and possibly may never see it. Which means in order to lose the least, you are going to keep Shapeshifting.

 

[schnee]

Why did they even add a Nature domain for Clerics in the first place? That's dumb. Everything about a Cleric's spell list and Radiant damage and Undead turning indicate a 'supernatural' force that is over and above 'nature'.

If anything, IMO the only nature-like spells they should have are things that make nature do unnatural things to show the transcendent power of God, and that nature is only a temporary stage for an eternal play, and should not be worshipped. I grew up in the Bible Belt (and have the 'argue about religion skills to prove it) so take that for what it's worth.

I have to admit, I'm old, so to me a Druid has nature spells and shapeshifting is secondary. Circle of the Land is pretty much the AD&D Druid. Circle of the Moon is the Warcraft 3 Druid, I guess. Those are both cool. I hope they're not going to cut us grognards out of the picture.