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

[PrimevalSeeker]

Why not ask the question:

Should the druid have spellcasting AND shapeshifting OR an animal companion?

I would prefer it if the druid was similar to the cleric and the wizard, a full spellcaster. This way the druid is the full caster that focuses on primal magic (is that a thing in 5e?), the same way the wizard focuses on arcane and the cleric on divine.

Then to give it a specific animal themed niche, there could be a choice between shifting into an animal or befriending one.

This could be done similar to how a warlock chooses a pact and maybe even offer upgrades throughout several levels (more forms, animal companion scaling).

 

[Horwath]

I go for shapeshifting.

And it should be at will from 1st or 2nd level as a bonus action.

Take it from 3.5e PHB2 version of druid.

Then just boost STR/DEX of the druid as he shifts, balance with AC and speed and type of motion.
No extra HP.

I.E. predator form;
you take the form of any medium size 4 legged predator animal.
You gain +4 str,
You gain AC of 14+dex
Your speed is 50ft
You have natural bite attack that deals 1d6+str mod damage.

5th level,
Large predator form
you take the form of any large size 4 legged predator animal.
You gain +6 str
You gain AC of 16+dex mod(max 2)
Your speed is 40ft
You have natural bite attack for 1d8+str mod damage,
You have natural claws attack for 2d6+str mod damage,
You can take Multiattack action to make both attacks,

 

[Dualazi]

I'm definitely on the shape-changing side of things, though I doubt there will be any significant changes before the distant edition shift far down the road. I do also think that outside of personal affections for the concept, the shape-shifting druid is also objectively the best option. As others have noted, the shape-shifting element is by far and away the unique thing that druids have that no one else does; focusing on other elements (spells and pets) simply makes them redundant with other classes. If you want to play the old school celtic variant, just play a nature cleric, which is part of the point I guess, we already have a plethora of full casters of almost every stripe, so keeping that element doesn't expand the game significantly.

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.

Clearly not unheard of since several people in this thread have basically stated as much as well. If you asked me between having a full caster druid with no shifting and a pure shifter with no spells, I'd take the latter every time. It has a niche all of its own, and the game is already drowning in spellcasters to a ridiculous degree. Likewise, it would be nice to see design (both mechanical and thematic) that interact with obviously magical classes that aren't beholden to gigantic vancian lists.

As I said though, I really doubt you have much to fear, if they were seriously contemplating a shift of that degree I would certainly hope they'd not rely on twitter for feedback.

 

[schnee]

I'd go for shapeshifter with a half-caster with unique spells that really 'go native' into being animalistic.

Or, have the shapeshifting be a lot more granular and interesting and defined rather than the uneven strength, highly-bookkeeping driven way it's done now.

Like, just adding faster speed, movement types, choices in amazing senses, etc. get unlocked like the 'claws as magic weapons' today - like a fighter's maneuvers. Constrict, blind sense, high jump, super fast speed, flying, etcetera - and you gain one new animal 'package' per level (as in 1 movement type, 1 attack type, 1 sense, 1 extraordinary ability score).

The power increases steadily over time, so - like a Monk, your forms move faster, or get more extraordinary abilities.

I would even like the shapeshifter to buy into the same Circles of the Land somehow, with either the animals you start with or the types of spell-like or extraordinary abilities you get are flavored by that. Like, Underdark gets blind sense. Plains gets long distance vision. Mountains gets advantage on athletics and fast climbing, so on.

I'd play the hell out of that kind of shifter class.

 

[Mercule]

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.

I was tempted to vote "pet" just because I want it removed from Ranger. Rangers are genocidal special ops border guards who also happen to make good bounty hunters. That's their schtick. Pets are a completely pointless wart on the class.

IMO, Druids are:
- Primarily casters -- this is what they do and what defines them. I treat them as psuedo-animists, who ally with the gods of the wilds for shared ends, more than just worshiping them. That separates them nicely from the nature Cleric (which is somewhat, but not completely, redundant w/ Druid).
- Secondary pets -- I'm not a huge fan of pets, but don't hate them, either. If you're going to put them in the game, giving them to the guy who actually bonds with nature makes the most sense. Besides, AD&D Druids got summon animal I-VII, which seems like the precursor to having pets.
- Tertiary shifters -- Oh, yeah. They can do that. Forgot all about it. Meh, go ahead and use it as a side perk.

 

[Mercule]

Basically, this poll is a good reminder if you think of druids as a Celtic priest primarily, you're probably old.

Or that you just happen to be able to use a dictionary/encyclopedia. Druids are Celtic priests -- not that the class has ever been a particularly good model for that, either. It's kinda like asking if the Pope is Catholic.

I'm actually fine with a shape-shifting class. Just don't call it the Druid. Better to remove the Druid class entirely and add a Warden, Shaman, or whatever.

 

[Li Shenron]

I was tempted to vote "pet" just because I want it removed from Ranger. Rangers are genocidal special ops border guards who also happen to make good bounty hunters. That's their schtick. Pets are a completely pointless wart on the class.

Well the good thing is that pets aren't even a Ranger thing, they're a Beastmaster thing... so you don't need to "remove" them from anywhere, you just need to ignore the Beastmaster archetype option

 

[TwoSix]

Or that you just happen to be able to use a dictionary/encyclopedia. Druids are Celtic priests -- not that the class has ever been a particularly good model for that, either. It's kinda like asking if the Pope is Catholic.

I'm actually fine with a shape-shifting class. Just don't call it the Druid. Better to remove the Druid class entirely and add a Warden, Shaman, or whatever.

<shrug> I'm not going to argue prescriptivism versus descriptivism here. I would just point that it appears that what "druid" means in a historical context has informed what "druid" means in a fantasy context, but no longer constrains it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Currently it's 64% shapeshifting, 24% spellcasting, and 12% animal companion ... which I find frustrating. I've never thought of shapeshifting as intrinsic to the class. What I see when I think of a druid is a celtic pagan priest out in nature, communing in groves and casting spells in stone circles under the moon and stars.

The whole shapeshifting thing, to look to mythology, is more of a shaman thing, innit?

I agree with the conclusion, but for a more practical reason: shapeshifting in the base class complicates sub-class design.

I could see a new class built entirely on shapeshifting, though. In that case I'd make the base class non-spellcasting.

 

[Mercule]

Well the good thing is that pets aren't even a Ranger thing, they're a Beastmaster thing... so you don't need to "remove" them from anywhere, you just need to ignore the Beastmaster archetype option

I don't actually mind pets. They just don't seem particularly appropriate as a subclass to the Ranger (better a subclass that core ability). I really think they make a ton more sense on Druid or some other, new nature class. Again, it's not that I have a real problem with them being available to Ranger -- there should probably be a general mechanism for handling animal companions, Paladin mounts, familiars, etc. -- just the idea that they're exclusive or even principally a Ranger thing.