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

[tuxgeo]

The results of the Twitter poll are now final:

___ 22% Spellcasting
_X_ 68% Shapeshifting
___ 10% Animal companions

 

[Azzy]

The results of the Twitter poll are now final:

___ 22% Spellcasting
_X_ 68% Shapeshifting
___ 10% Animal companions

Bleh.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I wonder if this means the feedback on the UA druids was bad. They could be looking on where to pivot--if so, I would prefer another variant on the land druid, one that is more like the totem or storm barbarian, not just a couple of different spells difference between terrains, but more of a "at X level, pick this terrain-related feature, at Y level, pick this other terrain-related feature" etc.

 

[Mistwell]

Just because Shapeshifting is unique to the Druid in 5E, doesn't make it the defining aspect of what a Druid is.

Sure, but he's not asking people "What do you think is the defining aspect of a Druid?" He's asking "The druid gets one of the following. Choose: Spellcasting, Shapeshifting, Animal Companion."

Choosing the thing that makes them unique is just as valid a choice as choosing the thing that is their most defining aspect. It's asking what people want for the class the most, not what they define the class to be in their minds. So maybe people just want it to be more about shapeshifting than spellcasting, despite spellcasting being the current defining aspect?

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I voted shapeshifting - mainly like Daasul, because I think there is scope for nature casters in the cleric, warlock and Paladin classes, but shapeshifting is different. Therefore its uniqueness is worth keeping.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Personally my favourite thing about D&D Druids though stems from AD&D where at high levels (Christopher Lambert terrible Scottish accent) "there can beee only waaan".

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I voted shapeshifting because that's my favorite aspect of the druids I've played since 2e. I loved in 3.x when they developed the shapeshifting variant that could change form at will. (I haven't played WoW or that other video game that was mentioned earlier.)

 

[Hussar]

What's wrong with current druid?

I recently (ish) played a Land Druid for a few months. It honestly left me very cold. It was a wizard with themed spells. At least, that's what it felt like to me. Never minding the fact that I got signature wizard spells like invisibility and fireball, it was also that I was standing back and blasting almost all the time.

So, in answer to your question, I'd say that they lack anything like an identity at the table. They play like wizards with a couple of unique spells. To me, there isn't much difference between dropping Produce Flame every round and Fire Bolt. Gee, different spell ranges, I suppose. :/

At least Shapeshifting makes the character stand out from other other characters. Give Druids Warlock style casting, make shapeshifting a major element of the class and then base the sub-classes off of different flavors of nature.

 

[Gadget]

I find it hard to accept any argument that presents all magic as the same 'thing'. There's hundreds of different spells with different affects, uses, and 'feel'. A druid spell-list should feel and play very differently from a wizard's or a cleric's (nature or otherwise).

A good bit of the warlock's theme, for instance, is in the unique spell effects it has at it's disposal. Maybe I'm entirely off base, but I had no problem telling a druid from a cleric even in 2e.

I think this is the point I, and perhaps others, are making: They are no longer so unique spell wise. In AD&D, the lack of metal armor/weapons, turn undead, and its unique spell list really served to differentiate the druid from the cleric, and the wizard for that matter. This is really not so much the case in 5e.

 

[Hussar]

Another thing to remember too, from those of us who played back in 1e, is that Druids progressed at an extremely fast rate. 7th level (when you got shape change) was only 35000 xp. Compared to 55000 for the same level cleric, 70 000 for the same level fighter, and even 42000 for the same level rogue. Druids ROCKETED up the levels until they hit 12th level. And, even then, they were probably two levels ahead of the rest of the party. (Presuming everyone in the group had similar levels of XP).

I guess, looking back at is, this is why I never saw Shapechange as some high level power. The druid got shape change at the same time fighters got their second attack, and about the same time wizards got fireball. And, really, not much after that paladin got his mount (the paladin could have his mount for about 1 level before the druid gets shape change.)

Note, this progression was kept in 2e as well. (I had to look it up, and, yup, 35000 xp for 7th level). Again, at that point, the cleric just tipped 6th, the wizard is only 5th level, the fighter tipped 6th, and the ranger and the paladin are 5th. Even the rogue is only 6th level.

My point is, this was hardly a high level ability. This is something that was pretty routine to see in any group that had a druid in it. 3e changed things by standardizing the xp table, but, I wonder if that has a big impact on how people view the druid. If you played very low levels in AD&D, for example, you wouldn't see much shape changing. Our groups tended to spend the most time between about 5th and 10th level, so, seeing shape change at the table was very common.

I dunno. I'm kinda meandering here. Just interesting to step back into AD&D and look at how perceptions are shaped.