WotC Survey Result: Classes OK, Eberron Needs Work

WotC has posted the latest D&D survey results. The survey covered the character classes not included in the previous survey - the barbarian, bard, monk, paladin, sorcerer, and warlock - and the recent Eberron material. Overall, it reports general satisfaction, with concerns in specific areas. The big ticket issues were sorcerer options, monk Way of the Four Elements opton, and more sweeping issues with the Eberron stuff, icluding the warforged and artificer. Mike Mearls says, but doesn't announce, that "I expect that you’ll see some revisions to the Eberron material before the end of the year."

The survey report is as follows:

Overall, the barbarian, bard, monk, paladin, sorcerer, and warlock all graded very well. The areas of concern were limited to specific areas of the classes.

For instance, we’ve heard consistent feedback that the sorcerer doesn’t offer enough options within the class. Not everyone is excited about the wild mage, thus leaving some players with only the dragon sorcerer as an option. It’s no coincidence that we showed off a favored soul option for the sorcerer in Unearthed Arcana. Plus, we have another sorcerer option on tap for that article series.

We also saw some dissatisfaction with the monk’s Way of the Four Elements option. Feedback indicates that this path focuses too much on adding more ways to spend ki points, rather than giving new options or maneuvers that a monk can use without tapping into that resource. We’re doing some monk design right now that used the Way of the Four Elements as an option, so we’ve shifted that future work in response to that feedback.

Like with the first wave of class feedback, things remain very positive. The issues we’ve seen look like they can be resolved by trending toward what people liked in our future design. Nothing stood out as needing serious changes.

The Eberron material, as you can expect for stuff that is in draft form, needs some more refinement. The changeling will likely have its ability scores and Shapechanger ability tweaked. The shifter scored well, so expect a few shifts there (pardon the pun) but nothing too dramatic.

The warforged had the most interesting feedback. I think we’re going to take a look at presenting a slightly different approach, one that ties back into the original race’s armored body options to make them feel more like innately equipped characters.

The artificer still needs a good amount of work, so that one will go back to the drawing board. I think the class needs a more unique, evocative feature that does a better job of capturing a character who crafts and uses custom items. We played it too conservatively in our initial design.

I expect that you’ll see some revisions to the Eberron material before the end of the year. Unearthed Arcana is proving a useful resource in giving new game content every month while giving us the chance to test drive mechanics.

Thank you all for taking part in these surveys and making our job of producing great RPG content much easier. I’m looking forward to seeing how our work evolves and hope you enjoy the option of weighing in on our work.

 

[Rabbitbait]

Were dragonmarks part of that survey? I can't remember now.

Overall I thought that much was good, but that with the Articifer and Dragonmarks that they had gone for a mechanically driven approach rather than a story driven approach. It felt to me as if they were so scared of giving unbalanced options that they avoided some cool stuff that is possible that would help to drive an Eberron campaign's story.

 

[turkeygiant]

Mike Mearls says, but doesn't announce, that "I expect that you’ll see some revisions to the Eberron material before the end of the year."

I can't tell if that is jab at the vanishing elemental evil adventurers guide or not lol.

I am really looking forward to seeing what they do with Ebberon, most of the races were ok but maybe a little underpowered in their abilities bonuses and lacking in fluff racial abilities. The warforged were serviceable but a bit lacking in their modular nature, there should probably be a way to model their upgrade feats they got in 3.5e, a point buy would work, but even sub-races would do. The artificer needs a from the ground up re-write, either making them their own class or maybe switching them to a cleric domain with some new spells and combat proficiencies.

 

[turkeygiant]

Were dragonmarks part of that survey? I can't remember now.

Overall I thought that much was good, but that with the Articifer and Dragonmarks that they had gone for a mechanically driven approach rather than a story driven approach. It felt to me as if they were so scared of giving unbalanced options that they avoided some cool stuff that is possible that would help to drive an Eberron campaign's story.

I worry that WotC feels compelled to stick to the classes in the Players Handbook, even if making a new class makes more sense. It's an admirable position to take from the position of avoiding system bloat, but I think they need to be willing to break that rule if a good reason to do so presents itself.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I worry that WotC feels compelled to stick to the classes in the Players Handbook, even if making a new class makes more sense. It's an admirable position to take from the position of avoiding system bloat, but I think they need to be willing to break that rule if a good reason to do so presents itself.

It is far from clear that a new artificer class makes sense. But it is clear to me (without my fancy survey data) that part of the appeal of the artificer is being a "heavily-equipped skill-based mage," aesthetically - medium armor, additional skills, and a broader weapon selection than a Stereotypical Wizard. This doesn't have to mean a new class, but I'd agree with Mearls that they played it "too conservatively" in their initial design. The enhancements for equipment were likewise a little underwhelming - not a lot of interesting things they could do. Sure, +1's are nice, but they're not very interesting. They could go much broader with the utility.

 

[Zaran]

You might miss it but the third survey is linked at the end of the article.

 

[Shasarak]

I am not surprised about the Eberron feedback. That would be my classical example of being careful what you ask for.

 

[Obvious_Ninja]

I missed this survey but I know I wanted the artificer to be its own class; not a wizard build....

 

[Rabbitbait]

I worry that WotC feels compelled to stick to the classes in the Players Handbook, even if making a new class makes more sense. It's an admirable position to take from the position of avoiding system bloat, but I think they need to be willing to break that rule if a good reason to do so presents itself.

Yeh, they should stick to their own philosophy of rules as guidelines. I honestly don't feel that the artificer works as a subclass of the wizard or the cleric, but it is a magical class. It's certainly a tricky one, and I don't feel that 3.5 or 4th edition quite got it right either.

Maybe the 'spell list' should be a list of constructs, infusions and adjustments to the weave that an artificer can accomplish at various levels. I feel that the artificer should be a complicated class where you can mix effects, where meta-abilities do exist and where there is a permanence option for some constructs (at a cost of downtime, equipment and lots of money).

Effectively, given the time and equipment a mid level artificer should be able to create a standard warforged. Of course anything that complicated has a mind of it's own, but that's another story.

 

[turkeygiant]

It is far from clear that a new artificer class makes sense. But it is clear to me (without my fancy survey data) that part of the appeal of the artificer is being a "heavily-equipped skill-based mage," aesthetically - medium armor, additional skills, and a broader weapon selection than a Stereotypical Wizard. This doesn't have to mean a new class, but I'd agree with Mearls that they played it "too conservatively" in their initial design. The enhancements for equipment were likewise a little underwhelming - not a lot of interesting things they could do. Sure, +1's are nice, but they're not very interesting. They could go much broader with the utility.

Part of the problem with making the Artificer a Wizard archtype is that there really isn't room within the standard form of an arcane tradition to add combat proficiencies, or at least not without either making the Atificer a very powerful class or stripping back what spell focused features the archtype grants.

I'd like to see them try it as a Cleric archtype if it isn't going to be a new class, but at the end of the day I think the place the Artificer fill is unique enough that you really can't squeeze it into any of the current classes without either making compromises to the Artificer concept or the balance of the game.