D&D (2024) One D&D Survey Feedback: Weapon Mastery Spectacular; Warlock and Wizard Mixed Reactions

Jeremy Crawford discusses the results of the Packet 5 Survey:

• Weapon Mastery at 80% approval, and all options except for Flex scored similarly. Crawford says that Flex is mathematically one of the most powerful properties, but will need some attention because people didn't feel like it was. This feature is in the 2024 PHB for 6 Classes, guaranteed at this point.
• Barbarian scored well, particularly the individual features, average satisfaction of 80% for each feature. Beserker got 84% satisfaction, while the 2014 Beserker in the 2020 Big Class Survey got 29% satisfaction.
• Fighter received well, overall 75% satisfaction. Champion scored 54% in the Big Class Survey, but this new one got 74%.
• Sorcerer in the Big Class Survey got 60%, this UA Sorcerer got 72%. Lots of enthusiasm for the Metamagic revisions. Careful Spell got 92% satisfaction. Twin Spell was the exception, at 60%. Draconic Sorcerer got 73%, new Dragon Wings feature was not well received but will be fixed back to being on all the time by the return to 2014 Aubclass progression.
• Class specific Spell lists are back in UA 7 coming soon, the unified Spell lists are out.
• Warlock feedback reflected mixed feelings in the player base. Pact magic is coming back in next iteration. Next Warlock will be more like 2014, Mystic Arcanum will be a core feature, but will still see some adjustments based on feedback to allow for more frequent use of Spells. Eldritch Invocations were well received. Crawford felt it was a good test, because they learned what players felt. They found the idiosyncracy of the Warlock is exactly what people like about it, so theybare keeping it distinct. Next version will get even more Eldritch Invocation options.
• Wizard got a mixed reception. Biggest problem people had was wanting a Wizard specific Spell list, not a shared Arcane list that made the Wizard less distinct. Evoker well received.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I was responding to your post about using a free hand to cast spells.

Oh. Yeah, if you are a spellcaster who wants to have a melee weapon for whatever reason, there's no reason for that melee weapon to be one-handed.

 

[Erdric Dragin]

Again how is this not 6th Edition? I'd love to see the argument in that one LOL

 

[FitzTheRuke]

There is no rule I am aware of which allows you to change what you were holding in each hand at the end of your last turn while outside of your turn and in initiative.

Ah. This is where the difference lies. When there is "no rule", many of us take that to mean "yes". Everything is "yes" unless it's not allowed. There is no rule either way, so you can do it. You've reversed that. Which is totally within your DM purview, but is increasingly less likely to be the standard that it used to be.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Again how is this not 6th Edition? I'd love to see the argument in that one LOL

Haw! Everyone* is going on about how this is "nothing more than errata" and yet this argument persists! Golden.

*(Obviously not everyone-everyone.)

 

[CleverNickName]

Man, I hope they continue to let the Bard choose a Spell list. That was one of my favorite things out of all the playtests.

I've been kicking around the idea of making custom spell lists for everyone...but they won't be for classes. It's hard to explain.

Instead of Necromancy being a wizard subclass, it could be a spell list. It would have the usual "arcane mage" repertoire (magic missile, mage armor, shield) along with all of the Necromancy cantrips and spells. More than anything else, the Necromancy spell list would be more about the themes of necromancy--creepy shadowy stuff, seances, spirits and death and all that--it would have to be more than just a dry list of Necromancy spells.

Then, any spellcasting class could "be a necromancer" just by selecting that spell list at 1st level. Maybe you're planning on playing a Grave cleric. Maybe you're a fan of The Old Kingdom series, and you want to play a necromancer bard like Sabriel. Or maybe you want your artificer to have strong Victor Frankenstein vibes. Whatever your reason, you would have a list of spells to match that "grave magic" theme.

Other spell lists could be created for whatever your campaign needs, or for whatever character theme you're going for (Evoker? Healer? Fey magic? Shadow Magic? Spellbreaker? Forest Guardian? Spirit Guide? Blade Magic? Fortune Teller? Hedge Witch?)

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

No the attack action allows that. A reaction attack is not the attack action.

Because there is nothing to allow. Changing where your hands are is not a separate action of some sort.

The only qualifier with two-handed weapons is, quoting errata: Two-Handed (p. 147). This sentence has been changed to “This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it.”

 

[Mistwell]

Ah. This is where the difference lies. When there is "no rule", many of us take that to mean "yes". Everything is "yes" unless it's not allowed. There is no rule either way, so you can do it. You've reversed that. Which is totally within your DM purview, but is increasingly less likely to be the standard that it used to be.

Do you let PCs drop items they were holding outside of their turn? There is no rule saying they cannot, but I am pretty sure most DMs would rule if it was in your hand during your turn, it's still in your hand outside your turn. It's not your turn. What would that even mean if you can do a bunch of stuff when not your turn as long as no rule says explicitly you can't?

 

[Charlaquin]

It does. Much like dropping an object in that hand requires some expenditure of an action economy to perform. You can call it whatever you want but you cannot change anything about your setup when it's not your turn other than use your reaction to attack however you were set up to attack on your last actual turn.

Can you cite where the rules say any of this?

It says "used with two hands to make a melee attack."

No, it does not. In the most up-to-date printings of the PHB, the complete text of the Two-Handed property is as follows:

This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it.

Nothing about wielding or using or actions or interactions of any kind. Just that you need two hands to attack with it. Which, if your character is not an amputee and their hands are not otherwise occupied at the time they want to make the attack, they do have whether it’s their turn or not.

But you were not "using" it with two hands when your turn ended, therefore you're "using" it with the one hand you were "using it" with when your turn ended.

This is not a thing the rules of 5e define.

 

[tetrasodium]

It does. Much like dropping an object in that hand requires some expenditure of an action economy to perform. You can call it whatever you want but you cannot change anything about your setup when it's not your turn other than use your reaction to attack however you were set up to attack on your last actual turn.

It says "used with two hands to make a melee attack." But you were not "using" it with two hands when your turn ended, therefore you're "using" it with the one hand you were "using it" with when your turn ended. You cannot change it to being two handed when it's not your turn. There is no declarations you can make which changes your character in any way when it's not your turn, unless there is a written exception allowing that. That's sort of the point of turns!

What game are you talking about now?

Spoiler: since it's obviously not d&d 5e

There was even a video where Crawford was asked about it and confirmed the above was intended design but I think it was probably one of the many many lore you should know segments or something

Maybe you could exclude or acknowledge your houserules when discussing bad rules design in the game itself?

 

[jerryrice4949]

I don't agree. Saying something like this just seems to me to be downgrading the desires and intellect of all the other players who took the surveys and who voted for preferring things the other way. Like if only we had more time to really explain what we meant and got into the nitty-gritty of how these new things should work, then maybe we'd be able to get those people to understand why these were actually good changes!

I mean isn't it just possible that a LOT of other D&D players out there are simply just quite happy with D&D as it is and doesn't like it's broken and need fixing? In all the different facets? And they don't need big changes to "make the game better"? That most of the things already in D&D are just fine?

I know that way of thinking tends to be an anathema to all of us who post here on EN World who tend to think many parts of the game suck and need a complete re-write (and where we all tend to put ourselves onto pedestals that "look down upon the plebes" (GUILTY!))... but maybe... just maybe... the game isn't as bad off as some of us tend to think it is and it doesn't actually require these grand changes and fixes? And that most of the other players out there NOT on EN World and Reddit agree?

Sure that’s possible if you completely ignore the information provided. Even most of the elements they are rejecting have positive reception just not the overwhelming majority threshold they set.