April's D&D Feedback Survey Results

WotC has revealed the results of its latest monthly feedback survey. Last month's survey dealt with game scheduling habits, character races, and Adventurer's League content. Additionally, a new survey has been posted covering problem spells, the DRAGON+ mobile app, and the Waterborne Adventures UA column.

The new survey is here. April's survey results are here, but below is a quick list of the take-home points.

• It turns out that that 1st-6th level games are still the most common a year after D&D 5E's launch.
• The most likely end point of a campaign is 10th-12th level.
• There is a preference for more open, sandboxy adventures.
• Smaller races are seen as weaker options.
• Adventurer's League content is reasonably well received, with specifically designed adventures more popular than Tyranny of Dragons adaptions for AL.

 

[Sacrosanct]

"Survey doesn't match what I want. Must be invalid."

 

[justinj3x3]

"Survey doesn't match what I want. Must be invalid."

I don't think that's really what was said. The point was to pose the question "how valid is the survey?". I think the question is pretty legitimate considering I hear the notion that "internet fans are a minority" all the time.

 

[Morrus]

I don't think that's really what was said. The point was to pose the question "how valid is the survey?". I think the question is pretty legitimate considering I hear the notion that "internet fans are a minority" all the time.

It's not a binary choice. The question's premise (that citing Paizo's APs) is flawed. Gamers can purchase both, while preferring one.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

One would assume that WotC has some people that know how to read a survey and any results gathered from it. I'm pretty sure they take into account, that those who even know about it, is a fairly small part of those who actually play D&D.

 

[spinozajack]

It's mainly the loss of heavy weapons that is the issue, which impacts more than a strength penalty. The loss of great weapon fighting feats pretty much means any 2 hander character wont be of those races and is a bit limiting.

Given that damage is partly abstract, why do they need any sort of weapon restriction to force them to use smaller die types? Have small greatswords with no damage penalty.

Oh god no. If a halfling's longsword in two hands does the same damage as a greatsword wielded by a human, that's mechanically identical to giving them a bonus to damage with versatile longswords which goes against the way the rest of the game is designed.

They used to have axes and hammers do more damage when held by dwarves, but they removed it. Although now that kind of racial weapon bonus is still there, but hidden in the half-orc racial because greataxes gain the most benefit from an extra die on a crit. But that's not quite the same thing, is it.

I'm very happy 5th edition was released and you can't swing a huge heavy sword with your charisma or wisdom or dexterity, while having an 8 strength. For the same reason that I like different weapons doing different damage based on their size, type, and number of hands.

If they release a feat to make halflings be able to use great weapon master I'm do over buying any more books like that.

Wizards, please feel free to ignore feedback from the public when the public is simply dead wrong. Halflings and gnomes are not weak races, they are just small, and smallness in 5th edition as in real life, is a penalty in some cases.

Imagine Tyrion trying to wield The Mountain's greatsword. Then tell me, since he can't, why should he wield a lighter one handed sword and deal the same damage as The Mountain's greatsword. It's just a give away. If you want to play a huge weapon wielding character, they should be of an appropriate size to do so.

Small is not it.

 

[justinj3x3]

It's not a binary choice. The question's premise (that citing Paizo's APs) is flawed. Gamers can purchase both, while preferring one.

Agreed there. I'm still curious about the part that I was saying though, now that I'm thinking about it. And to specify I'm not saying there is a problem, but I am wondering just how accurate the results are for the whole of the fanbase.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

First: Thread reply = I bet when they got the survey results and saw "we want more open, sandboxy adventures", you could cut the silent tension in the room with a knife! Kind of like opening a chinese restaurant in china town and then finding out the sudden realization that the majority of people there don't really want to eat chinese food. Hopefully WotC will realize that "one or two story, Story, STORY based hardbacks per year" isn't going to work, and they start to develop more 1e/DCC style 32-page 'adventure modules' that a DM can pick up, read over, and in half an hour to an hour start DM'ing it for his group.

Second: ...

Also, please nerf Polymorph. My barbarian friend wouldn't let me hear the end of it when, at level 7, I turned into a Giant Ape and out-barbarian'd him.

You do realise that:

1. You can only do that 1 time a day; he can Rage 4 times.
2. You have to make a Concentration check each time you get hit as a Giant Ape, or revert.
3. You don't keep your "brain power"; you have the Int and Wis of a Giant Ape; you keep your alignment and general personality. That means no spellcasting, no using magic items, no talking, no using skills even.... you are​ a Giant Ape... not a "wizard wearing a Giant Ape body".

...just making sure...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[jasynjonz]

If the majority wanted sandboxes, Pathfinder would be out of business. Makes me wonder about the validity of the survey.

Maybe, the thing is, IMO, PF players (and I was one for a few years) seem to want things laid out in front of them and they generally seem to like all the crunchy bits and mini-games etc. PF is also more 'balanced' in terms of what the characters can do and what the GM can do, on paper that is, and leaning a bit to the player. DnD seems to be aiming for less of that newer model in general, it's why my group switched, (and some other reasons that seem kind of 'edition war' so I won't get on about). So, 5e players might want more sandbox and PF players maybe perfectly content with the AP approach.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

Hiya.

First: Thread reply = I bet when they got the survey results and saw "we want more open, sandboxy adventures", you could cut the silent tension in the room with a knife! Kind of like opening a chinese restaurant in china town and then finding out the sudden realization that the majority of people there don't really want to eat chinese food. Hopefully WotC will realize that "one or two story, Story, STORY based hardbacks per year" isn't going to work, and they start to develop more 1e/DCC style 32-page 'adventure modules' that a DM can pick up, read over, and in half an hour to an hour start DM'ing it for his group.

I imagine they are quite happy that people want sandbox adventures, just like the Princes of the Apocalypse AP they just released. At least that is the kind I was thinking of when I answered the survey.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I kind of wish that they had simply limited classes to 10 levels, but apparently people like seeing 20 levels of classes in the game even if most people never get around to playing half or 2/3rds of them.