D&D (2024) Developer Video on Druid/Paladin/Expert Feedback

​

WotC has posted a video discussing initial feedback on the One D&D Druid/Paladin playtest, along with survey results from the Expert playtest. Some highlights for discussion:

Druid: The developers recognize that the template version of wild shape is contentious. If they retain this approach, they would plan to add flexibility to those templates. If they revert to monster stat blocks, they might allow Druids to choose a limited number of options, with a default selection provided.

Paladin: The new version of smite is still intended to work with critical hits. If ranged smite persists, its damage may be adjusted through the internal balance/playtesting process.

Ranger: The updated Ranger scored very well in the playtest. Some players did miss the choice of options in the Hunter subclass.

Bard: All of the Lore Bard's features scored welll, but the overall subclass rating was mediocre. They attribute this to the loss of Additional Magical Secrets, which many saw as the key attraction of this subclass.

Rogue: The change to limit sneak attack to the Rogue's own turn scored poorly. The developers generally like moving actions to a player's own turn to keep the game moving quickly, but in this case, the change doesn't seem to be worth the loss of tactical flexibility.

Feats: With the exception of epic boons, all the feats in the Expert packet scored well. The developers are still loking at written feedback for fine tuning.

Conspicuously not mentioned were the Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists, which were the focus of a lot of discussion during the Bard playtest.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Depending on what story is being told by the class and subclass, it makes sense that some would be at 3rd instead of 1st.

A Cleric can't really start out adventuring as just a generic "cleric". Thats odd and even absent any questions of gods, it doesn't tonally fit. You're either a cleric of something or you're not a cleric.

Whereas a Fighter can just be a Fighter, and then become a Knight, or an Archer, or a Weeaboo Fightan Magic Man after having adventured some.

Yeah, I never an issue with different levels to start your archetype.

 

[Emberashh]

Yeah, I never an issue with different levels to start your archetype.

I think the main reason people argue for it to be the same is because most of the time you're skipping to 3rd or 5th level anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the main reason people argue for it to be the same is because most of the time you're skipping to 3rd or 5th level anyway.

Makes sense. I always start at 1st. No reason to change anything.

 

[mamba]

Depending on what story is being told by the class and subclass, it makes sense that some would be at 3rd instead of 1st.

pretty sure you can justify all at 3rd level too though.

A Cleric can't really start out adventuring as just a generic "cleric".

why not? he is a follower of a specific god, sure, but he has to prove himself worthy before getting more than generic powers, and it’s not like god to subclass is a 1:1 relationship anyway

 

[Incenjucar]

Clerics can also start off worshiping a pantheon and still be deciding which deity is their primary one.

 

[Emberashh]

he is a follower of a specific god, sure, but he has to prove himself worthy before getting more than generic powers, and it’s not like god to subclass is a 1:1 relationship anyway

Clerics can also start off worshiping a pantheon and still be deciding which deity is their primary one.

You're both still confirming my assertion. You're either a cleric of something or you're not a cleric.

This is poorly represented mechanically if you have to wait to have the mechanics reflect whatever it is you're a cleric of.

The synchronicity between flavor and mechanics matters more than people tend to give it credit for. Same fundamental reason why playing a Scout Rogue or a Fighter with Outlander isn't a satisfying alternative for playing a Ranger that isn't a cruddy druid.

 

[Remathilis]

You're both still confirming my assertion. You're either a cleric of something or you're not a cleric.

This is poorly represented mechanically if you have to wait to have the mechanics reflect whatever it is you're a cleric of.

The synchronicity between flavor and mechanics matters more than people tend to give it credit for. Same fundamental reason why playing a Scout Rogue or a Fighter with Outlander isn't a satisfying alternative for playing a Ranger that isn't a cruddy druid.

Domains are a terrible way to represent different deities anyway. A 1st level cleric of war has the same powers and abilities regardless if he worships Gruumsh, Moradin, Tempus, Kord, Heronious, or Bane. To be frank, if the difference between two war clerics is still just RP, then domain doesn't matter if it's third or first.

My point was really to say if you can't yet determine what you're BIFTs are at first level because they are still tabula rasa, then subclass pick should likewise wait. Your choice of order, oath, or path should require at least as much exploration of your PC as determining what their ideals and flaws are.

 

[Pauln6]

Maybe all they need at level 1 is a religion specific way of obtaining heroic inspiration? It would mean each deity would need to come with a series of tenets (like a deity specific set of goals) and be more of a role playing thing that resets after every long rest. That way killing an orc for Moradin vs killing a dwarf for Gruumsh distinguishes the two war Clerics, whereas feeding poor or healing sick strangers might work for other deities.

 

[mamba]

You're both still confirming my assertion. You're either a cleric of something or you're not a cleric.

This is poorly represented mechanically if you have to wait to have the mechanics reflect whatever it is you're a cleric of.

I disagree with this. Sure, the char is a cleric, but that does not mean they have to be distinct from clerics of other gods mechanically at first level. That simply does not follow

The synchronicity between flavor and mechanics matters more than people tend to give it credit for. Same fundamental reason why playing a Scout Rogue or a Fighter with Outlander isn't a satisfying alternative for playing a Ranger that isn't a cruddy druid.

and I disagree with that too. If I want to play Aragorn, then I functionally want to be Aragorn, I do not care if the class is called Ranger or not

 

[Morrus]

And this is why theres always other games to play that can better suit the needs of these people.

Accessibility and inclusivity are important, but not so important that we need to start sacrificing limbs on their altars.

After a point you have to sit and reconcile why we're trying to push a complex game of math and roleplay into a position that it has to be easily accessible and inclusive to people who for whatever reason cannot handle the complexity, math and/or roleplay.

If DND as a lifestyle brand wants to be all things to all people then it needs to diversify into more than just the one game getting pulled in 900k different directions at once.

At the point where you're saying D&D should be designed only to suit you, and should exclude neurodiverse, young, or busy people, you are literally a badge-wearing poster child for non-inclusveness. You've been generally threadcrapping all throughout this thread anyway, to the point where it is no longer about the druid/paladin feedback, and the post reports are mounting up. I think it's time you stepped away from the thread, please, and let it return to the actual topic.

Everybody else, please return to discussing the the druid/paladin playtest and drop the sidetrack into inclusivity. Thanks.