D&D (2024) New Survey Results | Druid & Paladin | Unearthed Arcana | D&D

WotC has shared a new video going over the survey results following the drud and paladin playtests for One D&D.

​

For those who don't have time to watch the video, here are some general notes.

Paladin

• Did extremely well in terms of satisfaction
• All class and subclass features scored 70% or higher - lowest was Divine Smite at 72%
• Got some pushback in written feedback on being able to smite on ranged attacks - class identity concerns, Paladin viewed as melee-centric class, ranged smites might eat into Cleric/Ranger identity too much
• Positive feedback on redesigned smite spells - may become paladin exclusive spells down the road

Druid

• Wild Shape feedback seems to be split - slight majority saying "never want this Wild Shape in print", slight minority saying "this is their favorite version of Wild Shape they've ever seen"
• People love the texture and differences in beast options in '14 Wild Shape, but are open to feature being easier to use (i.e. don't want players to have to weigh the merits of 100+ stat blocks every time they want to use Wild Shape)
• Will have another take on Wild Shape next time Druid appears in Playtest UA
• General concept of Channel Nature seems to have gone over well, but want to see more done with it
• Expected feedback for restoring elemental forms for Moon Druids, but instead found people wanted to lean more into Lunar themes
• Want Moon Druid forms to be more resilient, but still want to reign in power at high levels (frequent/unlimited uses of Wild Shape constantly refreshing HP total)

 

[James Gasik]

Why? Fear and Cause Fear are Arcane exclusive spells. I can't even think of a spell that imparts the Frightened condition on the Divine List, other than Wrathful Smite. Except maybe Divine Word on exclusively fiends.



A spell that just causes a save against fear with a weapon attack is worse than Cause Fear. A 1st level arcane spell. Because it requires the attack to hit, and then the save to be failed.

Again, we keep running into the same problem. A proposal is put out that divine smites and arcane smites would theoritically be different if X, but then X applies to divine Smites already. Which means we can't seem to actually differentiate them.

Some editions ago, Clerics could cause fear.

 

[Bardic Dave]

I think it's strange how some people equate the statblock to the animal as if no other mechanical representation could also be an animal. They use it as an argument, like you do here, by saying "but I want to turn into an animal". As if the MM statblock is somehow more "the animal" than any other statblock that is used to represent the animal.

It's simply not the case. I mean, it IS absolutely the case that some statblocks represent some animals better than others do, of course! But as most "monster" statblocks are a bag of HP and an attack-for-damage, with everything else being imagined fluff, I don't know why anyone bothers to hold to tightly to them.

I think when people say that, what they largely mean is that the template(s) under disucssion does/do a poor job of representing the animal in question when compared to the MM statblock. When you turn into a spider, you want to climb on walls and spin webs.

For instance, PF2 has animal companion specific templates for broad categories of animal (bear, canine, bird, etc.), which differ from the Bestiary statblocks for specific animals of those categories. However, the animal companion templates are very detailed and have unique features to distinguish them. I don't think I've heard that particular complaint levied against the PF2 animal companions, despite the fact they are different from the bestiary statblocks.

I think people would be less resistant to templates if they could achieve the same granularity as MM statblocks (which I think they can, if done correctly). I agree the argument is often poorly articulated, however.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

I think it's strange how some people equate the statblock to the animal as if no other mechanical representation could also be an animal. They use it as an argument, like you do here, by saying "but I want to turn into an animal". As if the MM statblock is somehow more "the animal" than any other statblock that is used to represent the animal.

It's simply not the case. I mean, it IS absolutely the case that some statblocks represent some animals better than others do, of course! But as most "monster" statblocks are a bag of HP and an attack-for-damage, with everything else being imagined fluff, I don't know why anyone bothers to hold to tightly to them.

I'm generally a fan of templates in this instance (provided they have suitable customization options), but I do get where they're coming from to some degree.

It's a different can of worms, but I really don't like the prospect of bespoke half-elf and half-orc racial/ancestral/species statblocks being discarded in favor of the current "pick a parent" reflavoring method, because it feels to me like it effectively guts the ability to have a truly "mixed" mixed-ancestry character and turns it into a purely cosmetic paint job over the character's "real" ancestry.

I don't like the implication that a Khoravar half-elf from Eberron that would have to trace their family tree back a thousand years to find an ancestor that was fully human or elf still has to be fully one or the other as far as the game is concerned. If they can't mechanically draw on both their ancestries, they stop feeling like Khoravar to me...

Under the current system, the only time that being mixed will ever be relevant is if their natural lifespan becomes a factor for once - like if they're fighting a lot of ghosts...

 

[Bardic Dave]

I saw a LOT of players who wanted nothing to do with templates. I think it is wishful thinking to interpret these results as “templates, but with a few more knobs,” instead of “we like being able to shift into specific beasts and want nothing to do with templates.”

I think the core conceit of wild shape that people like is being able to shift into animals.

I dunno, I think sometimes people don't know what they like until they try it. They might think they hate templates, but if they get templates that can achieve a similar level of detail to statblocks (see PF2 animal companions), they might change their mind.

 

[Minigiant]

They do a lot more than that.

Uncharted Journeys for 5e is available to pre-order now! Pick up your copy today!

Following a hugely successful Kickstarter campaign, Cubicle 7 Games is delighted to announce that Uncharted Journeys for 5e is now available! Cubicle 7 is the award-winning team behind RPG games inclu

cubicle7games.com

I think you can pretty much count on AiME-derived player options in their 5E corebook coming later this year, designed to work with their journeys system.

Totally forgot their Journeys system.

But still that's the issue. Without actual mechanics for ranger wilderness stuff, the ranger is simply a magic skirmisher or archer. At least in the PHB.

So ranged Paladins won't be a thing in 5e outside of maybe maybe a subclass.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think it's strange how some people equate the statblock to the animal as if no other mechanical representation could also be an animal. They use it as an argument, like you do here, by saying "but I want to turn into an animal". As if the MM statblock is somehow more "the animal" than any other statblock that is used to represent the animal.

It's simply not the case. I mean, it IS absolutely the case that some statblocks represent some animals better than others do, of course! But as most "monster" statblocks are a bag of HP and an attack-for-damage, with everything else being imagined fluff, I don't know why anyone bothers to hold to tightly to them.

Yeah I mean, cats don’t have dark vision. Clearly the beast statblocks aren’t great!

I think when people say that, what they largely mean is that the template(s) under disucssion does/do a poor job of representing the animal in question when compared to the MM statblock. When you turn into a spider, you want to climb on walls and spin webs.

For instance, PF2 has animal companion specific templates for broad categories of animal (bear, canine, bird, etc.), which differ from the Bestiary statblocks for specific animals of those categories. However, the animal companion templates are very detailed and have unique features to distinguish them. I don't think I've heard that particular complaint levied against the PF2 animal companions, despite the fact they are different from the bestiary statblocks.

I think people would be less resistant to templates if they could achieve the same granularity as MM statblocks (which I think they can, if done correctly). I agree the argument is often poorly articulated, however.

Yep this is why I think my Pack Madter Ranger works really well. You pick a role, size, movement, sense, attacks and special traits, each as part of the statblock for each “role”. Give some samples of common critters, and go.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Totally forgot their Journeys system.

But still that's the issue. Without actual mechanics for ranger wilderness stuff, the ranger is simply a magic skirmisher or archer. At least in the PHB.

So ranged Paladins won't be a thing in 5e outside of maybe maybe a subclass.

WotC != 5E

If you want mechanical heft to wilderness content in 5E, pick up the C7d20 book and/or Uncharted Journeys.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Totally forgot their Journeys system.

But still that's the issue. Without actual mechanics for ranger wilderness stuff, the ranger is simply a magic skirmisher or archer. At least in the PHB.

So ranged Paladins won't be a thing in 5e outside of maybe maybe a subclass.

I gotta be missing something.

How does one lead to the other?

 

[mellored]

Does that mean that Clerics should lose Flame Strike?

I don't expect this to happen, but IMO it should something like...

Cleric: Necromancy, divination, Enchantment. Life and death, fear and awe.
Wizard: abduration, evocation, illusion. Force bolts and walls, along with teleportation.
Druid: evocation, transmutation, conjuration. Storms and beasts.
Bard: illusion, enchantments, divination. Playing with emotions and perception.

Maybe not exactly along the spell schools, but that give each one its own theme and feel.

 

[Minigiant]

WotC != 5E

If you want mechanical heft to wilderness content in 5E, pick up the C7d20 book and/or Uncharted Journeys.

The 5e ranger and 5e paladin = WOTC

If yu want balanced ranged smiter 5e paladin, you need to find a company that redesign both classes with 5e.