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.

 

[pemerton]

Not through combat. They couldn't for example use ki to understand another person's language and they didn't stop aging. That is more aspects of Shaolin.

The fighting in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was swordsmanship and martial arts represented by empowered physical abilities. The fighters in the movie were not monks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not through combat", but the character in that movie can virtually fly and balance on leaves; and Chow Yun Fat, at the moment of his death, knows a mystical technique for achieving immortality in heaven. I think they're absolutely monks in the D&D tradition.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A dedicated Artificer class could allow things like alchemists and other magical crafting archetypes to be put under its umbrella.

Yeah, that's what is swaying it in my mind. You could also imagine a character who works with rune magic falling under that umbrella.

I think a general "magic crafter" is probably big enough for its own class conceptually, but mechanically, it's a tougher nut to crack.

I still don't have a clear idea of how a character who works with temporary magic items - invented in a lab, concocted with potions, carved in runic script, woven with ancient elven whispers, melded by gnomish shadow-crafters, or born out of the fires of the Forge of Moradin - would use that differently at the level of play from the Spellcasting mechanics.

If...
Spells Known = Formulas Known
Prepared Spells = Prepared Items
Casting a Spell = Activating an Item
Ritual Casting = Jury-Rigging an Item
Crafting a Magic Item = ....er...Crafting a Magic Item...

...then the new class is just the existing spellcasting mechanic in a new coat of paint.

You know, why make the player who wants to play a rune-carving dwarf take This Specific Class, and not just be a cleric or a wizard and slap a coat of paint on how they cast spells?

Spellcasting (or item-inventing-that's-indistinguishable-in-play-from-spellcasting) itself is a significant class feature, but not a defining one for any class. If the magical inventor class can bring something new to the table along with its conceptual stomping-grounds, that sounds great. But if all it is is proficiencies and a fresh coat of paint on spellcasting, that sounds meaningless - a distinction without a difference.

Where my axe comes down is that a lot of this sounds like "this class should be separate because it has different proficiencies and a different spell list," and that doesn't sound significant enough for me to learn an entirely new class narrative. It sounds like a good argument for a wizard subclass that is maybe the "eldritch knight of wizards," which allows a wizard character to have better proficiencies and a more limited spell list in exchange for...something... Or at least an argument for coming up with a few big mechanically defining elements that aren't basically the same as casting spells in practice.

 

[fuindordm]

Well, I see two possible differences that prevent simply reskinning the existing spell mechanic from other classes:

1) In HERO terms, the artificer's spells have the obvious accessible/inaccessible focus limitation, while everyone else's spells have the incantation and gesture limitations. Part of the artificer's story is that they manipulate the magical matrix directly and intuitively, without the need for words and gestures. This difference is something that no edition of D&D has really tried to play with in official supplements, and there is a real if minor in-game impact (Silence spell, casting with hands tied, disarm attempt on some foci...).

2) I would like to see the artificer class with a relatively limited spell list representing their buffs, but an unlimited formula list representing their crafting knowledge. So Enhance Ability is a buff, and any artificer can cast it using their spell slots on anyone's belt, but they also keep a sort of spellbook that represents all the magical items they have researched or encountered. An artificer finds a Helm of Telepathy, studies it for a day, and thereafter they can build one of their own given enough time and resources. In this sense they are sort of a wizard/cleric hybrid with respect to spell knowledge.

There is plenty of design space in 5th edition to further differentiate an artificer class from any other existing class--e.g. loosening the concentration restriction for their infusions, permitting metamagic on wands, letting them sidestep the enormous time requirement for creating rare items, unique construct-related abilities, etc.

A last point--my ideal artificer as described upthread would not need any vastly new mechanics, but would cherry-pick interesting abilities from other classes to support its niche and story. The construct-focused artificer subclass could borrow abilities from the beastmaster ranger, for example. It's true that cleric, bard, and wizard all have some overlap with my vision of the class that would let me build an "artificer" by reskinning alone, but the difference between my vision and these base classes is still large and each case includes several class powers that I don't want.

 

[Jester David]

Except that these new options need your anti-sloppiness treatment too. That is, they need to be committed to paper.

Rules only found online simply doesn't carry as much weight, and will never become truly official in the eyes of many.

There's no correlation between physical rules and sloppiness. You get solid content from playtesting and having many eyes on the material.
Physical books do make content easier to accept but there will never be 100% acceptance of any errata. Really, a combination of digital and print would work, with the errated or replacement content being available for free with a physical option. Asking people to buy a semi-mandatory book is harsh.

Pathfinder hasn't had much trouble releasing errata online. It definitely helps the game when it does remove, clarify, or change problem rules that cause DM's headaches.

Paizo's errata tends to be minor and has sofas been limited to small changes. They'be heavily errated the stealth rules, the pricing of amulet of mighty fists, and a couple fears. Most of the rest is typically ignored or fixed by new content.

They also releases errata when they do another print run. So the changes are in a physical book not just online. It took years to get stealth fixed because they needed more books before the rules were ready. And there's been no errata and virtually no FAQ on the Advanced Class Guide despite the hideous number of typos (and poorly balanced options) in that book. I was happy with Paizo's stance on errata for a long time but now I'm increasingly unimpressed.

 

[Remathilis]

I think a general "magic crafter" is probably big enough for its own class conceptually, but mechanically, it's a tougher nut to crack.

I still don't have a clear idea of how a character who works with temporary magic items - invented in a lab, concocted with potions, carved in runic script, woven with ancient elven whispers, melded by gnomish shadow-crafters, or born out of the fires of the Forge of Moradin - would use that differently at the level of play from the Spellcasting mechanics.

If...
Spells Known = Formulas Known
Prepared Spells = Prepared Items
Casting a Spell = Activating an Item
Ritual Casting = Jury-Rigging an Item
Crafting a Magic Item = ....er...Crafting a Magic Item...

...then the new class is just the existing spellcasting mechanic in a new coat of paint.

You know, why make the player who wants to play a rune-carving dwarf take This Specific Class, and not just be a cleric or a wizard and slap a coat of paint on how they cast spells?

Spellcasting (or item-inventing-that's-indistinguishable-in-play-from-spellcasting) itself is a significant class feature, but not a defining one for any class. If the magical inventor class can bring something new to the table along with its conceptual stomping-grounds, that sounds great. But if all it is is proficiencies and a fresh coat of paint on spellcasting, that sounds meaningless - a distinction without a difference.

Where my axe comes down is that a lot of this sounds like "this class should be separate because it has different proficiencies and a different spell list," and that doesn't sound significant enough for me to learn an entirely new class narrative. It sounds like a good argument for a wizard subclass that is maybe the "eldritch knight of wizards," which allows a wizard character to have better proficiencies and a more limited spell list in exchange for...something... Or at least an argument for coming up with a few big mechanically defining elements that aren't basically the same as casting spells in practice.

Your argument falls apart since you keep assuming that the artificer just casts fireball, but takes a vague "prepare an item" step which can be handwaved away as a fluffly artificer step. Here is more what I'd like to see.

An artificer has a warlock-like caster setup; limited short refresh infusion-spells that act as "hacks" to items; magic weapon, ability enhancers, etc. They also have a pool of "permanent" items that could act like invocations; always on and could replicate spells or other effects. Top on an easier way to get magic item formula, alchemist, battle forger and golem master subclasses, and you have a good foundation for an artificer.

Admittedly, its a warlock hack, but with enough changes (no high arcana, less emphasis on cantrips, better melee, potion healing) you could make them as different as druids and clerics are.

 

[I'm A Banana]

...also, I'm not entirely fond of the idea that wizards are not magical crafters or rune-casters.

The wizard class fills the mythological niche of one who knows the powerful new technology of literacy - a carver of heiroglyphs, a knower of forogtten things, an interpreter of truths. These are born out of being able to write, the mastery of language. They know the Sacred Tongue, they speak the Words of Power. Their power - represented in the default wizard by their spellbook - is the power of knoweldge shared and codified.

If a word of power is to be scribed into a stone to generate magical effects - why shouldn't that be a wizard in general?

An artificer has a warlock-like caster setup; limited short refresh infusion-spells that act as "hacks" to items; magic weapon, ability enhancers, etc. They also have a pool of "permanent" items that could act like invocations; always on and could replicate spells or other effects. Top on an easier way to get magic item formula, alchemist, battle forger and golem master subclasses, and you have a good foundation for an artificer.

That seems pretty much like "I'm a warlock with re-fluffed spells" to me (heck, a tome warlock could get a lot of the rituals!). I wouldn't propose that the warlock get a new subclass (the stories are very distinct), but I would propose that maybe wizards get a way to trade out some of their features for some always-on abilities or somesuch.

I want more than re-fluffed spellcasting for a class to be interesting and distinct and worth playing. If re-fluffed spellcasting was enough for me, I would've been happy with 4e.

 

[Jester David]

I'm absolutely welcoming of new classes--but only if there is truly no other way to accurately capture them. Only if every effort has been made to represent it with a combination of feats and/or new subclasses would I want to see any given concept introduced as a brand new class.

But if/when that point is reached? Then I have no problem with it.

I agree so long as the thing being captured isn't mechanical. It's easy to think of new mechanics that are hard to implement as feats/subclasses and new ideas for design. But they don't deserve to be full classes. There needs to be a well-known and established archetype being created. And one large enough to fit into most campaign settings and multiple worlds to warrant the design time.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Oh, definitely. If the purpose is just mechanical, if there's no true archetype behind it, then it should--at most--be a feat. Maybe, on exceedingly rare occasions, a subclass, if it's an amazingly popular or cool mechanic, and if there's truly no other way to do it. But a new class? Needs to be as unique in flavor as in mechanics.

 

[Leatherhead]

Wizard
• Wizards have the full spellcasting progression; any changes to the Spellcasting feature will have a big impact on the class.
• Wizards have the longest spell list and the broadest selection of spells to choose from each day, thanks to their spellbooks. Anything that further increases their versatility in this respect should be approached with caution.
• The Arcane Traditions serve three purposes, which you should consider when creating new ones: encouraging the casting of certain kinds of spells, providing utility that is unique to specialists of a particular kind of magic and that cannot be found within spells, and subtly altering the play style of the wizard without fundamentally drawing the thrust of the class away from spellcasting.

If your goal is to subtract spells from the Wizard, or make it focus on something other than casting spells, your first instinct should be to look elsewhere.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If your goal is to subtract spells from the Wizard, or make it focus on something other than casting spells, your first instinct should be to look elsewhere.

Well, part of the issue is that "casting spells" is the same as "infusing items." So it's not sure that we're NOT looking for someone who essentially casts spells. So lets maybe run this experiment: if there was to be an item crafting class that could not use any spells or magical effects, what would it look like? If we were to get a purely martial item crafter who did not need or use any magical abilities, who simply relied on their mastery of crafts, what might it look like? After all, this class should probably embrace archetypes like the lone forge-master on the mountain who creates blades of exotic metals but has no truck with the world of the unseen that he cannot touch...without relying on existing magic items or existing spells, what would such a class look like?

At the very least, that's fertile ground for exploration.