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.

 

[Drabix]

Am I the only one who thinks the artificer should be a subclass of the bard, not the wizard?

Heavy skill focus. Better armor and weapons. A focus on using magic to affect others.

Okay, the use of Cha rather than Int doesn't fit, nor does much of the flavor. But as a mechanical skeleton, I think it's a better starting point.

Nope - matches my feelings as well. Bard is the skeleton to start with.

 

[77IM]

I think they should do artificer as a variant wizard, not an arcane tradition, the same way spell-less ranger modifies base class features instead of just being a ranger archetype. That would allow the artificer to have a lot more interesting stuff by sacrificing base class abilities (like Arcane Recovery, Spell Mastery, Ritual Casting or even Spellbook), while still being less complex/imbalanced than an entirely new class.

 

[doctorhook]

I think they should do artificer as a variant wizard, not an arcane tradition, the same way spell-less ranger modifies base class features instead of just being a ranger archetype. That would allow the artificer to have a lot more interesting stuff by sacrificing base class abilities (like Arcane Recovery, Spell Mastery, Ritual Casting or even Spellbook), while still being less complex/imbalanced than an entirely new class.

Actually I think you're on to something here, except that I'm not sure wizard is the best place to start. Lots of folks have pointed out how either bard or warlock would be a stronger starting point. IMO the warlock is a better fit, mainly because it's got a shorter list of "tricks" but they're usable more often; artificers ought to be masters of a very narrow type of magic.

My point is that a single build of variant warlock seems like the best way to bring artificers to 5E.

 

[CapnZapp]

" 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."

Wait a second...

We want truly official new subclasses printed on paper in books, right?

Articles and such feel ephemeral to me. Only dead tree options feel sufficiently set in stone (wood?) for me to trust the level of playtesting.

So, when will more sorq options (subclasses) appear in official printed supplements?

 

[delericho]

I find all of Mearls' comments here fairly reassuring. In particular, I'm glad they're taking the Artificer back to the drawing board.

FWIW, I'm of the opinion that it should be an entirely separate class from the others. With the emphasis very much on creating items/constructs rather than on casting infusions.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

So, when will more sorq options (subclasses) appear in official printed supplements?

You're assuming there will be officially printed supplements. I really get the impression with Mearls comments on "examining what support for the rpg looks like" and the lack of product announcements that they might be considering releasing ZERO printed supplements for this edition.

Which is fine with me. Any format the data is in as long as it is usable. I own 4 tablets. I'm sure I can find a screen to view it on.

 

[delericho]

You're assuming there will be officially printed supplements. I really get the impression with Mearls comments on "examining what support for the rpg looks like" and the lack of product announcements that they might be considering releasing ZERO printed supplements for this edition.

I can't see that, but I can see them waiting as long as 2 years before releasing PHB2 (or Unearthed Arcana, or whatever they choose to call it), and making that a single, big expansion to the game. (The "USA 1910" expansion to D&D's "Ticket to Ride", if you will.)

In the meantime, I agree that we may well see most expansion material either in web articles, or PDF Player Guides to the Adventure Paths, or perhaps in Campaign Setting books (if they do those, of course).

But the reason I think they will eventually release something is that there will come a point where people have run several campaigns using the PHB options, and genuinely have used most of them (or at least seen them used). There's only so many ways you can remix the same eight (?) races and twelve classes before it gets a bit same-y. So at that point (again, in a couple of years), it makes sense to put out a big expansion pack to mix things up.

Unless, that is, print finally dies in the next eighteen months!

 

[fuindordm]

I think a concept deserves to be a class if it is broad enough to support subclasses/paths/archetypes.

You can hack an artificer from a cleric, bard, or wizard. But it's better to make a new class that lets players specialize into Magical Researcher, Dr Frankenstein, Alchemist, or just That Guy/Gal With A Knack For Using Magic Items (i.e., wand blaster). In fact, I think these archetypes have just enough difference between them to work very well on the subclass model (a kit of 3-4 extra powers granted on top of the base class).

For example:
Researcher gets craft reserve, improved crafting times, expertise in checks to ID magic items and effects (such as traps), option to add an item formula instead of a spell to their book when leveling.
Frankenstein gets companion construct (like beastmaster ranger?), improved effect when healing/hurting constructs, maybe at high levels the ability to temporarily animate objects into a pseudo-golem (like Jude Law in Mieville's Iron Council)
Item Master gets abilities to do more with wands and other charged items on the metamagic model, burning more charges to enhance the spell; maybe an extra attunement at high level; quicker time to unattune items. So they're not completely dependent on GM handouts, I would let them apply metamagic also to the Spell Storing Item infusion by burning extra spell slots of their own.

Everyone gets: the same spell list including "spell storing item", buff spells, temporary item enhancement spells, and specialized construct repair/injure spells; the wizard spellbook learning model, and suitable proficiencies. I would make them full casters like a bard, so that spell storing item can scale to 9th level spells.

The only major difficulty with the class is how it intersects with the default assumption that item creation is rare and difficult. I'd suggest putting all the craft reserve stuff into one subclass, with a sidebar explaining the pros and cons of allowing that subclass.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I can't see that, but I can see them waiting as long as 2 years before releasing PHB2 (or Unearthed Arcana, or whatever they choose to call it), and making that a single, big expansion to the game. (The "USA 1910" expansion to D&D's "Ticket to Ride", if you will.)

I don't know, they swore no PHB2. They've also said their idea was to introduce no new classes at all. They've committed to a once a year major change to the PHB but the implication was that it would be released online as well. I think that a book called "Unearthed Arcana" that is a compilation of online stuff might be possible, though.

But the reason I think they will eventually release something is that there will come a point where people have run several campaigns using the PHB options, and genuinely have used most of them (or at least seen them used). There's only so many ways you can remix the same eight (?) races and twelve classes before it gets a bit same-y. So at that point (again, in a couple of years), it makes sense to put out a big expansion pack to mix things up.

They certainly MIGHT compile multiple years worth of web content into a book at some point.

Though, I still think the point of playing the game is for the storyline contained in the adventure and the focus on your character's personality. Those things will always change so there is still infinite expandability without changing any races or classes. Though, we already know that there WILL be new races and new class features. They've already been released. You can get them online. Putting them into a book doesn't really help anyone.

Unless, that is, print finally dies in the next eighteen months!

Print is already dead. It just doesn't know it yet. Tablets are growing like crazy over the last couple of years and will continue to over the next couple. E-readers are a HUGE market that is slowly being eaten by tablets. Over the next year, Windows 10 will come out which will support touch even better than Windows 8.1 does now. Intel will release even faster processors that use even less power. The Surface Pro 3 is selling like crazy and the iPad even more crazy. Android tablets are becoming a major force as well.

Behind the scenes everything is falling into place to make owning a tablet something that nearly EVERYONE does in the next 2 years.

Heck, I was listening to a podcast last week about Tech News and they happened to mention the recently announcement of Fantasy Grounds supporting D&D officially. The podcasters both didn't play D&D but they said that the news could only be good because WOTC needs to do anything they can to modernize D&D since we are in a digital age and if they don't find a way to make their game modern and digital then they would die completely.

Now, obviously, the podcasters in question don't really know how big and strong the D&D community is. But, I mostly agree with them. We live in a society where the idea of sitting down at a table and playing a game without computers of any kind of is already laughable to most. I can tell you that when I run D&D Expeditions at my local store only about 4 players out of 15 own the PHB. The rest found a pirate copy of it from the internet and access it on their phones and tablets...or constantly badger other people to borrow theirs. None of them really want to buy another book....ever.

 

[Klaus]

Am I the only one who thinks the artificer should be a subclass of the bard, not the wizard?

Heavy skill focus. Better armor and weapons. A focus on using magic to affect others.

Okay, the use of Cha rather than Int doesn't fit, nor does much of the flavor. But as a mechanical skeleton, I think it's a better starting point.

I went over the 3e artificer, and found that the half-caster skeleton of the Paladin or Ranger is a better fit.

Or, if you want to make it really distinct, the Warlock (replacing Pact Magic with Infusion Magic, and Invocations with Craftings).