Survey (A5E) Survey Results #1: Broad Outlines

[Morrus]

We received thousands of votes on our first survey, which addressed the broader outlines of Level Up. Thank you to everybody who participated! From the start this has been planned as a data-driven process. These results — amongst other things — help guide us as we design the game. Some folks have asked why we’ve announced this project so long before its release; it’s so that we can get data at each stage in the process, and recruit great talent for our design team (more on that later!)

Anyhow, on to the survey results! Note that these questions were intentionally broad; each of these topics can be drilled into in more detail at a later stage.

These things were very important to you

• 100% compatibility with existing 5E material
• Meaningful character choices at each advancement level
• A fully fleshed out Exploration Pillar
• A range of martial maneuvers to give non-spellcasters more options in combat
• More ways to spend gold at higher levels

You were positive about

• A crafting system for magic items
• Mechanically distinctive weapons and armor
• Culture and species being separated during character creation
• Both a warlord class and a revised spell-less ranger
• A more detailed skill system

You are ambivalent about

• A setting toggle between cinematic and gritty modes
• An overhaul of multiclassing
• Kingdom or domain management, strongholds, and followers
• Gaining ‘species’ features are your character advances
• More core classes
• A more tactical combat system
• A full psionics system in the core rules

You do not want

• Social combat mechanically represented
• More core species
• A piecemeal species-building method of character creation
• A new initiative system

And you are polarized on

• Prestige classes
• An Immortal tier for levels 20-30
• Removing alignment
• More granularity to ability checks that advantage/disadvantage

The difference between the third (ambivalent) and last (polarized) categories is interesting. While both resulted in similar average scores, the deviation was very different. In the ambivalent category, votes were clustered around the middle of the scale, indicating no strong feelings either way. In the polarized category, votes were clustered at each end of the scale, indicating that there are two distinct, but strong-feeling camps on those topics.

The results came out mainly as we thought they would, with a couple of exceptions — we thought psionics and domain management would score higher. The latter covered a couple of different concepts, though (kingdoms, domains, strongholds, followers) so we will likely revisit that later and drill down a little more.

Thank you again for participating in the first survey. Right now we’re busy gathering our awesome design team — applications closed yesterday, and we’re sorting through a LOT of them!

Continue reading...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Interesting survey, I must say.

The results came out mainly as we thought they would, with a couple of exceptions — we thought psionics and domain management would score higher.

In both cases, I don't think the issue is that people don't want them, it's that people have been burned too many times by implementations they didn't like, so aren't excited without knowing more.

I would be ambivalent about "wanting" psionics sight-unseen from a specific publisher. I want them from WotC, because I think they're an important part of D&D, but most of the 3PP systems I've seen for them have been deeply flawed (and WotC's own 5E attempts have been a mixed bag, to put it mildly), in a lot of different ways.

Similarly domain management rules - even 3PP ones people recommend tend to be pretty odd/flawed/un-fun. What the focus is and how detailed the rules are can be a huge issue, especially if rules are potentially overriding actions/roleplaying (too many, too random checks can be a big issue in this sort of system - some actions should be successful, just to a varying degree, like the Jumping rules in 5E, not like a flat Athletics check).

 

[ThatGuySteve]

Interesting that we want to spend money at higher levels, but not on domain management. Hopefully not a return to the 3e magic item supermarket.

 

[TheSword]

Very glad to see that Alignment has more support than the nay sayers would suggest, even if it is polarized.

 

[schneeland]

Just wondering: the fact that the more granular skill system does not appear in any of these lists means that people were, overall, more or less indifferent about it?

 

[Morrus]

Just wondering: the fact that the more granular skill system does not appear in any of these lists means that people were, overall, more or less indifferent about it?

They were in the positive list. It got cut off — added it back in!

 

[aco175]

Thank you for keeping everyone updated with results. I'm interested in seeing how this shapes up.

 

[glass]

That looks good! Other peoples votes seem to have been more-or-less in line with mine, which is good news for me. But of course, the devil is in the detail.

_
glass.

 

[schneeland]

They were in the positive list. It got cut off — added it back in!

Thanks! Happens to be one thing I'm quite passionate about

Also: thanks for sharing the results! It's really interested to see the results here and being able to see a bit how A5e will take shape.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, my own preferences partly align with the majority, partly don't (similar to 5e in general). I'm really curious how some of these mechanics will end up looking like.

 

[bedir than]

I'm interested in people wanting more ways to use gold at higher levels, but the same level of support didn't exist for crafting magic, buying/selling magic, running strongholds, etc.