D&D (2024) WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!

In a 40-minute video, WotC's Jeremy Crawford discussed the survey feedback to the 'Character Origins' playtest document. Over 40,000 engaged with the survey, and 39,000 completed it. I've summarised the content of the video below.

High Scorers

• The highest scoring thing with almost 90% was getting a first level feat in your background. This is an example of an experimental thing -- like advantage and disadvantage in the original 5E playtests.
• Almost everything also scored 80%+.

About The Scoring System

• 70% or higher is their passing grade. In the 70s is a thumbs up but tinkering need. 80% means the community wants exactly that and WotC treads carefully not to change it too much.
• In the 60s it's salvageable but it really needs reworking. Below 60% means that there's a good chance they'll drop it, and in the 40s or below it's gone. Nothing was in the 50s or below.

Low Scorers

Only 3 things dipped into the 60s --

• the d20 Test rule in the Rules Glossary (experimental, no surprise)
• the ardling
• the dragonborn

The next UA had a different version of the d20 Test rule, and they expect a very different score when those survey resuts come in.

It was surprising that the dragonborn scored lower than the ardling. The next UA will include new versions of both. The main complaints were:

• the dragonborn's breath weapon, and confusion between the relationship between that dragonborn and the one in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons.
• the ardling was trying to do too much (aasimar-like and beast-person).

The ardling does not replace the aasimar. The next version will have a clearer identity.

Everything else scored in the 70s or 80s.

Some more scores:

• new human 83%
• dwarf, orc, tiefling, elf tied at 80-81%
• gnome, halfling tied at 78%

Future installments of Unearthed Arcana

• The next one will have new ardling and dragonborn, a surprise 'guest', and a new cleric. It will be a shorter document than the previous ones, and the one after that is bigger again. Various class groups.
• Warrior group digs into something teased in a previous UA sidebar -- new weapon options for certain types of characters. Whole new ways to use weapons.
• New rules on managing your character's home base. A new subsystem. Create bases with NPCs connected with them, implementing downtime rules. They're calling it the "Bastion System".
• There will be a total of 48 subclasses in the playtest process.
• New encounter building rules, monster customization options.
• New versions of things which appear in the playtest after feedback.

Other Notes

• Playtests are a version of something with the assumption that if something isn't in the playtest, it's still in the game (eg eldritch blast has not been removed from the game). The mage Unearthed Arcana will feature that.
• Use an object and other actions are still as defined in the current Player's Handbook. The playtest material is stuff that has changed.
• Thief subclass's cunning action does not interact with use an object; this is intentional. Removed because the original version is a 'Mother may I?" mechanic - something that only works if the DM cooperates with you. In general mechanics which require DM permission are unsatisfying. The use an object action might go away, but that decision will be a made via the playtest process.
• The ranger's 1st-level features also relied too heavily on DM buy-in, also wild magic will be addressed.
• If you have a class feature you should be able to use it in the way you expect.
• If something is removed from the game, they will say so.
• Great Weapon Fighting and Sharpshooter were changed because the penalty to the attack roll was not big enough to justify the damage bonus, plus they want warrior classes to be able to rely on their class features (including new weapon options) for main damage output. They don't want any feats to feel mandatory to deal satisfying damage. Feats which are 'must haves' violate their design goals.
• Light Weapon property amped up by removing the bonus action requirement because requiring light weapon users to use their bonus action meant there were a lot of bad combinations with features and spells which require bonus actions. It felt like a tax on light weapon use.
• Class spell lists are still an open question. Focus on getting used to the three big spell lists. Feedback was that it would be nice to still have a class list to summarize what can be picked from the 'master lists'. For the bard that would be useful, for the cleric and wizard not necessary as they can choose from the whole divine or arcane list.

The playtest process will continue for a year.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Um, no. That's baseless and flies in the face of what we know about online activity. People are more likely to complain about something than make an effort to praise something. These boards are just one example of that.

People are also more likely to complain in the form of a social media post than in a lengthy survey that won't be directly responded to.

 

[Amrûnril]

So they seem to be thinking that, with shared Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists broken down by school, it might be a good quality of life change to provide classes with consolidated lists of the spells that can actually learn. This would be an improvement over what we saw in the Expert classes playtest, but if you're creating those class-specific lists, wouldn't making thematic/balance decisions about individual spells rather than whole schools be a good option to have? And if Wizards, Clerics and Druids are the only classes with access to the full Arcane, Divine and Primal lists, why not simply call those lists the Wizard, Cleric and Druid spell lists?

The developers don't seem to be considering the possibility that the Arcane/Divine/Primal system is a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When I filled it out, they asked at the top of each different section if you tested that aspect with actual play.

I would assume that anyone who wanted their comments to matter said they did in fact playtest it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok, watched the first 14 minutes, I’ll chime in on the later 2/3 of the video when I have time to watch it. Some quick thoughts on the first part:

• Interesting breakdown of satisfaction numbers: <60% = unlikely to revisit the idea. 60-69% = interest in the idea but needs significant revision. 70-79% = broad approval of the idea, might need minor revision. 80%+ = approval, try not to change it more than is necessary for balance/rules cohesion purposes.

• Everything in the survey fell into the 80%+ approval category except the natural 20 and natural 1 rules, the Aardling, and the Dragonborn, all of which fell into the 60-69% category. So we can expect very little from this packet to change between now and 2024.

• Written responses indicated that the reason for low dragonborn approval was mostly due to the breath weapon being too weak. Also some confusion with the Fizban’s dragonborn. Clarified that the Fizban’s dragonborn will still be an option alongside the more general PHB Dragonborn.

• Written responses indicated that the reason for low aardling approval was most likely due to lack of cohesive identity - are they anthros or are they Angel people, and if they’re angel people, why aren’t they a variant of aasimar? Clarified that aasimar will still be an option alongside aardlings, and indicated that in an upcoming packet they will present a new version of aardlings that leans more into the anthropomorphic animal angle instead of the angelic angle.

Personally I’m pretty pleased with that, as I liked most of what was in this packet quite a lot, except aardlings, but if they scrap the angel thing and just make them the furry race, I’ll be cool with that. Still hoping halflings get a bit of a buff alongside dragonborn, and some of the 1st level feats could do with a balance adjustment, but that will come later in the process I’m sure. I’ll be back with my thoughts on the rest of the video soon.

 

[Oofta]

Good news. There are plenty of other forums on this very site you could hang out on. If you're that despondent that you feel you can't make a difference, why torture yourself here?

There are several people who don't play 5E that seem to only post on this particular forum only to complain (and there are a handful that don't play but still contribute). Presumably they think it matters somehow? Alternative is that they're just trolling, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

Posting on these forums is highly unlikely to change the game in any significant way, fortunately they're doing surveys. Doesn't mean that any one person's opinion is going to matter of course and all surveys are going to be fundamentally flawed in various ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So they seem to be thinking that, with shared Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists broken down by school, it might be a good quality of life change to provide classes with consolidated lists of the spells that can actually learn. This would be an improvement over what we saw in the Expert classes playtest, but if you're creating those class-specific lists, wouldn't making thematic/balance decisions about individual spells rather than whole schools be a good option to have? And if Wizards, Clerics and Druids are the only classes with access to the full Arcane, Divine and Primal lists, why not simply call those lists the Wizard, Cleric and Druid spell lists?

The developers don't seem to be considering the possibility that the Arcane/Divine/Primal system is a solution in search of a problem.

Again, the larger questions don't seem to be open for debate.

 

[Azzy]

Its still your only chance to 'officially' voice feedback. I'm taking it.

Right, it's better to try to get your voice heard in a place where WotC is actually listening rather than just lament on random social media site (like these message boards) that WotC isn't sharing your vision.

I'm definitely not happy about all the changes, and I'm definitely letting WotC know. Will my opinions be shared by enough people, who knows, but I'm going to throw them out there nonetheless.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm...surprised at their surprise in this regard. Why release something (Fizbans) and then go 3 steps backwards. I'd have to go look at the UA again but if I remember right, the proposed Dragonborn was plainly inferior, in every way, to the Fizbans version.

Their surprise seemed to be that an established race scored worse than a brand new race, since new things apparently tend to score lower than established things.

 

[Azzy]

People are also more likely to complain in the form of a social media post than in a lengthy survey that won't be directly responded to.

Citation needed.

 

[Xamnam]

I would assume that anyone who wanted their comments to matter said they did in fact playtest it.

I mean, I marked that I hadn't played them. I wanted to give them my honest feedback. Things can play very differently than they read. If something read-tests poorly, but play-tests well, that could very well be an issue of presentation rather than mechanics. But sure, some people will lie. I hope people who care about the future wouldn't potentially give misleading responses.