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.

 

[dave2008]

"the d20 Test rule in the Rules Glossary" .

Er, what was that???

 

[darjr]

of everything they said that scared me the most... Written communication more then any other communication style can end up with you reading what you want into it.

Well it’s good that they give it weight only when they need to dig deeper and that they are trying to understand, explicitly.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy…

Most people can't help but explicitly say things like 'sounds like' or state theoretical when they complain about something they haven't experienced.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm complaining about it now. There's no "later" about it. I'm not interested in starting a grass-roots gaming movement, so I know my individual opinion does not matter to WotC, a view confirmed by the massive outpouring of approval they've received. I still have my preferences.

This is like going to the polls on election day, refusing to vote, and complaining that the government doesn't do what you want.

The opinions of 5e players matters to WotC. They're interested in feedback, and they've already showed signs of changing things that didn't get high enough approval ratings.

 

[Incenjucar]

Another bit that stuck out for me is talking about mandatory feats around the 28:46 mark.

In my experience players take a view of "either you're perfect or you suck." So his line about players feeling they must have a feat just to show up and do their job is basically an intrinsic part of a lot of players' mentality surrounding gaming. You see it in every discussion of optimization, builds, and power gaming. Either you're the best or you shouldn't bother.

Ideally, feats should offer new options of roughly equal validity, like being able to fight in precarious situations without penalty, being able to guard a doorway a little better, being able to charge a little further, being able to get around a specific defense, being good at smashing people with chairs if swords are not an option, etc.

And then you have War Caster.

 

[Xamnam]

Another bit that stuck out for me is talking about mandatory feats around the 28:46 mark.

In my experience players take a view of "either you're perfect or you suck." So his line about players feeling they must have a feat just to show up and do their job is basically an intrinsic part of a lot of players' mentality surrounding gaming. You see it in every discussion of optimization, builds, and power gaming. Either you're the best or you shouldn't bother.

I always see these specific feats mentioned in the context of the LFQW debate, as one of the few options that can significantly help to narrow that gap. I think the "mandatory" feeling of them is more a function of martials feeling comparatively weak than it is a question of being "the best" or "perfect." And we shouldn't take optimization guides / power gamers as representative of the average player's perspective.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Didn't see the mod post right away. I'll bow out.

 

[Minigiant]

As long as they don't change the assumption that 'The DM narrates the results, asking for a check if there is uncertainty of the outcome', I'm okay with it. I just don't want the assumption to be that I can Influence a Red Dragon in it's lair to take a hike while I raid it's treasure hoard because I Nat 20'd an Influence (Persuasion) check

It sounds more like

"Doing X is a Y skill check with a DC Z" is an action. But for Rogue subclass 2 and Fighter Subclass 5 will have a feature to do it as a bonus action.

 

[mamba]

There's what...50 million D&D players. And 40,000 responded to the UA survey.

where does the 50M number come from ? That feels off by an order of magnitude

Also, this for the D&D Next playtest feels relevant here

The forums are not necessarily representative of the larger audience. There definitely is a silent majority sometimes. A lot of times people would say something is terrible on forums, that came back with 95% approval on surveys. It was most useful to use forums when the forum views lined up with the survey data, where they could then ask forum people more about that aspect of the game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Another bit that stuck out for me is talking about mandatory feats around the 28:46 mark.

In my experience players take a view of "either you're perfect or you suck." So his line about players feeling they must have a feat just to show up and do their job is basically an intrinsic part of a lot of players' mentality surrounding gaming. You see it in every discussion of optimization, builds, and power gaming. Either you're the best or you shouldn't bother.

We've seen that here in several threads in the past when some players have made the claim that not min-maxing your character was you not pulling your weight and thus putting their characters at risk. And you were a bad player for doing that.

They didn't seem to appreciate it when the rest of us told them that they were playing D&D in a very special way and that most of the rest of us were absolutely fine in not going along with their hopes and dreams-- ne demands-- for "proper playing". LOL.