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...

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Anyone else get the feeling that they're replacing the damage boost from great weapon master and sharpshooter with a straight damage boost to all the warrior classes.

Like a fighter will get +2 damage with one-handed weapons and a +4 damage bonus to two-handed weapons at level 4... you know.. just because.

I mean it's not a "must-have" if you "automatically have" it. That's what they did to the ranger.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

overgeeked

B/X Known World
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.
No, we shouldn't, but as someone who's DMed for a few hundred power gamers, I don't think they're a tiny minority of the fanbase at this point. There's quite a lot of them. And their POV seems more prevalent now, not less.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Anyone else get the feeling that they're replacing the damage boost from great weapon master and sharpshooter with a straight damage boost to all the warrior classes.

Like a fighter will get +2 damage with one-handed weapons and a +4 damage bonus to two-handed weapons at level 4... you know.. just because.

I mean it's not a "must-have" if you "automatically have" it. That's what they did to the ranger.
I'm thinking (hoping) what they're talking about when they say weapons matter is that we're going to see some weapon capabilities similar to 4e where flails could tangle and trip, etc.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
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.
I'm with you. None of the players I've had in 5E would agree with us. They'd agree with that poster about non-optimized PCs not pulling their weight.
 

Kurotowa

Legend
But will they be good, or based on the magic schools?
I'm going to say no to school based Wizard classes. In fact, I'll go one further and say that domain based Cleric subclasses are also out. My bet is that Cleric domain will be a smaller choice, akin to a Warlock pact, and their subclasses will be brand new.

And really, thank goodness. The lopsided distribution of subclasses in the 5e PHB was terrible at both ends. Clerics and Wizards had a lot of trash options that choked off future design space, and the classes that started with only two subclasses felt really short on choice.
 


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.
yes this made me feel seen. I hope that they take this idea all the way and make MOST if not ALL choices be close enough to even that there is no right choice
 



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.
I hope this means they will be dealing with LFQW (although I would go with weak to simple martial to complex powerful caster)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top