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.

 

[Vaalingrade]

spells prepared.

I would like to never hear this term again, please.

 

[Charlaquin]

Woah.

Jeremy Crawford putting the WotC stamp on Mother May I is a thing and that thing isn’t WotC-new-edition-desirable?

Bold.

Feels like this is the inverse of Mearls 5e design commentary 9 years ago-ish about Warlords shouting arms back on!

In light of the many conversations on the subject on here, I have to think that is going to be not well-received by a chunk of folks!

It’s definitely a departure from Mearls’ direction, but I’m not sure how the Warlord comment is an example of that. I would contrast it more with how they used to talk about the game being a conversation between the players and the GM, and moving away from trying to make the gameplay experience consistent between different tables.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Woah.

Jeremy Crawford putting the WotC stamp on Mother May I is a thing and that thing isn’t WotC-new-edition-desirable?

Bold.

Feels like this is the inverse of Mearls 5e design commentary 9 years ago-ish about Warlords shouting arms back on!

In light of the many conversations on the subject on here, I have to think that is going to be not well-received by a chunk of folks!

The way he uses it seems reasonable. Not like it was used here, not long ago.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

I hope so, I'd much rather have crusader, mystic, or dervish as the subclass than a subclass based on the domain. That way you can have a crusader or death, war, the sun or a mystic of the same in the same temple without having to create a new class for each.

 

[Minigiant]

I hope so, I'd much rather have crusader, mystic, or dervish as the subclass than a subclass based on the domain. That way you can have a crusader or death, war, the sun or a mystic of the same in the same temple without having to create a new class for each.

I think this is the big change.

5E was kind of written for experience DMs who would go out their way and adjust and create subclasses themselves. They expected you to take the Blasty Light cleric and Tanky Death Cleric an combine them to make a Blasty Death Cleric.

However many DMs do feel they should be forced to do the extra work. And you can't code than in a VTT or CRPG Video game.

If in the next UA did the domain type and priest type are split, it displays a change in mentality.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Admitting to and mitigating Mother May I Mechanics?

Just as long as they don't give us illusions in name only, like 4E did. Minimize Mother May I, but don't eliminate it. It has its place in some archetypes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would like to never hear this term again, please.

I have to disagree. I think 1 (or maybe a small subset) of classes keeping that and the spell book is fine. I just want it to not be the default.
Have clerics go back to spheres
have warlock, sorcerer, bard, ranger be spells known
have paliden get a sphere and an oath set
let wizards keep the spell book

Then since I said MAYBE a subset I wouldn't mind if tome pact warlock got a nod to it, and the arcane trick and eldritch knight got spell books

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It’s definitely a departure from Mearls’ direction, but I’m not sure how the Warlord comment is an example of that. I would contrast it more with how they used to talk about the game being a conversation between the players and the GM, and moving away from trying to make the gameplay experience consistent between different tables.

I think (and I am not the original poster but how I took it) was it will be as controversial of a statement. I will disagree a bit (maybe cause I am on the opposite side this time) but it felt like Mearls was swinging an insult, while Crawford was trying to show a change of style.

 

[Kurotowa]

Just as long as they don't give us illusions in name only, like 4E did. Minimize Mother May I, but don't eliminate it. It has its place in some archetypes.

I'm more okay with MMI when it's optional side content. Stuff like crafting magic items and establishing strongholds and building faction reputation. Those are things that should have a high degree of DM interface. Basic stuff? Core class features you'll be using regularly and for minor things? That stuff should just work, reliably and with a minimum of expended playtime.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm more okay with MMI when it's optional side content. Stuff like crafting magic items and establishing strongholds and building faction reputation. Those are things that should have a high degree of DM interface. Basic stuff? Core class features you'll be using regularly and for minor things? That stuff should just work, reliably and with a minimum of expended playtime.

For the class cores? Absolutely.

But I think each class ought to have several compelling subclasses that are reliable and predictable and maybe even tuned for new players. But I think there's also a place for at least a few archetypes that are a little more experimental, require a little more buy-in from DMs, etc.