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


log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Considering all of the stuff they talked about attracting new players, I don't see this at all. There are so many places where a low barrier to entry for new players to RPGs is very evident. Are you trying to say all of that was accidental?

They expected new players. But it would be classic "John brings Jimmy to Try D&D." The DM and 4/5 players would be veterans.

"Just walk Jimmy through a Champion fighter and let's go"

What happened when you try 5e and Jimmy, Julie,and Jose are all new or not too experienced? Now 2/5 of you players are new. You could give them all champion fighters. But that would wonk up party balance and cohesion. And Jose and Julie don't want to be the same class. Whoops. the PHB wasn't written expecting new players to play anything but champion fighters.

And Kord help you if the DM isn't a vet. The DMG wasn't written for anyone with less than 15 years experience with all the stuff that's missing, inaccurate, unbalanced, or unclear.
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
I hope you're right, I've never really liked how domains worked in 5e. I've said before that I'd love for domains to have less mechanical heft, but you get more of them, something in-between a pact and invocation. You can see two real subclasses hidden in the domains, the Divine Striker and the Potent Spellcaster.
Domain should just be a 1st level extra spells list + special channel divinity.

The archetype, at 3rd level, should define HOW your cleric propagate the domain of their philosophy/faith: Warrior-Priest, Skilled Pilgrim, Condemner with curses and biblical blasting, Oracles etc
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
Like I said in an earlier thread:
That's psychology for you. The public playtest and the survey work together to give us the feeling of being very heavily involved at every level. In reality, this playtest is more about advertising than actually testing out the gameplay.

Did you notice that there were no questions about the game functions or mechanics in the survey? The questions are all asking about your level of satisfaction and your age/race demographic. That information is most useful for marketing, but has little to do with the actual development of the game. I suspect the final draft is already written, and any changes that come from the playtests will be very minor.

I maintain that the final draft is already written, and that these "survey results" are more about generating buzz and excitement than actually getting feedback. It's a great marketing strategy. (Much better than the "we fixed your game for you, you're welcome" approach they used back in 2008.)

So meh, I'm not surprised that they announced a high-but-plausible result because that is going to generate the strongest favorable reaction. I think they are figuring out how many people still need convincing....not how many changes still need to be made.

Or maybe I'm just really jaded in my old age.
 
Last edited:



So was the attempt to make critical hits (something players are already confused by) both much more complicated while at the same time a fraction as important on the survey? I know it disappeared from the subsequent playtest, and I just can't imagine that it won over a majority of survey respondents.

It was the thing that made me question both the goals and the common sense of the design team, and not consider this process worth my time. I don't even particularly care about critical hits, I just think they should have a simpler rule whether its "max damage", "double all damage", no longer being a thing, or, barring any of those improvements, just keeping the same relatively simple formulation. But every time I thought about completing the survey I just thought "do I really want to spend 40 minutes writing thoughtful comments that will probably never get read anyway to people who thought that absurd of a rule change was worth an audition".
 

The survey didn't actually ask us whether we wanted feats at first level.

This is something that really troubles me with these surveys. They ask us to rate specifics (each feat, each background), but they aren't asking the larger questions. I may very well rate a feat full stars, and I may find a background to be fine. That doesn't mean I like the idea of a background granting a level 1 feat. WotC is taking specific ratings and painting an incorrect picture at the broad level with them.
There actually was a question asking about satisfaction with feats as part of backgrounds overall and not just of specific backgrounds. (Sorry for graining image, but I grabbed it from someone who posted filling it out on YouTube.) I mostly recalled it because I remember being glad I didn't have to just give a flat rating to backgrounds but could tell them I both really liked feats as part of backgrounds, but languages as part of backgrounds was one of the worst things in the entire document. ;)

Background Feats.png
 

Zaukrie

New Publisher
So was the attempt to make critical hits (something players are already confused by) both much more complicated while at the same time a fraction as important on the survey? I know it disappeared from the subsequent playtest, and I just can't imagine that it won over a majority of survey respondents.

It was the thing that made me question both the goals and the common sense of the design team, and not consider this process worth my time. I don't even particularly care about critical hits, I just think they should have a simpler rule whether its "max damage", "double all damage", no longer being a thing, or, barring any of those improvements, just keeping the same relatively simple formulation. But every time I thought about completing the survey I just thought "do I really want to spend 40 minutes writing thoughtful comments that will probably never get read anyway to people who thought that absurd of a rule change was worth an audition".
100% they read the comments, even if the work is done.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
They expected new players. But it would be classic "John brings Jimmy to Try D&D." The DM and 4/5 players would be veterans.

"Just walk Jimmy through a Champion fighter and let's go"

What happened when you try 5e and Jimmy, Julie,and Jose are all new or not too experienced? Now 2/5 of you players are new. You could give them all champion fighters. But that would wonk up party balance and cohesion. And Jose and Julie don't want to be the same class. Whoops. the PHB wasn't written expecting new players to play anything but champion fighters.

And Kord help you if the DM isn't a vet. The DMG wasn't written for anyone with less than 15 years experience with all the stuff that's missing, inaccurate, unbalanced, or unclear.
so they would be in the same boat we were in back in the beginning days? Have you seen the 1st edition DMG/PH books? (see bold above).

Don't underestimate the group of all noobs, I bet they are having fun just like we did.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top