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.

 

[Hussar]

Despite claiming the contrary, people seem to like "argument ex cathedra"

Or... I dunno... maybe people actually like the things that they like? Strange but true.

I find 99% of the "this is a huge problem in the game" type posts to be far overblown and/or self inflicted problems. I've been playing 5e for 10 years now and rules wise, other than a few minor hiccups, I've just never had the major issues that people keep banging on about. Something like floating ASI's instead of racial mods? Fantastic - now everyone gets what they want. Feat at first level? Well, I did just that for my Candlekeep campaign and it worked great and that was quite a while before any sort of play tests. Stripping out caster levels and replacing them with powers? Yes please. Gimme more of that. Anything that makes my job as a DM easier? I'll take it.

So, no, it's not that we're just queuing up behind whatever WotC is saying. For some of us, we're seeing these changes as literal improvements on the game.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Glad to see that we are doing their job for them...

Nothing WotC says or does will make their detractors happy. People complain when they aren't involved in the playtesting process (4e). People complain when they are involved and WotC isn't making the changes that they want. People complain when they are involved and accuse WotC of not doing their job.

 

[Blue]

It is backwards compatible. You can play a 2014 PHB character with a OneD&D rules. I've done it. It works. They're compatible. The fact that you disagree with their definition of "backwards compatibility" doesn't mean that they're being dishonest. They even said what they mean by "backwards compatible" in one of the playtest documents.

I'm not who you were responding to, but I have a couple of cents to put in on this topic. Wizards does not get to redefine backwards compatible and then say "we hit our target" - they have to use a reasonable, commonly accepted meaning of that term.

Do all the parts work together, not just segregated into different buckets? Can I pick a 2014 race and subrace, a 1D&D background which grants a feat, any 2014 feat at 1st level because it has no prerequisites, a 1D&D class with a 2014 subclass, and so forth? And will it remained balanced against both 2014 and 1D&D characters in the party? Is it okay to pick up 2014 GWM in a game using 1D&D rules instead of the redone one? How about feats that haven't been redone so the 2014 versions would still be the most reent in play?

Heck, if two players are playing twin dragonborn, identical characters with extra attack but one is using the 1D&D Dragonborn and the other using the Fizban's Dragonborn, are the two balanced against each other? Up until MP:MotM, if any playable race got changed like Triton got darkvision, all of the previous books that had it got errata so that they were truly compatible.

There are a selection of spells that aren't on the three lists. If PCs can no longer even pick them how are those character creation rules backwards compatible with Xanathar's and Tasha's?

My TWF swashbuckler can go on an existing adventure. If we move from 2014 to 1D&D and they get rebuilt, they are buffed through 1st level feats and the TWF change which is really important to a rogue's bonus action economy, they are more capable. Can they go on the adventure? Sure. Will they get the same experience out of it being buffed? Likely not. They have said that they are redoing encounter building rules, but if we need to redo encounters for already published adventures in order to provide the same level of threat and attrition, can we say it's compatible without changes?

 

[Blue]

I still say doing it piecemeal is an ineffective method of testing. D&D has A LOT of moving parts and how they interact is far more important than how any individual part operates in isolation. Putting out a singular big playtest packet and asking people to go hog wild is a much better way to actually figure out whether the rules work. If that's the intent. Which this probably isn't.

It seems like they are building towards that. Since they have the base 5e to build on this isn't a case like D&D Next where they needed enough to be independent - with the claims that it's "just D&D" or at least that it's backwards compatible they can leverage so that the design team doesn't need to build a (semi-)complete new game before getting any feedback on it. And each section has a manageable amount of changes that can be tested and feedback given. But each packet so far builds on the ones before it, so that there will come a point where we have a fairly complete game. Going through iterations there will meet your need, while still giving the designers lots of feedback leading up to that point. Especially when you consider that they have stated that they want to try some things in an A/B testing sort of way, like critical rules or changes to how Inspiration is granted, then frequent early iterations is a good thing. Entrepreneurs are given the advice to fail quickly - try things, and if they don't work find out soon so you can course correct. That applies to this as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not who you were responding to, but I have a couple of cents to put in on this topic. Wizards does not get to redefine backwards compatible and then say "we hit our target" - they have to use a reasonable, commonly accepted meaning of that term.

Do all the parts work together, not just segregated into different buckets? Can I pick a 2014 race and subrace, a 1D&D background which grants a feat, any 2014 feat at 1st level because it has no prerequisites, a 1D&D class with a 2014 subclass, and so forth? And will it remained balanced against both 2014 and 1D&D characters in the party? Is it okay to pick up 2014 GWM in a game using 1D&D rules instead of the redone one? How about feats that haven't been redone so the 2014 versions would still be the most reent in play?

Heck, if two players are playing twin dragonborn, identical characters with extra attack but one is using the 1D&D Dragonborn and the other using the Fizban's Dragonborn, are the two balanced against each other? Up until MP:MotM, if any playable race got changed like Triton got darkvision, all of the previous books that had it got errata so that they were truly compatible.

There are a selection of spells that aren't on the three lists. If PCs can no longer even pick them how are those character creation rules backwards compatible with Xanathar's and Tasha's?

My TWF swashbuckler can go on an existing adventure. If we move from 2014 to 1D&D and they get rebuilt, they are buffed through 1st level feats and the TWF change which is really important to a rogue's bonus action economy, they are more capable. Can they go on the adventure? Sure. Will they get the same experience out of it being buffed? Likely not. They have said that they are redoing encounter building rules, but if we need to redo encounters for already published adventures in order to provide the same level of threat and attrition, can we say it's compatible without changes?

I'd consider it backwards compatible if characters built wholecloth from 5e rules could completely function and be roughly balanced with D&D one characters within the D&D one ruleset.

That's not what is happening though... when they talk about potentially removing the object interaction rule, the Thief's subclass ability from 5e stops working. Just one example.

 

[wicked cool]

Oh, man, you should have seen what it was like in late 3E. The power gamers are cute fluffy kittens nowadays in comparison.

I remember the strength percentile roll from before 3e. And 18 01% was very different from an 18 100%. That role as a very young person felt like it could make or break a fighter

 

[Remathilis]

Not Halfling got a 78% Which means that it is good but it has a noticeable issue. My guess is Halflings' Luck not working with Heroic Inspiration.

Dragonborn's main gimmick was bad and Aardling was out of focus so those dropped to the 60%
But

What pull Gnome out the 80%? Did people not like Gnome features just being upgrades of spells?That's my guess.

I'm annoyed elf scored so well. After the sea elf, astral elf, eladrin and shadar-kai, the "three-in-one, only difference is spells" elf felt so uninspired.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'd consider it backwards compatible if characters built wholecloth from 5e rules could completely function and be roughly balanced with D&D one characters within the D&D one ruleset.

That is not the backward compatibility they promised in the UA material.
From the FAQ

What does backward compatible mean?

It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. For example, if you want to run Curse of Strahd in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.

That's not what is happening though... when they talk about potentially removing the object interaction rule, the Thief's subclass ability from 5e stops working. Just one example.

Yes, the backward compatibility does not extend to the 2014 PHB, except for those elements that are unchanged.
My belief, so far, is that the 2014 PHB classes will be usable with the new material (if elements like the level 1 feat support is added) but the 2014 feat system will be completely replaced by the new version.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm annoyed elf scored so well. After the sea elf, astral elf, eladrin and shadar-kai, the "three-in-one, only difference is spells" elf felt so uninspired.

Yup, I complained about the use of spells as differentiators instead of creating useful racial features. Even if they were the spells recast as features. Same for the ranger fixes, making these elements spells favours casters. Make them independent of spells and recharge on a short rest if they are to be used often or spend of a stat mod or prof bonus if recharged off of a long rest.

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

Well said!

I almost wish I had been saving these surveys as documents to refer back to later.