D&D (2024) Developer Video on Druid/Paladin/Expert Feedback

​

WotC has posted a video discussing initial feedback on the One D&D Druid/Paladin playtest, along with survey results from the Expert playtest. Some highlights for discussion:

Druid: The developers recognize that the template version of wild shape is contentious. If they retain this approach, they would plan to add flexibility to those templates. If they revert to monster stat blocks, they might allow Druids to choose a limited number of options, with a default selection provided.

Paladin: The new version of smite is still intended to work with critical hits. If ranged smite persists, its damage may be adjusted through the internal balance/playtesting process.

Ranger: The updated Ranger scored very well in the playtest. Some players did miss the choice of options in the Hunter subclass.

Bard: All of the Lore Bard's features scored welll, but the overall subclass rating was mediocre. They attribute this to the loss of Additional Magical Secrets, which many saw as the key attraction of this subclass.

Rogue: The change to limit sneak attack to the Rogue's own turn scored poorly. The developers generally like moving actions to a player's own turn to keep the game moving quickly, but in this case, the change doesn't seem to be worth the loss of tactical flexibility.

Feats: With the exception of epic boons, all the feats in the Expert packet scored well. The developers are still loking at written feedback for fine tuning.

Conspicuously not mentioned were the Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists, which were the focus of a lot of discussion during the Bard playtest.

 

[Clint_L]

5e is what it is because it is the Tradition Uber Alles edition that replaces rather than iterating.

Okay, but even if that is true...given that many of us think it is a great version of D&D, and it has manifestly been incredibly successful, this does not seem like a criticism.

 

[Shardstone]

Everyone says they want a Ranger with no spells, but instead it has tricks, and these tricks can be attacks or utility, and they require saving throws, but no, it isn't a spell, it isn't magical, I'm just firing IDK 15 arrows into an orc in 6 seconds or something and yeah, of course the tricks are split into different "tiers" or "levels" that are gate kept by character level.

Some of the same people who say this also say that psionics and spells should be the same thing. It's like the Twilight Zone, man.

 

[Emberashh]

Everyone says they want a Ranger with no spells, but instead it has tricks, and these tricks can be attacks or utility, and they require saving throws, but no, it isn't a spell, it isn't magical, I'm just firing IDK 15 arrows into an orc in 6 seconds or something and yeah, of course the tricks are split into different "tiers" or "levels" that are gate kept by character level.

Some of the same people who say this also say that psionics and spells should be the same thing. It's like the Twilight Zone, man.

When I took my 5e Ranger rewrite into my RPG, I turned it into an AOE martial based on Exploding dice mechanics. Called "Strikes", they would hit a number of targets for free but then could keep hitting more the more you rolled the max on your damage die.

All the other Rangery stuff are just explicit abilities and passives though. No relation whatsoever to the magic system.

 

[Incenjucar]

They could have their Everything Is Magic classes without complaint if they would just make non-magical equivalents for people who don't feel you should need to be a wizard to go camping.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Okay, but even if that is true...given that many of us think it is a great version of D&D, and it has manifestly been incredibly successful, this does not seem like a criticism.

Then why is it getting "updated"?

4e was financially successful. It got replaced.

3e and 3.5e were financially successful. They got replaced.

Financial success is an irrelevant standard. Every edition has financially succeeded. We have actual statements from former WotC employees explicitly to that effect. "Many of us think it is a great version" is subjective and squishy: How many? What proportion? Is it thoroughgoing, top-to-bottom, every-single-piece-is-perfect "great," or is it (as I'm almost certain you will agree) a hell of a lot more nuanced than that? If it is nuanced, what parts were good, and what parts weren't?

That last thing is where this is a criticism. 5e went overboard in a number of ways, and even its actual designers admitted this--years ago, in some cases. Mike Mearls explicitly said that he regrets how the Fighter ended up, for example. More in its thematics than mechanics, but still. The Ranger, as exemplified by this very thread, has been a Problem Point for basically the edition's entire run, and both the Sorcerer and Warlock have been highly controversial, and are the poster children for "they gave the design ONE SHOT and then eliminated it, never to see the light of play again."

It's one thing to say, "Hey, they did a good job overall." It's quite another to say, "because it sold well, we can be certain that everything in it was a good job." That's not true, but it is the only way in which your reply actually rebuts my central claim: a large minority of 5e's flaws can be directly traced to it throwing babies out with bathwater in its ruthless effort to be "traditional" über alles. (Note the quotes--many of these "traditions" only date back to 3rd edition.)

 

[Incenjucar]

Ideally they produce stuff that will please the existing crowd and bring in folks who are on the fence. It's no doubt very difficult to figure out how to bring folks off that fence without sending more folks to it, but it seems like the solution is just giving both sides what they want separately rather than a compromise, whenever possible.

 

[Minigiant]

The spell-less Ranger UA did have Poultices. While a bit underbaked, it was there. And while I wasn't there for that UA, but Id guess the main reason it wasn't recieved well is because it was lazy. Just a bunch of things slapped into the class with little cohesion or subclass integration.

Which incidentally also seemed to be the big issue with the Mystic UA. Overpowered sure, but when I read it I had the same thoughts as I did with the Ranger UA. Just a lot of stuff thrown together.

That's the point.

A fully baked healing poultices system requires a fullon complex crafting and skill system. One that all players would have to learn.

It's the same problem as Wild Shape. People want to turn into any animal in the books. Others want a quick system.

Unless you are going to remake 3e/F1e with a bunch of crafting and skill rulesthat EVERYONE must learn, you will have to accept "A Ranger can make X healing potions once a day. Even in the desert." Or nonmagical ranger.

 

[mamba]

Then why is it getting "updated"?

because it can be improved upon

4e was financially successful. It got replaced.

the first part is debatable

3e and 3.5e were financially successful. They got replaced.

yes, and chances are eventually so will 5e / 1DD, but not now

Financial success is an irrelevant standard. Every edition has financially succeeded.

at best they have done so to varying degrees and 5e succeeded beyond any of the others, by a lot

That last thing is where this is a criticism. 5e went overboard in a number of ways, and even its actual designers admitted this--years ago, in some cases. Mike Mearls explicitly said that he regrets how the Fighter ended up, for example. More in its thematics than mechanics, but still. The Ranger, as exemplified by this very thread, has been a Problem Point for basically the edition's entire run, and both the Sorcerer and Warlock have been highly controversial, and are the poster children for "they gave the design ONE SHOT and then eliminated it, never to see the light of play again."

it looks like you are answering your initial question about why it is being updated yourself...

It's one thing to say, "Hey, they did a good job overall." It's quite another to say, "because it sold well, we can be certain that everything in it was a good job." That's not true, but it is the only way in which your reply actually rebuts my central claim: a large minority of 5e's flaws can be directly traced to it throwing babies out with bathwater in its ruthless effort to be "traditional" über alles. (Note the quotes--many of these "traditions" only date back to 3rd edition.)

Well, that is just a claim with nothing to back it up, so it can also simply be dismissed outright. You would need to first make a case (not just a claim) for this to need to be countered.

 

[Emberashh]

That's the point.

A fully baked healing poultices system requires a fullon complex crafting and skill system. One that all players would have to learn.

It's the same problem as Wild Shape. People want to turn into any animal in the books. Others want a quick system.

Unless you are going to remake 3e/F1e with a bunch of crafting and skill rulesthat EVERYONE must learn, you will have to accept "A Ranger can make X healing potions once a day. Even in the desert." Or nonmagical ranger.

I don't think poultices requires an elaborate crafting system, namely because actual poultices aren't all that complicated to make, but also because poultices really should be distinct from your conventional potions, which should have more substantive mechanics behind them.

For my Ranger, Poultices do more as you move up the ability chain and you eventually get Salves, which are more costly variants that (relative to DND) are basically the equivalent of a lesser restoration spell.

And then with the Herbalist subclass, you get to do more with these than just heal yourself or your friends, such as using them as touch range poisons (which do admittedly cost a ingredient, but still is a far cry from the actual core crafting mechanic), as well as access to even stronger versions.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think poultices requires an elaborate crafting system, namely because actual poultices aren't all that complicated to make, but also because poultices really should be distinct from your conventional potions, which should have more substantive mechanics behind them.

For my Ranger, Poultices do more as you move up the ability chain and you eventually get Salves, which are more costly variants that (relative to DND) are basically the equivalent of a lesser restoration spell.

And then with the Herbalist subclass, you get to do more with these than just heal yourself or your friends, such as using them as touch range poisons (which do admittedly cost a ingredient, but still is a far cry from the actual core crafting mechanic), as well as access to even stronger versions.

Again it's one thing to say something. It's another to write the mechanics.

That's where the trouble starts.

The number one problem with the nonmagical spellless ranger is resources. Spells have a resource. So the mechanic would need a resource and no one can agree whether its time, gp, environment, or X/day.

Same thing with Wild Shape. At a certain point you have to write the mechanic and then a chunk of the community is very unhappy. Templates, PHB statblocks, or MM statblocks.