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.

 

[Krachek]

Can't 90% of Ranger spells be refluffed as non magical? A poultice can be a material component of a spell or a chemical concoction that does exactly the same thing as a spell. They could probably create a spell-less Ranger with one page of adjustment for new spell fluff and a more limited spell list.

Yes. But we go again into the endless and paradoxal debate that we see for psionic. Spellless ability that is supernatural, but learn as a skill, but look like a spell, but is not a spell, is supernatural, but not magic,….

 

[Minigiant]

Honestly my gut still tells me this is a case of the tail wagging the dog, though there again I find how people use the word "complexity" to be rather inappropriate to begin with.

Complexity is the last word Id use to describe anything to do with 5e in general, but especially so when it comes to its casters. If the Druid is overly "complex" then all the full casters should be similarly less played, as they're all on par with each other in terms of what you need to track, but they're not. If we're going to stick with "complexity", then you can't sit there and act like Spells are the simplest thing in the world compared to a stat block.

I think the actual issue isn't complexity so much as it is convenience. Druid isn't convenient to play, and thats due to the stat blocks not all being in the PHB when they should be. Whereas with other casters, most everything they need IS already in the PHB or the supplement their subclass came from.

Meanwhile, stat blocks themselves aren't complicated, and theres no reason they need to be strictly DM facing.

Particularly because in doing so, you can actually directly state in no uncertain terms what every character is automatically familiar with by just pointing at whats in the PHB, and as such, you can segregate more setting or module specific beasts into their respective books, and give the DM a firm way to grant those as options by way of earning it through combat with those beasts.

Having to learn a spell list and a beast list is most to know compared to any class in the edition. That could be classified as most complex. More than any caster.

Druids being least played means the most sense.

 

[Emberashh]

Yes. But we go again into the endless and paradoxal debate that we see for psionic. Spellless ability that is supernatural, but learn as a skill, but look like a spell, but is not a spell, is supernatural, but not magic,….

That tends to be a combination of lazy developing (ie, they're literally just the same word-for-word as spells) and a lack of differentiated mechanics where its needed.

Combat is the interesting part of these classes mechanically, and so they should be differentiated mechanically if they're not going to have the same "power source" or whatever.

Hence why instead of my Ranger just having Techniques (my more involved version of maneuvers) by another name, they have Strikes which provide AOE power via Exploding Dice mechanics.

But healing really isn't all that interesting. I don't think most people are playing these games to play Fantasy Gaping Wound Simulator. FGWS might be fun with buy in, but thats not what folks looking for a more or less traditional TTRPG are looking for.

Having elaborate and differentiated healing mechanics is nice to have if it helps avoid nerds arguments, but it really doesn't need to be overthought or overengineered, and definitely shouldn't be pushing into the gameplay.

And besides, in 5E we already have an example of supernatural healing coming out of a Martial class via the Fighters Second Wind, which used to just be a standard thing any class could do, magic or not.

Faffing over Poultices resembling Potions or Healing spells is pointless.

 

[Emberashh]

Having to learn a spell list and a beast list is most to know compared to any class in the edition. That could be classified as most complex. More than any caster.

Druids being least played means the most sense.

You don't need to "learn" either list at all if you know how to read without taking 5 years.

And more than that, if we take a quick Google at its word, theres currently around 200 or so Beasts in total across all official 5e Publications, and only a small portion of them are accessible by most Druids, with only Moon having more.

Theres nearly 400 Spells in the PHB alone. Even if we accept that you "must" memorize these lists, the Spells alone already dwarf the list of eligible Beasts before we even break into supplements, and even as a Moon Druid you're not getting anywhere close.

And you might try to say that this additive but, that's not how memory works, and ultimately isn't how the game plays.

If you don't know the Spells or Beasts off the top of your head, you reference the material, and whether you're playing digitally or physically theres a multitude of ways to be efficient about it time wise.

You should be respecting your Groups time by being prepared no matter what you're playing.

And I still say that this is still more accurately described as a convenience problem. There is nothing either intricate nor hard to understand about how Wild Shape works. It being a lot of potential material to look at is not a complexity issue.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Whether they go with monster statblocks or custom ones, I hope that they give 2 or 3 default options and allow for more to be added later.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The idea that wild shape doesn’t add complexity to the Druid because “players know how to read” is…a pretty astonishingly weird take.

 

[Emberashh]

The idea that wild shape doesn’t add complexity to the Druid because “players know how to read” is…a pretty astonishingly weird take.

Complexity is defined as intricate and hard to understand.

Having a lot to potentially read (which Druids do in fact have, as does every other caster) isn't complexity.

You could call it tedium, or as I mentioned inconvenient, but it isn't complex. This is why I take such an issue with people throwing that word around willy nilly.

 

[mellored]

The main "complexity" with the Druid is needing to own both the PHB and Monster Manual. (IMO)

And many players just don't own the Monster Manual.

 

[Pauln6]

Complexity is defined as intricate and hard to understand.

Having a lot to potentially read (which Druids do in fact have, as does every other caster) isn't complexity.

You could call it tedium, or as I mentioned inconvenient, but it isn't complex. This is why I take such an issue with people throwing that word around willy nilly.

I think the label matters less than whether the design puts some people off playing. Presumably, there's no reason why they can't have sample stat blocks as one option and monster stat blocks as the other.

Since the PHB has animal stat blocks, you don't NEED the MM but all the meaty broken options will be found elsewhere.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the label matters less than whether the design puts some people off playing. Presumably, there's no reason why they can't have sample stat blocks as one option and monster stat blocks as the other.

Since the PHB has animal stat blocks, you don't NEED the MM but all the meaty broken options will be found elsewhere.

And that's why I suspect the 2024E druid might still use actual animal statblocks and have them in the PHB... but specifically say those are the only statblocks the druid can wildshape into. That way they can still make more beasts to use as enemies in the MM... but don't have to worry about balancing them if a druid was to wildshape into it. The animals listed in the 2014E PHB were actually pretty good with a nice distribution of abilities across the CRs... all they'd need would be to add a few more at higher CRs for higher level druids.