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.

 

[Remathilis]

And yet previous editions gave us magicless rangers just fine, and even in 2E rangers had no magic until 8th level (10th if a Justifier kit). Now they're getting cantrips at level 1.

Most classes in 2e had far less magic than they would later. Paladins didn't cast spells until 9th and lacked the ability to smite. Bards got magic at 2nd but only up to level 6 spells, with no access to healing magic. Druids didn't get wild shape until 7th level. Priest magic capped at 7th level spells. Rangers worked because almost everyone got little or no magic until later and little in the way of class features and nothing in the way of a functional skill system.

The game is not so magic starved as it once was. (You can debate if that's good or bad, but to keep in topic, it just is for now). The game as a more robust skill and ability resolution system. A 2e ranger can be emulated in 5e with an outlander fighter with proficiency in survival, stealth, animal handling and the dual wield fighting style. All that's missing is the +4 to hit a specific foe. The ranger needs something to make it unique and WotC decided that was magic.

 

[Remathilis]

No it isn't.

This is another one of those bizarre DND player idiosyncrasies where people can't fathom anything other than what already exists and keep asserting all interesting tropes be rolled into the Fighter.

And what are you giving a rageless barbarian to make it unique?

 

[Emberashh]

And what are you giving a rageless barbarian to make it unique?

To quote from Walt Whitman:

I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable,
I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is a tough problem for designers to address. If the DM isn't into survival, resource management, traps, combat, or any other piece of (or entire) pillar of play assumed by the game, it is going to reduce the effectiveness and fun of playing certain classes and subclasses. How do game designers address this without chiding DMs on engaging in bad-wrong-fun?

The first thing is to ensure that all classes are able to meaningfully contribute to all pillars of play. I think this is where the designers have been giving most of their attention. The main issue I have with their attempts is that I feel that their is less themetic flavor to the classes because by removing the need to have a certain class, you are spreading competency in all areas to all classes. At higher levels, magic users can basically outshine other classes or negate the need for other class's core thematic abilities. This would be less of an issue if magic wasn't so reliable and safe in D&D. If you had some risk to casting spells, like DCC imposes, then you would more likely want to rely on the thief or ranger to do their things rather than risk a bad result or losing a spell for the day. You still have the option to let magic solve an issue when in dire straits, but it wouldn't be your default choice.

The second thing is to have well designed mechanics for all pillars of play that make it feel more core to the game as well as more interesting to run. Some groups are just not going to be into hex crawls and detailed resource management. I find 4e-inspired group skill challenges are a good way to still make exploration-pillar skills meaningful without have to spend a lot of time on playing through travel, hex by hex, for groups that are not into that.

This why I stand by Level Up being the best version of 5e to date. It solves virtually all my problems with it.

WotC should really take some lessons from EN Publishing. Either that or revert to the TSR editions as a base and go full OSR. I'd be cool with that too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Crawford again states that druid is the least played class because of complexity.

Btcause of this, I doubt ODnD will get access to all beasts in wildshape as a core rule.

Except you can still play the 2014 druid in 2024 WotC 5e, according to some folks, so nerfing the new version is irrelevant.

 

[Minigiant]

Because that's the fighters (exclusive) thing.

Which happens every time the fighter has something. Everyone is just like "why can't the ranger/paladin/ect... have it too?".

Fighters would get the extra attacks with no limitations.

I was thinking the reverse mostly.
The Marksman Fighter could get Volley.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Well, that's another $50 to WotC if they have to buy it. I don't see the problem from their point of view.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nah. Druids are complex. Extra reading and extra decision points IS a form of complexity, whether you find that reading or those decisions difficult or not. No one is claiming that they can't be parsed by nearly anyone who makes the effort. It's more that not everyone wants to make the effort. You and your players don't need to feel that way for it to be true for others.

Likely the easiest way to deal with it involves the same solution that the playtest is using for "quick builds" (they way they are saying "You start with these two spells, or two others of your choice"). IF they wind up keeping the monster statblock wildshapes, they can simply say "You turn into a wolf (or another animal of your choice that your DM approves.)" They just need to add some guidance on that.

I don't think the game should be designed around players who don't want to make an effort.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is again why its important to interpret unclear rules in a way that makes the game work.

What you're asserting does not make the game work.

And something to say here too is that theres a denial of player agency going on when you choose to just drop mechanics instead of making them work.

A player who chooses Outlander wants to be able to be a outsider person who knows the land. Interpreting the Backgrounds features in a way that makes the game work doesn't deny them that.

Choosing to just not run exploration because you've decided to interpret the rules in a way that breaks the game absolutely does deny them that agency.

They choose the Background because they're expecting the Wilderness to be challenging and they want to be Johnny on the Spot.

You're not letting them if you've decided to effectively delete the Wilderness just because you don't want to make their abilities work.

Sure, there might be the odd player who gets all whiny if they think their abilities aren't autowins anymore, but at that point its now on the player for not letting the game work as a game, not you the DM.

They could be choosing Outlander precisely because they don't want to deal with wilderness challenges, and that's the easiest way that doesn't consume other resources.

 

[Micah Sweet]

2e didn't bring TSR down. Bad Managment with a lack of focus brought them down.

I will defend 2e to my dying breath.