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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay, well let's put the "just write a book" argument to the side as that is always such a ridiculously extreme jump in an argument that it serves no purpose to the conversation.

That being said... so for you it's merely the name of the class? If the game has something named a certain way then you want to use that thing... even if the way it's used does not match up to what you want it to do? Okay, fair enough. Again, I can intellectually understand that way of thinking and can't argue with it, I just personally don't tend to subscribe to it because it seems to me to be needlessly prohibitive. For me, refluffing exists and I find it very useful to get a better match between what I want both mechanically and narratively. But to each their own.

I tend to see refluffing as a crutch needed to support incomplete game design.

 

[Undrave]

To quote from Walt Whitman:

I'm not sure I get how that translates to gameplay.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You know 5e don't have that for...several reasons, but older edition have, like Illumian in Races of Destiny which are "humanoid creatures with the human subtype"

Illumins were pretty cool.

 

[Emberashh]

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.

And thats something that needs to be resolved by Session Zero, regardless of the state of the background.

 

[Arilyn]

In 2014 edition, druids should write down the stat blocks for the animals they turn into regularly on index cards. For most druids that'll be 2 combat forms and maybe couple more for movement. The times the druid picks something unusual, the druid probably doesn't need a stat block, turning into a mountain goat to climb the rocky hill, for example. As druids gain levels, they might replace favourites, or add a few more stat cards.

I have found this greatly reduces the sense of complexity. It's a little extra prep but if you are playing a druid, writing up a few favourites shouldn't be a chore. This is where wild shape at 2nd level is helpful. The new player has had some time to get used to things before adding in shapeshifting. Now druids gain wildshape at 1st level. This is another example of conflicting priorities in the design.

 

[Emberashh]

I'm not sure I get how that translates to gameplay.

The main hint was Barbaric Yawp. Yell very loudly and shatter man and magic.

But incidentally, the rest of that excerpt also touches on the Barbarians actual core ability, Outlander, which builds up some similar party buffs to what we see in Rangers, but also escalates from being able to regularly convince enemy Barbarians to fight for you to calling on up to 5000 of them at will to be your personal horde.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

How does giving a class magic in 5e make it unique?

 

[Arilyn]

How does giving a class magic in 5e make it unique?

This is what I've always disliked in 5e. Too many spellcasters. And the wizard the only one who has to actually study it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I tend to see refluffing as a crutch needed to support incomplete game design.

All game design is incomplete by virtue of the infinity of imagination. Even a game like 3E doesn't have all the elements needed to create any character concept a person can think of. Refluffing is often the only way to translate certain elements into other ideas.

But if refluffing isn't your bag, there's nothing wrong with playing with only the concepts and ideas the book can give you. It's up to each person to decide what they prefer... playing the concepts the book provides, or refluff certain things to go with ideas that the game doesn't. Neither way is right or wrong.

 

[mellored]

How does giving a class magic in 5e make it unique?

Depends on what spells you get.
A character who launched fireballs is different from one who heals.

So if you have 3 spell lists, that's 3 classes.