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.

 

[Gorck]

Ahhh. Thanks!

Yeah, that one took me a while to figure out when I first started reading these forums. They're listed in the PHB as Personality Trait, Bonds, Ideal, & Flaws, which would make the acronym PTBIF - which doesn't really roll off the tongue well. But eventually, probably based on the context clues, I concluded that people were dropping the "Personality" and moving "Traits" it to the end to make a more pronounceable term.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I can't say I'm fond of the "BIFT"s. I find them at once too much work and not enough payoff. Too much work in that I don't feel like writing them down when I'm making a character (which is already a bit of an involved job). And yet, they don't say a whole lot about a character either, IMO. A couple of lines per? Not enough.

ALSO, they show up in character creation. I don't know my character all that well yet at that point. I'd like to play them a bit first. Then, I'd probably be able to write much, much more than a couple of lines of text.

And one more thing: I don't particularly like most of what's prewritten for them. I'd hate to pick them off the 1d6 lists (or worse, roll for them). It's just not how I get into my character's heads.

I've played with plenty of new players who've ignored them enough to outright contradict what's written on their sheet. Are they wrong to do so? Are they playing their character wrong, or is it just that what they have written there is wrong?

Shrug. I think the idea of them is good, but I don't like them.

 

[wizard71]

I do find it interesting that they did not mention that only allowing fighters to crit on natural 20's was universally panned.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Shrug. I think the idea of them is good, but I don't like them.

If at all this should be done at 3rd level. Usually at level 1 you don't have a clue how your character really behaves. At least that is my experience.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If at all this should be done at 3rd level. Usually at level 1 you don't have a clue how your character really behaves. At least that is my experience.

Yeah, exactly. I'd like to get to know them a little before trying to boil them down to ~six sentences!

 

[Remathilis]

If at all this should be done at 3rd level. Usually at level 1 you don't have a clue how your character really behaves. At least that is my experience.

And yet people complain you have to wait to third level before picking your subclass...

 

[Emberashh]

The thing about BIFTS is that they're mechanically meaningless and largely superfluous to roleplay unless you deliberately adhere to them beyond the mechanical requirements of the game.

Which tends to be because its a mechanic thats trying to appeal to people who want heavy, mechanical roleplaying and people who want freeform roleplaying at the same time, and not really doing either very well.

 

[Incenjucar]

Sounds like these should just be handy little random tables for idea generation for folks who are struggling to come up with a character.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And yet people complain you have to wait to third level before picking your subclass...

Yes. I can't understand them at all.

 

[Emberashh]

Depending on what story is being told by the class and subclass, it makes sense that some would be at 3rd instead of 1st.

A Cleric can't really start out adventuring as just a generic "cleric". Thats odd and even absent any questions of gods, it doesn't tonally fit. You're either a cleric of something or you're not a cleric.

Whereas a Fighter can just be a Fighter, and then become a Knight, or an Archer, or a Weeaboo Fightan Magic Man after having adventured some.