D&D (2024) New Survey Results | Druid & Paladin | Unearthed Arcana | D&D

WotC has shared a new video going over the survey results following the drud and paladin playtests for One D&D.

​

For those who don't have time to watch the video, here are some general notes.

Paladin

• Did extremely well in terms of satisfaction
• All class and subclass features scored 70% or higher - lowest was Divine Smite at 72%
• Got some pushback in written feedback on being able to smite on ranged attacks - class identity concerns, Paladin viewed as melee-centric class, ranged smites might eat into Cleric/Ranger identity too much
• Positive feedback on redesigned smite spells - may become paladin exclusive spells down the road

Druid

• Wild Shape feedback seems to be split - slight majority saying "never want this Wild Shape in print", slight minority saying "this is their favorite version of Wild Shape they've ever seen"
• People love the texture and differences in beast options in '14 Wild Shape, but are open to feature being easier to use (i.e. don't want players to have to weigh the merits of 100+ stat blocks every time they want to use Wild Shape)
• Will have another take on Wild Shape next time Druid appears in Playtest UA
• General concept of Channel Nature seems to have gone over well, but want to see more done with it
• Expected feedback for restoring elemental forms for Moon Druids, but instead found people wanted to lean more into Lunar themes
• Want Moon Druid forms to be more resilient, but still want to reign in power at high levels (frequent/unlimited uses of Wild Shape constantly refreshing HP total)

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Obstacle?

What D&D fan doesn’t like pouring thru the monster manual?

It just strikes me as an absurd conjecture.

One of my players in her second campaign ever loved it. She mentioned it was like having a real book animal knowledge.

It is absolutely an obstacle. People don't memorize stat blocks. When there is a new circumstance that needs a solution, but it isn't obvious, I've had to be that druid player that felt the need to page through my options in the Monster Manual, slowing the game down. It can also be a mother-may-I situation. Because that happens.

"Hmm, I want to stop an enemy from getting away, so which is the most powerful form I can opt into at this level with which I can pounce or grapple that enemy? Spends some time looking stuff up. Perhaps Saber-toothed Tiger? Amphisbaena? Two-Headed Crocodile? Hmmm, DM, can I be any of those Beasts from DDB? They are in official books."

In comparison, have you noticed in the mage-playtest threads that some mage players want class-specific spells to live in the class description, because they don't want to have to look them up in the spell chapter, which would be in the same book? If people think it would a pain to have to look up a spell in the same book, they are gonna hate going to a different book.

Additionally, some DMs don't want the players referencing the Monster Manual during the session, to read up on monster stat blocks. Because that happens.

 

[Vael]

We'll see how the next Druid looks, but I don't want to go back to hunting through the MM. Sure, in 2014 it was kinda fun. But ... it's often a false choice, there's a lot of dross and only a few (sometimes one when we talk aquatic or flying) options at certain CR. Take out dinosaurs (something a lot of DMs have done, IME) and the number of higher CR beasts drops off dramatically.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

We are supposed to be playing a game, not pausing while one player is doing a shopping trip through the Monster Manual + whatever other books are lying around (and then ending up picking the one powerful option, rather than anything thematic to their character).

Templates (with customization options) are the only practical way to do something like shapeshift.

 

[TwoSix]

Personally, I don't like the "MM block" approach or the template approach.

Wild shapes should have specificity, but they should also be accessible and open to the player. We already have game rules that are specific and open to the player, we call them "spells". Wild shape forms should have their own chapter, and be specific to both the animal shape and oriented around being player facing.

Turning into tiny creatures and harmless prey animals should be the equivalent of learning cantrips, whereas turning into large, monstrous predators should be the equivalent of a high-level spell.

WotC also needs to remove the fiction that a druid can learn animal forms just by observing the animal in the wild; acquiring a powerful wild shape form should be similar to a wizard learning a high-level spell. The druid should only have access to a few strong forms.

When new Monster Manuals come out, they can also have a small appendix giving Wild Shape blocks for the new monsters that are intended to be available to the Druid as learnable Wildshape forms.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Obstacle?

What D&D fan doesn’t like pouring thru the monster manual?

It just strikes me as an absurd conjecture.

One of my players in her second campaign ever loved it. She mentioned it was like having a real book animal knowledge.

There's a difference between love of reading through the MM(s) and having to do it during actual play. That's the real sticking point. Not to mention any analysis paralysis/overthinking when the pressure is on to make a decision during the game.

 

[Emberashh]

We are supposed to be playing a game, not pausing while one player is doing a shopping trip through the Monster Manual + whatever other books are lying around (and then ending up picking the one powerful option, rather than anything thematic to their character).

Templates (with customization options) are the only practical way to do something like shapeshift.

I don't think so. What could be done instead is to have the stats be universal (which is thematic; especially given most shapeshifters in media tend to transfer their wounds to their other forms, so it follows logically that theres some commonality regardless of the specific form), and then special abilities can be consolidated and even mixed/matched to suit whatever arbitrary form.

Done that way you don't need a bunch of statblocks, just a list no more obtuse than invocations or the massive spell list that the druid already contends with.

The stat blocks aren't really what people are married to, but even then, theres nothing saying certain special abilities can't come with stat modifiers. It makes sense that, say, a "Gnashing Maw" ability comes with a +X to Strength or that a "Swift Slash" with a +X to Dex, and with the base stats being standardized (or at least predictable, if we say that the Druids stats in human form just transfer over) then it can be pretty trivial to design these stat riders to correlate with the real statblocks.

It also incidentally gives a big incentive to give beasts a more indepth design, as more special abilities means you can split up the stat riders more easily, which in turn means the game has more control over how powerful a shapeshifter can be and when.

Say a bear has three specials, and we assume the bear would need to boost Str, Dex, and Con. If a Druid at a certain level can only take 1 or two abilities at a time (with more coming at later levels) then that lets you keep things balanced and removes any need to be overly conservative with beast design. Some abilities could even be level locked to further alleviate thay concern, and it wouldn't be too out of the question as theres a logic in some beast forms not just being available to a measly level 1 Druid. (After all, thats how Druid works in 5e anyway, even if CR is a cruddy way to do it)

 

[mellored]

My biggest issue with the MM approach (assuming they rebalance the monsters) is that they don't scale.

If I have a character that was raised by wolves, I shouldn't have to stop being a wolf at high level.

Growing into a giant thunder wolf is ok. Turning into a mammoth or earth elemental isn't.

 

[Emberashh]

There's a difference between love of reading through the MM(s) and having to do it during actual play. That's the real sticking point. Not to mention any analysis paralysis/overthinking when the pressure is on to make a decision during the game.

I think this issue just underpins the necessity to both normalize player prep but also to not be so weird about segregating material. If the players need the info it should be in the PHB.

And in fact, Id go as far as to argue that if theres going to be separate books for players and GM, then they should be the only two books in tbe core game, and the info within should be both identical and tailored to the expected audience.

Ie, you get the same statblocks in both books. This doesn't mean some things cannot be withheld for the GM; weaknesses and vulnerabilities for instance could absolutely be GM specific, and for shapeshifting reasons theres an easy logic to it in that it would make sense that merely taking an animals form doesn't necessarily tell you what its weaknesses are, nor does it mean you the shapeshifter have those weaknesses.

 

[Deekin]

I think this is the fundamental issue they are faced with. There's precious little design space where a full-caster can pick up an exhaustive and defining second major ability that is both engaging and useful but not overpowering*. To then make a major subclass of the class be defined as 'and has a more-powerful version of this ability' was a questionable choice to begin with.

I mean, there's a pretty easy solution to this problem staring thr design team in the face. It's even from the same playtest document.

Let the Moon druid spend spellslots to supercharge their wildshape. You get lots of options, but at a cost that curs into their full casting.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Personally, I don't like the "MM block" approach or the template approach.

Wild shapes should have specificity, but they should also be accessible and open to the player. We already have game rules that are specific and open to the player, we call them "spells". Wild shape forms should have their own chapter, and be specific to both the animal shape and oriented around being player facing.

Turning into tiny creatures and harmless prey animals should be the equivalent of learning cantrips, whereas turning into large, monstrous predators should be the equivalent of a high-level spell.

WotC also needs to remove the fiction that a druid can learn animal forms just by observing the animal in the wild; acquiring a powerful wild shape form should be similar to a wizard learning a high-level spell. The druid should only have access to a few strong forms.

When new Monster Manuals come out, they can also have a small appendix giving Wild Shape blocks for the new monsters that are intended to be available to the Druid as learnable Wildshape forms.

If you're going to do that, they might as well BE SPELLS. I mean this as a good thing: What's wrong with making a bunch of shapeshifting spells (more than just Polymorph). That way, they can balance the power of the animal you turn into using spell levels; more than just Druids could theoretically do it; AND you can still give Druids free access and "free castings" (using Channel Nature).