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)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Right now, I have four, let's say, pain areas that I'm waiting to see what they do with.

1. Half-species
2. Wild shape
3. Pact magic
4. Weapon mastery

Basically, I don't want them to cave on any of them. If any of them go back to 2014, I will seriously consider if upgrading is worth it.

I assume you like the ideas, but perhaps not the specific implementation. What would you like to see changed/fixed about the 1D&D versions before printing?

Here's mine:

1) Some guidance on making custom half-species using balanced swap-outs of "parent's" abilities (a side-bar would probably do it).
2) Custom statblocks based on purpose (and size!), not terrain-type: Tiny Scout; Medium Skirmisher; Large Brute. AND a list of optional plug-in-traits that speak to the specific animal (this is where you put climb/swim/fly speeds and other evocative niche abilities). Moon druid gets some buffs to the base, in particular when it comes to durability.
3) I'm not sure how I'd fix Pact Magic. A half caster seems to please no one (or nearly no one) but it's not enough to just give the extant Warlock some special ability to get around short-rest dependency. That would, IMO, be broken. Warlocks don't really need to be more powerful, they just need to work as intended.
4) Just a little more flavour. I'm not sure how best to do it, but I'd like something that's not quite so "always on" and yet at the same time not all of them created remotely equal. They're better as-is than nothing, though!

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not sure how I'd fix Pact Magic. A half caster seems to please no one (or nearly no one) but it's not enough to just give the extant Warlock some special ability to get around short-rest dependency. That would, IMO, be broken. Warlocks don't really need to be more powerful, they just need to work as intended.

I wouldn't assume that's how the survey results will turn out: I'm quite taken with the half-caster approach, and a number of other people are also.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I wouldn't assume that's how the survey results will turn out: I'm quite taken with the half-caster approach, and a number of other people are also.

I guess we'll see when the Data rolls in. I don't mind the half-caster myself, but my gut says it's pretty unpopular overall. I'm fine with being wrong, here.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I actually have no problem with ranged smites, balance-wise (and I don't think the designers do either). But how many people will turn into ranged "striker" paladins as opposed to the tanky types, because it is safer for the character and technically allowed? That can completely change how paladins are perceived in the lore if that becomes the norm.

I don't think it will really change their perception. A lot of things aren't technically true that have kept the perception in the game.

My bigger issue is that, frankly, I'm utterly confused how divine smiting at range comes into the Ranger's turf. The Ranger can't smite at range, they have no capability to do so, except for a single bad spell. Meanwhile, melee rangers exist and need to be supported. All of the ranger's abilities can work in melee just as easily or even more easily than in range.

So, how is forcing paladins to be melee only, while rangers are melee and ranged saving the rangers design space? I guess if you are going to do that... stop supporting melee rangers and give them better ranged powers. Actually make the difference you claim is there.

 

[Remathilis]

I assume you like the ideas, but perhaps not the specific implementation. What would you like to see changed/fixed about the 1D&D versions before printing?

Here's mine:

1) Some guidance on making custom half-species using balanced swap-outs of "parent's" abilities (a side-bar would probably do it).
2) Custom statblocks based on purpose (and size!), not terrain-type: Tiny Scout; Medium Skirmisher; Large Brute. AND a list of optional plug-in-traits that speak to the specific animal (this is where you put climb/swim/fly speeds and other evocative niche abilities). Moon druid gets some buffs to the base, in particular when it comes to durability.
3) I'm not sure how I'd fix Pact Magic. A half caster seems to please no one (or nearly no one) but it's not enough to just give the extant Warlock some special ability to get around short-rest dependency. That would, IMO, be broken. Warlocks don't really need to be more powerful, they just need to work as intended.
4) Just a little more flavour. I'm not sure how best to do it, but I'd like something that's not quite so "always on" and yet at the same time not all of them created remotely equal. They're better as-is than nothing, though!

1. I don't mind the "pick a species, flavor appearance to taste" method, but WotC has already promised an updated version. What I don't want is a separate half-elf and half-orc with "these are the only two examples of half-species we're going to bother with"
2. The actual stats need work, but I like the template method. I don't want the Monster Manual to be a PC book though, so any spell or effect that reads "grab the big book of monster stats" is a hard no.
3. I don't care if they use half-caster, full caster, or what, but pact magic can die in a fire.
4. I keep seeing people who either want to nerf weapon masteries or remove them for some reason. Best thing warriors have got in a decade and they're mad about doam.

I find these the best major changes to the game so far, and WotC going into full retreat about them would signal to me that 2024 isn't interested in fixing systemic problems. I don't imagine they will all fail, but each one WotC cedes to the critics is a reason I consider saving my money.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Obstacle?

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

There's a difference between "pouring through the monster manual" as casual browsing and actively having the monster manual mechanics at your fingertips. I've played a PF1e Summoner and played it well; I was faster with my turns and my summons than the party bard or cleric (except on the two occasions when I summoned d3+1 giant octopuses as a crowd control spell, each with eight tentacle attacks, each coming with a grab) - but that took a significant amount of prep work between sessions and a literal 33 page electronic character sheet with every stat block I'd want to summon hyperlinked from the contents, complete with the summoning feats added in. I can't imagine how slow and obnoxious that would have been if someone hadn't put the work in between sessions and had instead tried to do it on the fly.

The druid isn't that bad. But it it is not remotely newbie friendly or casual gamer friendly. And a lot of players don't prepare in that way.

 

[TerraDave]

These threads always make me think 1) thank goodness for the surveys and the process and 2) this all about trying to reach that broad audience and not cater to any particular taste--thank goodness!

 

[Shardstone]

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.

Yep, agreed. Personally, I think Druids should get 1 free wild shape a day, and the rest have to be used via spell slots. The higher the spell level, the more tricked out or advanced your animal is. Can be CR, can be templates with options, etc, really easy to pick an approach and just design it out. It'd solve a lot of issues while streamlining the game and, imo, giving the druid a unique feel.

 

[Gladius Legis]

The gating off smite spells to be 100% paladin only is the thing which I hate the most though. Arcane gishes are my favourite character archetype, and 5e is completely incapable of handling them. The smite spells are one of the few ways of mixing magic into weapon strikes in an interesting manner, and yet people want to stop that being possible.

Then they need to make new arcane-flavored spells that are used with weapons but aren't smites. Smiting is a Paladin thing, and it should remain a Paladin thing. Period.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The failure of Wildshape in the packet was one of execution, not concept.

And it's too bad...judging by the sky-is-falling posts in this forum...that people couldn't understand the difference, and therefore gave negative feedback.