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)

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I really really want an Elemental Druid. But the Moon Druid isnt it. The flavor of animal Beasts feels different from the flavor of Elementals.

Elementalism deserves its own dedicated subclass. Its Wildshape should be about becoming Elementals, sometimes conjuring them.

It is more about cosmic Elemental harmony, that protects and expands the "Positive Material Plane".

Yep this. It's honestly shocking that they've tried to squeeze the elemental themed subclass and the beast themed subclass into one thing. Both are huge concepts to the point where both are semi regularly suggested in 'more full classes' threads. Yet WotC doesn't even believe they deserve their own subclass.

 

[mamba]

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.

same, they are all clear improvements and I hope they all make it into 1DD. Those who want to stick to 5e can simply do so, no need to ‘ruin’ 1DD for that

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

We actually agree on two and a half our of four of these. The thing about half-races is that a few half races have an important thematic role. (I'd start with half-elf and half-orc) but it's like elves; having an elf race or a couple of sub-races is a good thing but having 23 of them would just be annoying. A templated "hybrid" race/"Child of two peoples" might work even if it's a little on the nose?

Of course any replacement for pact magic that does not keep its strengths in play of tracking only one level of spell and a number of slots you can count on your fingers deserves to be used as toilet paper. I literally do not see one benefit of giving another class cookie cutter pseudo-vancian magic over actually using the strengths of the class system. If you personally don't like the way a class works you don't have to play it. If on the other hand you remove the only example of a class that works a given way then those that do lose it entirely.

And I do not understand people who want to nerf weapon masteries other than in the sense that there's nothing in them even at L13 that the fighter couldn't reasonably be allowed to do at first level. It's still not even starting to get to the level of a 4e fighter but is at least something.

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.

The thing is the execution was so badly handled that the problems were at the conceptual level. If they'd given build-a-bear options where you picked e.g. defences, attacks, and utility for the forms and those had been either weak or heavily imbalanced that would have been an entirely different kettle of fish to not giving any mechanical way of differentiating between turning into a sloth, turning into a hippo, and turning into a cheetah other than the size.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I really really want an Elemental Druid. But the Moon Druid isnt it. The flavor of animal Beasts feels different from the flavor of Elementals.

Elementalism deserves its own dedicated subclass. Its Wildshape should be about becoming Elementals, sometimes conjuring them.

It is more about cosmic Elemental harmony, that protects and expands the "Positive Material Plane".

Elementalism deserves not just one but multiple subclasses. At the very least a druid subclass and a warlock or a sorcerer subclass (or even both). Possibly multiple as you get the single element elementalists and the four element ones.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

I presume that divine smite at range would give paladins overall higher damaging attacks than rangers do using Hunter's Mark. So when you couple that with paladins probably having higher ACs too with platemail, they end up surpassing rangers on both offense AND defense when at range.

If paladins are going to be having higher damage and defense overall compared to the ranger, at least forcing them into melee results in them having to take the bad along with the good (needing to take all that HP damage). The trade-off rangers get for being slightly worse off on both sides is that they CAN go back and forth from one to the other (plus of course getting to Hide as necessary as well.)

People are always complaining that "ranged combat" is just too good and that nobody should ever be a melee class because they are all inferior to ranged. So turning one of the few better melee classes INTO another ranged class seems to not be the way to solve this problem-- at least not in the base class. Subclass? Sure! Making a Paladin subclass with ranger-esque concepts would be perfectly fine, so long as they balanced the subclass out so as to not overshadow the ranger.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Well... what makes a smite?

Extra damage when you hit with a weapon attack?
Extra RADIANT damage when you hit with a weapon attack?
Extra Damage when you hit with a weapon attack, with a mechanical rider effect?

Because the first one is ubiquitous for classes (see Rage), the third one is also Battlemaster manuevers, and the second one only covers Divine Smite, because many of the smite spells do other types of damage.

So, how would you conceptualize an arcane spell, used with weapons, that isn't a smite? Extra damage based on expending a spell slot? How can you make a spell that doesn't use spell slots?


I'm not saying your idea is wrong, but I'm just curious how you'd differentiate "smiting" from other spells that deal extra damage with riders when you use a weapon attack.

 

[Justice and Rule]

And I do not understand people who want to nerf weapon masteries other than in the sense that there's nothing in them even at L13 that the fighter couldn't reasonably be allowed to do at first level. It's still not even starting to get to the level of a 4e fighter but is at least something.

The problem with Weapon Masteries is that they are... well, sloppy. Things that are going to be happening in a game like D&D where you can have a bunch of martials with 2 or 3 attacks every turn at higher levels. If you are going to attach them to weapons, the effects should be simple and automatic rather than forcing a die roll.

Even smarter than that, though, would be to just give martials maneuvers and have certain maneuvers restricted to certain kinds of weapons (Polearms, piercing, bludgeoning, light, dexterity-based attacks, etc). That way you have way more control over the balance of these things as well as how many are likely to be tossed out.

Well... what makes a smite?

Extra damage when you hit with a weapon attack?
Extra RADIANT damage when you hit with a weapon attack?
Extra Damage when you hit with a weapon attack, with a mechanical rider effect?

Because the first one is ubiquitous for classes (see Rage), the third one is also Battlemaster manuevers, and the second one only covers Divine Smite, because many of the smite spells do other types of damage.

So, how would you conceptualize an arcane spell, used with weapons, that isn't a smite? Extra damage based on expending a spell slot? How can you make a spell that doesn't use spell slots?


I'm not saying your idea is wrong, but I'm just curious how you'd differentiate "smiting" from other spells that deal extra damage with riders when you use a weapon attack.

If I'm being honest, I think Eldritch Knights and other fighter/mages should get something like smite attacks because I think infusing weapons with magic for effects is just a smart, thematic thing for those sorts of archetypes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I presume that divine smite at range would give paladins overall higher damaging attacks than rangers do using Hunter's Mark. So when you couple that with paladins probably having higher ACs too with platemail, they end up surpassing rangers on both offense AND defense when at range.

Eh hand wiggle

An archer Paladin before level 11 is going to be dealing 2d8+modx2, with the option to burst an extra 2d8 to 4d8 damage on a hit.

An archer Ranger in the same level range is going to be dealing 3d8+modx2 with the option to make that 3d8+2d6+modx2 for every turn. A paladin would have to be burning a LOT of smites to make their attacks more damaging, more consistently.

Now, post level 11, it changes up, because the ranger doesn't change, but the paladin ends up dealing 4d8+modx2 with the option to burst, but the ranger needs something at level 11 as well. So, I don't think we are really looking at paladins potentially out-damaging rangers at range. Sure, they have slightly better defense, but it ends up being a single point between half-plate and full plate. The bigger difference is usually due to having a shield.

And this doesn't account for the melee ranger. Again, if we are talking sustained damage potential, the melee ranger who decides to go PAM (because they can) does 2d10+1d8+1d4+3d6+modx3. Which is REALLY impressive damage that the Paladin only really starts beating post level 11.

If paladins are going to be having higher damage and defense overall compared to the ranger, at least forcing them into melee results in them having to take the bad along with the good (needing to take all that HP damage). The trade-off rangers get for being slightly worse off on both sides is that they CAN go back and forth from one to the other (plus of course getting to Hide as necessary as well.)

1) They aren't worse at melee damage til mid-tiers
2) This ignores how people play. No one actually has a character who is actually equally good in melee or ranged, they always specialize.
3) Paladins can ALSO go back and forth. A paladin can use a bow, they just tend to not focus on dex and they can't use most of their damage abilities.

4) How is it protecting class identity to have 1 class that can seamlessly switch between range and melee in terms of their damage abilities, while another is locked in?

Additionally, what about Fighters being able to switch between range and melee? With that taken into account you only have the barbarian, the paladin, and the Monk who are forced into melee roles.

People are always complaining that "ranged combat" is just too good and that nobody should ever be a melee class because they are all inferior to ranged. So turning one of the few better melee classes INTO another ranged class seems to not be the way to solve this problem-- at least not in the base class. Subclass? Sure! Making a Paladin subclass with ranger-esque concepts would be perfectly fine, so long as they balanced the subclass out so as to not overshadow the ranger.

The subclass wouldn't be able to outshine the ranger, from what I'm seeing. Not until levels 11+

And frankly, would just having the option really make Paladins a ranged only class? I've seen melee rangers. I've seen melee fighters. Nothing about them is bad or sub-optimal, but both classes can trivially be ranged instead. I don't see giving the option as removing a melee character, just opening up new ways to play a ranged character. Especially with a concept that a lot of people like.

 

[Justice and Rule]

If a ranged Paladin is a threat to a Ranger, maybe the Ranger needs to be buffed? Just a thought. It's not like the Ranger is particularly overpowered right now.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

People are always complaining that "ranged combat" is just too good and that nobody should ever be a melee class because they are all inferior to ranged.

I do think that melee/strength based combat needs buffs, but I'd rather buff strength/melee up to the level of dex/ranged than do the opposite and nerf ranged/dex down.

Because either way, the full casters are laughing at both.