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)

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

On the other hand, the casters in the party might each summon dozens of badgers. Each of which gets their own turn and full allotment of actions.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's weird how 'divine themed entity with ranged weapon' is such a common trope in fantasy, but DnD tries to pretend it doesn't exist.

Very weird.

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.

And yet they claimed to have covered all the common tropes and archetypes when they were ramping up to Xanathar’s.

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.

Hunter’s Mark can stack with weapon attack spells if they get changed to how smite spells work, that’s a start. HM could also have higher damage. The ranger also gets at will damage buffs in the subclasses, though, so ignoring that gives an innacurate read of the situation.

Ranged Paladin shouldn’t need a subclass, and the Ranger is not a ranged class, it’s a class that can do both.

Maybe instead of "Hunter's Mark" for the Ranger, they should have "Nature's Smite" which would be a ranged version of Divine Smite with appropriate damage type for Rangers.

They should probably also port over Eldritch Smite as an invocation from Tasha's for the Warlock if they decide to keep them a half caster as well.

Or for the love of all things good the classes can remain distinct.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

Booming Blade?

 

[Justice and Rule]

Booming Blade?

More like "I hit you and you are pushed back from the thunderclap" or letting people swing an axe around, burst attack of sound or something. Again, I really hadn't looked hard at how to do it or how to balance it, but I wanted something that went beyond just casting cantrips and more channeling magic into attacks.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Maybe instead of "Hunter's Mark" for the Ranger, they should have "Nature's Smite" which would be a ranged version of Divine Smite with appropriate damage type for Rangers.

They should probably also port over Eldritch Smite as an invocation from Tasha's for the Warlock if they decide to keep them a half caster as well.

For Rangers, they should have a smite-style attack that puts a little extra damage but causes status effects. Bloody mark for bleeding damage, hobbling mark to slow a target, dazing mark to maybe stun it in some way, etc.

Really, if you want a niche, a martial who debuffs specific targets would not be a bad one for the Ranger.

 

[Weiley31]

I have no problems with Ranged Divine Smites at all.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

More like "I hit you and you are pushed back from the thunderclap" or letting people swing an axe around, burst attack of sound or something. Again, I really hadn't looked hard at how to do it or how to balance it, but I wanted something that went beyond just casting cantrips and more channeling magic into attacks.

I get you. Booming Blade is fine and all, but it's hardly the best way to mechanically model the things that a gish ought to do. In fact, when I see it in action, it tends to feel a bit... spammed. It's also unfortunately boring (IMO) and somehow hard to narrate (at least with much variety). "You strike the orc and he quivers uncomfortably. Then he decides to rush you but blows up in a spray of gore." (Next round). "Uh... that orc does the same, except he doesn't die, so I guess he just makes a popping noise and is hurt?"

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I have no problems with Ranged Divine Smites at all.

Nor I. From the feedback I've read here, I'd say that the best middle-ground option is probably one of these three: 1) Allow ranged smites with slightly reduced damage (d6s); 2) Allow ranged smites but only make it available with a subclass (consider the above in addition); 3) Make a ranged smite spell available, probably along with the above, but possible for other paladin builds to take.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Really, if you want a niche, a martial who debuffs specific targets would not be a bad one for the Ranger.

But if it has a clear niche, it's not really DnD Ranger, is it!

...I'd love a combination of boldly making Ranger the animal companion support skill class.

 

[tetrasodium]

On the other hand, the casters in the party might each summon dozens of badgers. Each of which gets their own turn and full allotment of actions.

They might, that's probably a big part of why those zerg mobs of low CR trash relying on bounded accuracy crutches to gain efficacy tend to get AoE'd away & why we have TCoE spells like summon undead summon construct & so on. Have we seen the oned&d versions of conjure fey/woodland beasts & such yet?