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)

 

[Incenjucar]

Templates also have a stealth benefit of giving the DM ideas for homebrew, and providing room for weirder wildshape options in the future, like some sort of chimeric druid or ooze druid.

 

[tetrasodium]

Templates also have a stealth benefit of giving the DM ideas for homebrew, and providing room for weirder wildshape options in the future, like some sort of chimeric druid or ooze druid.

I think that the numbers in those templates themselves caused a good bit of their well deserved scorn. Look at the AC... 10+wis?... so by the time a druid has enough wis to be closing in on the starting AC of a level one paladin rolling up to their first session the paladin in that same packet is almost certainly in plate or better. 1d8+wis for attacks & use your base HP on top of that is just sad. It lacks defense lacks offense. It lacks durability....

The templates are so bad mechanically that it's almost as if numbers were chosen to ensure they polled poorly. Adding the ability to cast abjuration spells that would mainly need to come from multiclassing only serves to highlight the absence of good in the templates that might have been capable of making up the difference in a way that creates some kind of niche.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That's why I like using base stat blocks augmented by the Druid's wildshape at higher levels for Moon Druids. Something like the below could work even better for Moon Druids than giving them access to higher CR beasts.

3rd Level
DC of the beasts abilities equal to the Druid Spellcasting DC
Attack Bonus equal to druid spellcasting attack
Temp HP equal to 5x Druid Level

5th Level
Can Enlarge/Reduce when you transform
2 attacks when you take attack action
Add Prof Bonus to AC

11th Level
+1d8 force damage when you hit with an attack

15th level
Choose one of the beasts ability scores. That score becomes a 20, and you have advantage on skill checks using that ability.

So your Wolf themed Druid sees their wolf form become increasingly powerful as they level, with the ability to wreck things at 15th. For the multi form druid, they know their going to get a solid baseline regardless of the form they choose, all of which are in the PHB.

But that doesn't solve the problems as much as it just changes the numbers slightly. Plus certain features might not combine well with others: if an animal has two attacks, they get nothing from that upgrade feature. Everything you outline here would be done better with set of base statistic that are modified by creature features, which are designed to be leveled up over time.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think that the numbers in those templates themselves caused a good bit of their well deserved scorn. Look at the AC... 10+wis?... so by the time a druid has enough wis to be closing in on the starting AC of a level one paladin rolling up to their first session the paladin in that same packet is almost certainly in plate or better. 1d8+wis for attacks & use your base HP on top of that is just sad. It lacks defense lacks offense. It lacks durability....

The templates are so bad mechanically that it's almost as if numbers were chosen to ensure they polled poorly. Adding the ability to cast abjuration spells that would mainly need to come from multiclassing only serves to highlight the absence of good in the templates that might have been capable of making up the difference in a way that creates some kind of niche.

While the execution needs work, should a full progression spellcaster be compared to a paladin?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Templates also have a stealth benefit of giving the DM ideas for homebrew, and providing room for weirder wildshape options in the future, like some sort of chimeric druid or ooze druid.

I agree! Assuming the template format has those extra optional "bestial abilities" to choose from, it opens up more design space for new subclasses (or alternate class abilities) that add cool new "bestial abilities" that reflect specialized forms, like oozes, swarms, and monstrous options.

 

[Incenjucar]

Something they really need to consider, too, is wild shape "rituals" which are basically just using your animal abilities in a way that is too time-consuming to just do in combat, but are good for exploration. Being able to burrow, gnaw through wood, get a survival foraging bonus, lay out an actual web, etc. could be fun and interesting. Imagine if your druid turned into a beaver and built a dam to flood out the red dragon's lair!

 

[mellored]

The overlap and fuzziness is a problem if you are demanding that arcane spells be completely different from smites.

No reason they could be on both lists.

Searing smite should be on both arcane and divine. IMO.

Just as an example, we have Thunderous Smite, which does thunder damage, and knocks someone prone (which is tripping).

Sounds more primal.
It's a smite by smite basis.

But "on a hit, do something extra" isn't a class specific feature.

 

[Gorck]

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.

I plant my feet firmly on the pro-template side of the fence. But, reading the bold statements makes me scratch my head. Appendix D of the Players handbook (pages 304 - 311) lists 25 different Beasts that can be Wild Shaped into (as well as a handful of Familiar options and a couple of Undead that can be summoned).

 

[Mistwell]

Can't they just break the MM beasts up into broad categories for the templates, and then offer a host of add-on options based on a points budget that progresses with level?

It's not like beasts don't fall into broad categories. I bet there's around 15 of them, which isn't a lot of stat blocks to include those generic categories as baseline templates. Something like:

Pack Animal (Horse, Mule, Camel, etc.)
Canine (Wolf, Hyena, etc)
Feline (Lion, Tiger, etc)
Bear (Brown, Cave, etc)
Primate (Ape, Gorilla, etc)
Burrowing (Badger, Hare, etc)
Snake (Constrictor, Poisonous, etc)
Dinosaur (Deinonychus, Raptor, etc)
Herd (Cow, Elk, Roth, Etc)
Aquatic (Dolphin, Octopus, etc)
Spider (Giant, Ice, etc)
Insect (Centipede, Scorpion, etc)
Bird (Owl, Bat, etc)
Lizard (Giant, Crocodile, etc)
Swarm (Various)

I am sure I am missing a few categories but you get the idea. And then with a line about "You are free to choose a beast not listed provided your DM approves an appropriate category for that beast from those listed."

Then offer add-ons which each have a base cost drawing from a pool which scales with level. Others have mentioned this but flight, stealth, defense, offense, speed, special attacks, special movement, additional hit points, etc..

That should be enough for the portion of Druid fans that wants the freedom to choose any beast in the setting, and for those who want to customize a baseline template.

 

[Incenjucar]

Real life animals at the scale at which they can harm humans on land honestly don't have that absurd of variation in how they do so. Things get a little wackier when you get undersea, but even then that's just a few more variations. If you start making giant versions of things or using extinct animals, it gets more complex, but it isn't that hard to just come up with a list. The SRD monsters aren't very hard to break down into a few abilities and strength vs. mobility templates.