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)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Yep. That’s why I’m so dead set on
3-5 types like pack hunter, ambush hunter, protector, scout, harrier, entangler (spiders and snakes and such), etc,
choose special senses,
choose movement,
choose second attack option (types gives main attack option),
choose bestial ability/quirk.

Everything else is determined by the Druid’s stats or simply by level.

I’ve been using the same paradigm for the “pack master” ranger subclass I made, and it’s awesome.

I’m considering adding a spirit form at level 5 for the ranger, and it already has an aura at level 11, which makes the pack master into a team player even moreso than other rangers, and something similar could be done for the Druid.

 

[Mistwell]

Yep. That’s why I’m so dead set on
3-5 types like pack hunter, ambush hunter, protector, scout, harrier, entangler (spiders and snakes and such), etc,
choose special senses,
choose movement,
choose second attack option (types gives main attack option),
choose bestial ability/quirk.

Everything else is determined by the Druid’s stats or simply by level.

I’ve been using the same paradigm for the “pack master” ranger subclass I made, and it’s awesome.

I’m considering adding a spirit form at level 5 for the ranger, and it already has an aura at level 11, which makes the pack master into a team player even moreso than other rangers, and something similar could be done for the Druid.

That is a better and more concise list than my list of 15 categories. Not sure it would please those who like to choose from a larger group of animal types, but I personally like your proposal for my preferences.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Bad execution does not mean a bad idea.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No reason they could be on both lists.

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

Okay, maybe you have @Gladius Legis blocked, but that is a complete 180 from the point I was responding to. Which, to quote them here was "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."

They wanted arcane flavored spells that fill the niche of smites, that were not smites. Which is why I asked about the definition of smites, which you have now led to this idea that certain smites should be arcane and divine. Well, if we do that... then there is no need to niche protect smites, because you are then just protecting certain types of smite spells. Which is a whole different animal.

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

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

And so, if we take your tack, then we can't make smites a "paladin only" option, because there are smites that make sense under various options. And at that point... why bother trying to protect this "identity" that isn't a real identity.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That is a better and more concise list than my list of 15 categories. Not sure it would please those who like to choose from a larger group of animal types, but I personally like your proposal for my preferences.

Thank you! I think if each choice point had 3-6 options, it would stay within the “easy to use” zone, while allowing the modeling of just aboot every beast in the book.

And make it easy to include Fey and Monstrosities if you want. My draft of the Pack Master has special traits and special attack options to model blink dogs, displacer beasts, even winter wolves.

 

[Incenjucar]

There really should be some more specific design around concepts to help define and differentiate them, but that may be too late for 5E. Paladin smites should be unique from other class's abilities in a clear, specific way, even if other classes get something in the same ballpark. You should be able to tell what is and is not a smite by reading how it works.

 

[tetrasodium]

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

Couple good reasons
Reason one:
It doesn't require paladin specific class abilities or magic items, just mundane equipment that many classes can start the game with.
Reason two:
Because the packet was called UA-2023-DruidandPaladin making the two classes a pair that was released in Tandem. Bard & rogue were in a different packet & could have been targeting a different assumed power level or the druid & paladin packet could have been aimed at a different power level than that earlier packet after crunching feedback they got.

Reason three:
You could compare it to any of the playtest packet classes we have so far & still walk away with nothing but "uhh... I'm trying and not seeing any niche" they were aiming for. Also being in wildshape effectively cuts off casting simply because the "abjuration spells" ability on page 8 of that packet only allows casting of the following spells levels one to nine: "cure wounds, healing word, Lesser restoration, prayer of healing, beacon of hope, dispel magic, remove curse, aura of life, aura of purity, death ward, circle of power, mass cure wounds, heal, mass heal, power word heal" due to limiting options to abjuration spells with no material component. Nothing about gp value of that component, simply "a material component".

Given how limited that 15 spell list is a wildshaped moon druid is so extremely constrained as a caster that it might be a stretch to say that functionally they even rise to the level of simply being as good a caster as a paladin.

Bad execution does not mean a bad idea.

@Chaosmancer That's not the point I was making. That point is how the execution is so awful it gives the impression of someone trying to lower poll results for that idea. I guess it's also possible that the playtest druid was still paying for the sins of the 3.x CoDzilla as an alternate but that druid struggles to present itself as a class with any niche beyond "Alice showed up so we are letting her play her moon druid with us because it's the class she wants to play... still..".

 

[mellored]

Okay, maybe you have @Gladius Legis blocked, but that is a complete 180 from the point I was responding to. Which, to quote them here was "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."

I don't have him blocked.
I simply have my own opinion.

They wanted arcane flavored spells that fill the niche of smites, that were not smites.

Yea, people can get a bit weird about it.

But, it can be "Thunderous Strike".
And leave "Smite" to be a Paladin thing (with near identical features)

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer That's not the point I was making. That point is how the execution is so awful it gives the impression of someone trying to lower poll results for that idea. I guess it's also possible that the playtest druid was still paying for the sins of the 3.x CoDzilla as an alternate but that druid struggles to present itself as a class with any niche beyond "Alice showed up so we are letting her play her moon druid with us because it's the class she wants to play... still..".

I mean, you can assume they were intentionally wasting people's time with a bad product... but it is rather obvious from listening to the video that that wasn't the case. This doesn't read like an intentional sinking of a concept, but as a first draft that was attempting to reach multiple goals. It did so badly, but not in a way that feels like it was intentionally malicious.

And, I completely disagree that it lacked a niche. It had a very very clear niche. It just filled that niche poorly. But again, bad execution of an idea does not inherently mean the idea was bad, or that they were sabotaging the idea. It just means they executed the idea poorly.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't have him blocked.
I simply have my own opinion.

I mean, that's fine, but you seemed like you were responding in the same vein as them at first, then completely abandoned the point.

Yea, people can get a bit weird about it.

But, it can be "Thunderous Strike".
And leave "Smite" to be a Paladin thing (with near identical features)

I mean... I don't deeply care about paladins having smites as unique, and this reads like you don't either. Because at that point they are identical features, just with a name change. And that is far too much effort compared to just giving out the same feature.

We don't need to clutter the game with identical abilities and features that do the exact same thing, just under a different name.