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)

 

[Minigiant]

I gotta be missing something.

How does one lead to the other?

Because of the "generalization" or "omission" of mechanics for many classic ranger features, the ranger mostly reverted into a sneaky magic skirmisher/archer. This makes itsharetoo many tropes and mechanical feel with a possible ranger paladin.

Therefore to get a balanced ranged paladin nd matain class identity,you'd have to either:

1) reintroduce the older ranger mechanics
2) redesign the ranger and paladin
or
3) redesign the ranger and some other class like fighter or rogue

This are all major design decisions which heavily cut down your buying audience for just ranged smite.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The 5e ranger and 5e paladin = WOTC

No, they're Creative Commons. (EDIT: Or, rather, they will be soon.)

If yu want balanced ranged smiter 5e paladin, you need to find a company that redesign both classes with 5e.

Keep an open mind about the stuff that Kobold Press and Cubicle 7 are going to be rolling out in the next few months. Instead of being frustrated with what WotC fails to do, I think other companies will likely come to the rescue here.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because of the "generalization" or "omission" of mechanics for many classic ranger features, the ranger mostly reverted into a sneaky magic skirmisher/archer. This makes itsharetoo many tropes and mechanical feel with a possible ranger paladin.

Therefore to get a balanced ranged paladin nd matain class identity,you'd have to either:

1) reintroduce the older ranger mechanics
2) redesign the ranger and paladin
or
3) redesign the ranger and some other class like fighter or rogue

This are all major design decisions which heavily cut down your buying audience for just ranged smite.

I think you’re otherthinking this. They could just allow ranged smites. Job done.

Like they didn’t hesitate to make a scout rogue, and the ranger isn’t a ranged class. It’s a class that can do both. Some other class being good at archery doesn’t hurt them at all.

 

[Minigiant]

Keep an open mind about the stuff that Kobold Press and Cubicle 7 are going to be rolling out in the next few months. Instead of being frustrated with what WotC fails to do, I think other companies will likely come to the rescue here.

Might point is no one will do it because making a ranged smiter paladin in a game with game with good class identity is not a simple task.

Designing the ranged smiter paladin because "you like it" likely forces designing in something "you don't like" or the community doesn't.

Designing stuff in because "I think its cool. Screw balance or extra work" is how the wizard got out of wack.

 

[mamba]

The Wizard should not have the wider access to shapechange forms than the shapechange-dedicated druid. They especially shouldn't have exclusive T-rex access.

they don’t, the form of the Druid shapechange is not limited, they just end up with different stats

 

[Minigiant]

I think you’re otherthinking this. They could just allow ranged smites. Job done.

Like they didn’t hesitate to make a scout rogue, and the ranger isn’t a ranged class. It’s a class that can do both. Some other class being good at archery doesn’t hurt them at all.

You're underthinking this.

The ranger isn't a ranged class. It's also a melee class and a stealth class.
If you give the the paladin ranged smite you are encroaching on both the ranger and the fighter.
Therefore to add the ranged smite, you have to redesign the ranger. And redesign the ranger without encroaching on the fighter and rogue.
Plus redesign the paladin to make melee paladin still viable.

That's why WOTC and practically no 3PP has doone it. It is not worth the trouble.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm generally a fan of templates in this instance (provided they have suitable customization options), but I do get where they're coming from to some degree.

It's a different can of worms, but I really don't like the prospect of bespoke half-elf and half-orc racial/ancestral/species statblocks being discarded in favor of the current "pick a parent" reflavoring method, because it feels to me like it effectively guts the ability to have a truly "mixed" mixed-ancestry character and turns it into a purely cosmetic paint job over the character's "real" ancestry.

I don't like the implication that a Khoravar half-elf from Eberron that would have to trace their family tree back a thousand years to find an ancestor that was fully human or elf still has to be fully one or the other as far as the game is concerned. If they can't mechanically draw on both their ancestries, they stop feeling like Khoravar to me...

Under the current system, the only time that being mixed will ever be relevant is if their natural lifespan becomes a factor for once - like if they're fighting a lot of ghosts...

I don't think they're going to stick with the "just refluff a parent" thing. In the very least, I expect to see some guidance on mixing a few species' features to create your mix.

I can't say I really understand how this connects to monsters, though if I read you right, you're just saying that you can understand people being reluctant to being told to take an unsatisfactory chunk of mechanics and just handwave it? Sure, yeah, but hopefully we'll get through the playtest with some more satisfying mechanics. It's the point of the thing, after all.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You're underthinking this.

The ranger isn't a ranged class. It's also a melee class and a stealth class.
If you give the the paladin ranged smite you are encroaching on both the ranger and the fighter.
Therefore to add the ranged smite, you have to redesign the ranger. And redesign the ranger without encroaching on the fighter and rogue.
Plus redesign the paladin to make melee paladin still viable.

That's why WOTC and practically no 3PP has doone it. It is not worth the trouble.

You don’t have to redesign any of them.

You haven’t even explained why you think they do.

You just have another class that can be good at range. Okay? Every weapon primary class being able to use ranged attacks effectively is good. It encroaches on nothing.

 

[Emberashh]

Some people get really married to mechanics. I never understood that.

Mechanics define the actual feel of the moment to moment play. They're the visceral part of the game that makes it physically fun to play.

These tend to be quite important because they lend the game a desire to be played as is that theater of the mind fundamentally cannot.

Travelling for instance quickly becomes tedius and unfun if its strictly relegared to TOTM. However, with fun mechanics that reach into the real world, that feeling of tedium may never come if the mechanics are robust and well supported (and aren't negated by abundant and cheap "turn off these mechanics" buttons).

As if the MM statblock is somehow more "the animal" than any other statblock that is used to represent the animal.

This is because in-game representation matters, at least to some people. Its the same fundamental reason why for many, simply taking Outlander on a Fighter does not make for a Ranger.

Its a game of pretend to begin with; forcing people to pretend within the pretend, when theres nothing saying they can't just be the actual thing within that first level of pretend, is just not satisfying to everyone.

That being said, one has to look at whats actually unique to a statblock to derive what people are getting out of it aside from the name. In this case, thats almost always strictly the unique attacks and abilities. The stats are largely immaterial.

I don't remember if it was earlier in this topic, but my idea of a hybrid system would probably be the ideal.

You have either a standardized statblock or just transfer the PCs stats over, and then for the shapeshift, you pick from a list of abilities, which can have stat modifiers attached to them, and can even be named according to the beast they came from.

These ability selections could be level locked, and I think a lot of mileage could be gotten out of allowing players to mix and match, but also restricting certain abilities by way of requiring the lesser abilities of the same beast. Done this way you not only get direct control over when the shapeshifter gains new powers, but can also induce some choices and consequences, allowing for easier balance on the more powerful abilities, and as a bonus you don't need to go out of your way to define a bunch of hybrid beasts; theyd just happen naturally from players mix-matching.

 

[Emberashh]

You're underthinking this.

The ranger isn't a ranged class. It's also a melee class and a stealth class.
If you give the the paladin ranged smite you are encroaching on both the ranger and the fighter.
Therefore to add the ranged smite, you have to redesign the ranger. And redesign the ranger without encroaching on the fighter and rogue.
Plus redesign the paladin to make melee paladin still viable.

That's why WOTC and practically no 3PP has doone it. It is not worth the trouble.

The way Im doing it in LNO is that Rangers are a martial AOE class, and Warriors (Fighters) a Battle Combo driven support class.

Paladins can smite at Range because in the scheme of all the Martials in LNO, they can't compete otherwise, even with their other smites and abilities.

All this to say that yes, what you're saying is correct, but not worth the trouble? Hardly.