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)

 

[Emberashh]

In the context we're discussing, where people are married to wild shape stats for a bear must be identical to bear stats in the monster manual unless they're unhappy, I see zero connection to what you said.

I quoted what I was specifically responding to. Stat blocks aren't mechanics, ergo I wasn't trying to assert stat blocks as an example of what I was talking about.

The second half of that post discusses stat blocks and why people are attached to them.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Stat blocks aren't mechanics

What? Sure they are.

 

[James Gasik]

What? Sure they are.

Maybe they meant that stat blocks aren't mechanics in of themselves, but that they are a way to present mechanics?

 

[Minigiant]

Not if the Rogue is attacking safely from range, and using a Bonus action to Hide, and using Evasion if a creature does manage to get too close for comfort.

Whipping a dagger for 1d4 + xd6 + DEX damage could be seen as encroaching on the Ranger and Fighter as well. Paladins getting ranged Smites aren't much different, other than the potential for rider effects.

Getting sneak attack makes Rogue squishy

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

IE in this context people are married to a mechanic because it's a known mechanic and not because it's a necessarily good or interesting mechanic.

The discussion also seems to be a last trailing remnant of the old debate about whether player characters and monsters need to use the same mechanics or not.

3e/3.5 leaned heavily in that direction that monsters that appear for a few rounds be mechanically built the same as PCs that last an entire campaign worth of encounters.

Forward to 5E and the decision that monsters have their mechanics and PCs have a different mechanics, but both integrate with each others.

A PC needing to take a monster stat block and use it as a PC is a quirk of older D&D and has just been a weird leftover of older D&D systems. For a wolf use to be as a character, by 5E design goals, it makes sense to me that the wolf-character not be the exact stat block that monsters use. After all, an illusionist, monk, thief, archer, etc. used as a player is not the same stat block from WotC monster books.

 

[Emberashh]

Maybe they meant that stat blocks aren't mechanics in of themselves, but that they are a way to present mechanics?

More or less. I tend to see mechanics as gameplay; stats in this instance are merely just data sets that mechanics can pull on to drive gameplay.

A dice pool is a mechanic; stats tell you how many dice to roll and with what modifiers, and the act of engaging the mechanic is what gives you the gameplay.

The line from mechanic to gameplay, in my mind, is or at least should be a straight, short line; if theres to be a line at all. As it happens in dice games, just rolling the dice for any purpose is often fun gameplay in of itself just because the visceral experience tends to be so satisfying on several levels, so the distinction between the specific mechanic and the actual gameplay becomes immaterial at a core level.

Further mechanics, from which stats can provide data for them to interact with, can then enhance this gameplay. Rolling some number of dice is fun, using stats to say how many and what numbers are the good numbers makes rolling the dice much more fun. Continuing to layer on like this is how the game is made.

Thats more or less my philosophy anyway. Not to plug but that was the key to writing the core for my game was finding that core, visceral gameplay I wanted; it had to be fun to play even if you dropped all the pretense of an RPG, and I think I accomplished that, so Im still in the throes of supporting what I created with a dearth of data and supporting mechanics.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Some editions ago, Clerics could cause fear.

Okay? I'm not saying it can't make any sense, I'm saying that this is currently the opposite of something that exists.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The discussion also seems to be a last trailing remnant of the old debate about whether player characters and monsters need to use the same mechanics or not.

3e/3.5 leaned heavily in that direction that monsters that appear for a few rounds be mechanically built the same as PCs that last an entire campaign worth of encounters.

I think it was a massive problem in 2e when Monsters didn't have Strength or Dexterity scores, only Intelligence. They didn't have skills either, which made it harder to determine if they could do things. I guess if you wanted to sneak up on a monster you had to be a Thief and roll a percentage (a low number in this case) on the move silently check.

Then again 3e did go too far in statting out everything a monster had, you had Epic Level beasts or abberations like the Brachyrus or Thorciasid who just sat around waiting for something to eat that were somehow more intelligent than just about any Human could ever be. And probably only had intelligence scores being that high because they needed enough bonus skill points based on their creature type to be a viable threat. Especially the Thorciasid which is smart enough to cure cancer or something, but is just a hungry creature that feeds.

So maybe 5e is the happy medium between 2e and 3e for statblocks.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think it was a massive problem in 2e when Monsters didn't have Strength or Dexterity scores, only Intelligence. They didn't have skills either, which made it harder to determine if they could do things. I guess if you wanted to sneak up on a monster you had to be a Thief and roll a percentage (a low number in this case) on the move silently check.

Then again 3e did go too far in statting out everything a monster had, you had Epic Level beasts or abberations like the Brachyrus or Thorciasid who just sat around waiting for something to eat that were somehow more intelligent than just about any Human could ever be. And probably only had intelligence scores being that high because they needed enough bonus skill points based on their creature type to be a viable threat. Especially the Thorciasid which is smart enough to cure cancer or something, but is just a hungry creature that feeds.

So maybe 5e is the happy medium between 2e and 3e for statblocks.

3.5 had monstrous feats a GM could rather trivially swap in & out along with templates they could apply to monsters & DR/SR. 5e us not a "happy medium", it just says "you're the GM, you fix it" & leaves the gm with the worst of both.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you give the the paladin ranged smite you are encroaching on both the ranger and the fighter.

Stopping here. Why? Why is the Paladin being able to use smite at range encroaching on the Ranger and the Fighter? The Fighter being able to action surge in melee doesn't encroach on the Paladin. Nor does the Ranger being able to fight in melee with a Greataxe. So, why does the range smite encroach. It doesn't even do more damage than the Ranger.

This also doesn't get into the... kind of silly assertion that melee paladins won't be viable if ranged paladins are made viable. Melee rangers exist. Melee Fighters exist. Neither are considered unviable. So why would it be different for Paladins?