D&D (2024) One D&D Survey Feedback: Weapon Mastery Spectacular; Warlock and Wizard Mixed Reactions

Jeremy Crawford discusses the results of the Packet 5 Survey:

• Weapon Mastery at 80% approval, and all options except for Flex scored similarly. Crawford says that Flex is mathematically one of the most powerful properties, but will need some attention because people didn't feel like it was. This feature is in the 2024 PHB for 6 Classes, guaranteed at this point.
• Barbarian scored well, particularly the individual features, average satisfaction of 80% for each feature. Beserker got 84% satisfaction, while the 2014 Beserker in the 2020 Big Class Survey got 29% satisfaction.
• Fighter received well, overall 75% satisfaction. Champion scored 54% in the Big Class Survey, but this new one got 74%.
• Sorcerer in the Big Class Survey got 60%, this UA Sorcerer got 72%. Lots of enthusiasm for the Metamagic revisions. Careful Spell got 92% satisfaction. Twin Spell was the exception, at 60%. Draconic Sorcerer got 73%, new Dragon Wings feature was not well received but will be fixed back to being on all the time by the return to 2014 Aubclass progression.
• Class specific Spell lists are back in UA 7 coming soon, the unified Spell lists are out.
• Warlock feedback reflected mixed feelings in the player base. Pact magic is coming back in next iteration. Next Warlock will be more like 2014, Mystic Arcanum will be a core feature, but will still see some adjustments based on feedback to allow for more frequent use of Spells. Eldritch Invocations were well received. Crawford felt it was a good test, because they learned what players felt. They found the idiosyncracy of the Warlock is exactly what people like about it, so theybare keeping it distinct. Next version will get even more Eldritch Invocation options.
• Wizard got a mixed reception. Biggest problem people had was wanting a Wizard specific Spell list, not a shared Arcane list that made the Wizard less distinct. Evoker well received.

 

[Aldarc]

It's the kind of thing that's appealing to designers, but no one in the room spent enough time thinking about how it would feel in actual play.

It works well in Pathfinder 2.

 

[Shardstone]

Crawford pointing out that wotc were confused why players would rate the class lower than the average of it's individually rated features shows a pretty serious problem with wotc's* ability to interpret surveys.

You could give. Fighter action surge weapon mastery and nothing else. Sure the class would score like 2% but those two features would probably get well over 60-70% on their own making it mission accomplished I guess. On the other side you could give fighter strength value number of attacks at level 5 instead of what they have and leave everything else as presented, mission accomplished.

*like specifically someone in upper management who needs to be mollified before the team can ignore the garbage 30.00%+1 veto mandate imposed.

I will say I feel VERY VINDICATED that people aren't super satisfied with the Fighter as a whole.

PEOPLE WANT A MORE EXCITING FIGHTER, WOTC! I'm tired of being gaslit on forums that the simple fighter that does nothing interactive whatsoever is what people really want. NO. They want a simple class that is still EXCITING.

 

[Shardstone]

I suspect -- and we won't likely get a tell-all book that could tell us whether this is true for some years -- that WotC's very bad 2023 has made them more conservative than they otherwise would have been.

Yes, the splatbooks and adventures that came out since the OGL fiasco didn't show a big dip in sales, but those books sell a fraction of what the 2024 core books can be expected to sell, and having "oh, and they effectively shut down all of their much smaller competitors" in every article about the 50th anniversary next year would have definitely made a difference in sales.

So they tossed the OGL nonsense (and yes, I think the designers opposed what upper management was planning on doing all along, but just weren't listened to until it blew up in their faces) and are now eager to keep D&D players as happy as possible, which in the corporate world very often translates into not rocking the boat.

I think you are right, but it makes me sad too. Oh well. Back to designing stuff myself.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Tales of the Valiant nervously sweating...

Why? It exists as an alternate choice for people who want that. People can and will buy ToV to mix and match with the 2024 version of the rules.

If anything, the 2024 books being so conservative is a good thing for ToV.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I cannot believe he would fangirl over Flex again.

Mayonnaise on white bread! And with a glass of tepid tap water? My favorite!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

PEOPLE WANT A MORE EXCITING FIGHTER, WOTC! I'm tired of being gaslit on forums that the simple fighter that does nothing interactive whatsoever is what people really want. NO. They want a simple class that is still EXCITING.

It's super weird that the DCC fighter has been right there for years and every other company hasn't quietly made their own version of Mighty Deeds of Arms.

 

[Remathilis]

Why? It exists as an alternate choice for people who want that. People can and will buy ToV to mix and match with the 2024 version of the rules.

If anything, the 2024 books being so conservative is a good thing for ToV.

When you frame it like unified spell lists are the inferior design choice, you make the game that embraced them sound bad.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

When you frame it like unified spell lists are the inferior design choice, you make the game that embraced them sound bad.

I don't think the ToV audience, actual or probable, are taking WotC's expressed opinions as gospel.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I want to roll two smaller dice. It's awkward numbers (it would have to be d6+d4) to feel visceral. Or an equivalent ability could be added.

Agreed. I commented and have been for a while that at the very least the non-casters should get a feat plus an ability at every ASI level as the casters get a feat plus a spell.

They did imply they were on this.

Agreed. I think this is the only part they've said they were changing that didn't deserve to be dumped in a toxic waste pit.

... THAT SHOULDN'T BE WHY THE BAD DECISION IS REVERTED. I missed that.

The reason to revert is Paladins aren't demi-clerics and rangers aren't demi-druids and bards should be their own thing.

Here I disagree emphatically. Spells known casters like the sorcerer, bard, ranger, and warlock should have the absolute widest lists because that allows the player to customise them however the player wants and to do so between sessions. There may be suggestions - but leave out of character choices up to the player. If someone wants to play a sorcerer with a teleportation theme starting with Blink and Misty Step that learns to use their big trick to make Teleportation Circles let them. If players think that their character shouldn't get such spells then they don't.

The spell lists that need the biggest trims are the Spells Prepared casters who can change their spells prepared at every long rest - the druid, cleric, and paladin. Both to prevent book-faffing in session and because they are generic rather than individual spell lists.

The Bard picking their spell list was the single coolest thing in the whole playtest, if that is gone, I'm questioning whether the new PHB is worth bothering with.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It works well in Pathfinder 2.

Lots of things feel good in other games but are too big of a change for existing D&D players.

See: 4E