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.

 

[Shardstone]

Well, if you have been lucky enough to see that, then I don't see why condensing the Wizard spell list down to 2/3rds would then make their issue better? Unless you are saying you think Wizard characters are too diverse and instead need to look more similar? If that's your claim, then I only wish I had your problem!

Sometimes replying to you is difficult because I not only have to reply to your original point, but I also have to deal assumptions you make and go with like they're fact when they're just assumptions.

My problem is that it takes up too much narrative space. If the other classes had just as big spell lists, then it would take up a lot less space. I don't necessarily care if they're class-only spells or spells for several classes, the point is, everything new they get (looking at splat books), the Wizard got too. Since spells are essentially class features for spellcasters, the Wizard gets more and more and more class features while the other arcane casters don't.

This isn't a big deal. I don't want you assuming I'm making it a big deal, because I know you probably will in your reply anyway. However, a bunch of small things can have an effect when together. Custom class spell lists basically divide up hundreds of features unequally while failing to give other classes anything in recompense. Changing this would go a long way to enhancing class identity, which I think current custom spell lists largely lack.

This leads me to my second issue. So many spells overlap on custom spell lists. If more than 60% of your spell list is shared by another class, and if the unshared spells are just yours, there's really no reason to have custom class lists. It'd be better to have generic lists + custom class spells (at least a dozen or so for each spellcaster, more for the half-casters).

This is a personal problem for me. When I read the spell lists, I never feel inspired. That's because surrounding "Hagar's Creepy Dance Party" are 20 other 3rd level spells shared by the wizard and sorcerer and artificer. Ultimately, I have to go through the custom list, find the unique spells, cross reference to see if they're different, and then look up each spell in the back of the book individually to grok the identity. If there were generic lists in the back of the book and unique custom spells included in the class description, then I'd be able to see class identity.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sometimes replying to you is difficult because I not only have to reply to your original point, but I also have to deal assumptions you make and go with like they're fact when they're just assumptions.

This isn't a big deal. I don't want you assuming I'm making it a big deal, because I know you probably will in your reply anyway.

This is a personal problem for me.

Heh heh, I've never once ever concerned myself with whether anything you've said to me was a big deal or not a big deal to you. That's never once mattered to me. You reply to a post of mine, I reply back. Simple as that. Whether it's just a reply to an off-hand remark of yours or an in-depth analysis of why you think I'm wrong... I treat them as all the same, just something to respond to that I know has little to no chance of changing your mind, so why should I make a big deal about it? These posts are just a way for me to waste a little time and avoid doing work, LOL.

 

[Shardstone]

Heh heh, I've never once ever concerned myself with whether anything you've said to me was a big deal or not a big deal to you. That's never once mattered to me. You reply to a post of mine, I reply back. Simple as that. Whether it's just a reply to an off-hand remark of yours or an in-depth analysis of why you think I'm wrong... I treat them as all the same, just something to respond to that I know has little to no chance of changing your mind, so why should I make a big deal about it? These posts are just a way for me to waste a little time and avoid doing work, LOL.

Man, you took that small comment about assumptions and made a bunch of more assumptions and then started grandstanding like you're better than me. It's really weird man. Why can't we actually just discuss the points without having to make things personal, and without having to measure how much "we don't care" about the people we're talking to? Talk about a buzz kill.

 

[Parmandur]

It is not a simultaneous +2 to AC, because versatile weapon users are either already using shields or already using the larger damage die without the weapon mastery. Flex is either +1 damage or +2AC, not both.

No, Flex is both. Without Flex, a Longsword has two use cases that a character needs to choose one or the other:

One handed with a shield: 1d8 + 2 AC
Two handed withoutna shield: 1d10 + 0 AC

With Flex, they get to have their cake and eat it, too:

Single handed with a shield: 1d10 + 2 AC

Flex allows both the higher damage die and the higher AC. Mix with a sword and board fighting style...

 

[DEFCON 1]

Man, you took that small comment about assumptions and made a bunch of more assumptions and then started grandstanding like you're better than me. It's really weird man. Why can't we actually just discuss the points without having to make things personal, and without having to measure how much "we don't care" about the people we're talking to? Talk about a buzz kill.

I do not in any way think I am "better than you". Rather, it appears to me that I just don't care about the rules as much as you do (or pretty much anyone else here on the boards for that matter.) So if you try to engage me with posts about issues that just don't matter to me or bother me, I don't bite the worm. Sorry!

Do I make assumptions? Absolutely. Like I always assume most of the consistent posters here on the boards know by now that I don't give a rat's ass about most of the game mechanics found within D&D. I'll use whatever's given to me or I'll change anything I want if I think of or find something better. And what WotC puts in the books is going to be fine, or I'll house rule it if it's not. No harm no foul.

I know it matters a heck of a lot more to a lot of (general) you... but I can't help that. Which is why I always try and tell people that if they don't want to hear my response, they don't have to Reply to my posts in the first place.

Does that make for less interesting debate? Perhaps. But whether or not I debate people or I just spew my own verbiage works for me either way.

 

[the Jester]

You mean like how Magical Secrets works on the 2014 bard?

Yeah, but moreso, and more flexible.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

They could still try to do something with Magical Secrets, like have a 1st level choice. Or they could have themed spell bonus spells.

Or maybe instead of their own spell list, they can pick from the cleric, druid, and Sorcerer Spell lists.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Sometimes replying to you is difficult because I not only have to reply to your original point, but I also have to deal assumptions you make and go with like they're fact when they're just assumptions.

My problem is that it takes up too much narrative space. If the other classes had just as big spell lists, then it would take up a lot less space. I don't necessarily care if they're class-only spells or spells for several classes, the point is, everything new they get (looking at splat books), the Wizard got too. Since spells are essentially class features for spellcasters, the Wizard gets more and more and more class features while the other arcane casters don't.

This isn't a big deal. I don't want you assuming I'm making it a big deal, because I know you probably will in your reply anyway. However, a bunch of small things can have an effect when together. Custom class spell lists basically divide up hundreds of features unequally while failing to give other classes anything in recompense. Changing this would go a long way to enhancing class identity, which I think current custom spell lists largely lack.

This leads me to my second issue. So many spells overlap on custom spell lists. If more than 60% of your spell list is shared by another class, and if the unshared spells are just yours, there's really no reason to have custom class lists. It'd be better to have generic lists + custom class spells (at least a dozen or so for each spellcaster, more for the half-casters).

This is a personal problem for me. When I read the spell lists, I never feel inspired. That's because surrounding "Hagar's Creepy Dance Party" are 20 other 3rd level spells shared by the wizard and sorcerer and artificer. Ultimately, I have to go through the custom list, find the unique spells, cross reference to see if they're different, and then look up each spell in the back of the book individually to grok the identity. If there were generic lists in the back of the book and unique custom spells included in the class description, then I'd be able to see class identity.

I don't get the Wizard hate. I am starting to believe it is a holdover grudge from back in the day because they used to be broken. They aren't today. Not compared to the other full caster classes like the Sorcerer who not only get full spellcasting, but relevant class abilities that are impactful in combat.

The thing is that Wizards don't really get Class abilities. If they are boring it is because they really only get spells. Compared to a Sorcerer's Metamagic, what do they get? The Savant ability? There aren't enough spells in each school to matter, and some schools don't even exist at certain spell levels. Arcane Recovery? That compares to Font of Magic. Other than those, Wizard abilities are all delegated to the Subclass and so many of those Subclass abililites are little more than ribbons/flavor. The vast majority of level 2 Wizard subclass abilities are BORING. People choose Evocation and Divination because they actually have abilities that work decently in combat for levels 2 through 5. And the Sorcerer gets the Evocation school's primary ability as a metamagic option. Most other Wizard subclasses bring nothing to the table. Illusion, Transmutation, and Conjuration? Worthless in a fight. Abjuration, Enchantment, and Necromancy? Barely better. Compare any of those to the Sorcerer's Draconic Resilience? Not a contest.

Wizards' power is about their broad customizability with arcane magic. They are the only ones that really care about Spell Schools, and they need diverse options in those spell schools. Because that is almost ALL they have.

Wizards deserve to have the largest spell list because it is inherently necessary for their School focus to matter, and they get little else. They deserve to be the Arcane Toolbox class because they are the scientists and scholars of magic.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, Flex is both. Without Flex, a Longsword has two use cases that a character needs to choose one or the other:

One handed with a shield: 1d8 + 2 AC
Two handed withoutna shield: 1d10 + 0 AC

With Flex, they get to have their cake and eat it, too:

Single handed with a shield: 1d10 + 2 AC

Notice how 1d10 + 2 AC is either 1 damage die higher than 1d8 +2 AC, or 2 AC higher than 1d10 + 0 AC. It can’t be both at the same time.

Also, this speaks to one of the big problems with Flex as a mastery, is it makes versatile weapons less interesting, because there’s no longer multiple modes to choose from.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I hope that the generic spell lists are gone for good, I hated them.

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.

Three Generic Spell Lists is a VERY GOOD IDEA - for ONE thing (and probably only that thing): For the physical product known as SPELL CARDS!

The extant 5e Spell Cards from GF9 have a problem (and it's a weird one): They divided them into "Cleric", "Bard", "Druid", "Ranger", "Paladin", and... "Arcane" (Wizards, Warlocks, & Sorcerers).

Guess which one outsells the others by a massive factor? That's right: The Arcane one! It would still be the top-seller, but packaging them as roughly-equal sized (and price point!) decks of "Arcane", "Divine", and "Primal" would be a godsend.

... For that product.