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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

That is a very good point. Wizards have the most "dead levels" on their class chart in terms of class features than any other class except the druid (both tied with 8.) The varied types of spells are like the only "features" they get to be different from anyone else.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Do the designers just not know how math works? I don’t understand how they could possibly think +1 damage is “mathematically one of the most powerful (weapon mastery) abilities.”

I find it strange that designers would say this, and then not think that, for example, a Flame Tongue dealing +2d6 fire damage on EVERY ATTACK is not grossly broken!

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Mostly what people hate is the wizard’s outsized impact on the design of the game as a whole. This UA is a perfect example; we’ve had 6 packets of unified spell lists, and now, because the Wizard only got a passing score instead of a glowing one, they’re reversing course on that design choice. Whether you think the unified spell lists were a good design direction or a bad one, you should be able to recognize that its removal will have a huge impact on every single casting class, especially the bard. One doesn’t have to hate the wizard to recognize that a huge amount of the game’s design literally revolves around that one class, and maybe that’s not the healthiest thing for the game.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

Yes, that's what makes it mathematically good, it takes away the tradeoff and provides only upside.

I'm interested to see how theybplan to spice it up, but as is ot stands up to the other options.

 

[Parmandur]

I find it strange that designers would say this, and then not think that, for example, a Flame Tongue dealing +2d6 fire damage on EVERY ATTACK is not grossly broken!

Magic items aren't balanced, really. The balance is thwt theybare pure bonus controlled by the DM.

 

[Clint_L]

I think the problem is thwt the designers have a mathematical formula with better data than most players, so what is clear from their spreadsheet seems less than ideal to anyone without the assumptions from playtest data that the Deaigners have.

Note that it is a simultaneous +2 to AC as well as a damage die increase.

Not for (checks notes) monks or anyone else who doesn't use shields.

And really, not for almost anyone else, either. If you were using a versatile weapon, you were already probably using it with a shield. Unless you were (checks notes) a monk.

Edit: If you were already sword and board, it's +1 damage. That's all flex is: +1 damage. Except for monks. They get nothing.

 

[tetrasodium]

Mostly what people hate is the wizard’s outsized impact on the design of the game as a whole. This UA is a perfect example; we’ve had 6 packets of unified spell lists, and now, because the Wizard only got a passing score instead of a glowing one, they’re reversing course on that design choice. Whether you think the unified spell lists were a good design direction or a bad one, you should be able to recognize that its removal will have a huge impact on every single casting class, especially the bard. One doesn’t have to hate the wizard to recognize that a huge amount of the game’s design literally revolves around that one class, and maybe that’s not the healthiest thing for the game.

I don't think it's because the wizard only got a passing score so much as they realized they gave too much of the wizard to sorcerer warlock & bard but don't want to admit it or give something else to fill the wizard's dead levels formerly covered by a larger spell list.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think it's because the wizard only got a passing score so much as they realized they gave too much of the wizard to sorcerer warlock & bard but don't want to admit it or give something else to fill the wizard's dead levels formerly covered by a larger spell list.

Tomato, tomato

 

[Clint_L]

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.

I believe those are actually produced by Gale Force 9, not WotC, so I doubt this ever factored into their reasoning.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Mod Note:
Showing basic respect for your fellow posters (which we generally require of our users) usually calls for you to spend at least a passing thought to how what you say impacts others.

Failing to do so leads to folks finding you to be a crashing boor and reporting you. Then the red text comes out, and unhappiness prevails. So, maybe going forward, concern yourself just that little bit, okay? Thanks.