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.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Learning a new spell is a class feature. Those aren't dead levels. It's also worth pointing out that every single one of those "dead" levels the wizard doesn't just gain a new spell but an entire new spell level - which is the strongest and most influential class feature that takes the most in the game, not excluding an extra feat/ASI.

But every other full caster class gets the exact same thing, plus more and better class features.

 

[TerraDave]

My conclusion from the video is the play test process is working.


EDIT: Seriously.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

People use a d6 weapon over a d4 weapon every day.

Because no-one wants to roll a d4! They don't even roll!

 

[Clint_L]

So far, most of the changes I've thought were good were rolled back:

Unified Subclass progression

Agree

Druid Wild Shape Templates

Disagree

Warlock Spellcasting

Disagree

Unified Spell Lists

Meh

Epic Boons at level 20

Promising idea, poorly executed

Dual Wielding not needing a bonus action

OP with masteries

Short Rest recharges becoming Prof/day uses

Was this a general thing? I thought it was just a warlock thing, and we haven't seen the new Warlock.

So, I've adopted the cynical take: any remotely controversial is going to revert back to 2014 and Paladin Smite as a spell was controversial. For the most part, the only major changes I would safely bet survives to the actual PHB are floating ASI, level 1 feats, and weapon mastery.

Cunning action?

Or look at the changes to some of the problem subclasses. Can you honestly tell me that berserker barbarians aren't greatly improved, for example? I dunno - the things that you are really behind were always unlikely to make it past the survey; WotC acknowledged right up front that the changes to wildshape and warlock becoming a half-caster were going to be divisive. I feel for you - it sucks to see the things we like not make the cut.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I just let them spend sorcery points to ignore material components. it’s still better to get the component, but you can cast it without doing so.

I think requiring spending a sorcery point is a house rule that inflicts a basic needs tax. I'd rather house rule not requiring it, for both thematic and balance reasons. The Sorcerer doesn't require material components, implements, or spellbooks, and they lose out on a handful of spells, and get other Sorcerer spells in return (I am assuming more Sorcerer-specific spells, whether designers, 3rd parties, or I make them up).

 

[Charlaquin]

Agreed, and I’d also love to have some spells not on any class list, instead only available to a species or with a feat or as an alternate reward.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see some class-specific spells like Vicious Mockery staying off the spell lists as well, so that they can remain in their buffed UA forms.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Because no-one wants to roll a d4! They don't even roll!

They do on DDB.

 

[mellored]

Topple gives nothing if one of the Fighter's allies already gave them advantage using one of their abilities like knocking the enemy prone.

Better yet.

Use topple first.
Then flex.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Mistwell and @Shardstone remember that one time you both berated me for not agreeing with you that short rests to recover primary resources was off the table for 2024?

 

[Clint_L]

Topple gives nothing if one of the Fighter's allies already gave them advantage using one of their abilities like knocking the enemy prone.

Sure. But there are other masteries than topple and flex. Flex would be my last pick, and apparently a lot of folks feel the same, which is why WotC are going to improve it.

Flex gives you no advantage if you already use a versatile weapon with two hands (e.g. monks). What are your thoughts on that? Why do you keep writing as if fighters are the only class that matter?

I'm saying that there are are all kinds of variant situations that give one ability an edge over the other. And Flex is valid. Mechanically. And the designers know it. Can you not imagine why they think that? Or are you assuming there is no valid answer? Or rather than argue mechanics that vary based on situation, do you just really not like it because it is too simple, and boring?

What does "valid mechanically" mean? It is valid in the sense that +.7 DPR is a valid number. I have explained why I don't like it: it is a very weak DPR increase and gives no tactical advantages.

If mechanical semantics is your game, we can debate the intricacies of why certain weapons that are 1 damage die step higher are way better than their lesser.

Not sure what "mechanical semantics" means. I don't see that there is much to debate - we know exactly how much better 1 damage die step is: 1 damage, times your chance to hit, times your chance to critical. Assuming a generous chance to hit, it works out to about .7 DPR. There's no debate. If you consider that "way better," then that is your prerogative. I consider it pretty paltry.

People use a d6 weapon over a d4 weapon every day. (No I don't want to debate those intricacies, but it shows the exact reason why Flex isn't boring to me. I like it. It is designed for people like me. I like increased die sizes.)

That wasn't your agurment. Your argument was that it is strong. It is worth about .7 DPR. Context matters, but I don't consider that strong. If your new argument is that increasing die sizes are more fun to roll, then fair enough - that's your subjective experience and who am I to judge? But objectively speaking, flex is very weak compared to other masteries, which is why it was rejected.