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.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

Unified Subclass progression
Druid Wild Shape Templates
Warlock Spellcasting
Unified Spell Lists
Epic Boons at level 20
Dual Wielding not needing a bonus action
Short Rest recharges becoming Prof/day uses

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.

And for me about half those were terrible changes. I miss the druid wild shape templates although on reflection think they only actually mattered for Druid of the Moon so should go there, epic boons were an idea but the execution wasn't there - and dual wielding not needing a bonus action isn't entirely gone (it's under the Nick property and I'm absolutely fine with there being more pre-requisites than just weapon proficiency to not use a bonus action).

But unless there is actual benefit to it I am against changes for the sake of homogeneity. If they'd actually done something with the unified subclass progression (like e.g. a better multiclassing system by making subclasses of each class to let you make that your subclass) I'd have seen some use to it.

 

[Parmandur]

No, I know that. I just mean simply that if +1 (or so) damage is considered powerful, then +7 (or so) damage should ought to be considered horribly broken (and not just a "nice perk"). It just seems to me that something in-between would work better than either of those extremes. (Obviously there's nothing really wrong with a Flame Tongue at higher levels, I'm not singling it out - just using it to illustrate a point).

I think Flex would work nicely as +2 to damage (allowing versatile weapons to still be versatile) but then it steps on the toes of the "Dueling" Fighting Style.

I mean, all of the weapon Mysteries are pretty minor effects. Probavly worth about the same as...a simultaneous weapon die upgrade with AC bonus.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Every other full caster class doesn't get "the exact same thing". They get worse casting. So they get other class features that are supposed to make up the gap. Or are you really saying that the current sorcerer spell list is equal to the wizard one, and the fact that the current sorcerer knows fewer spells than the wizard gets to prepare at any one time means that their magic is as good?

I've said before and I'll say again. A new spell level is literally the best class feature in the game. And wizards get the best casting in the game. So they have the best version of the best class feature in the game at every odd level. But somehow this isn't enough for you?

I'm saying I'm comparing their spell progression in the playtest, which has the exact same number of spell slots per day, 22. Wizards get Arcane Recovery and Sorcerers get Font of Magic. (Also, anyone can cast rituals now.) And every other full caster grows their toolbox at every odd level, too. Sure, Wizards can spend more money to scribe more spells for their spellbook. Druids and Clerics get entire spell lists available to them. I think it is good that they are the arcane toolbox class. The larger spell list is a part of it. They pay for this by having terrible class abilities compared to every other full caster class.

 

[Remathilis]

And for me about half those were terrible changes. I miss the druid wild shape templates although on reflection think they only actually mattered for Druid of the Moon so should go there, epic boons were an idea but the execution wasn't there - and dual wielding not needing a bonus action isn't entirely gone (it's under the Nick property and I'm absolutely fine with there being more pre-requisites than just weapon proficiency to not use a bonus action).

But unless there is actual benefit to it I am against changes for the sake of homogeneity. If they'd actually done something with the unified subclass progression (like e.g. a better multiclassing system by making subclasses of each class to let you make that your subclass) I'd have seen some use to it.

I had assumed that some of that was designed to better simplify design and to allow for more interchangeability later (for example, subclasses that could belong to more than one class ala Stixhaven or additional spell lists later on like psionic that could be swapped for ADP) but the idea of future-proofing the PHB is apparently something the wider D&D community can't fathom so we'll be back to piecemealing it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm saying I'm comparing their spell progression in the playtest, which has the exact same number of spell slots per day, 22. Wizards get Arcane Recovery and Sorcerers get Font of Magic.

And the wizards then get more spells known and more flexibility in their spells because they can switch them up.

(Also, anyone can cast rituals now.)

And wizards are the best at rituals of any class. There are more rituals on the arcane list than any other and, uniquely, wizards only need to have a spell in their spell book rather than have it prepared.

And every other full caster grows their toolbox at every odd level, too. Sure, Wizards can spend more money to scribe more spells for their spellbook. Druids and Clerics get entire spell lists available to them.

Are you saying their lists are equal to the wizard?

I think it is good that they are the arcane toolbox class. The larger spell list is a part of it. They pay for this by having terrible class abilities compared to every other full caster class.

And it is right and proper that they do pay - but you seem to think that it is a problem that the best casters gaining the best class feature in the game (a new level of spell) doesn't somehow get something else at most of the levels they already gain the best class feature in the game. And if you look at what the other full casters get at odd numbered levels it's generally only ribbons; the cleric's Destroy Undead is very situational, Song of Rest going up a die size is almost useless, and Mystic Arcana is objectively strictly worse than getting a full spell slot of the new spell level. Full casters all get nothing or ribbon abilities for almost all their odd levels and for good reason and there shouldn't be power there. The wizard, having the best spell list and best ritual casting, has the fewest ribbon abilities.

The people who are actually short changed on class features are the non-casters on most of their ASI levels; full casters gain an ASI and a spell slot as class features while non-casters gain just an ASI. And where wizards actually pay is not by having terrible class features compared to other casters (they don't) but by having weak subclasses. Which is one of the reasons I think wizard should be a subclass of sorcerer.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I had assumed that some of that was designed to better simplify design and to allow for more interchangeability later (for example, subclasses that could belong to more than one class ala Stixhaven or additional spell lists later on like psionic that could be swapped for ADP) but the idea of future-proofing the PHB is apparently something the wider D&D community can't fathom so we'll be back to piecemealing it.

Future proofing is not good when you are (a) sacrificing the functionality in the present and (b) aren't actually future proofing anything. And for that matter (c) when 5e has had a glacial release cycle. Those Strixhaven subclasses after all were explicitly poorly received. And "additional spell lists" can still be built. So can additional classes.

And essentially what "simplifying design" does here is sacrifice player experience and simplicity for the players for the ease of the designers to accomplish effects that they could do anyway. And I know which is more important. The part where simplicity is needed is at the table as that's where time is most limited. Followed by in character creation for someone starting from scratch.

 

[Clint_L]

Clint, kindly don't misrepresent my arguments or Jeremy's reasons.

First, I said it was FINE and to leave it alone. I didn't say it was strong or superior. I gave an example about how it was valid and competitive.

Second, Jeremy said essentially that "Flex, mathematically, is one of the most powerful of the properties" and I feel that this has merit. I like it for the reasons I mentioned. But he also said that they "get" the feedback from people saying they want tactical options and want Flex to "feel" like it is more than just the number going up. And that feedback is why they are looking at revisiting it. So the decision to revisit is about feelings, not facts. But those feelings are valid.

You can disagree about the mechanical argument. However, I agree with the professional game designers on this one. But I am also glad that despite the designers' feelings on the mechanic, they are honoring the desires of the masses to revisit it.

I have asked you twice now to comment on whether it is strong for monks. Or "fine" for monks, or "mechanically powerful" for monks. What are your thoughts on the fact that flex, as designed, offers no benefit to the one warrior class that is almost guaranteed to be using weapons with that property?

As for what the professional game designers said, they are also doing PR. So I broke down the numbers. Setting monks aside, do you consider .7DPR/attack mechanically powerful?

And I'll add that not only is popular opinion that flex is weak, lots of other folks have broken down the numbers as well, and concur: it is weak and a slap in the face to monks.

But if nothing else, don't you at least agree that it should be redesigned so monks can use it? Or do they truly not matter?

 

[mamba]

The less the core changes, the less time that third party designers need to spend revising their stuff to fit the new core and the more time they spend actually pushing 5e design forward, since they're better at evolving 5e than WotC is.

maybe, but the shittier that design is, the more work they have to move it forward, we already got complaints from such designers right here

I'm upset and here's why.

I think that the new, experimental ideas shown in 1D&D created a healthier game in terms of being able to edit and design new stuff for it. Spell lists, standardized subclasses, and class groups made creating new spells, subclasses, and classes way easier. Furthermore, the focus on feats in character creation, the new character creation method, and the injection of feats over ASI's into class tables really showed you that D&D is meant to be customized to your taste, not your taste customized to D&D.

By reverting everything back, we're going straight into old-school 5E where designing new content, be it homebrew or third party, is hard and baroque. As a third party designer, I cannot stress how hard it is to make content that's perfectly balanced with WotC 5E (which itself is rarely balanced from a traditional viewpoint), and that makes it harder for customers OR just people overall to want to support third party or homebrew content.

 

[Clint_L]

I mean, all of the weapon Mysteries are pretty minor effects. Probavly worth about the same as...a simultaneous weapon die upgrade with AC bonus.

Yeah, you keep repeating that. I don't think you understand how flex works.

If you are already sword and board, you don't get any AC bonus. You get a weapon die increase. Of 1 point.

If you are already using a versatile weapon with two hands (e.g. monks), you get nothing.

That is all you get - a slight DPR increase, or nothing. Those are the only two options from flex.

I guess there is a third option: if you were previously using a longsword with two hands for no particular reason, you could now add a shield and not have your DPR go down. Are there any players who were doing this, instead of using, I dunno, a great sword? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[mamba]

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

it was Warlock, but at the time we had nothing else, I assume it was meant to be general and then abandoned, see monk