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.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If they're going to get rid of the three spell lists, I'd like to see the class lists be shorter than they were in 2014, and the subclasses grant access to more spells than they did. You could control the Wizard list by having the best spells of the schools be unavailable to wizards not specializing in those schools (it would, story-wise, wind up similar to the old "opposing schools")

AND they better put some keywords as to who each of the spells belong to under the spell's listing in the PHB, so you don't have to constantly go back to the class list to see if you qualify for a given spell!

 

[Pauln6]

I think we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions and over-extrapolating. WotC will know that this feature for bards was received very positively, so let's wait and see whether they figure out how to keep it in a world of class spell lists. For example, what if they provide a small list of bard spells, and let bards choose a second class list in which to specialize?

I would have thought more likely the other way round? Like saying pick a shorter list from the three options like the paladin or ranger lists from Tasha's. An arcane list would be harder to narrow down.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because you're readying your weapon to attack. I don't know of anything calling that out as a free action, do you?

“Free action” isn’t a thing in the 5e rules. Moving your hand isn’t a part of the action economy.

You did. You actively used it to cast a spell.

Used. Past tense. Once you finished casting the spell, the hand became free again.

Sure, you can hold a weapon with it - which will take some kind of interaction to ready a weapon with it.

Readying a weapon is not a thing defined anywhere in the 5e rules. Two handed weapons just need two hands to attack with, which you have available as long as you aren’t using either hand for anything else.

Or a weapon in two hands.

The feat doesn’t say that. Because it doesn’t need to.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Because you're readying your weapon to attack. I don't know of anything calling that out as a free action, do you?

You did. You actively used it to cast a spell.

Sure, you can hold a weapon with it - which will take some kind of interaction to ready a weapon with it.

Or a weapon in two hands.

I don't think your ruling here is all that common. It's reasonable, but it's not how most DMs I've seen run it. Object Interaction is what gets your weapons out of their sheathes, but not what's required to let go of a two-handed weapon to use the other hand for another task. Otherwise, you'd have to use an Object Interaction to take out an arrow while wielding a bow. Both are usually considered something that happens "as part of an attack".

 

[Mistwell]

“Free action” isn’t a thing in the 5e rules. Moving your hand isn’t a part of the action economy.

Used. Past tense. Once you finished casting the spell, the hand became free again.

Readying a weapon is not a thing defined anywhere in the 5e rules. Two handed weapons just need two hands to attack with, which you have available as long as you aren’t using either hand for anything else.

The feat doesn’t say that. Because it doesn’t need to.

None of that is in the rules or rulings that I am aware of. If your hand is free, then it's not on your weapon wielding it two handed. You cannot then wield it two handed and attack with it as a reaction.

It is a fact that many players who use a melee weapon and also cast some spells choose a versatile weapon for this very reason. When they're not casting a spell they wield it two-handed for extra damage, but when they are casting a spell they're holding it with just one hand and make an opportunity attack with it (one handed) if that comes up.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think your ruling here is all that common. It's reasonable, but it's not how most DMs I've seen run it. Object Interaction is what gets your weapons out of their sheathes, but not what's required to let go of a two-handed weapon to use the other hand for another task. Otherwise, you'd have to use an Object Interaction to take out an arrow while wielding a bow. Both are usually considered something that happens "as part of an attack".

I don't think letting go requires object interaction. But I do think grabbing it two-handed again would. It's not something you can do when it's not your turn. If you needed that hand free on your turn, your hand is still free when it's not your turn and you're not holding that weapon in two hands at that moment.

Ammunition however spells it out as an exception under the Ammunition Property, "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)."

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't think letting go requires object interaction. But I do think grabbing it two-handed again would. It's not something you can do when it's not your turn. If you needed that hand free on your turn, your hand is still free when it's not your turn and you're not holding that weapon in two hands at that moment.

Ammunition however spells it out as an exception under the Ammunition Property, "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)."

I understand your reasoning. It's just not, IME, a common ruling. I don't think many DMs feel that that the hand that has finished casting can't just grab the sword again. You don't need an object interaction to scratch your nose, either. The hand isn't trapped, waiting for more action economy. You need it on your weapon to attack, of course, but it's free to do so.

 

[Incenjucar]

No reason to not use a two-handed weapon then.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No reason to not use a two-handed weapon then.

You don't like a +2 to AC? Howabout if you also have Dueling Fighting Style, so the damage difference is minimal? Howabout dual-wielding? A second chance to hit can be nice.

 

[Charlaquin]

None of that is in the rules or rulings that I am aware of. If your hand is free, then it's not on your weapon wielding it two handed.

Wielding a weapon two handed is not a thing the 5e rules define. The two-handed weapon peppery only says you need two hands to attack with a weapon that has it. If you have two hands and neither of them are otherwise occupied at the time when you want to make the attack, then you meet all of the criteria the rules give for doing so.

You cannot then wield it two handed and attack with it as a reaction.

The rules don’t say that.

It is a fact that many players who use a melee weapon and also cast some spells choose a versatile weapon for this very reason. When they're not casting a spell they wield it two-handed for extra damage, but when they are casting a spell they're holding it with just one hand and make an opportunity attack with it (one handed) if that comes up.

I don’t doubt that players in your games do so, given how you rule on two-handed weapons. But that ruling is not what the books actually say.