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.

 

[mamba]

Then why change it at all?
If they publish PHB that is 95% same as 2014, who will buy it?
I might if my old breaks down, so I might as well buy the updated. But, aside of that? No reason.

save some money then…

 

[Ondath]

As much as I prefer some of the playtest mechanics, the designers promised they would listen to the community. The Community voted and the designers are listening. Gotta respect that they are sticking to their word. Despite the frustration it causes me over losing templated willdshape.

As someone who's been checked out of the playtest for a while (so I don't really have any skin in the game), I've got to disagree. There are different ways of running a playtest, and the way you run it really determines the kind of reactions you'll get by predisposing the testers.

For instance, they could offer a playtest with the entire set of new rules fleshed out, thus showing how a lot of the new changes interlock and synergise. Instead, they presented most of the changes piecemeal and asked people to supplement the missing rules with 5E. That will inevitably lead to a playtest experience where the rules that have been out for 10 years feel a lot of more fleshed out, compared to the stuff that's potentially in early iterations. It's not a fair competition for sweeping changes like power sources or a redesigned Warlock.

They could also do playtesting at different stages of design. IIRC, D&D Next had early playtest stages that were only about the proficiency mechanic, or the skill/background rules, or some other core elements. Level Up A5E's playtest process started by asking people what they'd like to see for an advanced 5E, listing everything from stronghold rules to psionics. You can still present a vision that's brave enough to make some changes to the core rules without creating an environment where the reactionary tendencies of the player base (in the sense of preferring older, well-established mechanics) if you ask the right questions to the public, and ask that they trust your design vision for everything else.

And the thing is, WotC did skirt around some rules in this playtest. For instance, I'm not a big fan of the "free feat with Background" rule, but the playtest survey for backgrounds did not provide me any opportunity to judge that specific rules change. What it did allow me to judge was whether these specific feats were good as free Level 1 feats. Lo and behold, the results of that survey showed that people were happy with feats at level 1. While it's likely that the majority of people do like that rule, I can't trust that survey because the question was loaded. So it's not like they couldn't design the playtest in a way that allowed radical departures to thrive. They just chose not to for most of them.

So yeah, if all of these radical suggestions will get thrown under the bus just because the format they chose for the playtest requires an 80+% approval from the audience (who are likely to have a bias for keeping old rules), all of this playtest was for nothing. At this point, I can't really see the point of calling it a rules revision and not an errata.

 

[Stalker0]

Probably the head scratcher for me is that they are giving up on int or wisdom based warlocks.

I can respect the change back on spellcasting, but who voted against giving warlocks more options in the survey? did people actually note a dissatisfaction with more options?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I'm just talking about Pathfinder 2, Whizbang. It's not some other universe apart. It was an OGL game that many consider "basically D&D."

Not OGL anymore! Well, next year I guess

 

[Remathilis]

Probably the head scratcher for me is that they are giving up on int or wisdom based warlocks.

I can respect the change back on spellcasting, but who voted against giving warlocks more options in the survey? did people actually note a dissatisfaction with more options?

Elbitapmoc sdrawkcab

 

[Nikosandros]

And the thing is, WotC did skirt around some rules in this playtest. For instance, I'm not a big fan of the "free feat with Background" rule, but the playtest survey for backgrounds did not provide me any opportunity to judge that specific rules change. What it did allow me to judge was whether these specific feats were good as free Level 1 feats. Lo and behold, the results of that survey showed that people were happy with feats at level 1. While it's likely that the majority of people do like that rule, I can't trust that survey because the question was loaded. So it's not like they couldn't design the playtest in a way that allowed radical departures to thrive. They just chose not to for most of them.

Well, this is because they had settled on backgrounds that give a feat long before the playtest started. They have been including those in several published products and, as far as I know, they are very popular.

 

[Stalker0]

Elbitapmoc sdrawkcab

There's nothing about adding in options that suddenly makes the new Warlock lose backwards compatibility. Its not like the concept of their spell DCs changed where a book referencing a warlock casting would suddenly not work.

If martial types can get an entire new weapons subsystem added and its considered "backwards compatible", you can't argue that a warlock casting spells with int breaks compatibility.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Probably the head scratcher for me is that they are giving up on int or wisdom based warlocks.

I can respect the change back on spellcasting, but who voted against giving warlocks more options in the survey? did people actually note a dissatisfaction with more options?

This puzzled me too -- it was a smart and clever development on the existing class that improved the range of builds possible. It's one of the rules that if abandoned I would want to keep in play in any case, if only because it's so easy (and if Tomelocks really feel they need Charisma as a casting stat, that would be fine).

 

[jerryrice4949]

So all the sound and fury about class specific spells is gone. That gives me little hope for paladin smite remaining a spell, viscous mockery is going back to a 1d4, and the sorcerer and wizard specific spells are gone.



Sad panda noises.

...
Sigh. I think I'm going back to not bothering with the surveys anymore. This isn't even looking like an update, it's just errata and weapon mastery.

Yeah everyone at my table hates the current Warlock. The most convoluted class. Sad to see them revert.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Well, this is because they had settled on backgrounds that give a feat long before the playtest started. They have been including those in several published products and, as far as I know, they are very popular.

True. That premise (free feat with first) had a number of associated factors too: first level feats can't also have an ASI (a sensible inference for the game we've seen); all higher level feats include a +1 (this has not been explained and is not justified). A lot flows from this.

I am one of those who will regret the loss of background features, but I see that it's not worth arguing to preserve.