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.

 

[Mistwell]

Why not?

It does though. On page 147, it says “This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it.”

No rule says you need to use a free interaction to make an attack with a two-handed weapon.

When it's not your turn, all you have is your reaction. A reaction doesn't come with anything extra, unlike a move or an attack action. If you were not holding your weapon with two hands when you ended your turn, then you cannot change to be welding it with two hands on your reaction. Much like dropping an object takes no action on your turn, but you couldn't drop an object as part of your reaction and attack as your reaction. You just don't get anything extra as a reaction, unless you have a feat or other exception rule which allows it to happen.

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

I was responding to your post about using a free hand to cast spells.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

When it's not your turn, all you have is your reaction. A reaction doesn't come with anything extra, unlike a move or an attack action. If you were not holding your weapon with two hands when you ended your turn, then you cannot change to be welding it with two hands on your reaction.

Reaction lets them make an attack. An attack with a two-hander requires you to have two hands available for it. They have two hands available. There is no conflict.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I think it's notable that BG3 uses a 15 minute short rest and limits them to twice per long rest (unless you have a bard in the party, which gives you a 3rd). For those that have played BG3, how does that mechanic feel in play? I'm wondering if we might see that become the new 5.24 standard.

To be clear, BG3 short rests take no time. When outside of a combat, you click to short rest, you're refreshed.

It's an obvious improvement with no downsides.

 

[tetrasodium]

You declaring it so doesn't make it so.

There is nothing directly in the rules either way, and Mike Mearls is NOT rules as intended. He's not even Sage Advice. Heck he wasn't even Sage Advice way back when he made that tweet and tons of his tweets back then contradicted Crawford who then was declared as Sage Advice.

I'm not simply "declaring" it... Mearls confirming that it was intended behavior of the design back when it was done is what made it so. It has not been fixed by errata or literally any change since then is why it still is.

 

[Charlaquin]

When it's not your turn, all you have is your reaction. A reaction doesn't come with anything extra, unlike a move or an attack action. If you were not holding your weapon with two hands when you ended your turn, then you cannot change to be welding it with two hands on your reaction. Much like dropping an object takes no action on your turn, but you couldn't drop an object as part of your reaction and attack as your reaction. You just don't get anything extra as a reaction, unless you have a feat or other exception rule which allows it to happen.

You’re assuming that “holding your weapon in two hands” is a discrete activity that requires some expenditure of an action economy resource to perform, but nothing about the two handed property suggests this is the case. All it says is that you need two hands to attack with a weapon that has the property. If your hands aren’t busy doing something else when you want to make that attack, then you have them, and all of the requirements for attacking with a weapon with the two handed property are met.

 

[nevin]

The wizard is one of my biggest classes but it takes up a huge amount of conceptual space, both narratively and mechanically. The fact that they get every non-divine spell, while the other classes get less spells, isn't a great decision in my mind. I think the wizard would be more interesting if it only learned one spell per level up instead of two, and if it had a list 2/3rd the size.

no I think certain spells should be removed from the wizard spell list and only available when they get to limited wish and wish. Every casting class should have some spell niche even if it's small that other's can't do.

 

[nevin]

It works well in Pathfinder 2.

so does making everything but melee support classes. There might be a reason they'll never be the big guy in the room.

 

[nevin]

I might agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that despite the extensive spell list... it seems like everyone and their mother keeps saying the Wizard has only like 3 good spells at each level and which get taken time and time and time again such that everyone keeps complaining about them.

As soon as I see 25 different load-outs of Wizards getting talked about rather than the same Fire Bolt/Shield/Tiny Hut/Fireball/Polymorph/Simulacrum Wizard all the time (because that's the overpowered spell list that all these players can't help but glom onto because game mechanics trump personality or originality for most players)... maybe I'll feel differently.

Many iterations of nerfing spells to limit wizards have definitely made most spells niche or at least less likely to be used than a few at each level. I've played at tables where all the spells are on the table and spell books are buffet tables, aand tables where the wizard begs and pleads like Oliver twist for one more spell "please sir" It's like playing two different classes if you go from one type of table to the other. I think that's the source of a lot of wizard arguments. Everyone argues based on what they normally see played.

 

[nevin]

No, it's the problem of the player. The player is choosing to prioritize overpowering game mechanics to try and dominate the game, rather than creating an interesting character to play.

Needing the game to wall off all kinds of abilities into discreet little buckets in order to FORCE players to play for theme rather than just to be OP is pointless. The player either wants to play to theme or doesn't. And if (general) you are playing with players who play to OP and you're sick of it... then (general) you should find new players, not expect WotC to change up the rules so that those players can't play their way anymore. It's not WotC's job to solve (general) your boredom issues for you.

You mean players tend to go for functional rather than theme? OMG that's what most people do in real life. Seriously you have to design for human behavior or you've failed before you finished.