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]

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.

They dont fix or errata or do anything about tweets mike mearls made. They just ignored them and declared Crawford and some others as Sage Advice....but not Mike Mearls.

 

[Ondath]

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.

That's precisely my point! They had made up their mind about going through with some of the changes, but they seem to have offered some of the new options only half-heartedly, so it's no wonder those half-hearted, early-stage ideas did not receive any glowing reviews, and now they have an excuse to scrap them.

To be clear, I don't like all of the changes. I think power sources are pretty useful for future-proofing but needs to be done carefully. I actually dislike ability scores being less important through changes to uses/day system, streamlined spell prepation where higher scores do not give extra spells, half-caster Warlocks and the like. But I do think these ideas weren't given the proper chance to be iterated and improved. Especially when the claims for OneD&D were that it'd make a lot of interesting changes.

 

[Aldarc]

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

This is a bit of a red herring, no?

 

[Mistwell]

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,

It does. Much like dropping an object in that hand requires some expenditure of an action economy to perform. You can call it whatever you want but you cannot change anything about your setup when it's not your turn other than use your reaction to attack however you were set up to attack on your last actual turn.

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.

It says "used with two hands to make a melee attack." But you were not "using" it with two hands when your turn ended, therefore you're "using" it with the one hand you were "using it" with when your turn ended. You cannot change it to being two handed when it's not your turn. There is no declarations you can make which changes your character in any way when it's not your turn, unless there is a written exception allowing that. That's sort of the point of turns!

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

I agree... players usually will do that. And that's fine. But it's the people who play with those players who are usually the ones complaining about what the Wizards do. They're the ones who want Wizards to get nerfed so that they don't get all the "good stuff". And I am not a believer in using rules to force players into playing ways that other people at the table want them to play (be it DMs or other players.)

It's like the old complaint from DMs who wanted the rules changed so that they wouldn't have to tell their players 'No'. "No, you can't play a Drow because in my world the Drow are not PCs" and instead they could just point to the amended rules and make the rules the "bad guy". "Oh, you know, ordinarily I'd loooooove for you to play a Drow, but sorry! The Drow's no longer a PC option! It's not me! It's the rules! Blame WotC!"

 

[jerryrice4949]

I think the biggest issue with the playertest at this time is really lack of time. It is clear the process should have started sooner to allow more tweaks and resurveying. I think some of the new things being cast aside might be well received with minor tweaks but time is now too tight to allow some of the titration needed.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The game doesn't operate on "realistically". It operates on mechanics and there is one being discussed that nullifies itself while presenting a trap for well meaning traders giving the rules a good faith effort rather than looking for a GM convoluted hole to twist .

Not only is switching from 2 to 1 hand and back to 1 hand realistic, allowing one to cast a spell and still be ready with a weapon (as in able to make opportunity attacks) is actually the simpler thing to do in terms of play. I also don't see how something as realistic as temporarily holding something in 1 hand to use magic is somehow overpowered.

 

[Mistwell]

Realistically there's very little effort in taking one hand off a greatsword and switching to more of a "resting" guard, and then placing your hand back on the greatsword and taking up a more active guard. It takes less than a second to do either of those things. It's easily just as much of the action for the round, which in this case is the Magic Action.

It's same as retrieving multiple arrows from a quiver and firing a bow as part of an attack action in the rules.

Ammunition Property calls this out as an exception. Two Handed Property and Versatile Property do not. There is no rule I am aware of which allows you to change what you were holding in each hand at the end of your last turn while outside of your turn and in initiative. Whatever you were holding in each hand at the end of your turn, that's what you're still holding during an opportunity attack. If you had your sword in one hand and your other hand had a material component or focus, that's what's still in your hands during your opportunity attack and you cannot then switch to holding your sword in two hands before making your opportunity attack.

 

[OB1]

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.

Awesome, I saw somewhere that 15 minutes of in-game time goes by when you do it, wasn't sure if that had an effect on anything.

Does the entire party have to short rest at the same time or can you take them as needed? And no downside on the 2/3 SR per LR limit?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the biggest issue with the playertest at this time is really lack of time. It is clear the process should have started sooner to allow more tweaks and resurveying. I think some of the new things being cast aside might be well received with minor tweaks but time is now too tight to allow some of the titration needed.

I don't agree. Saying something like this just seems to me to be downgrading the desires and intellect of all the other players who took the surveys and who voted for preferring things the other way. Like if only we had more time to really explain what we meant and got into the nitty-gritty of how these new things should work, then maybe we'd be able to get those people to understand why these were actually good changes!

I mean isn't it just possible that a LOT of other D&D players out there are simply just quite happy with D&D as it is and doesn't like it's broken and need fixing? In all the different facets? And they don't need big changes to "make the game better"? That most of the things already in D&D are just fine?

I know that way of thinking tends to be an anathema to all of us who post here on EN World who tend to think many parts of the game suck and need a complete re-write (and where we all tend to put ourselves onto pedestals that "look down upon the plebes" (GUILTY!))... but maybe... just maybe... the game isn't as bad off as some of us tend to think it is and it doesn't actually require these grand changes and fixes? And that most of the other players out there NOT on EN World and Reddit agree?