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.

 

[teitan]

That's avoiding a system.

No, theyre an optional rule. It’s not avoiding a system to not use something that’s OPTIONAL. Making them a core rule and then not using them would be avoiding them. What you’re saying is like saying I have to use every rule in the book or I’m avoiding the systems. No, 5e is designed as a toolkit, as stated by the design team from the beginning, for the dm to build their game from. I use what rules modules I like within my game. To tell me that’s avoiding a system is arrogant. Wotc making them core is pandering.

 

[Azzy]

Wotc making them core is pandering.

Remember kids, when WotC does something that appeals to the majority of survey respondents, it's A) pandering, if you don't like it or B) doing the Lord's work, if you do like it.

 

[teitan]

Are you bothered by the name "feats" or something? Because you can think of L1 feats as "Background Features" and take ASIs from then-on-out. What's the difference?

It impacts more than just level 1. Free pdf Basic D&D is impacted. it isn’t that they’re calling them feats either and I’m kind of perturbed you would project such pettiness onto my comment. It’s that they’re moving away from the toolkit nature of 5e And back into the hard coded RAW style of 3.x and 4e era play.

 

[teitan]

Remember kids, when WotC does something that appeals to the majority of survey respondents, it's A) pandering, if you don't like it or B) doing the Lord's work, if you do like it.

Yes. Sure is. Don’t be a jerk. I’m not being one to you.

pandering according to Webster: to provide gratification for others' desires

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It impacts more than just level 1. Free pdf Basic D&D is impacted. it isn’t that they’re calling them feats either and I’m kind of perturbed you would project such pettiness onto my comment. It’s that they’re moving away from the toolkit nature of 5e And back into the hard coded RAW style of 3.x and 4e era play.

...

That's quite a bit more heated then I expected your answer to be. And I don't entirely understand your answer. How is Free Basic D&D "impacted"? (I mean, I guess it would also have background features L1 feats that it didn't happen before - but again, aside from them being named feats, and being both more customizable and "powerful" than the old background features (most of which boiled down to "Hey, DM! Remember to have NPCs treat this character as if they are who their background says they are!") I don't really see how L1 feats are at all contentious.

I have NO idea what you mean by your last sentence. How on earth does it bring back the "hard coded RAW style of 3.x and 4e"? Even if that were an objectively bad thing (it's mixed, really, depending on how and where it's implemented) - I don't even see how this change implies that.

As far as the rest of the feats go, they're still optional! An ASI feat is exactly the same as an ASI was before... except for the name "feat" being there. Again - no pettiness implied - is the word that big of a problem?

 

[teitan]

Cool story.

 

[Azzy]

Yes. Sure is. Don’t be a jerk. I’m not being one to you.

No, but your use of "pandering" for things you don't like is dismissive and jerkish towards those who like what you don't like.

pandering according to Webster: to provide gratification for others' desires

Pandering has very judgemental and negative connotations to it. Take, for instance Cambridge dictionary defines it as "to do or provide exactly what a person or group wants, especially when it is not acceptable, reasonable, or approved of, usually in order to get some personal advantage".

 

[teitan]

No, but your use of "pandering" for things you don't like is dismissive and jerkish towards those who like what you don't like.

Pandering has very judgemental and negative connotations to it. Take, for instance Cambridge dictionary defines it as "to do or provide exactly what a person or group wants, especially when it is not acceptable, reasonable, or approved of, usually in order to get some personal advantage".

That’s how you chose to take it cool, I apologize I was being specific. It is designed to appeal to a common denominator when they could have chunked them out anyway and continued to make level 1 feats a setting specific thing as they have been since Theros. I prefer a simpler play style.

I will play with feats. It’s the removal of choice that bothers me, it’s a change that panders to a demand that resulted in a lot of negative design in 3.x and 4e while the philosophy of 5e has kept the rules bloat to a minimum.

 

[mamba]

I will play with feats. It’s the removal of choice that bothers me

there is literally zero practical difference, if having the feat to increase ASI bothers you just for being a feat instead of something else, well, you just will have to learn to live with it, or use the 2014 approach / name

 

[teitan]

there is literally zero practical difference, if having the feat to increase ASI bothers you just for being a feat instead of something else, well, you just will have to learn to live with it, or use the 2014 approach / name

Noooo? Ya don’t say? See my original comment was meant more as a tongue in cheek comment but everyone has chosen to be all serious and defensive about it and tell me why I’m wrong or “live with it”. And you all wonder why I got defensive.