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.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hmm. If only WotC considered some way to test it with the other classes to see if it would work in play. A play test, if you will...

And, like druid templates, if only they hadn't done it in a terrible way, in this case attaching it to the half-arsed half-caster version of the warlock (and not even asking directly about it rather than simply about Everything's A Cantrip pact boons).

We didn't even get surveyed on the variant stats. Merely the cantripised version of the pact boons as a package, when the well had already been poisoned thanks to a warlock version tailor made for the haters.

 

[Nikosandros]

Why would theybtest it for other Classes if it failed for the one...? Particularly theybgot feedback of "no Class should choose their ability to use, ever"?

Will they finally get rid of dex-based fighters?

 

[Kobold Stew]

Part of my problem WAS why should warlocks be the only class to choose its caster stat? Why not an intelligent or wise sorcerer (esp for clockwork or divine souls)? Why not a Charismatic druid (beast friend)? A wise paladin or an intelligent ranger? Heck, there is a who subclass about Lore in bard and they don't get Int as a casting option.

Nothing stops you making a charismatic druid or an intelligent ranger. Both of those sound great, and would be fun to play. Would they be optimized? No.

So let's distinguish three things:
(a) wanting to optimize. The most DPR, or whatever metric you choose.
(b) wanting some sort of a consistent story within the game world. Charisma represents "force of will" and is the appropriate casting stat for innate spellcasters.
(c) wanting a variety of player options from a few operating principles. I call this "emergent complexity", and for me it's the quality that identifies when a proposed rule change resonates -- a small change that leads to diverse and interesting opportunities for the game as experienced at the table, widening outcomes instead of focusing them.

Both the designers and the players are invested in all three of these, to different extents.

Allowing anyone to choose their casting stat serves (a) but not (b) and (c). That's not a payoff that interests me. Providing a means to access a range of casting stats, though, with an opportunity cost, is better. Currently anyone in a game that allows multiclassing can dip into Blade to get access to a charisma attack. That's fine, but (as suggested above) the opportunity cost is too low -- by making it available with a one-level dip it becomes too easy a choice. Finding the right balance achieves (a) and (c); (b) will sometimes be there, but not always.

Weapon Mastery serves all three of these -- that's why it's a good addition.

The version of Magic Initiate we saw in the first playtest packet also serves all three -- it allows you to pick a casting stat and pick a spell list, which means you could have an arcane cantrip being cast with Wisdom, for example. A simple change (c) that led to more interesting builds, the possiblitiy to optimize (a) and to create a cool story (b). It comes at an opportunity cost (=one feat) but opens up a lot of diverse builds (emergent complexity), without giving too much (you only get two cantrips and a first-level spell). I hope that this feat doesn't change when we lose the combined spell lists.

One of the nice things (for me) about the revised warlock is that you don't choose your patron until level 3. That makes a dip into Warlock more viable (since i am not interested in playing a character who sells their soul for hedge magic). It opens up some narrative options for me as a player (b) that were closed previously, while still allowing me to try to make an effective character (a) and explore a range of creative build options (c).

So yes you should be able to make a go of a charismatic druid. I think that should be possible even keeping Wisdom as the class's casting stat. Maybe it costs a feat, and maybe you'll be a little bit behind on damage or on your spell DC compared to an optimized build. For me, that's an acceptable trade. But it also is a more interesting trade than just letting characters choose their casting stat without consequences (both good and bad).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nothing stops you making a charismatic druid or an intelligent ranger. Both of those sound great, and would be fun to play.

As long as you don't want to be good at your class.

Thanks to Bounded Accuracy, the line between 'competent' and 'optimized' is thinner than ever.

 

[Mistwell]

A first level feat to change your caster stat?

 

[Vaalingrade]

A first level feat to change your caster stat?

That would be the correct choice, yes.

And one for your attack stat.

 

[Kobold Stew]

How does that trivially low bar serve any purpose other than optimization?

 

[Vaalingrade]

How does that trivially low bar serve any purpose other than optimization?

1) see about comment about the thin line between competence and optimization..

2) There is no need to fear and hate optimization.

 

[Kobold Stew]

1) see about comment about the thin line between competence and optimization..

I saw your previous comment, but since it followed a claim that one couldn't be "good" at a class without optimizing, I dismissed it. We will simply disagree.

2) There is no need to fear and hate optimization.

Why do you think I feel either of these things? In the post above I identified it as one of three key variables.

 

[Remathilis]

Nothing stops you making a charismatic druid or an intelligent ranger. Both of those sound great, and would be fun to play. Would they be optimized? No.

So let's distinguish three things:
(a) wanting to optimize. The most DPR, or whatever metric you choose.
(b) wanting some sort of a consistent story within the game world. Charisma represents "force of will" and is the appropriate casting stat for innate spellcasters.
(c) wanting a variety of player options from a few operating principles. I call this "emergent complexity", and for me it's the quality that identifies when a proposed rule change resonates -- a small change that leads to diverse and interesting opportunities for the game as experienced at the table, widening outcomes instead of focusing them.

Both the designers and the players are invested in all three of these, to different extents.

Allowing anyone to choose their casting stat serves (a) but not (b) and (c). That's not a payoff that interests me. Providing a means to access a range of casting stats, though, with an opportunity cost, is better. Currently anyone in a game that allows multiclassing can dip into Blade to get access to a charisma attack. That's fine, but (as suggested above) the opportunity cost is too low -- by making it available with a one-level dip it becomes too easy a choice. Finding the right balance achieves (a) and (c); (b) will sometimes be there, but not always.

Weapon Mastery serves all three of these -- that's why it's a good addition.

The version of Magic Initiate we saw in the first playtest packet also serves all three -- it allows you to pick a casting stat and pick a spell list, which means you could have an arcane cantrip being cast with Wisdom, for example. A simple change (c) that led to more interesting builds, the possiblitiy to optimize (a) and to create a cool story (b). It comes at an opportunity cost (=one feat) but opens up a lot of diverse builds (emergent complexity), without giving too much (you only get two cantrips and a first-level spell). I hope that this feat doesn't change when we lose the combined spell lists.

One of the nice things (for me) about the revised warlock is that you don't choose your patron until level 3. That makes a dip into Warlock more viable (since i am not interested in playing a character who sells their soul for hedge magic). It opens up some narrative options for me as a player (b) that were closed previously, while still allowing me to try to make an effective character (a) and explore a range of creative build options (c).

So yes you should be able to make a go of a charismatic druid. I think that should be possible even keeping Wisdom as the class's casting stat. Maybe it costs a feat, and maybe you'll be a little bit behind on damage or on your spell DC compared to an optimized build. For me, that's an acceptable trade. But it also is a more interesting trade than just letting characters choose their casting stat without consequences (both good and bad).

Right. Make a Smart or Wise warlock. Just prepare for the trade off.