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.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

A lot of innovative designs have been cast aside, true. They wanted us to know they've been considering bigger changes, if enough people reeeally wanted them. But apparently, for most people, more seamless backwards compatibility, the better. And that is fine. I can live with that. There are new things they are doing that I like, so they aren't going completely back to 2014.

New things I like that have not yet been taken away:

1. Tidying up how different classes engage with different action types and recharge mechanics. We're seeing broadening of bonus actions and reactions, so more classes get to play with those mechanics, which helps support cross-familiarity and helps familiarize players with other classes they may want to try out.
2. Weapon Mastery.
3. More, and clearer, class and subclass abilities that give diverse toys and build options for players (Divine and Primal Order, etc.):
   1. Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks making meaningful archetypal choices before the subclass choice at level 3 is good.
   2. Cunning Strike is awesome, and gives rogues techniques that really make them pop!
   3. Spellcasters getting class-specific spells that make them feel like their class, and different than other classes, is great!
   4. Cleaning up the Berserker Barbarian is nice
   5. Paladin changes (Lay on Hands; Aura of Protection; and Abjure Foes are great; I love the Smite series of spells)

The big thing we need to see to determine balance going forward is what they have planned for the Spells chapter. Every class has at least one subclass that interacts with the Spellcasting system, and the options in that system need to be rebalanced against each other and their appropriate levels.What are the fixes that will be so great that players will have a challenge deciding which spells to prepare because there are so many good, valid choices?

Also, here are some ides for a monk fix:

1. I agree with many that they need to add Wis mod to Di points at level 1. This gives monks the flexibility between combats at low levels and won't break things at high levels.
2. If they bring back simple weapons dealing the same damage as unarmed strikes, they no longer need martial weapons when simple weapons do the job. This fixes the complaint that monk damage doesn't scale well. They will now. Even your dagger is awesome if it is dealing 1d6-1d12 base damage based on your level.
3. I think a simple fix for unarmed strike not getting weapon mastery can be: "Whenever you make an unarmed strike, you may apply one of the weapon masteries you currently have chosen. The unarmed strike counts as an appropriate weapon for that weapon mastery." This makes your unarmed strikes as powerful as your weapons, without letting your unarmed strike get access to all weapon masteries at-will. You are just doubling down on the weapon maneuvers you are focused on for the day.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Also, here are some ides for a monk fix:

1. I agree with many that they need to add Wis mod to Di points at level 1. This gives monks the flexibility between combats at low levels and won't break things at high levels.
2. If they bring back simple weapons dealing the same damage as unarmed strikes, they no longer need martial weapons when simple weapons do the job. This fixes the complaint that monk damage doesn't scale well. They will now. Even your dagger is awesome if it is dealing 1d6-1d12 base damage based on your level.
3. I think a simple fix for unarmed strike not getting weapon mastery can be: "Whenever you make an unarmed strike, you may apply one of the weapon masteries you currently have chosen. The unarmed strike counts as an appropriate weapon for that weapon mastery." This makes your unarmed strikes as powerful as your weapons, without letting your unarmed strike get access to all weapon masteries at-will. You are just doubling down on the weapon maneuvers you are focused on for the day.

What if alongside these changes, the Open Hand Technique lets you choose from 3 of the "Heavy" mastery options like Cleave, Graze, and Topple, instead of the Simple ones you trained for the day? You just have thematically harder hits with your Open Hand style. Push is already on a Simple weapon, but maybe Addle deserves to be on the list to prevent OAs despite it not being a weapon mastery option at this time.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

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

He kinda hits the mark though. 5e pretty much removed the opportunity cost for SAD dex and SAD cha by devaluing int & tos degree even wis. A lot of that can be traced to how int was devalued in skills and the amount of punch a PC had for their skills.

 

[Vael]

The main problem I see with Warlocks picking their casting stat is multi-classing cheese, which has been a key annoyance I've had with Pact magic and a la carte multiclassing since 5e debutted. Now, one fix (which I really hope stays, but my confidence is not high) is now class-specific cantrip spells like Eldritch Blast, Vicious Mockery and the new Sorcererous Burst all are dependent on levels in their class, so dipping for EB is not viable now.

I have actually played in a campaign with a Warlock that was house-ruled to use INT instead of CHA, and as a single-classed PC, it was completely fine.

 

[Mistwell]

The main problem I see with Warlocks picking their casting stat is multi-classing cheese, which has been a key annoyance I've had with Pact magic and a la carte multiclassing since 5e debutted. Now, one fix (which I really hope stays, but my confidence is not high) is now class-specific cantrip spells like Eldritch Blast, Vicious Mockery and the new Sorcererous Burst all are dependent on levels in their class, so dipping for EB is not viable now.

I have actually played in a campaign with a Warlock that was house-ruled to use INT instead of CHA, and as a single-classed PC, it was completely fine.

Multi-classing cheese for that issue can be resolved by requiring a minimum for all stats they can choose from to multiclass into or out of that class.

 

[Marandahir]

Man, I hope they continue to let the Bard choose a Spell list. That was one of my favorite things out of all the playtests.

Yeah, the return of class-based spell lists makes me very worried for what I thought was the coolest thing about the playtest entirely. As a Bard-lover, this opened up worlds of new stories to tell.

I also liked the choice of casting ability for warlocks, though I didn't like it being attached necessarily to the pact boon (and what would Talisman have gotten? Any of the above?). Honestly, I feel like some other classes could benefit from that choice -- Paladins might choose Wisdom, Sorcerers might be Int (Psion) or Con (more blood-based magic).

 

[Vaalingrade]

The other fix for multiclassing 'cheese' is to just accept that classes are tool boxes for crafting a character.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

We gave up on any semblance of a real class system when they went back to the historical right way how multiclassing has always been done... that is, DnD3, the land of the dip.

 

[Kalmi]

The primary issue with multi-classing in D&D is that they design the game as if people will play 1 class, but then they allow friction-less multi-classing, and only react to overpowered combos after the fact. It results in a variety of awkward design decisions that wouldn't be necessary if multi-classing was more restricted. OTOH, they could just design the game with multi-classing in mind from the start, but that would require an entirely different design paradigm from 5e and would necessarily be a new edition which would probably cause a lot of strife.

 

[Azzy]

I miss the hybrid multiclassing of AD&D.