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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Of course they don't actually do that. Why? Because it's a feat tax and feat taxes are avoided. Not spending a feat that could be combat oriented instead of being taxed doesn't tell you that they don't like extra skills as a fix. It just says that they don't want to get it via a tax.

It isn't a 'feat tax'-- not when the option instead of the ASI/Feat would have just been some skill proficiencies at 6th level like some players seem to want for more out-of-combat ability. What is better... having the Fighter's 6th level class feature only be "Proficiency In 3 Skills" OR an ASI/Feat slot that could be used for "Proficiency In 3 Skills" or could be something completely different if the Fighter player didn't actually want the skills?

That's the whole point of giving Fighters the extra ASI/Feat feature-- it is a class feature for which the player can select from like 20 different options. So while those players who feel the Fighter is lacking out-of-combat functionality could have the opportunity to get more skills... any players who did not feel it was a necessity could select something else. Having options does not a tax make.

 

[Maxperson]

Would six extra ASI be enough? Just put most of them after level ten.

ASIs don't mean much at all. Bounded accuracy killed most of the value in them.

It isn't a 'feat tax'-- not when the option instead of the ASI/Feat would have just been some skill proficiencies at 6th level like some players seem to want for more out-of-combat ability. What is better... having the Fighter's 6th level class feature only be "Proficiency In 3 Skills" OR an ASI/Feat slot that could be used for "Proficiency In 3 Skills" or could be something completely different if the Fighter player didn't actually want the skills?

That's the whole point of giving Fighters the extra ASI/Feat feature-- it is a class feature for which the player can select from like 20 different options. So while those players who feel the Fighter is lacking out-of-combat functionality could have the opportunity to get more skills... any players who did not feel it was a necessity could select something else. Having options does not a tax make.

Okay. If that's what they are really asking for, then it doesn't make much sense. You are correct. What I would do in that case is just add a single skill proficiency to like 3rd, 6th and 9th level or something.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Okay. If that's what they are really asking for, then it doesn't make much sense. You are correct. What I would do in that case is just add a single skill proficiency to like 3rd, 6th and 9th level or something.

That's what it seemed like a number of people felt were missing for Fighters, not enough skills. Now I don't personally agree, because like you, having extra skills does not actually seem to me to gain "out-of-combat" utility. Heck I don't even think giving Fighters Expertise would necessarily even do a whole lot to help, because they'd just usually select it in two skills they were already good at, like Athletics and Perception. So players wouldn't be widening their O-O-C scope, just improving what they already could do.

At the end of the day... in my personal opinion what makes any character good "out-of-combat" is the quality of ideas that the player thinks of that they suggest their character do. Identifying where they think traps might be, remembering to comment they are looking out for ambushes, making strong arguments while in discussion with NPCs, knowing when there might be lore-based information in the world to draw from. Having lots of skills or other features do not do much good if (general) you as a player don't come up with any ideas to tell the DM what you are doing to warrant them calling for a check in the first place.

To me that's the best way for a Fighter PC to be good out-of-combat... the player just comes up with good and smart ideas. And you don't need any game mechanics to do that.

 

[Maxperson]

That's what it seemed like a number of people felt were missing for Fighters, not enough skills. Now I don't personally agree, because like you, having extra skills does not actually seem to me to gain "out-of-combat" utility

I mean it does get you more. It just doesn't do it in a significant or interesting way. Skill monkeys are the rogues and bards. Fighters should have a different sort of out of combat utility role.

Heck I don't even think giving Fighters Expertise would necessarily even do a whole lot to help, because they'd just usually select it in two skills they were already good at, like Athletics and Perception. So players wouldn't be widening their O-O-C scope, just improving what they already could do.

Sure, but improving their out of combat utility is the goal. However, expertise is only slightly better and not really more interesting. Subclass out of combat abilities seems to me to be the best way to go about it.

At the end of the day... in my personal opinion what makes any character good "out-of-combat" is the quality of ideas that players think of that they suggest their characters do. Identifying where they think traps might be, remembering to comment they are looking out for ambushes, making strong arguments while in discussion with NPCs, knowing when there might be lore-based information in the world to draw from. Having lots of skills or other features do not do much good if (general) you as a player don't come up with any ideas to tell the DM what you are doing to warrant them calling for a check in the first place.

To me that's the best way for a Fighter PC to be good out-of-combat... the player just comes up with good and smart ideas. You don't need any game mechanics to do that.

Here's where I'm going to disagree. If smart ideas were all you need, then we should get rid of the class support for out of combat utility for all of the classes. Players can have good ideas for all classes. The point of out of combat utility is to support those smart ideas and perhaps inspire ideas.

 

[Eubani]

To me that's the best way for a Fighter PC to be good out-of-combat... the player just comes up with good and smart ideas. And you don't need any game mechanics to do that.

Do you know which other classes can do that? Surprise....all of them. All the others also get spells or abilities (or both) on top of that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Do you know which other classes can do that? Surprise....all of them. All the others also get spells or abilities (or both) on top of that.

Which are unnecessary if you are coming up with good ideas. The mechanics do not replace a player's good ideas... they just answer the question for the DM whether or not the good idea works to get what they want. And if the ideas are good enough, the DM often doesn't even require the player to use the mechanics... they just say the idea works.

There's a reason for instance why players don't have to role Persuasion checks after every single point they make in a discussion-- the DM in conversation will usually just give out information if the right questions are asked or points are made. No mechanics necessary. A Fighter player can just make good points same as every other player and get what they might want.

 

[Eubani]

Which are unnecessary if you are coming up with good ideas. The mechanics do not replace a player's good ideas... they just answer the question for the DM whether or not the good idea works to get what they want. And if the ideas are good enough, the DM often doesn't even require the player to use the mechanics... they just say the idea works.

There's a reason for instance why players don't have to role Persuasion checks after every single point they make in a discussion-- the DM in conversation will usually just give out information if the right questions are asked or points are made. No mechanics necessary. A Fighter player can just make good points same as every other player and get what they might want.

Good ideas do not always come freely nor do they reduce the disparity in agency. Saying that the other classes don't need the spells or abilities is wasted effort to type because in this reality they have them and the Fighter does not, and it would be a pretty poor spellcaster without spells.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Good ideas do not always come freely nor do they reduce the disparity in agency.

Are you suggesting then that game mechanics are there for those players who can't come up with good ideas and thus are using the mechanics on their character sheet as a replacement for them? If that's the case... then I'd say the Fighter is thus working as intended, as that's the stereotypical class that players take when they don't want to have to come up with ideas (especially out-of-combat). They show up, they just want to hit stuff, they play a Champion Fighter.

If a player can't or doesn't want to think of ideas... taking the one class supposedly built for them and giving them a whole bunch of mechanical knobs they now have to think about is not exactly solving a problem.

 

[Vaalingrade]

To me that's the best way for a Fighter PC to be good out-of-combat... the player just comes up with good and smart ideas. And you don't need any game mechanics to do that.

Without rules, this is all dependent on the DM.

All the good ideas in the world don't matter if god is against you. But if you have physics on your side...

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

"Good ideas" in D&D are often in the shape of "Hey wizard-dude, can you use your spell to do X?"