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.

 

[Aldarc]

Moon druids.

Their spellcasting wasn't being nerfed.

5e class balance is very good, overall, and that's reflected in user numbers.

3e also had good numbers but it was hardly balanced. Just because 5e has good numbers doesn't mean that it's balanced. Correlation is not causation.

 

[Charlaquin]

So what do you propose that the fighter give up to gain all of these "but wizards[and sorcerer and bard and warlock and sometimes cleric/druid]" ritual spells that have you so frustrated about?

I mean, they’d need to be re-structured pretty much entirely. Like I said, you could either go the 4e route or the M:tA improvised casting route.

Also, I’m not especially frustrated by it. I was clarifying a point that I think was being muddled by the conversation about spotlight time.

 

[tetrasodium]

I mean, they’d need to be re-structured pretty much entirely. Like I said, you could either go the 4e route or the M:tA improvised casting route.

Also, I’m not especially frustrated by it. I was clarifying a point that I think was being muddled by the conversation about spotlight time.

You & a few others don't seem to have a problem suggesting specific things to move from casters as a whole to the fighter while blaming wizards. What specific "spotlight time" elements of fighter are you suggesting fighters lose?

I think that's a critically important question what proponents of this ability consumption are suggesting fighter give up. The mentality that keeps pointing pitchforks so exclusively at wizards for things all casters have without mentioning what the pointing classes do have is the same sort of mentality that results in crawford talking at length about the importance of theme & feel of sorcerer & warlock in the playtest5 video where the importance of theme & feel for the wizard was so low that it didn't even come up until after the feedback on that same packet revealed that the wizard deserved but didn't get the same level of concern or even mention.

 

[Incenjucar]

In the real world, people who have to set up a camp site pick up various skills and tools to make them safer, better disguised, more comfortable, harder to sneak up on, warmer, less attractive to animals, etc. Or you could use the spell that erases the issue entirely.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I'm just not finding this issue in my games. Players aren't struggling to get spotlight time or authorial agency (whatever that really means; the idea that Leomund's Tiny Hut offers some huge authorial advantage is dubious to me, to say the least). I'm not seeing it in the actual play shows that I watch. The only place it comes up is on this forum, and honestly if you have to reach for Tiny Hut to make a point, I don't think the issue is that serious.

It's not just that single spell, though, and it's not just authorial power or even narrative influence.

Imagine trying to make Steve the Speedster Fighter. He's a fighter built for maximum combat mobility. Even at level 20, he barely has anything to show for it, while a wizard can no-diff teleport anywhere, can fly and whatever.

You might argue that the fighter shouldn't be fast, but then my question is what is athletics about? How does a higher athletics modifier manifest in the imagined reality of the game? It certainly doesn't manifest itself in increased movement speed.

 

[Clint_L]

It's not just that single spell, though, and it's not just authorial power or even narrative influence.

Imagine trying to make Steve the Speedster Fighter. He's a fighter built for maximum combat mobility.

Ok. I make him an Echo Knight. Done.

Fighter subclasses actually substantially change how the class plays, which is seldom true of wizard subclasses (Bladesinger plus...?).

 

[Clint_L]

Their spellcasting wasn't being nerfed.

Your statement was "I doubt that any nerf to spellcasting classes would meet the 70% threshold."

3e also had good numbers but it was hardly balanced. Just because 5e has good numbers doesn't mean that it's balanced. Correlation is not causation.

That's true, but 5e not only has exponentially more players than 3e, we have seen that class choice among those players is also fairly balanced - fighters are an outlier at the top and druids at the bottom, but overall they are reasonably close. So the correlation is suggestive and relevant. On the other hand, what is the evidence being presented against the classes being balanced? A few anecdotes.

 

[Charlaquin]

You & a few others don't seem to have a problem suggesting specific things to move from casters as a whole to the fighter while blaming wizards.

I don’t speak for anyone but myself, and I don’t blame wizards specifically for anything. The design problem I’m pointing out is far broader than any one individual class. It’s a fundamental design problem with D&D that some classes rely only on the declare>determine>describe cycle and others can use both the declare>determine>describe cycle and can push buttons to make things happen.

What specific "spotlight time" elements of fighter are you suggesting fighters lose?

Spotlight time is not my issue. Literally I came in specifically to say I don’t think spotlight time is the real problem. Maybe stop treating me as a proxy for all the perspectives you disagree with and engage what I, specifically, am saying.

I think that's a critically important question what proponents of this ability consumption are suggesting fighter give up. The mentality that keeps pointing pitchforks so exclusively at wizards for things all casters have without mentioning what the pointing classes do have is the same sort of mentality that results in crawford talking at length about the importance of theme & feel of sorcerer & warlock in the playtest5 video where the importance of theme & feel for the wizard was so low that it didn't even come up until after the feedback on that same packet revealed that the wizard deserved but didn't get the same level of concern or even mention.

I have no idea what you’re on about.

 

[Remathilis]

Why would you ignore the “but the fiction” argument? The fiction matters. Heck, I’ve heard it said that the fiction is the most important part of D&D (though personally I don’t strictly agree).

I just want to address this point: from the game mechanics stand-point, there is no difference between a fighter using a "secure campsite" feature and a wizard casting the alarm ritual. The fiction (aka how you explain it happening) changes but the net effect is the same, expend resource, get result. Of course, magic has an inbuilt advantage as it summons a plot contrivance into existence, while "mundane" abilities rely on luck, happenstance, and coincidence to make it work.

Now, as you pointed out, you could make magic rely on the same luck, happenstance, and coincidence to make it work, but then we beg the question of what magic is actually doing. If a fighter can conveniently find the best place to camp every night because he took the "secure campsite" ability and the wizard can do the same because he took the alarm ritual, all the magic did was mimic what the fighter could do nonmagically. The has given two different paths to the same end and just said one was more magical than the other.

Personally, if the game is going to go that route, I'd rather it commits and just make magical abilities inherent to every class. It's almost already there; only fighters and rogues lack overt magical power (and barbarians dance on the edge of it) so it wouldn't take much of a push to explain that anyone crazy enough to adventure in D&D has at least picked up some simple rituals and magical effects to augment thier natural ability.

 

[Charlaquin]

I just want to address this point: from the game mechanics stand-point, there is no difference between a fighter using a "secure campsite" feature and a wizard casting the alarm ritual. The fiction (aka how you explain it happening) changes but the net effect is the same, expend resource, get result. Of course, magic has an inbuilt advantage as it summons a plot contrivance into existence, while "mundane" abilities rely on luck, happenstance, and coincidence to make it work.

Now, as you pointed out, you could make magic rely on the same luck, happenstance, and coincidence to make it work, but then we beg the question of what magic is actually doing. If a fighter can conveniently find the best place to camp every night because he took the "secure campsite" ability and the wizard can do the same because he took the alarm ritual, all the magic did was mimic what the fighter could do nonmagically. The has given two different paths to the same end and just said one was more magical than the other.

Again, they don’t have to be able to do the same things. But either all classes should get “make stuff happen” buttons or none should. What those buttons make happen could vary from one class to another if they went the former route.

Personally, if the game is going to go that route, I'd rather it commits and just make magical abilities inherent to every class. It's almost already there; only fighters and rogues lack overt magical power (and barbarians dance on the edge of it) so it wouldn't take much of a push to explain that anyone crazy enough to adventure in D&D has at least picked up some simple rituals and magical effects to augment thier natural ability.

Eew, no thank you!