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.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

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...?).

I find that is a bad faith reply since you did not engage with the rest of my comment even though my example was badly made.

And you're missing another aspect. That particular fighter is then 100% dedicated to that particular subclass and play style, while a wizard could just swap out their spells as needed.

 

[Incenjucar]

Magic and non-magic actions still have mechanical differences in the game. Magic is subject to anti-magic, dispelling, detection, etc., while non-magic (in D&D specifically, which treats magic like a video game does) can be interacted with within the fiction much more. If a fighter secures the camp using strings with bells on them, then the enemy druid can send mice to chew the bell strings off, etc.

 

[Remathilis]

Eew, no thank you!

The game is almost there anyway. Truly nonmagical characters are limited to three classes (and I can make a strong argument barbarian rage is supernatural in origin) and maybe 2-3 subclasses for each. To save these dozen options we're going to nuke the spell system or design nonmagical plot cards that do the same kind of things as spells? Heck, even the most mundane species come with magical or supernatural abilities (stonecunning, elven magic, lucky). The box of "totally nonmagical hero doing superheroic things" is a very small one and if it's what's causing the marital/magic divide, then I say it's easier to change a dozen or so options rather than redo 90% of the game to accommodate them.

 

[Incenjucar]

The fact that 90% of the game is magic is the issue.

 

[Aldarc]

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

Oh well. I guess you got me on a technicality. I'm just gonna hang up my hat here and retire from this forum.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

The fighter sounds so devoid of redeeming things it can do or excel at that it might as well be deleted without anyone noticing if fighter has so few redeeming features that it exists as a class where there is not a single of thing noteworthy enough to note it capable of.

I have no idea what you’re on about.

You are making a case for fighter to gain some of the strengths of spellcasting classes citing that they can do or excel at something fighter can't but can not even admit that fighter can do or excel at something those other classes can'. The tendency to sweep that two way gap behind the curtain while presenting it as a one way gap leads to the needs of some classes being ignored in order to focus exclusively on one side rather than strengths of both, I presented the videos as evidence of exactly that happening from wotc itself.

 

[Charlaquin]

The fighter sounds so devoid of redeeming things it can do or excel at that it might as well be deleted without anyone noticing if fighter has so few redeeming features that it exists as a class where there is not a single of thing noteworthy enough to note it capable of.

What are you talking about??

You are making a case for fighter to gain some of the strengths of spellcasting classes citing that they can do or excel at something fighter can't but can not even admit that fighter can do or excel at something those other classes can'.

I’m making no such case. I’m arguing that D&D has a fundamentally inequitable approach to its class design. This isn’t about the individual abilities of fighters and wizards (or any other classes). This is about a foundational mechanical flaw, wherein some classes mechanically function by way of push-button abilities and other classes do not.

 

[Incenjucar]

If wizards had a spell, "Conjure Camp Defenses" that temporarily set up a bunch of nets covered in bells, which then disappeared in the morning and required them to stay close, making it a time saver with some limitations, and still thwartable, that would be much more reasonable. Other characters could still contribute meaningfully, it would still be pretty neat, and they would still need to watch out for curious swarms of mice nibbling at the strings.

 

[tetrasodium]

What are you talking about??

I’m making no such case. I’m arguing that D&D has a fundamentally inequitable approach to its class design. This isn’t about the individual abilities of fighters and wizards (or any other classes). This is about a foundational mechanical flaw, wherein some classes mechanically function by way of push-button abilities and other classes are not.

You are assuming that there is agreement about that "fundamentally inequitable approach to its class design" and then going one step further by assuming that there is agreement about it being a problematic inequality. There is not agreement to those things which is why you are being asked to detail something fighters could do or exceed at compared to casters because it would demonstrate either the depths of the disagreement or highlight the fact that the "fundamentally inequitable approach to its class design" cuts both ways depending on the area you choose to look at.

 

[Charlaquin]

You are assuming that there is agreement about that "fundamentally inequitable approach to its class design" and then going one step further by assuming that there is agreement about it being a problematic inequality.

What? No, I’m well aware that people disagree. I’m expressing my opinion, not claiming it’s universally held. That would be absurd.

There is not agreement to those things which is why you are being asked to detail something fighters could do or exceed at compared to casters because it would demonstrate either the depths of the disagreement or highlight the fact that the "fundamentally inequitable approach to its class design" cuts both ways depending on the area you choose to look at.

Why would I need to detail something fighters excell at that wizards can’t to demonstrate that spellcasters can push buttons to make things happen and non-casters can’t? That doesn’t make any sense.

Do you dispute that casters can push buttons to make things happen? Do you dispute that non-casters can’t do so?