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.

 

[tetrasodium]

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


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.

The mechanics tied to your opinion appear to be selectively chosen & ignored. I'm asking you to detail something that goes the other way or deny that there is anything going the other way because you don't seem to acknowledge that that there is as if only one specific strength of casters matters. There is not really much point in discussing such an extreme viewpoint if you feel fighters have no strengths of their own & casters weaknesses of their own.

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

The dispute is over the extremely selective cherry picking of class strengths & weaknesses being performed in order to assemble such a phrase.

 

[Charlaquin]

The mechanics tied to your opinion appear to be selectively chosen & ignored. I'm asking you to detail something that goes the other way or deny that there is anything going the other way because you don't seem to acknowledge that that there is as if only one specific strength of casters matters. There is not really much point in discussing such an extreme viewpoint if you feel fighters have no strengths of their own & casters weaknesses of their own.
The dispute is over the extremely selective cherry picking of class strengths & weaknesses being performed in order to assemble such a phrase.

I’m not talking about strengths and weaknesses of the classes. I’m talking about the capability of bypassing the declare>determine>describe cycle. This has nothing to do with power; it’s about the ways in which the players are able to utilize the game’s mechanics to enact a desired outcome in the fiction. Casters can describe what they want to accomplish and how and let the DM decide how to resolve that, or they can select an option from a menu that has a hard-coded result. Non-casters can do the former but not the latter. Do you disagree?

 

[tetrasodium]

I’m not talking about strengths and weaknesses of the classes. I’m talking about the capability of bypassing the declare>determine>describe cycle. This has nothing to do with power; it’s about the ways in which the players are able to utilize the game’s mechanics to enact a desired outcome in the fiction. Casters can describe what they want to accomplish and how and let the DM decide how to resolve that, or they can select an option from a menu that has a hard-coded result. Non-casters can do the former but not the latter. Do you disagree?

That gap in "capability" is part of what makes up the strengths and weaknesses of different classes with their own strengths and weaknesses though. You absolutely are talking about them but only focusing on one weakness and keep trying to frame things in the form of loaded questions about push buttons

 

[Charlaquin]

That gap in "capability" is part of what makes up the strengths and weaknesses of different classes with their own strengths and weaknesses though. You absolutely are talking about them but only focusing on one weakness and keep trying to frame things in the form of loaded questions about push buttons

Can that affect class power? Sure, but that isn’t why I care. For the sake of argument, let’s assume non-casters were just indisputably more powerful than casters. Like, if spells were all wildly inefficient, and non-casters were statistically superior in every way. I would still think it was poor design for casters to have push-button abilities and non-casters not to.

 

[tetrasodium]

Can that affect class power? Sure, but that isn’t why I care. For the sake of argument, let’s assume non-casters were just indisputably more powerful than casters. Like, if spells were all wildly inefficient, and non-casters were statistically superior in every way. I would still think it was poor design for casters to have push-button abilities and non-casters not to.

Fighters and other martials do have capabilities where they are more or less "capable" enough to call them strengths and weaknesses even if a hairsplitting linguistic technicality like "capability" is used. Fighter & other martials will still have the areas were they have greater "capability" than casters even if you dump every ritual/utility/etc spell onto their plates and declare them to be totally not just magic. The casters are no longer operating with the same relative "capability" & might not even feel right after course correction is done to right the wrongs done to their toolkit without admitting the initial act was an act of blatant favoritism that shoud never have been done.

At what point does taking things from caster in order to give tor copy them over to fighter stop being a dismissive shrug of sour grapes & become a spiteful "serves them right" while walking away with a strength from them?

 

[Incenjucar]

Fighters and other martials do have capabilities where they are more or less "capable" enough to call them strengths and weaknesses even if a hairsplitting linguistic technicality like "capability" is used. Fighter & other martials will still have the areas were they have greater "capability" than casters even if you dump every ritual/utility/etc spell onto their plates and declare them to be totally not just magic. The casters are no longer operating with the same relative "capability" & might not even feel right after course correction is done to right the wrongs done to their toolkit without admitting the initial act was an act of blatant favoritism that shoud never have been done.

At what point does taking things from caster in order to give tor copy them over to fighter stop being a dismissive shrug of sour grapes & become a spiteful "serves them right" while walking away with a strength from them?

Fighters should not get Wish as a cantrip at level 1.

Until then we have some room to explore.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fighters and other martials do have capabilities where they are more or less "capable" enough to call them strengths and weaknesses even if a hairsplitting linguistic technicality like "capability" is used.

Indeed, they can. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT their strengths and weaknesses though, I’m talking about how players of characters of non-spellcasting classes use the game mechanics to accomplish desired outcomes; to be precise, how they do not do this by simply declaring that they utilize an ability, and that ability having a specific result defined by the rules.

Fighter & other martials will still have the areas were they have greater "capability" than casters even if you dump every ritual/utility/etc spell onto their plates and declare them to be totally not just magic.

Ok. That’s still not what I’m talking about.

The casters are no longer operating with the same relative "capability" & might not even feel right after course correction is done to right the wrongs done to their toolkit without admitting the initial act was an act of blatant favoritism that shoud never have been done.

What are you talking about? What is being taken away from casters by giving non-casters abilities with clearly defined outcomes?

At what point does taking things from caster in order to give tor copy them over to fighter stop being a dismissive shrug of sour grapes & become a spiteful "serves them right" while walking away with a strength from them?

I don’t know? I’m not advocating for taking anything from casters to give to non-casters, so this question doesn’t seem relevant to me.

 

[tetrasodium]

Indeed, they can. I am NOT TALKING ABOUT their strengths and weaknesses though, I’m talking about how players of characters of non-spellcasting classes use the game mechanics to accomplish desired outcomes; to be precise, how they do not do this by simply declaring that they utilize an ability, and that ability having a specific result defined by the rules.

Ok. That’s still not what I’m talking about.

What are you talking about? What is being taken away from casters by giving non-casters abilities with clearly defined outcomes?

I don’t know? I’m not advocating for taking anything from casters to give to non-casters, so this question doesn’t seem relevant to me.

Definition of RELATIVE

a word referring grammatically to an antecedent; a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing; a person connected with another by blood or affinity… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Copying the strengths of one class to a second class unquestionably impacts their relative "capability" on an objective level because a capability once considered a strength is now present in both classes rather than just one.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fighters should not get Wish as a cantrip at level 1.

Until then we have some room to explore.

Amusingly, wish as a cantrip at 1st level, though indisputably overpowered, wouldn’t even solve the issue I am actually raising, (because, again, it’s NOT ABOUT POWER). Wish is the one spell that does actually work via the declare>determine>describe cycle. I mean, I guess the 5e version can work as a push-button ability, thanks to the “reproduce the effects of any 8th level spell” mode. But the traditional way Wish is used, where you declare what you wish for and the DM determines what happens (often looking for loopholes in your wording)? That’s declare>determine>describe, 100%.

Again, I’m not talking about this or that class being over or under powered. I’m talking about the ways players utilize the class’s mechanics to enact desired outcomes in the fiction. All players can say “I want to accomplish this,” and have the DM decide what rules to use (if any) to determine if they can. But only players of caster classes can also say “I use this ability” and have the rules inform the DM what the result is.

 

[Charlaquin]

Definition of RELATIVE

a word referring grammatically to an antecedent; a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing; a person connected with another by blood or affinity… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Copying the strengths of one class to a second class unquestionably impacts their relative "capability" on an objective level because a capability once considered a strength is now present in both classes rather than just one.

And strengths of the classes ARE NOT WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT!