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]

People stepping away from playing D&D because Wizard characters can "do too much" is one of those things that is extremely easy to say but impossible to prove. So it is an un-actionable complaint. WotC has absolutely no reason to change their game just on the off-chance they can stop some random person from walking away from the game.

WotC makes all sorts of decisions that make some players walk away. It happens. And there's nothing that can be done about that-- this game will not be for everyone. It is literally impossible to keep every player playing. So the question then becomes "Is what we have good enough to keep enough players happy and playing?" And if the answer is 'Yes', then there's no reason to change.

If there are supposedly all these people who are martial combat fans that don't feel as though they are getting to do enough stuff because those Wizard players just use their spell slots every single time they need to make a decision... right now those players are doing a horrible job at convincing anyone of note that that is the case and is an actual problem. Because WotC would have changed the rules by now if it was really an issue or at the very least given us a hint of a change which might be in order in any of these playtests. But the fact they haven't even touched upon the idea of removing large swathes of utility spells or giving martial PCs large numbers of new "out-of-combat" features is a pretty good indication they don't see the issue the same way.

Yes, some of you don't like that spellcasters seem to overshadow your martial PCs in your games. That's going to happen. But if you are in the minority about that and WotC just doesn't agree (at least not for a preponderance of tables), then it's an issue you yourself will just have to figure out a work-around for.

True story: Before I was invested in this whole deal I always played casters. I had played a barbarian once but he was one-shotted by assassins in his second session of Pathfinder (1). At that point I did not care about the issue of balance at all. I had also played a rogue that died very early on in Tomb of Horrors. That was my extent of playing martial classes in D&D and D&D-likes. Many years before this an online friend of mine and I used to talk a lot about about role playing games. His personal pet peeve? He didn't play D&D-likes, because he didn't like how magic shaped the game and was overpowered.

So yes. This guy had stepped away from D&D because of bad design issues.

More anecdotes: The first fighter I played "for real" was in 5e, and I had to retire him because he was outclassed by the group's bladesinger. He was a sword and board dwarf fighter and the difference in armour between the bladesinger and my fighter was absurd. Let's not even mention the difference in mobility. That's when the balance issues finally clicked for me.

 

[tetrasodium]

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

They are the same thing and you were the one who wanted to talk about capability. If one class is more capable in a given area of gameplay than a second class then there is an area of gameplay where the first can point to how their increased capability in that area makes it one where they are stronger than the second. Linguistic hair splitting attempting to make the area an indescribable quantum thing does not change that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

True story: Before I was invested in this whole deal I always played casters. I had played a barbarian once but he was one-shotted by assassins in his second session of Pathfinder (1). At that point I did not care about the issue of balance at all. I had also played a rogue that died very early on in Tomb of Horrors. That was my extent of playing martial classes in D&D and D&D-likes. Many years before this an online friend of mine and I used to talk a lot about about role playing games. His personal pet peeve? He didn't play D&D-likes, because he didn't like how magic shaped the game and was overpowered.

So yes. This guy had stepped away from D&D because of bad design issues.

More anecdotes: The first fighter I played "for real" was in 5e, and I had to retire him because he was outclassed by the group's bladesinger. He was a sword and board dwarf fighter and the difference in armour between the bladesinger and my fighter was absurd. Let's not even mention the difference in mobility. That's when the balance issues finally clicked for me.

And two people does not a design concern make.

Is it a shame for you and your friend that D&D 5E plays in such a way that you don't enjoy it? Sure. No one questions your feelings on the matter. But just because you might walk away is not enough of a reason for WotC to make changes to the game. We would need to see a massive turn-away like those that chose to stick with 3.5 or PF rather than move onto 4E for WotC to decide they had to do something.

Right now there are just not enough players who find martial vs caster inequality to be an issue to warrant making changes. If there were... we would have seen more changes begin to come.

 

[Incenjucar]

There are not statistics available for this, and there never will be, so anecdotes and inference based on human behavior are all that is available.

 

[Remathilis]

If the party decides on the use of that power, and everyone benefits equally from the use of the power, it's not inequitable design any more than a magic item owned by the whole party which casts that spell would be.

I keep asking for why the person who triggers the ability is meaningful to the experience. Claiming inequitable design without showing any meaning to that for an individual playing is, once again, not answering that question.

Back in 2nd edition, I played a single class thief in a game dominated by mages. As such, a lot of the stealthy stuff was easily handled by a mage with the correct spells and magic items. Having not designed my thief to be a pickpocket, the things he was good at (locks, traps, scouting, etc) were outshined by magic.

By your logic, it doesn't matter how or who unlocks a door, as long as it's unlocked. But much of the time, my character contributed little to the quest. At best, I saved the mages a spell slot (assuming I don't fail my roll, something magic never worries about). Could I roleplay? Come up with plans and ideas? Sure. But so could everyone else.

For what it's worth, 3rd edition didn't fix that problem, it made it worse thanks to multi-classing skill rules and cheap wands. But at least I had sneak attack so I had something to do in combat (provided it wasn't against undead or constructs).

So I get the desire for martials to have a few I win buttons. I am annoyed that expertise is increasingly being given to non-experts since that is again taking an advantage for martials and giving it to casters. (I give weapon mastery about a year before every class has access to it via subclass).

 

[Aldarc]

If the party decides on the use of that power, and everyone benefits equally from the use of the power, it's not inequitable design any more than a magic item owned by the whole party which casts that spell would be.

I keep asking for why the person who triggers the ability is meaningful to the experience. Claiming inequitable design without showing any meaning to that for an individual playing is, once again, not answering that question.

Clearly people enjoy playing wizards for a reason. I would assume that this would factor somehow into the decision for someone to play a wizard or other spellcaster rather than just playing a non-caster and having the wizard do it. I can't say, for example, that my fantasy for my fighter is to ask the wizard to do the cool thing while I sit back and wait, but if that floats your boat...

 

[Mistwell]

Nah. This is basic human psychology. Plenty of people have given up on D&D over the years, play casters or multi-class into being casters, are not super engaged in the game itself, play in games with house rules, or have DMs who smooth things over.

The game is not reaching everyone it could, even if it's reaching a ton of people. A lot of people eat McDonald's too, but plenty of folks won't touch it, and Starbucks is quite popular despite being literally burned coffee that people snub in cities with other options.

So your theory is this game, which is the most popular its ever been, and which has been massively increasing in popularity every year, is actually suffering a meaningful amount in sales and popularity because a meaningful number of players don't feel needed when a spellcaster casts an out of combat spell?

And nobody can prove you wrong because any amount of proof can be met with the response of, "Well, they could do better." And you don't need to offer any proof of this theory because, "Well, they could do better?"

 

[Mistwell]

Back in 2nd edition, I played a single class thief in a game dominated by mages. As such, a lot of the stealthy stuff was easily handled by a mage with the correct spells and magic items. Having not designed my thief to be a pickpocket, the things he was good at (locks, traps, scouting, etc) were outshined by magic.

We're discussing this edition of the game which doesn't have that sort of issue. And again because I prefer examples to theory, let's go through them:

1) Wizards are not expending Knock spells when a Rogue can unlock the door, or the barbarian can smash the door down. Knock is one of the least chosen spells in the game, and I've never heard of anyone using a spell slot in that instance where the Rogue could do it without expending a resource. Have you?
2) Traps: Find traps is literally a useless spell in this game because it doesn't even do the very basic thing in the name. IE it doesn't actually find traps! Nobody takes it because of this, and nobody would expend a spell slot if the Rogue could actually find and disable the trap without the use of a resource. Have you heard of people using spells instead of the rogue for traps?
3) Scouting: This is one place where Familiars do sometimes replace rogues abilities. I have seen the use of familiars, more from Warlocks than Wizards, for scouting. And I'd say that's a meaningful thing because it does involve some role playing, it does involve spotlight issues, and that is meaningful. I do not however see much use of Arcane Eye or Clairvoyance or those spells if a Rogue could accomplish those tasks instead. But Familiars? Absolutely a real issue. However, as they're used for in-combat a well, and one of those core spellcaster abilities, I am not sure it's fair to describe this as the same category of "out of combat spells" as what we were discussing with things like Tiny Hut and Speak with Dead.
4) The rogue in 5e of course has in my opinion a much wider array of abilities than they did in 2e.

So I guess I partially agree when it comes to the scouting issue (and it's an issue that's come up in our games which we had to address), and that again comes down to a spotlight issue. I again say if a spell doesn't draw spotlight and is used as a party decision on behalf of the party, then it's not an issue.

 

[Mistwell]

Clearly people enjoy playing wizards for a reason. I would assume that this would factor somehow into the decision for someone to play a wizard or other spellcaster rather than just playing a non-caster and having the wizard do it. I can't say, for example, that my fantasy for my fighter is to ask the wizard to do the cool thing while I sit back and wait, but if that floats your boat...

Yes, people enjoy playing a Wizard and am someone who has enjoyed it (though I do not play one these days). The original complaint wasn't specific to Wizards but for some reason they've become the focus now.

Regardless, I don't think (but am open to disagreement) people enjoy playing Wizards specifically because of the out of combat type non-spotlight spells we're discussing. There is a lot to enjoy about playing the wizard, but I can only say from my own experience the spells which meet this criteria are not the reason I've ever chosen to play one: 1) out of combat only, 2) used as a party decision rather than an individua one, 3) benefits everyone in the party equally rather than individually, 4) involves no spotlight issue on the Wizard but instead is like pushing a button and it's done.

People like spotlight, and people tend to choose to play things because they will enjoy the spotlight which comes with that thing they chose. I don't think anyone chooses a class because they enjoy saying "I put up a tiny hut for the night" and the DM nods and that's that. But I don't mean to speak for everyone. If you choose classes based on something like that, tell us about it.

 

[Incenjucar]

So your theory is this game, which is the most popular its ever been, and which has been massively increasing in popularity every year, is actually suffering a meaningful amount in sales and popularity because a meaningful number of players don't feel needed when a spellcaster casts an out of combat spell?

And nobody can prove you wrong because any amount of proof can be met with the response of, "Well, they could do better." And you don't need to offer any proof of this theory because, "Well, they could do better?"

If the game being popular is the end of the conversation why even talk about it to begin with?

McDonald's is clearly the best that food can be, since people keep buying it.