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.

 

[Remathilis]

According to Mistwell, if many people are happy, and many others are unhappy, there is no problem to address except for exile of the unhappy, Change nothing. Innovate never. Join our happiness or leave. So speaks the Higher Mind.

I mean, that's WotC playtest metrics in a nutshell.

 

[MockingBird]

A co-worker came to me this morning and told me he's been playing BG3 for the last week. He then asked me about D&D. Picked up a new player thanks to BG3 haha.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Bladesinger is a particularly problematic example, since that subclass grants something like 70+% of the capabilities of the fighter class, whereas the equivalent fighter subclass only grants perhaps 20% of the capabilities of the wizard class.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Bladesinger is a particularly problematic example, since that subclass grants something like 70+% of the capabilities of the fighter class, whereas the equivalent fighter subclass only grants perhaps 20% of the capabilities of the wizard class.

Yes. We noticed. My replacement character was also a fighter, but one that cared less about armour (i made an echo knight instead).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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?

Tetrasodium, I understand what you are suggesting, and it is seriously not what Charlaquin is talking about. You're barking up the wrong tree there.

You appear to be opining that you believe that the classes are already in balance, so that any increase in the capability of one class will raise them above the level that all the other classes sit at?

This is an entirely valid concern: If Fighters were to be granted a level of agency similar to Wizards in some of the non-combat aspects of the game, then it is entirely fair that the Fighter capability in some of the combat aspects of the game such as crowd control, movement, automatic damage, buffing, and debuffing be reduced to Wizard levels.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Correct. It is not about an imbalance of power, which I’ve said like seven times now. It’s about a design inequity. All players can engage in “mother may I” but only players who chose to play casters get to pick an ability and have its hard-coded effects happen automatically. That’s inequitable design, regardless of which classes are most or least powerful.

I think it is a good thing that some classes work differently and don't have only hard-coded Action powers like spells. They instead have their combat effectiveness broken down into smaller bits that they get to mix and match for their round, like the Battle Master's abilities. (Of course it can be better, like adding weapon mastery options, and adding Cunning Strike for the rogue.)

I am very strict with magic spells and they don't do anything that the spell doesn't clearly state. But because spells are a dwindling resource, I do respect their intended effectiveness. It's really helpful for those players who want the option to click a "button" rather than have to negotiate what they are trying to accomplish, because some players say it feels like playing Mother May I, which they don't like.

As a DM, I enage with non-magic-using characters differently, in that their intended actions are more fluid in their effectiveness. There is more nuance and story to their actions, because they can get good and bad results based on their ability checks. Essentially, ability checks get more narrative screen time than spells in my game because unlike spells, they do not guarantee sterile, planned results.

 

[tetrasodium]

Tetrasodium, I understand what you are suggesting, and it is seriously not what Charlaquin is talking about. You're barking up the wrong tree there.

You appear to be opining that you believe that the classes are already in balance, so that any increase in the capability of one class will raise them above the level that all the other classes sit at?

This is an entirely valid concern: If Fighters were to be granted a level of agency similar to Wizards in some of the non-combat aspects of the game, then it is entirely fair that the Fighter capability in some of the combat aspects of the game such as crowd control, movement, automatic damage, buffing, and debuffing be reduced to Wizard levels.

Not quite. My point is that the complaint is pure sour grapes over one class not having the abilities of a second with no end goal other than a spiteful consumption of all capabilities of the second class and more rather than something worth discussing like "I don't feel this collection of strengths justifies that particular gap".


Balance between classes is not something that can be measured on a scale and not something that comes from cherry picking isolated features while refusing to analyze or even discuss the whole of a class. You can only decide if two classes are balanced by comparing them as a sum of their parts. The fact that fighters even have nonspecific strengths of their own was an admission only made under protest for purposes of a discussion & there was no willingness to engage in shows the depth of those sour grapes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

As a DM, I enage with non-magic-using characters differently, in that their intended actions are more fluid in their effectiveness.

This to me is the problem. The spellcaster's stuff just works. Even if the DM actively tries to screw them by playing Literal Genie with the wording. But the martial have no such protections from the DM not wanting stuff to work, misunderstanding what the martial is trying to do, or imposing their idea of what should be possible on the character.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

This to me is the problem. The spellcaster's stuff just works. Even if the DM actively tries to screw them by playing Literal Genie with the wording. But the martial have no such protections from the DM not wanting stuff to work, misunderstanding what the martial is trying to do, or imposing their idea of what should be possible on the character.

So what you are talking about isn't a D&D thing. It is an "Any TTRPG where the GM has more narrative control, or the narrative is a constant negotiation" thing. There are so many indie TTRPGs that are about the shared storytelling experience, rather than mechanical power-use experience. Do you dislike all those TTRPGs too?

I am so sorry if someone only has antagonistic GMs who shoot them down all the time. But that is a GM problem. Those same GMs will cause issues whether a spell or ability check is used. As the DM I am the guide/narrator that is working with the players to help weave their ideas and fantasies into a cohesive story with challenges and ultimate triumphs. I am not their opponent, rather more like an Improv Coordinator.

And yes, I have played under DMs who are mechanically antagonistic. If they don't care about their players' feedback, or if I'm the odd person out for that table's playstyle, I thank them for the opportunity, wish them the best, and move on.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It doesn't matter fi the DM is antagonistic or not. One class gets guarantees, the other doesn't. That is the issue.