April's D&D Feedback Survey Results

WotC has revealed the results of its latest monthly feedback survey. Last month's survey dealt with game scheduling habits, character races, and Adventurer's League content. Additionally, a new survey has been posted covering problem spells, the DRAGON+ mobile app, and the Waterborne Adventures UA column.

The new survey is here. April's survey results are here, but below is a quick list of the take-home points.

• It turns out that that 1st-6th level games are still the most common a year after D&D 5E's launch.
• The most likely end point of a campaign is 10th-12th level.
• There is a preference for more open, sandboxy adventures.
• Smaller races are seen as weaker options.
• Adventurer's League content is reasonably well received, with specifically designed adventures more popular than Tyranny of Dragons adaptions for AL.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I sort of alluded to it earlier, but we have an entire generation where pop culture was the FF style oversized weapons, so it makes sense why a lot of people who liked FF would like to emulate that in their games. Like whats-her-face in Pathfinder with that giant arse sword. There's nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, D&D isn't really the best game to emulate that with it's core rules. It requires some tweaking. So if you (general you) like a halfling with a giant great sword, play that way. Just know that you'll have to houserule it rather than it be the default game.

 

[Agamon]

This sandbox versus linear stuff seems like a bad way to determine what type of adventures they should make. The people that like to make their own stuff up aren't going to buy adventures consistently. The people that do buy adventures are more concerned with other aspects of the adventure like story content, maps, type of monster, ease of use in various settings, and other aspects. Whether or not it is a sandbox is pretty low on the list. I can't help but think that the sandbox talk is a red herring.

It's alright to state an opinion, but I wouldn't go as far as to ascribe these thoughts to all people that buy adventures.

I do both, create my own and buy published, and whether an adventure is sandbox or linear is one of the most important things for me. And according to the survey, it's important to others, as well.

 

[Minigiant]

Why have any racial mechanical features at all then if they don't really mean anything? I see the clamoring for heavy weapons use by small races as a simple case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Everyone wants the cool perks and abilities that goes with being small but none of the drawbacks. If we add heavy weapon use to the small races then why not add their special traits to the larger races? If halflings get to be beefy then why can't my half orc hide behind other people?

At that point all races have all the perks and there is no point in using them at all. From a game balance perspective alone, taking away the only real downside of an option will make it too good NOT to choose. After all, if I can swing a greataxe and bring the pain of a hulking half orc, yet be nimble and hide like a lightfoot halfling why on earth would I NOT want to do that! There is really no reason to play a large race ever.

Every racial choice has to have tradeoffs. This to me is more important than worrying about the protein content of hit points.
.

You are missing the point.

The issue is in the eyes of many, the benefits and options don't counteract the drawbacks.

For example. You pick Lightfoot halfling. The strengths of the race is the Dex and Cha bonus and Naturally Stealthy. If you want to use those features you have to be a rogue or warlock as they are the only ones who use DEX and CHA and uses stealth. And just using the DEX isn't enough as there are so many better DEX races.

And dual wielding sucks for non rogues.

Small races are not bad nor are they weak. Small races are limiting for little benefit. A halfling rogue,bard, or warlock is good. A halfling anything else is meh to bad. Gnomes are great casters and rogues.... and that's it.

 

[Agamon]

I don't think it is obvious. Did the survey target DMs or the general player base? I don't recall a survey discussing adventures specifically, I've been trying to do them all. I DM quite a bit. I usually use a purchased adventure. I don't recall a survey aimed at us.
A general survey aimed at the random player base included in a survey featuring player material as well isn't going to be as accurate as survey targeted at DMs. I know myself and one other player purchase premade adventures. The other two play and rarely purchase adventures. A DM looks for different things than a player when purchasing adventure content. I hope I see some DM specific surveys sometime soon.

The survey questions are worded in a way that you don't answer them or give an "I don't know" answer if they are irrelevant to you. So this is already the case; if you buy adventures, you answer the question about buying adventures. Otherwise, you don't. Or shouldn't. But they couldn't stop a player from filling out a "DMs only" survey, either.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Small races are bad nor are they weak. Small races are limiting for little benefit. A halfling rogue,bard, or warlock is good. A halfling anything else is meh to bad. Gnomes are great casters and rogues.... and that's it.

Only maybe from an optimization min/max standpoint. And I would feel safe in saying that most players don't play that way. In this very thread you have no fewer than three people who have said that in actual play experience martial halfling warriors are pretty darn bad arse and fun to play.

 

[Mistwell]

We don't KNOW how to play high levels because we have never had proper instruction on how to do that effectively, and for good reason! I don't even think wizards know how to do high level play correctly

That's a good point.

I know one reason my campaigns don't go to high level, is I don't know how to run them effectively. The extremes between TPK and Party-walks-through-the-encounter in a single round seem to come up a lot more. And I am not sure how to run the non-combats in ways that feel challenging given the amounts of gold and magic the PCs have. All around there are lots of difficulties I am not sure how to deal with at those levels.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You are missing the point.

The issue is in the eyes of many, the benefits and options don't counteract the drawbacks.

For example. You pick Lightfoot halfling. The strengths of the race is the Dex and Cha bonus and Naturally Stealthy. If you want to use those features you have to be a rogue or warlock as they are the only ones who use DEX and CHA and uses stealth. And just using the DEX isn't enough as there are so many better DEX races.

And dual wielding sucks for non rogues.

Small races are bad nor are they weak. Small races are limiting for little benefit. A halfling rogue,bard, or warlock is good. A halfling anything else is meh to bad. Gnomes are great casters and rogues.... and that's it.

So make new offshoots of the small races? Varieties of halflings & gnomes that say, have racial traits similar to half orcs instead of the normal ones for their race. Effectively re-skinning the half orc as a little guy but still just as strong. I wouldn't mind that because being small would then be just cosmetic and they wouldn't be getting strength & power on top of the benefits of being small.

 

[Minigiant]

Only maybe from an optimization min/max standpoint. And I would feel safe in saying that most players don't play that way. In this very thread you have no fewer than three people who have said that in actual play experience martial halfling warriors are pretty darn bad arse and fun to play.

A "not" went missing in the copy pasta.

Small races are NOT bad NOR are they weak. Small races are limiting for little benefit.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Small races are not bad nor are they weak. Small races are limiting for little benefit. A halfling rogue,bard, or warlock is good. A halfling anything else is meh to bad. Gnomes are great casters and rogues.... and that's it.

I can maybe see that they're limiting, sure. At the same time, though...do we WANT halflings in plate armor wielding pikes to be as common as humans doing the same thing? Is equivalence in this area a goal that serves the game better overall? Is it OK to have more half-orcs wielding greataxes than gnomes wielding greataxes? And more gnome wizards than half-orc wizards? If humans are supposed to be the most adaptable race, aren't we OK with having other races with areas that they're good at and areas that they're bad at?

I'm inclined to say "yup." Though at the same time, it probably wouldn't hurt to have an option - maybe a feat that allows them to use "too big" weapons without disadvantage and maybe comes with a few other benefits - for folks who want tanky gnomes or whatever to do so well? As a limited option like a feat would mean that DMs who thought it was ridiculous could easily ban that ONE option, while providing those who think that it's awesome something they can use. I'd probably allow such a feat in my games - I can sympathize with the desire to play against type and I've got no issue suspending disbelief on our 3-ft gnome with a 6-ft hunk of steel because that is badass. But it would probably be good that it's not something everyone has in their games.

 

[halfling rogue]

This is another problem. Consistent definition of what a sandbox adventure is.

Seems it differs from person to person:
1. Some want content they can plug into their own adventures. An encounter book like the Book of Lairs?

2. Some want one off modules like WotC used to produce. Against the Giants, Ghost Tower of Inverness, or Keep on the Borderlands. There was a time when WotC made shorter modules where a DM could choose four or five different modules to run characters up. Each one was self-contained and did not require a complete story. I would be cool with this. I liked that model as well. This requires quite a few more modules than two per year. I loved going from Keep on the Borderlands to Ghost Tower of Inverness to Caverns of Tsojcanth[/] to Against the Giants to Tomb of Horrors.

3. Some want something like Princes of the Apocalypse where you have a bunch of loosely integrated encounter areas that you can attack at any point in the adventure.

What model should WotC use?

One off modules. Hands down. Keep the two a year long arc adventure paths and sprinkle a handful of modules ala Lost Mine or Keep on the Borderlands, whathaveyou. Tie them into the main story arc for all I care, but give us something we can play in the course of only a few sessions. I would love to play/run Tiamat/Apocalypse/Abyss but I'll never purchase/play any of them because my group cannot sustain it. We meet when we can meet and beginning an epic adventure only to stop after three sessions spaced out whenever we can meet isn't beneficial.

Plus since the new edition, I've been introducing quite a few folks to D&D and shorter adventures would be great. For now Lost Mine works well.