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.

 

[delericho]

Unfortunately, D&D isn't really the best game to emulate that with it's core rules. It requires some tweaking.

Not really. Since everyone will be using absurdly large swords, you don't need to make any rule changes at all. Just draw the swords bigger.

 

[Rune]

So small races are forced to dual wield, monk martial arts, or cast spells.

No they aren't.

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.

There already is a medium race skinned as small(ish). The Dwarf.

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?

Personally, I'm not just fine with small races having fewer melee options--I'm also fine with people generally viewing them as weaker options. This parallels the attitudes big folk have toward the small folk in the fiction of the game. A clear case of real life imitating art.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Of course, neither could a human character at the bottom end of the height/weight scale - think Paris Hilton with a greatsword. Same problem. And yet the rules allow that without penalty.

I'd also point out that muscle density wise, halflings are more like chimps than human children (who, despite being small, can easily tear you apart with their bare hands). Even in 1- 3rd edition with the str penalty, they were insanely strong for their size/frames. From a sim, gamist, or narrative perspective, it makes no sense that a 90 pound human can swing a greatsword more reckless/harder for a +10 damage, but a stronger halfling cant put the same extra stank on their equivalent of a 2 handed sword (a longsword used 2 handed, small 2 handed sword, whatever you want to call it).

 

[Minigiant]

No they aren't.

.

They aren't literally forced. But if you want to use racial features, a small PC wants to wield two weapons, use monk weapons, or cast spells.

You can choose to do other things like make a heavy armor stout waste who weapons and shields but you waste your Dex. You can pick medium armor but that hurts your stealth and wants Dex 14 unless you take the feat. So yeah a halfling in medium armor or gnome in heavy armor wielding weapon and shield works if you ignore racial features.

There is nothing wrong with ignoring racial features for roleplay. But there's no denying loss of or the possibility of loss of power.

 

[Rune]

In a game where anyone can take training in any skill and abilities equal saves, no stat bonus is truly a waste.

 

[Yergi]

If the majority wanted sandboxes, Pathfinder would be out of business. Makes me wonder about the validity of the survey.

It's a convenience sample, so validity is definitely questionable.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

From a sim, gamist, or narrative perspective, it makes no sense that a 90 pound human can swing a greatsword more reckless/harder for a +10 damage, but a stronger halfling cant put the same extra stank on their equivalent of a 2 handed sword (a longsword used 2 handed, small 2 handed sword, whatever you want to call it).

A 90-lb human will have Strength below 10, and is strongly dis-incentivized from using heavy melee weapons in the first place. If the game rules don't go out of their way to explicitly disallow that maneuver, then that's just a minor oversight on a corner case that should never come up anyway.

 

[ThirdWizard]

FWIW, I agree with you completely. I wonder how much of it is a result of the FF generation, where size of weapons doesn't matter and gonzo is appealing

Just to make you feel old, someone who was 12 when Final Fantasy VII was released is now 30 years old.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

A 90-lb human will have Strength below 10, and is strongly dis-incentivized from using heavy melee weapons in the first place. If the game rules don't go out of their way to explicitly disallow that maneuver, then that's just a minor oversight on a corner case that should never come up anyway.

What is the weight limit for humans putting extra stank on a sword wielded with both hands that a 20 strength halfling could not also do with a longsword in 2 hands?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What is the weight limit for humans putting extra stank on a sword wielded with both hands that a 20 strength halfling could not also do with a longsword in 2 hands?

The equivalent of Strength 14, so about 135 lbs at the bare minimum. If your Strength is lower than 14, then you're not going to use the heavy weapon rules anyway, so they're irrelevant.

What the game rules are trying to tell you is that sheer power isn't the deciding factor in pulling off this particular maneuver. The length of your arm, or some such, is an immutable requirement. Remember, the rules of the game only describe the natural laws of the world; they don't define it.