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]

So what you're saying is that it's not a matter of grip, but rather of weight ratios?

Not even that. Unwieldiness. An excellent example was in the 1e PHB. A rug might not weigh as much as other things, but it's effective encumbrance will seem a lot more because of how unwieldy it is.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think it is almost entirely a psychological statement that small races are weak. They are small therefore they would have to be obviously more powerful than other races for people's minds to balance their initial gut reaction of small -> weak, with the realization that they have a lot going for them.

I'm not sure why the fact that they can't benefit from heavy weapons would be sufficient to say that the race is weak, while the fact that half-orcs have no particular spellcasting-improving feature doesn't qualify them as weak.

Personally not only do I have no interest in letting them use heavy weapons, I don't even let them use non-light weapons in one hand. A longsword is literally larger relative to a halfling than a greatsword is to a human--but they can wield it in one hand with no problem? Seriously?

They are just as good or better at Dex based melee combat, and that's good enough for small warriors. They aren't supposed to be good with weapons that are bigger than they are.

 

[Minigiant]

My main peeves is that being small is almost entirely a penalty in 5th edition. Sure you eat less, weight less, and can find full cover easier. But these are rather niche in an dungeon adventure game. Players rarely starve nor does cover height matter often between players.

I used those size modifiers to the fulllest in 3rd edition. And those defensive racial powers in 4th edition was great. Even in pre3rd, halflings let you get high dexterity without being a squishy elf. Racial penalties and size bonus are gone and the elves and dwarves take over.

Actually, there IS a reach weapon they can use without penalty: whip.
And a great-weapon they can use: Greatclub.

So the halfling army fields whips to fend off the goblin wolf cavalry?

 

[pemerton]

Alternate explanations include that it is the "strongest build" being an issue with the GWM feat (it's too good) or an issue with the other fighting style feats (they're not good enough).

I don't see how that is an alternative explanation.

If, in fact, part of the reason that small races are seen as weak is their lack of access to great weapons (which is pure conjecture, and as [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] has pointed out probably needs to be supplemented to be plausible conjecture), then the fact that part of what they lack access to arises from the feat part of the game doesn't change the fact that they are seen as weak because of their lack of access.

I'm just suggesting that perhaps the small-races-are-weak perception comes from somewhere beyond a niche optional build.

<snip>

I mean, if most folks are 1-6, and only a fraction of tables even use feats, then how many active characters are being played with the GWM feat right now? How many are being played in a game where small characters are trying to be melee machines?

I don't know how many tables use feats, but I'd be surprised if it's "only a fraction".

And people don't have to be trying to build and play melee halfings to see that they don't make good ones. If people notice that halflings don't make good melee machines, and hence don't build haflings, that gives them a reason to report to WotC that halflings are a weak choice.

In general, I would expect reports of such-and-such as a weak option to correlate with non-use of that option, rather than use of it.

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.

That's one reasonable approach from the players' point of view.

It will be interesting to see whether WotC takes the same view, or would prefer that all their published material be of roughly equal appeal to their audience.

 

[pemerton]

If the desire was there to make high level D&D work (for whatever reason( one would assume TSR or WoTC in 40 years would have figured out how to do it.

They did figure it out, and published a system that implemented that solution!

 

[Mistwell]

I think if you added the Skulker feat to the existing halfling hide ability, I would take them a lot more often. That feat goes much of the way to help them sneak, and avoid detection from those with dark vision.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't see how that is an alternative explanation.

If, in fact, part of the reason that small races are seen as weak is their lack of access to great weapons (which is pure conjecture, and as [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] has pointed out probably needs to be supplemented to be plausible conjecture), then the fact that part of what they lack access to arises from the feat part of the game doesn't change the fact that they are seen as weak because of their lack of access.

It does mean that the lack of access to it might indicate that the thing they lack access to is too valuable (the GWM feat is too good) or that the things they DO have access to aren't good enough (other fighting styles aren't as good as GWM), which is all I'm saying - there's multiple plausible explanations for that access being an issue, so it's smart that WotC is being cautious and not simply leaping to the conclusion that the access simply must be granted. One isn't forced to conclude that expanded access is the best solution.

I don't know how many tables use feats, but I'd be surprised if it's "only a fraction".

If it is anywhere short of 100% it is literally only a fraction, so unless you can assure that every 5e D&D table uses feats, it MUST be only a fraction of them that use it. Personally, I'd be a little surprised if it was north of, say, 80% at the high end, but that's simply conjecture. I'd almost guarantee feats aren't in use at every 5e D&D table.

And people don't have to be trying to build and play melee halfings to see that they don't make good ones. If people notice that halflings don't make good melee machines, and hence don't build haflings, that gives them a reason to report to WotC that halflings are a weak choice.

In general, I would expect reports of such-and-such as a weak option to correlate with non-use of that option, rather than use of it.

By that logic, there's always something that is a "weak option" simply because it is the most under-used option. You could have 1,000 mathematically equivalent options and simply because one of them is used less often, you could call it "weak." That's pretty useless data.

 

[CapnZapp]

My main gripe was I felt many spells were underpowered and listed the ones I really dislike. Please take the time to do the same.

Every edition has had its stars and it's duds.

No edition have bothered upgrading the duds, instead adding new spells with some new stars and duds.

I expect 5e to follow this trend.

If anything, 5e is *less* likely to break it. Remember, this is the edition where underpowered choices will be supplemented, not errataed/upgraded.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'd tell him to stop whining, because polymorph is very limited in the # of times you can use it (you have to use an extremely important spell slot), it requires concentration (meaning each time you take damage you have to make a save), and it only lasts an hour. He can barbarian all freaking day long.

In lots of adventures you never have 6-8 encounters per day.

 

[Zaran]

Every edition has had its stars and it's duds.

No edition have bothered upgrading the duds, instead adding new spells with some new stars and duds.

I expect 5e to follow this trend.

If anything, 5e is *less* likely to break it. Remember, this is the edition where underpowered choices will be supplemented, not errataed/upgraded.

Because that's what we need, a new spell called Ghost Horse that lets us travel over water or run on air. I'd much rather they make the originals better.