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.

 

[pemerton]

Am I missing something? They said people are not happy with the small races. They did not specify anything having to do with weapons. Seems like an assumption that may be false.

Sure, it may not be weapons. But some people upthread have put this forward as a plausible conjecture (I think [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] in post 74 has the most thorough analysis).

All I'm saying in reply to KM is that it is not an argument against the conjecture that small races are "core" and feats "optional". And in the post you replied to, I was replying to someone whom I took to be doubting the accuracy of the survey's report of a degree of dislike of small races.

 

[pemerton]

It will only be a weakness for a small race character that plays a heavy-weapon-using melee character. Pretty sure Dex-based warriors, ranged attackers, any sort of caster...they will not notice the fact that they can't use heavy weapons.

Obviously.

But that doesn't tell us anything about whether or not the issue of feats, or weapon choices more generally, is in play in relation to the survey response. For instance, if the community of players, as a whole, regards GWM fighters as the strongest build (or, perhaps, the strongest non-primary-caster build), then it would be rational to regard it as a weakness of gnomes and halflings that they lack access to that build. (Ditto for longbow-using sharpshooters.)

Even if a certain build is not mechanically strongest, but is popular in the community, then if small races lack viable access to it because of their weapon limitations, that would be a reason for a degree of dislike of small races. We know that fighters are very popular (eg DDI data), and I'm going to go out on a limb and conjecture that melee, STR-using fighters are a significant part of that popularity. To the extent that small races don't make good melee, STR-using fighters, that would be a reason to dislike them. To the extent that melee, STR-using fighters are also seen as effective, the fact that small races aren't very good for such builds would be a reason to judge them as weaker race options.

You'd perhaps be surprised at how often that's not the case.

If you define "issue" as "people think it's an issue," then it's clearly an issue - the survey found that out.

If people are saying that something is an issue in actual play, I regard that as sufficient evidence that it is an issue in actual play. In this case, people have said that small races are the weakest option for choice of race.

That's not necessarily a reason to change anything about small races - eg, maybe it's good to have small races in the game that are not as viable for as wide a range of builds as some of the game's other races - but that doesn't mean people are mistaken in thinking that he small races are a weaker race option.

 

[Evenglare]

The level reports are trivial self fulfilling prophecies. Why even include it? Most games that are played are 1-6? Really I wonder why? Oh yeah, because the game starts at level 1. Games end around level 10? Really? I wonder why? Oh yeah because, almost unequivocally, the DMG and other sources talk about running games for lower levels. There isn't high level play because Wizards doesn't know how to explain high level play, and you know why they can't explain it? Because people don't play high level. It's circular logic and they have never made a real effort to change that.

I was SUPER excited for the DMG 3 in 4e because it looked as if they were on the right track. The DMG 2 covered levels 11-20 and I was getting hyped for DMG 3 covering epic levels and then... OH ... LOOK 5e! Screw that other edition that we never finished, look at this new edition! Then they had to start over with PHB, MM and DMG that primarily covered low level stuff.

So of course games are going to be played at lower level because, that's all anyone knows how to run. They have NEVER focused on high level play in any real sense, and when they have it horribly fails (looking at you epic level handbook 3.5). Then they see that it fails, and it's hard to write for so they don't do it effectively leaving these games finished from level 1-10 and then unfinished at higher level because "it's hard". My response is, then make the damn game from level 1-10 and stop half assing the upper levels. Either do it right or don't do it at all.

It's so damn frustrating after 15 years of this. So don't tell me its surprising that most people play at low levels and end before high levels kick in. Of course that's how it happens! First, that's where the game "starts", and second 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, and IF that is the case, then you should be highly suspect of "balance" of classes after level 10.

Please. Talking about majority of levels of played is like saying water is wet. I didn't have to know the outcome of a survey to know what levels most groups play at.

 

[pemerton]

The level things are trivial self fulfilling prophecies.

<snip>

almost unequivocally the DMG and other sources talk about running games for lower levels. There isn't high level play because Wizards doesn't know how to explain high level play, and you know why they can't explain it? Because people don't play high level.

<snip>

They have NEVER focused on high level play in any real sense, and when they have it horribly fails (looking at you epic level handbook 3.5).

<snip>

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

Speaking purely from my own experience, I think that AD&D has significant issues above the low teen levels - eg the maths mostly breaks down, there are no suitable opponents in the MMs, etc - and I think 4e works well all the way through epic - the maths more-or-less hangs together, there are a good range of published opponents, etc.

The "maths" issue and the "opponents" are related, of course, but I have separated them because they are not identical. If the maths breaks down you can't build viable high-level opponents; but the other aspect of opponents is a story one. For instance, if demon princes have 12 to 15 HD, there is no space in the story of D&D for opponents to confront 20th level PCs. This is an issue in AD&D, whereas 4e does a good job of spacing out the D&D story across the mechanical levels from 1 to 30.

But getting the maths and story right is only one aspect of high level play. The other relates to GMing techniques, player expectations, etc. The whole rationale of a level-based game is that, as the PCs grow in levels, the scope of their abilities relative to the fiction grows. So 1st level PCs deal with village-sized problems, whereas high level PCs deal with kingdom-level and cosmos-level problems. But having PCs (and, therefore, the players) engage kingdom-level and cosmos-level issues has big consequences for typical approaches to world-building, GM authority over storyline, etc.

I think if you look at Chris Perkins 4e GMing blog you can see that he absolutely knows how to run a high level game. But he is using techniques that, as best I can tell, are not mainstream across D&D GMs. Provided that a GM (i) is prepared to let the players meaningfully change the gameworld and the storyline, and (ii) has some basic tools (eg lists, charts) for keeping track of NPC motivations and relationships so that improvised outcomes will be broadly consistent and coherent, then high level play shouldn't raise any particular problems. (Assuming that the maths and related mechanics are in order.)

 

[Celtavian]

I noticed the last survey they didn't have answers that fit how I would have liked to respond. The small races doesn't surprise me. My players don't play small races because they can't imagine themselves as a small race. I am the only one in my group that enjoys playing gnomes. No one else will play a gnome, even as a wizard. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority if responses against small races has less to do with their power and more to do with not wanting to play a small race for aesthetic reasons. The small races have never been played much in any of my games, regardless of how powerful they are. Deep gnomes were extremely powerful in 3E. I was the only player to ever play one in the entire 3E run. I don't think small races will ever be very attractive to D&D players. Very few people visualize themselves as a gnome or Halfling. Part of investing in the character is imagining yourself as the character or in the case of playing female characters being with the character. Small races fulfill neither fantasy.

 

[spinozajack]

Settle down vtuder. I'm saying let them use small greatswords. Which do 2d6 like all other greatswords. Since hit points arent meat, we dont need special rules for a slightly smaller greatsword. The halfling/gnome is already dealing less damage than most by virtue of not getting a strength bonus. They don't need to be penalized for using 2 handed styles due to lack of the great weapon fighting feat.

Says you. Hit points represent physical injuries when below 50%, according to the rules as written.

The D&D rules are very clear, from the very first edition onwards, that smaller, lighter weapons deal less damage than heavier, larger ones. A dagger does 1d4 damage, a greatsword does d10 or d12 or 2d6 depending on the edition. That means you need two or three successful attacks to lay low a first level fighter with a dagger, but possibly only one with a greatsword. That's not abstract. Two hits instead of one is a 100% difference in the number of hits it takes to kill someone.

Halflings not being able to wield greatswords effectively is a simulationistic way to represent their small stature in the combat model of 5th edition. In the weapon table, they are trying (and have since 1st ed) to approximate the relative difference of damage that one weapon can do compared to another. That means that a weapon's relative damage is not abstract, meaning the damage they do is because they injure foes they hit more grievously. Meaning those injuries are meat. Attacks dealing injuries through HP loss is meat.

It takes at least two (with mods) or three hits from a proficient dagger wielder to kill a first level fighter. A single attack from a greatsword can fell the foe. How else do you explain this? Look at the way D&D is designed, look at the weapons damage table and tell me they aren't trying to have a plausible or semi-realistic model of how they work? At least in terms of relative damage.

Sorry dude, no 2d6 longswords for halflings.

If people complain to Wizards in surveys and they actually listen to them, they are jumping the shark here. If people's survey says that it makes them sad that their halfling can't pick up GWM or PM and so can't deal as much damage with a great heavy weapon as the biggest, baddest half orc barbarian can, and Wizards actually changes the rule for halflings to allow that, I will be so angry with them I might even sell my books and quit tabletop gaming permanently.

It is really that ridiculous to me that these "HP aren't meat" rationalizations for wonky mechanics keep popping up all the time. As many people have written in this thread, there are plenty of ways for halflings and other small PCs to contribute greatly, both in damage and in other ways. But while their small stature closes a few doors, it opens others, like beast master rangers with medium sized pets carrying them as mounts.

What does vtuder mean mean? Verisimilitude? I'm glad D&D was designed with some common sense. "Small greatswords", lol. That's weird.

Size category is not fluff in 5th edition. It has mechanical significance. There is probably zero chance of a halfling ever wielding a 2d6 greatsword in 5th edition effectively, except through magic.

Just be lucky they even allow wielding it at disadvantage. At my table, if a 3 foot tall, 60 pound humanoid tried to swing around a 15 pound, 6 foot long sword, he falls over. Forget about attacking with disadvantage, he cannot attack with it. Period. I own swords and have seen my 6 year old nephew who is more than 4.5 feet tall, try to pick up a 5 foot long sword that weighs at most 5 pounds, using both hands mind you, and he couldn't even hold it let alone attack with it. My girlfriend can't even lift it, and she's a fully grown woman. Halflings with mini greatswords, totally ridiculous. They're called longswords, and even being able to use one of those two-handed was a gift.

You can refluff a longsword to be a "mini greatsword" all you want, but it does 1d10 damage and cannot be used with great weapon master. That's just too bad. Pick another race if it matters that much to you. Or just pretend a dwarf is a halfling from the North and beefy enough to do it.

 

[Celtavian]

High level play in 5E is the easiest it has ever been. It's as easy as 1st and 2nd edition. High level play in 3E was a nightmare for DMs. 5E is smooth and consistent. DMing doesn't feel much different at high level than it does in the mid levels. Monsters and NPCs don't have the immense number of options 3E high level monsters and NPCs did. If players aren't reaching high level in their games, it's most likely the games are falling apart due to people finding other things to do or DM burnout. I've found DM burnout usually happens because most D&D players don't like DMing. Once they have to do it for a while, they burnout and want to go back to playing. DMing requires a different mindset and motivation than playing as a character. As a DM you're always aware D&D is a game. You don't get to fully immerse yourself into the fantasy world. You also have to create a game that pleases other people as well as yourself and take joy from the fun others have playing the adventure you created. You also have to put the time into preparation, which is a lot more work than playing. People that want to DM consistently are a rare group. Fortunately, it is easier to DM in 5E than it has ever been, which should at least reduce resistance due to insane preparation times and complicated game play. I still don't believe there will be sufficient committed DMs to see the level range for campaigns increase any time soon.

 

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

The D&D rules are very clear, from the very first edition onwards, that smaller, lighter weapons deal less damage than heavier, larger ones. A dagger does 1d4 damage, a greatsword does d10 or d12 or 2d6 depending on the edition. That means you need two or three successful attacks to lay low a first level fighter with a dagger, but possibly only one with a greatsword. That's not abstract. Two hits instead of one is a 100% difference in the number of hits it takes to kill someone.

The difference in damage is just as much because it's harder to effectively attack with a dagger than a greatsword, meaning an opponent will have to exert themselves less when fending off attacks. That's got nothing to do with how much a dagger can stab you compared to a greatsword - you get solidly hit with either one, that's probably going to take you out of the fight (ie, drop you to zero HP) but the greatsword guy will wear you down much faster (deal damage).

Just be lucky they even allow wielding it at disadvantage. At my table, if a 3 foot tall, 60 pound humanoid tried to swing around a 15 pound, 6 foot long sword, he falls over. Forget about attacking with disadvantage, he cannot attack with it. Period. I own swords and have seen my 6 year old nephew who is more than 4.5 feet tall, try to pick up a 5 foot long sword that weighs at most 5 pounds, using both hands mind you, and he couldn't even hold it let alone attack with it. My girlfriend can't even lift it, and she's a fully grown woman. Halflings with mini greatswords, totally ridiculous. They're called longswords, and even being able to use one of those two-handed was a gift.

Good thing that greatswords only weigh 6 pounds maximum, then, and that halflings have significantly more coordination and muscle mass than a 6 year old. Yeah, they'll be off balance, but I doubt a halfling would be unable to life it.

I also don't think halflings should get to wield greatswords, but I don't think you've got the best defense for why they shouldn't, either.

 

[Henry]

I just filled out the new survey. I also decided to take a page from Cato the Elder: in the comments in every survey from now on, I am adding on a separate line, "also, an Open License, Please."

Cato eventually got his smoldering ruin, if I'm lucky I'll get mine.

 

[spinozajack]

The difference in damage is just as much because it's harder to effectively attack with a dagger than a greatsword, meaning an opponent will have to exert themselves less when fending off attacks. That's got nothing to do with how much a dagger can stab you compared to a greatsword - you get solidly hit with either one, that's probably going to take you out of the fight (ie, drop you to zero HP) but the greatsword guy will wear you down much faster (deal damage).



Good thing that greatswords only weigh 6 pounds maximum, then, and that halflings have significantly more coordination and muscle mass than a 6 year old. Yeah, they'll be off balance, but I doubt a halfling would be unable to life it.

I also don't think halflings should get to wield greatswords, but I don't think you've got the best defense for why they shouldn't, either.

Well, I'm not going to debate the plausibility or physics of a 3 foot tall character trying to swing around a 6 pound, 6 foot long sword either, no matter how strong they are, it's quite comical to even imagine it.

As do your comment about a greatsword v dagger, what would you rather cut your finger with, a sharp cutting knife? Or a meat cleaver. The meat cleaver would probably cut your finger off before you even noticed it pierce the skin. True story, a guy at my work is missing a thumb for that exact reason. Size matters. Bigger swords do more meat damage per solid hit than a solid slice with a lesser sword. It's just common sense.

If skill was really in question, why does the damage of a longsword not go up with level? No matter how high level a fighter is, he cannot kill another first level fighter with a single stab with his dagger.

Low level HP are fairly convincingly 100% meat based. 1st level, definitely 100% meat. No doubt.