D&D (2024) D&D Survey Results and The Future of Playtest | Unearthed Arcana

[Clint_L]

Well, in earlier surveys their support was still high enough to keep them, so I think something did change there. It's quite obvious some people didn't like them, it's not like the Aardling opponents were shy to express their opposition. So yes, my supposition is that what changed is that as a response to the OGL disaster, the design team is going conservative to preserve the most widespread support.

As for why they should support stuff people don't like, well, designing a game to always please the least-common denominator and never taking any interesting design risks is how you end up with a game as generic and bare-bones as 5e in the first place. Obviously I'm not going to argue it's an unsuccessful tactic, but it's just not interesting to me any more, and signals to me they don't want to take any risks at all in their design.

They have flat out stated, repeatedly, that "OneD&D is 5e, and 5e is OneD&D" from their perspective (Kyle Brink). So I'm not sure what you are expected with regards to design risks. If you don't like 5e, then OneD&D is not going to be for you.

Also...what kind of design risk did Aardlings represent? They were super basic and generic, and there are already a plethora of animal-folk races in the game that are much more thematically fleshed out.

But what do I know? I'm just a grognard.

 

[gametaku]

Apparently, the druid is getting a "BIG update". My guess is that all druids are owlbears that have the first level ability to wildshape into a singular form of a player species.

 

[Horwath]

Apparently, the druid is getting a "BIG update". My guess is that all druids are owlbears that have the first level ability to wildshape into a singular form of a player species.

View attachment 276427

At-will wild shape would be appreciated, similar to 3.5e PHB2 shapeshifter variant.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

If anything happens to sorcerer, I'm hoping that it becomes more like the 5e playtest sorcerer.

That was an actually interesting and unique class. Instead of 'wizard but hot'

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't think, anything will happen to sorcerer or wizard. It is 5e and stays that way.
I do however think, the sorcerer subclass going up to level 3 allows sorcerer points and metamagic to go down to level 1 and 2 respectively making the sorcerer at level 1 and 2 way better. You are not out of spells at level 1 that easily and you will get metamagic to help you earlier. It also allows subclasses to introduce thematic metamagic options.

Druid subclass pushed back to level 3 means that wildshape/channel nature is in firmly in place before it is modified. Level 2 for both the moon and the land druid seemed too early to make an informed decision.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I mean I think there's a spectrum of conservatism. Obviously WotC is not going to try to appeal to the kind of toxic, extreme people who think that different skin tones existing is "woke" or anything like that. But there is a kind of "mushy middle" where people are fine with "inclusive gaming" as long as it doesn't go too far, in their opinion.

I'm certainly not going to try and say the Aardlings were amazing design or anything, but I do think there was an undercurrent in the criticism of them that isn't present in something like the Goliaths. Like I'm not really a fan of their current design, but I'm not upset by them existing in the game, and neither it seems are most people. So I think with Aardlings, it was not just their design, but all the fact that they would appeal to, you know, furries that set a lot of people off. There's an antagonism to even the concept of them, where they would appeal to a lot of loudly queer people, that doesn't exist with "big muscle people who can get even bigger."

I think that the bolded bit was the issue. My attitude was something similar, basically "Meh! I don't mind if they are there but not my jam"

 

[Osgood]

I think where the Ardlings need the most work is honing the core question of whether they are primarily celestial planetouched or primarily animal people? Different people seem to want different things from them, and trying to do both at the same time is what's causing them to feel incoherent. Personally, I have no real interest in a one-size-fits-all "animal person" species, but I really liked them (conceptually, at least) as a celestial planetouched species alongside Aasimar.

Agreed. I think one thing that probably hurt the ardling was the fact that they were likely supposed to be related to guardinals, which as far as I know have never appeared in a 5E product. The differences in the three types of fiends are well defined, not so much their celestial counterparts.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Now some kind of tree-folk heritage would definitely be a good contrast.

Different, not necessarily contrasting.

 

[Osgood]

I know this thread has become largely about the ardling and the classes, but I thought one of the more interesting parts of the video was about the Jump action. While I was not thrilled with spending an action to jump, I thought the mechanics of jumping were vastly superior to the existing rules. I really hope they salvage basing the distance off of your Athletics check.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Well, in earlier surveys their support was still high enough to keep them, so I think something did change there. It's quite obvious some people didn't like them, it's not like the Aardling opponents were shy to express their opposition. So yes, my supposition is that what changed is that as a response to the OGL disaster, the design team is going conservative to preserve the most widespread support.

As for why they should support stuff people don't like, well, designing a game to always please the least-common denominator and never taking any interesting design risks is how you end up with a game as generic and bare-bones as 5e in the first place. Obviously I'm not going to argue it's an unsuccessful tactic, but it's just not interesting to me any more, and signals to me they don't want to take any risks at all in their design.

You seem very ill informed on many subjects related to your comments.