Developer Video on Druid/Paladin/Expert Feedback

​

WotC has posted a video discussing initial feedback on the One D&D Druid/Paladin playtest, along with survey results from the Expert playtest. Some highlights for discussion:

Druid: The developers recognize that the template version of wild shape is contentious. If they retain this approach, they would plan to add flexibility to those templates. If they revert to monster stat blocks, they might allow Druids to choose a limited number of options, with a default selection provided.

Paladin: The new version of smite is still intended to work with critical hits. If ranged smite persists, its damage may be adjusted through the internal balance/playtesting process.

Ranger: The updated Ranger scored very well in the playtest. Some players did miss the choice of options in the Hunter subclass.

Bard: All of the Lore Bard's features scored welll, but the overall subclass rating was mediocre. They attribute this to the loss of Additional Magical Secrets, which many saw as the key attraction of this subclass.

Rogue: The change to limit sneak attack to the Rogue's own turn scored poorly. The developers generally like moving actions to a player's own turn to keep the game moving quickly, but in this case, the change doesn't seem to be worth the loss of tactical flexibility.

Feats: With the exception of epic boons, all the feats in the Expert packet scored well. The developers are still loking at written feedback for fine tuning.

Conspicuously not mentioned were the Arcane/Divine/Primal spell lists, which were the focus of a lot of discussion during the Bard playtest.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is what I've always disliked in 5e. Too many spellcasters. And the wizard the only one who has to actually study it.

Depends on how you look at it. If you consider magic as just one "thing", then yes the more classes that have "magic" the less unique those classes are.

But if you consider every single spell as its own individual mechanic and "thing"... players have more spells available to select from than almost any other mechanical device in the game. Which means your uniqueness comes from having a wider range of individual mechanics (spells) that no one else in the party has.

Two Champion Fighters have not much choice in what they can select to differentiate themselves (ability scores, skills, armor and weapons being close to it) that there is not much uniqueness there between the two of them. But you can have a party of 5 Wizards that all have a completely different load-out of spells that when you look at the totality of their mechanics, there might be very little overlap. And if you went Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Warlock there would probably be even less mechanical overlap and more individual uniqueness, even if they all used "magic".

Now of course that being said... we also live in a world where players get so hung up on "winning" D&D that they oftentimes select the exact same load-out of spells because they are "the best ones" to take. But that's going to happen across the board regardless. That's why we had so many complaints back in '15 from DMs who were bored because their players were always taking nothing but ranged weapon user characters with the Sharpshooter feat because it was "the best". But that's not on the game to fix... that's up to players deciding to make something else more important to them and the game.

 

[Remathilis]

To quote from Walt Whitman:

And that would be usable proficiency bonus per long rest?

 

[Micah Sweet]

All game design is incomplete by virtue of the infinity of imagination. Even a game like 3E doesn't have all the elements needed to create any character concept a person can think of. Refluffing is often the only way to translate certain elements into other ideas.

But if refluffing isn't your bag, there's nothing wrong with playing with only the concepts and ideas the book can give you. It's up to each person to decide what they prefer... playing the concepts the book provides, or refluff certain things to go with ideas that the game doesn't. Neither way is right or wrong.

Actually, if there's some element you need that's missing from a game, another solution to homebrew it. That's what I do.

 

[Emberashh]

And that would be usable proficiency bonus per long rest?

Lol whats a proficiency bonus?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Actually, if there's some element you need that's missing from a game, another solution to homebrew it. That's what I do.

Absolutely. Refluffing is just narrative rather than mechanical homebrew.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't think the game should be designed around players who don't want to make an effort.

I get what you mean, but I've played with literally dozens of people who, for various reasons, need what you or I would think of as "hand-holding". Some of them can't be bothered, sure, but others are 1) neurodiverse (in a way that hinders, rather than helps them as gamers as it often does); 2) young and distracted; 3) adult & too desperately busy with a billion other things in "real" life.

 

[Emberashh]

Snip

 

[Micah Sweet]

I get what you mean, but I've played with literally dozens of people who, for various reasons, need what you or I would think of as "hand-holding". Some of them can't be bothered, sure, but others are 1) neurodiverse (in a way that hinders, rather than helps them as gamers as it often does); 2) young and distracted; 3) adult & too desperately busy with a billion other things in "real" life.

Fair enough, but a lot of that doesn't really count as not wanting to put in effort. Also, unless people like that constitute a large portion of the audience, you're not designing your game to most of the people who play it (not that I fall into that category for WotC).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And this is why theres always other games to play that can better suit the needs of these people.

Accessibility and inclusivity are important, but not so important that we need to start sacrificing limbs on their altars.\

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that providing some easier entry into D&D's mechanics would be "sacrificing limbs". YMMV, but I find that D&D has a lot of subsystems that are at once, both too simple AND too complex (depending on where you look) for MY taste, and I've played D&D nonstop (like, multiple times a week) for 36 years. If I'd like some of it to be easier to access (mostly from the DM side, mind) then I can't fault others for it.

After a point you have to sit and reconcile why we're trying to push a complex game of math and roleplay into a position that it has to be easily accessible and inclusive to people who for whatever reason cannot handle the complexity, math and/or roleplay.

If DND as a lifestyle brand wants to be all things to all people then it needs to diversify into more than just the one game getting pulled in 900k different directions at once.

I don't disagree with the main thrust of your argument. Personally, I think it's easy (or at least, easy enough) to do both. Even both at the same table. You just need to have the core of each class (and each other subsystem) be pretty basic (IE Basic D&D) and have subclasses (etc) that are also simple when tacked on to the basic system. THEN, you have subclasses and subsystems that can be played optionally based on individual (or table) desires.

 

[Incenjucar]

Most classes in 2e had far less magic than they would later. Paladins didn't cast spells until 9th and lacked the ability to smite. Bards got magic at 2nd but only up to level 6 spells, with no access to healing magic. Druids didn't get wild shape until 7th level. Priest magic capped at 7th level spells. Rangers worked because almost everyone got little or no magic until later and little in the way of class features and nothing in the way of a functional skill system.

The game is not so magic starved as it once was. (You can debate if that's good or bad, but to keep in topic, it just is for now). The game as a more robust skill and ability resolution system. A 2e ranger can be emulated in 5e with an outlander fighter with proficiency in survival, stealth, animal handling and the dual wield fighting style. All that's missing is the +4 to hit a specific foe. The ranger needs something to make it unique and WotC decided that was magic.

In drowning the game in magic, they have starved players of non-magical options and made the game extremely limited for players who don't want to play spellcasters. Thus the people who are frustrated.

This is not a D&D thing, this is an edition-specific thing. My hope is that OE will let us have the kinds of characters the game was built on long ago.

 

[Emberashh]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that providing some easier entry into D&D's mechanics would be "sacrificing limbs".

Except theres not just one answer to what that looks like, is there?

Me and others suggested printing Druid stat blocks in the PHB, and I specifically emphasized this could be done in a way that retains DM specific info for their materials, but also gives a clear cut way to both say what players can use, and grant additional options as rewards.

Others are pushing for the generic templates.

Theres no agreement because we all have different thresholds for what counts as "lol just make it up" and what counts as "necessary reflavoring".

For instance, if I were to play a TTRPG based on The Elder Scrolls, Id have to reflavor something if I wanted to have a Shapeshifting abilty turn me into an Owlbear. Thats not egregious, because TES doesn't have Owlbears nor any reason to, so reflavoring say a Werebear into one isn't the game telling you to do the game designers job.

In a game where the Owlbear is a thing, like DND, to push a template and tell people to just pretend, is telling them to do the game designers job.

Its the same fundamental problem I have with people who say to just be a fighter with outlander if I don't want to be forced to play a spellcasting Ranger.

Its already a game of pretend. It shouldn't be asking you to pretend within your pretending. But, at least with the Ranger issue, its just other players making dismissive suggestions.

Not so much with Druid templates.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Fair enough, but a lot of that doesn't really count as not wanting to put in effort.

That was my point. Some people can't commit the vast resources of time and brainpower that many of us here do. (And I speak as someone who has D&D on mind pretty much all the time, but that's my own hang-up, I guess!)

Also, unless people like that constitute a large portion of the audience, you're not designing your game to most of the people who play it (not that I fall into that category for WotC).

Well, I would argue that "most" of the people who play it would probably be okay with including things that make the game more inclusive, even if they don't "need" it to be. My only evidence to support that argument, beyond "feeling", though, is that they've been working on making the game more accessible, and it has become more popular at the same time. Not a direct observation, I know. But it seems possible.

 

[Emberashh]

In drowning the game in magic, they have starved players of non-magical options and made the game extremely limited for players who don't want to play spellcasters. Thus the people who are frustrated.

This is not a D&D thing, this is an edition-specific thing. My hope is that OE will let us have the kinds of characters the game was built on long ago.

I maintain a lot of the problem stems from 5e just being 4e with smoke and mirrors. They took 4e and changed and obfuscated it enough so that it presents as a different edition, but the underlying design ultimately betrays them I think.

I don't think its a coincidence that over the years, most of the hot takes people have to fix something in 5e end up being something 4e was already doing.

Parts of 4e keep being reinvented because the game funnels people into the parts of 4e they took out, and lo and behold as soon as someone thinks to restore it, it becomes a brilliant idea that absolutely corrects the problem.

Even I've had that happen. My recommendation to people is always to use Epic Heroism, Slow Natural Healing, and Healing Surges if they want to balance out the classes and encounters better, without having to use silly unimmersive "gritty realism" rules.

Those three variant rules return pretty big chunks of the 4e design to the game, so of course it works so well. L

 

[Emberashh]

My only evidence to support that argument, beyond "feeling", though, is that they've been working on making the game more accessible, and it has become more popular at the same time.

I think this has more to do with Actual Plays rising in popularity than with anything the game did.

Part of the problem with TTRPGs in general is that the nature of these games made how they play relatively obscured. Unless you got roped into a group by an already "in" person, prior to Actual Plays you'd have to go out of your way to find examples of how the game plays, and often that meant you'd effectively have to go in blind with the first group you found, or you had to convince your own friends to go in blind with you, playing the game without any prior reference.

But, not long after 5e cane along, things like Critical Role came in, got absurdly popular and stayed absurdly popular on a site primarily directed towards video gamers, and nowadays you can find all kinds of lets place on the internet in different formats, most of whom end up playing the same game the early successful streams were.

I think if groups like Critical Role played literally anything else (Like Pathfinder if they decided to stick with it), then 5e wouldn't have ever enjoyed the same level of popularity it has.

 

[Remathilis]

Lol whats a proficiency bonus?

Clearly you don't have an answer to what to replace rage with and have resorted to rhetorical games. I think we can stop this discussion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That was my point. Some people can't commit the vast resources of time and brainpower that many of us here do. (And I speak as someone who has D&D on mind pretty much all the time, but that's my own hang-up, I guess!)



Well, I would argue that "most" of the people who play it would probably be okay with including things that make the game more inclusive, even if they don't "need" it to be. My only evidence to support that argument, beyond "feeling", though, is that they've been working on making the game more accessible, and it has become more popular at the same time. Not a direct observation, I know. But it seems possible.

My point is that, while what they have been doing may be a contributing factor is getting more people to buy and/or play the game, it doesn't necessarily make it a better game, and indeed may make it a worse game for certain segments of the fan base.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Except theres not just one answer to what that looks like, is there?

No, you're right about that!

Me and others suggested printing Druid stat blocks in the PHB, and I specifically emphasized this could be done in a way that retains DM specific info for their materials, but also gives a clear cut way to both say what players can use, and grant additional options as rewards.

I agree that it could be done that way. Heck, it might end up that way. They've only just attempted (and I think most would agree, attempted badly) to try it the other way.

Others are pushing for the generic templates.

Could be done that way too. And it won't necessarily wind up less "complex" for it. I mean, for example, just how busy do we want those stat-blocks to get, right?

Theres no agreement because we all have different thresholds for what counts as "lol just make it up" and what counts as "necessary reflavoring".

Sure.

For instance, if I were to play a TTRPG based on The Elder Scrolls, Id have to reflavor something if I wanted to have a Shapeshifting abilty turn me into an Owlbear. Thats not egregious, because TES doesn't have Owlbears nor any reason to, so reflavoring say a Werebear into one isn't the game telling you to do the game designers job.

In a game where the Owlbear is a thing, like DND, to push a template and tell people to just pretend, is telling them to do the game designers job.

I'm with you, but OTOH most 5e beast statblocks are essentially a lump of HP and an attack that does a damage type. If we're lucky we get a charge, grapple, or knockdown, or a swim or climb speed. They're not exactly something that screams a specific animal simulation.

Its the same fundamental problem I have with people who say to just be a fighter with outlander if I don't want to be forced to play a spellcasting Ranger.

Nor do I, but it's not make or break for me.

Its already a game of pretend. It shouldn't be asking you to pretend within your pretending. But, at least with the Ranger issue, its just other players making dismissive suggestions.

Some of 'em may be being dismissive. Some of 'em may honestly play their own spell-less ranger that way and love the guy.

Not so much with Druid templates.

Maybe. We'd have to see what they come up with. (I'll probably wind up mildly disappointing but usable, just like the current version, but differently so).

 

[Emberashh]

Clearly you don't have an answer to what to replace rage with and have resorted to rhetorical games. I think we can stop this discussion.

Do I not?

The main hint was Barbaric Yawp. Yell very loudly and shatter man and magic.

But incidentally, the rest of that excerpt also touches on the Barbarians actual core ability, Outlander, which builds up some similar party buffs to what we see in Rangers, but also escalates from being able to regularly convince enemy Barbarians to fight for you to calling on up to 5000 of them at will to be your personal horde.

Do keep in mind, the quip was an indicator that your question is nonsensical. My game isn't DND; there is no proficiency bonus.

 

[Emberashh]

Some of 'em may honestly play their own spell-less ranger that way and love the guy.

Whole thing is though is that I have played that way on every Ranger Ive played as, except I went a step farther and just never casted a spell period. Not even Hunters Mark.

Surprisingly works quite well without them, which just further justified why it should just go spell-less, and lead to me to rewrite the class to do just that.

 

[Remathilis]

Do I not?


Do keep in mind, the quip was an indicator that your question is nonsensical. My game isn't DND; there is no proficiency bonus.

I'm here to discuss D&D. When I want to discuss your fantasy heartbreaker, I'll ask about it.