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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm pretty sure that they DO all of that. Successfully or not. The "listen to your audience" part is only a small part of the picture (which is why they get accused of not doing it at all).

The vast majority of their public facing for the last few years (other than direct shilling of new product, and the OGL debacle) has been demanding the fans tell them what the most popular stuff is.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the idea itself is faulty. Popularity shouldn't matter at all.

Popularity should matter somewhat. But it should not be the end all be all to everything.
What popularity does is keep to detect issues and ineffectiveness. You should lookat the top and bottom and wonder what is going on.

And one thing that could be going on that has been said for years is that the 5e Druid is more or less designed around being a Mood Druid. The Land Druid is mostly a basic caster subclass. There was little futureproofing in its 5e design.

This might be why WOTC is going with Channel Nature and offering Healing Blossoms and Wild Companion. To offer other uses for your "Wildshape Charges" in clearer language and giving the druid more to work with for subclasses.

That's the experiment. You weaken and simplify Wildshape to the level of a Healing ability and a Familiar summon. Then you power 1 of the 3 choices back up via subclasses.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The vast majority of their public facing for the last few years (other than direct shilling of new product, and the OGL debacle) has been demanding the fans tell them what the most popular stuff is.

This is them trying to look like they're listening.

Player input does matter and should be accounted for, but that has to be counterbalanced by the intentions of the designers.

Exactly. Whether you agree with any particular design direction or not, the designers at WotC understand this. They've said it. They only sound like they don't when they're specifically talking about the decisions that they're making based on feedback.

Mini said it pretty explicitly.

People say a lot of things when they're trying to make a point. Point was more, I think, that the Druid has some design flaws AND is the least played class. Fix the design flaws. Find out if it gets played more.

But again, this is starting off with the assumption that "least played" is a problem.

While something will always be least played, it makes sense to take a good hard look at whatever winds up down there and see if it can be improved. It doesn't run a lot deeper than that.

This is why I pointed out that all of these "problems" being asserted about Druid only came about in the last month. These problems didn't exist prior, and now that its been suggested people are going out of their way to confirm the bias.

It's been discussed a lot in the last few months, sure, but there's no reason to think that no one ever noticed that Wildshape has been a mess since 2014 (frankly, IMO, it's been a mess since it was introduced, but that's another story). And I like wild shape! I've played Druids! I'm not against it at all. It's pretty clunky, though.

None of that is to say that Druid was perfect and couldn't be improved, but this premise that its least played and it thus has a huge problem that indicates a dire detrimental flaw is just wack.

I think you might be inflating the position of people that you're arguing against. It's easy enough to do. Everything tends to seem less nuanced and more aggressive when speaking in text. The class is simply the least played AND could probably use a bit of work.

And even then. Even if we assume that "least played" is a problem to solve, the relative popularity of it next to the next most popular doesn't necessitate what was effectively a ground-up rewrite.

I don't think that very many people were happy with what they released in the UA. It's going to be scrapped. THERE'S a measure of popularity that you can probably agree with.

Like, its not a coincidence the UA changes were not recieved well and were tremendously controversial. Not only was their attempt bad, but its a severe overcorrection meant to address a problem thats entirely contrived.

The only part that I disagree with here is the idea that the "problem" (probably too strong a word) is "entirely contrived" (definitely too strong a word). The druid CAN use some work. The UA missed the mark by a wide margin. Let's see what another pass will bring.

We should not hold our breath, but who knows? Maybe they'll come up with something that works!

 

[mamba]

I think the idea itself is faulty. Popularity shouldn't matter at all.

What should matter is if the class actually works well for the people playing it, and an arbitrary popularity contest doesn't deliver you that information.

not necessarily disagreeing, but again, how else do you measure that than by asking people, and assuming a popular change improves the class is not too far fetched.

The only thing that is unclear if it is something current players if it would prefer or more the wider audience (and it also is unclear how much of a difference between the two there actually is)

 

[mamba]

Use your own judgement as a group of creatives with a lot of RPG experience, make your own design decisions listening to but unfettered by the kangaroo court of social media, and then publish.

that sounds like how we got 4e… also that does not really work if your focus is to reach a wide audience rather than a small one that likes the things you like

For better or for worse, WotC is focusing on reaching a large audience.

 

[Emberashh]

and assuming a popular change improves the class is not too far fetched.

The thing is that those changes should be derived from feedback, not foisted upon people based on nothing but a contrived problem based on questionable statistics and then patched together afterwords.

And mind, we also have to look at what else those statistics say. Monk is undeniably recognized as one of the more undertuned and problematic classes, and yet the data thats being used to say Druid had to be rewritten from the ground up is also saying the Monk is more popular than the Paladin of all things.

Using this logic, Paladin is more "flawed" than the Monk is, and that is just not the reality here at all.

Beserker has been known to be a truly flawed design for years, and yet by this data it is, apparently, more sound than nearly every other class and subclass in the game, including the entirety of the Wizard, a class thats universally recognized as the most overpowered one of all of them.

Nah, I don't buy any of this at all. I don't use DND Beyond myself, but if I had to guess what their data is actually saying, its saying that:

1. Most users who use DNDB aren't paying for content and either may not actually be participating in a game, or are completely divorced from the preferences of the online DND communities like this one, Reddit, rpg.net, and DND Beyond's own forum.

2. Druids may just suck ass at being played through Beyond, probably because its less convenient to peruse for options than a book is, search bar be damned.

 

[Micah Sweet]

that sounds like how we got 4e… also that does not really work if your focus is to reach a wide audience rather than a small one that likes the things you like

For better or for worse, WotC is focusing on reaching a large audience.

4e was a good game, even if it wasn't for me. And I don't agree that WotC's focus should be on reaching a large audience at any cost.

 

[Mecheon]

That's why I said rarely.
And the WOW Druid was inspired by the 3e Druid.

Also remember.
Doesn't WOW have a core Shaman class that stares the shares the burden of the spiritual and nature caster tropes? WOW Shamans hold more of the spirits and elements magic and lore side of the D&D Druid.

How many forms does the WOW Druid have? 4 Bear, Cat, Travel, and Moonkin.

Shamans are moreso elementalists. Their healing magic is water based, which is destinct from spells like Regrowth or Entangling Thorns

WoW druids got 6 if you push for it. Tank (bear/ankylosaurus), DPS (cat), Travel, Aquatic (used to be seperate), Flight, Caster (Generally hybrid forms. Moonkin is the most well known but Zandalari have a more difference), and if you've got the glyph you can get tree form back from WotLK days, which was the healer form



Also, in regards to stats, aside from the discussions we had at the time questions if the stats were indeed accurate, I've got another stat one that took active users at the time on a forum and put Druids at 7%, tied with paladins, and ahead of monks and barbarians (both at 6%) and artificer at 4%.

 

[Ashrym]

I've got another stat one that took active users at the time on a forum and put Druids at 7%, tied with paladins, and ahead of monks and barbarians (both at 6%) and artificer at 4%.

We need to be careful of sample size on forums. DnD-B statistics came from 100k users for example

 

[Mecheon]

We need to be careful of sample size on forums. DnD-B statistics came from 100k users for example

But likewise, we don't know the exact specifics of these. Were these characters in an active campaign? Retired ones? Ones created just for testing and never touched again?

 

[mamba]

1. Most users who use DNDB aren't paying for content

probably true, the DM can share books with the players

and either may not actually be participating in a game

highly unlikely

or are completely divorced from the preferences of the online DND communities like this one, Reddit, rpg.net, and DND Beyond's own forum.

probably true, but here’s the problem for you, DDB has 15M users, their playtests get around 50k replies I believe, in these forums I do see maybe 50 people in the 1DD discussion, and the same 10 complaining constantly.
Guess what I too would ignore if I were in charge of D&D… the 10 people here are not more right or more relevant than any of the 50k filling out the survey

 

[Ashrym]

But likewise, we don't know the exact specifics of these. Were these characters in an active campaign? Retired ones? Ones created just for testing and never touched again?

IIRC they were actively used single class but I would have to go back and check the releases after work.

 

[Parmandur]

4e was a good game, even if it wasn't for me. And I don't agree that WotC's focus should be on reaching a large audience at any cost.

Why not? Why should they pursue suboptimal goals?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The thing is that those changes should be derived from feedback, not foisted upon people based on nothing but a contrived problem based on questionable statistics and then patched together afterwords.

Their changes are derived from feedback. The DDB statistics are only one small part of the feedback they use. It just happens to be one that was pointed out in a video. I feel like I'm harping on you (and like I'm defending WotC) when neither of those are my intent. I even normally don't mind hyperbole (it's a valid communication tool) but... you just seem to be taking things too far for me here.

And mind, we also have to look at what else those statistics say. Monk is undeniably recognized as one of the more undertuned and problematic classes, and yet the data thats being used to say Druid had to be rewritten from the ground up is also saying the Monk is more popular than the Paladin of all things.

It says that more people make Monks on DDB than make Paladins. That's it. Why that may be true requires more information. While WotC doesn't have all the information they need to make a better game (most of it remains in our heads, as players) AND they're swayed by their own biases (as all people are), they're NOT looking at the DDB statistics by themselves and making decisions on that alone.

"Had to be rewritten from the ground up" - there's that hyperbole again. Much of the UA Druid remains the same as the old one. Wildshape's relatively changed, I suppose.

Using this logic, Paladin is more "flawed" than the Monk is, and that is just not the reality here at all.

No, and no one is suggesting that. Note that WotC didn't do much to tweak the Paladin. Whereas I bet we will see something of an overhaul on the Monk.

Beserker has been known to be a truly flawed design for years, and yet by this data it is, apparently, more sound than nearly every other class and subclass in the game, including the entirety of the Wizard, a class thats universally recognized as the most overpowered one of all of them.

Nah, it's just played more. (Poor suckers). I'm pretty sure we'll see a revised Berserker. It's well known that it sucks. Which goes to show that they don't use these statistics in a vaccuum.

Nah, I don't buy any of this at all. I don't use DND Beyond myself, but if I had to guess what their data is actually saying, its saying that:

1. Most users who use DNDB aren't paying for content and either may not actually be participating in a game, or are completely divorced from the preferences of the online DND communities like this one, Reddit, rpg.net, and DND Beyond's own forum.

It's more likely that most users of D&D Beyond are more casual gamers than you or I, and they simply pick by "gut" on what they'd like to play, and not based on some widely-read and/or personal analysis of "what's good". (EDIT: I guess that's similar to your last part of the sentence. If so, yes. That.)

2. Druids may just suck ass at being played through Beyond, probably because its less convenient to peruse for options than a book is, search bar be damned.

I'm not a fan of DDB's functionality, but I don't think that's true.

Look, I'm sorry to be "arguing" with you. I really am. I agree with some of what you're trying to get across.

 

[mamba]

I don't agree that WotC's focus should be on reaching a large audience at any cost.

I know that you do not agree, but that still makes it a good business decision. As to any cost, you seem to be far exaggerating the cost

 

[Emberashh]

Their changes are derived from feedback.

And without knowing where the feedback is actually coming from we really can't say either way. But if what they gave us in the UA is an indication of what that feedback said, then there's a problem.

you just seem to be taking things too far for me here.

Its not hyperbole. Its an observation.

they're NOT looking at the DDB statistics by themselves and making decisions on that alone.

I would hope not, but Im not arguing with WOTC. Im arguing with people who are citing Beyond as the reason for all of this.

Its important to acknowledge the context that this comment chain started with. I disputed that this existed as a problem prior to this UA, and all anyone can point to to say otherwise is Beyond statistics that, as noted, are very suspect and do not correlate with any of the trends with this game at all.

And thats with the Beyond data supposedly being controlled for the fact that Beyond offers all the SRD subclasses for free accounts, so the data says that overwhelmingly it is those subclasses that are the most popular even with people who have the later content.

I do not buy this, at all, and is why Im arguing against the people asserting it as proof positive that theres some dire issue with the Druid that has to be corrected.

And that incidentally is also why I came at it from the other angle of assuming that the Beyond data is accurate, and arguing that just because its least played doesn't actually indicate a problem, which is further supported by my original observation that there just isn't any complaints about this at all anywhere that I can find; they literally did not exist until this UA. By no means is my searching comprehensive, but surely if theres a problem here, somebody would have commented on it at some point before this month.

If I can look at a subreddit thats known to be extraordinarily critical of 5e and I can only find one 7 year old post that even talks about it, then where the hell did this problem actually come from?

Cause its not like Druids aren't talked about; no sir, theres just as much to talk about with Druids as anything else in the game, and its recognized variously from solid all the way up to totally overpowered. But never, before this month, is it ever talked about in the way it is now.

I don't buy this, and Im pretty firm on it because I had this same reaction the day they dropped the UA and people were flipping their gourd over it.

Something is fishy, and given what else we've seen that goes so utterly against whats understood to be good about the game, I still maintain the tail is wagging the dog.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've always wondered just what it is about the Scout Rogue that just never seems to be an answer for folks who wanted "spell-less rangers"? I mean they got to have more skills plus Expertise in all the outdoorsy skills that people wanted (on top of the two free expertises of Nature and Survival at level 3), they didn't have the two 1st level Ranger abilities that a lot of people hated because they just removed the possibility of failure during exploration, and they got to jump out of melee range as a Reaction, plus eventually have a higher ground speed. What were they missing from the Scout that they didn't get that they felt like they should have had to be a spell-less ranger (other than not having the class name 'Ranger' itself?)

Features that speak to being a character who defends and manages (ie ranges) the borderlands between wilds and civilization?

Like it’s a cool scout. Scouts aren’t rangers.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Its not hyperbole.

You're not exaggerating to give your comments weight? Huh. That surprises me.

...Something is fishy...

There's a conspiracy now? I am afraid that you've lost me. Have a nice evening.

 

[Emberashh]

There's a conspiracy now?

Considering your concern for hyperbole this response is rather ironic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why not? Why should they pursue suboptimal goals?

Do you think every game company wants all their games to reach as large an audience as possible? If so, why aren't all games the same?