D&D (2024) 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?