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.

 

[Emberashh]

Any ranger would trade natural explorer for bonus Nature&Survival proficiency and expertise.

Anyone who think that sufficiently comprises the whole of the Ranger fantasy is uh, sad.

Natural explorer is 100% dependent on DMs charity, to be given that terrain. Expertise works in all terrains.

Which isn't really relevant because if we're just comparing content we can't assume an unfair DM. Particularly when the same can be said for Outlander, given how it actually works.

Outlander removes lot of wilderness challenges, infinite survival check for foraging and using cartography tools.

It doesn't work like that. Its foraging bonus only works in Easy DC terrains, and its memory bonus only works if you've either A) visited a place before or B) had an accurate map of that place to look at.

And said memory bonus doesn't actually do anything for navigating either. You can still get lost.

 

[Horwath]

Anyone who think that sufficiently comprises the whole of the Ranger fantasy is uh, sad.

if anything mechanically describes a ranger, it is expertise in nature and survival. Closely followed by stealth and perception.

Which isn't really relevant because if we're just comparing content we can't assume an unfair DM.

Terrains change all the time. would you count on your DM to only design terrains that fit your favorite terrain(or two)?

Particularly when the same can be said for Outlander, given how it actually works.



It doesn't work like that. Its foraging bonus only works in Easy DC terrains,

where is it stated for only Easy DC?

and its memory bonus only works if you've either A) visited a place before or B) had an accurate map of that place to look at.

And said memory bonus doesn't actually do anything for navigating either. You can still get lost.

If you can always remember a layout of terrain that you visited or seen on maps, then it's really hard to get lost. New terrain is a challenge OFC:

 

[Emberashh]

if anything mechanically describes a ranger, it is expertise in nature and survival. Closely followed by stealth and perception.

Except what you're doing is  comparing that to Natural Explorer, which does a heck of a lot more than just that and goes farther an emphasizing the fantasy than just giving a bonus to two skills.

Terrains change all the time. would you count on your DM to only design terrains that fit your favorite terrain(or two)?

I would count on the DM to design a world with verisimilitude and to not be coy about describing whats most common in a continent the character lives.

I noted earlier that these rules mesh better with Hex Crawls. For one, the entire point of a Hex Crawl is to actively navigate it, and not to throw out the entire thing just because a player  situationally has an answer for some of the potential negative cconsequences.

And for two, a well done Hex Crawl doesn't qualify if the DM designed it as a giant blob of the exact same terrain in all directions.

So, as a result, any meaningfully long journey done via a Hex Crawl should be crossing through a variety of terrains. When the navigator gets lost, you still end up in another tile, losing some time as that is extra distance travelled, but you don't lose additional time (as the getting lost mechanics state) because the Ranger knows you got lost and lets you immediately get back on the path. Which in turn all makes navigating very critical when passing through tiles the Ranger isn't specialized in, thus maintaining the overall challenge of navigating a large wilderness.

Outlander doesn't do any of that. Outlander effectively gives you the benefits of a map without needing one on hand, but it still requires having been there or to have seen a map of the area.

You still have to navigate, you can still get lost, you still lose time.

where is it stated for only Easy DC?

The language used is effectively identical to that of the Easy DC on the foraging table. What Outlander describes as its requirements for that feature do not fit the descriptions for the medium or hard DCs.

Also really important to note as a general aside that when interpreting unclear rules, you really need to be leaning towards interpretations that make the game work, and as far away as possible from interpretations that break the game.

We can all warble about how the rules shouldn't be unclear, but they are, and unclear rules aren't an excuse to run a poor game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My wish is (and I think by the sound of things it may get) a list of 5-10 things that can added to the templates... something like at level 4 you can put 1 to any at level b you can add 2 at level 12 you can add three OR 1 extra big one and 1 from that earlier liste

things like pack tactics, trip on a hit for free, increase die of damage size, pounce, scent... ect

 

[Undrave]

They could have fun with a more limited Wildshape by having subclass provide new ones. Imagine a creepy crawly Druid that grants you forms like Giant Spider, Giant Centipede, etc? Could lad to a whole genre of Wildshape Subclass that aren't just the Moon Druid's 'the same but better' system.

 

[Clint_L]

They could have fun with a more limited Wildshape by having subclass provide new ones. Imagine a creepy crawly Druid that grants you forms like Giant Spider, Giant Centipede, etc? Could lad to a whole genre of Wildshape Subclass that aren't just the Moon Druid's 'the same but better' system.

I like this idea. And what if moon druid didn't give you access to a higher CR rating of beasts in general, but to specific higher CR rating beasts at specific levels. So every time you hit a level that gives you new sub-class abilities, one of them is a new form that is more powerful than a regular druid could access. For example, at level 3 you get dire wolf, at level 6 hunter shark, etc.

That would solve the "shopping" and complexity problem while still giving moon druids the ability to shift into more powerful beasts and be a pretty good, though not the best, tank.

Edit: or maybe the moon druid gets to pick ONE new specialty form at each sub-class level, limited by a specific CR. This brings back the shopping problem but limits it a lot, while allowing players customization, which is fun.

 

[Horwath]

The language used is effectively identical to that of the Easy DC on the foraging table. What Outlander describes as its requirements for that feature do not fit the descriptions for the medium or hard DCs.

Also really important to note as a general aside that when interpreting unclear rules, you really need to be leaning towards interpretations that make the game work, and as far away as possible from interpretations that break the game.

We can all warble about how the rules shouldn't be unclear, but they are, and unclear rules aren't an excuse to run a poor game.

I agree with you that rules are vague and non precise, and one of my hopes for 1D&D is about 1000+ fixed DCs for various things in the game to avoid this kind of situations.

but for outlander is says:
In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to
five other people each day, provided that the land offers
berries, small game, water, and so forth.

"provided" does not specify what amount per specific area, just that it is present. And any amount over ZERO is considered present.
So no matter how difficult the task, if it is possible, you succeed by default.
better usage of mechanics would be: you have advantage on Survival checks for foraging and using Cartographers tools.

 

[Umbran]

Anyone who think that sufficiently comprises the whole of the Ranger fantasy is uh, sad.

Mod Note:
The insult here doesn't make you look correct, or cool, or even like someone others ought to listen to. Please resist the temptation to deride your fellow gamers. Thanks.

 

[Emberashh]

provided" does not specify what amount per specific area, just that it is present. And any amount over ZERO is considered present.

Which is again why its important to interpret unclear rules in a way that makes the game work.

What you're asserting does not make the game work.

And something to say here too is that theres a denial of player agency going on when you choose to just drop mechanics instead of making them work.

A player who chooses Outlander wants to be able to be a outsider person who knows the land. Interpreting the Backgrounds features in a way that makes the game work doesn't deny them that.

Choosing to just not run exploration because you've decided to interpret the rules in a way that breaks the game absolutely does deny them that agency.

They choose the Background because they're expecting the Wilderness to be challenging and they want to be Johnny on the Spot.

You're not letting them if you've decided to effectively delete the Wilderness just because you don't want to make their abilities work.

Sure, there might be the odd player who gets all whiny if they think their abilities aren't autowins anymore, but at that point its now on the player for not letting the game work as a game, not you the DM.

 

[mellored]

They could have fun with a more limited Wildshape by having subclass provide new ones. Imagine a creepy crawly Druid that grants you forms like Giant Spider, Giant Centipede, etc? Could lad to a whole genre of Wildshape Subclass that aren't just the Moon Druid's 'the same but better' system.

Moon druids only get elemental shape because there where no high level beast. Not because it's thematic. So I am perfectly fine dropping that aspect.

Then elemental druids could easily be their own thing. (Including wild fire summon).

Also, plant druids, which should turn into an immobilized tree that has a zone. Difficult terrain for enemies, bark skin for allies, scaling reach, or something.

A bit less sure about a bug specific one, but maybe.

 

[Emberashh]

Moon druids only get elemental shape because there where no high level beast

Locking beasts in to low CR levels is such a self-imposed issue its astonishing.


Beasts can't be interesting because we we can't overpower the Druid, which is only because we can't put them at a higher CR, because reasons.

 

[Horwath]

Which is again why its important to interpret unclear rules in a way that makes the game work.

What you're asserting does not make the game work.

that is why we are using Outlander as advantage on those checks. No matter what the DC.
But, if you go by letter of the law, all DCs are auto succeed, and I agree with you, that is one sorry set of rules written.
Now, two people will read vague rules two different ways.

The more fixed DCs in the game are, the more clear game will be.

then, if we do not agree with certain DC, we can always go with +/- 5 to the DC, or 10.
but with many example DCs, you get better baseline.

 

[Ashrym]

Verbal components are for the camera and the viewer, they don’t have practical purpose!

Except they do have a practical purpose as a weakness for spell casters. That's part of the popularity of the silence spell or subtle spell metamagic feature. Verbal components have a mechanical purpose that interacts with the ability of a spell caster to cast a spell, and a social purpose from the perception of those who can see a spell being cast.

We cannot say the practical purpose does not exist when it obviously does. That doesn't necessarily mean there needs to be a practical purpose but I think the issue is more nuanced than you are admitting to. ;-)

 

[Emberashh]

Except they do have a practical purpose as a weakness for spell casters. That's part of the popularity of the silence spell or subtle spell metamagic feature. Verbal components have a mechanical purpose that interacts with the ability of a spell caster to cast a spell, and a social purpose from the perception of those who can see a spell being cast.

We cannot say the practical purpose does not exist when it obviously does. That doesn't necessarily mean there needs to be a practical purpose but I think the issue is more nuanced than you are admitting to. ;-)

I think their point is more that VSM isn't really much of a system. Its the equivalent of a ribbon thats attached to spells and is not in any way shape or form emphasized as a robust and well integrated part of the mechanics.

And as it happens, things like Silence have long since been dissociated from the need to actually speak some funny words to make magic happen, and instead behaves as more or less a version of an anti-magic shield that does silence a persons sound, but doesn't actually get paired up with somebody saying funny words.

Thats how it works in video games, and even the Legend of Vox Machina depicts it this way. Scanlan sings when hes using magic much of the time but it isn't whats driving his magic, his lute is.

 

[OB1]

I like this idea. And what if moon druid didn't give you access to a higher CR rating of beasts in general, but to specific higher CR rating beasts at specific levels. So every time you hit a level that gives you new sub-class abilities, one of them is a new form that is more powerful than a regular druid could access. For example, at level 3 you get dire wolf, at level 6 hunter shark, etc.

That would solve the "shopping" and complexity problem while still giving moon druids the ability to shift into more powerful beasts and be a pretty good, though not the best, tank.

Edit: or maybe the moon druid gets to pick ONE new specialty form at each sub-class level, limited by a specific CR. This brings back the shopping problem but limits it a lot, while allowing players customization, which is fun.

I've completely rejected the idea that WS complexity is hurting the playability of the Druid class, largely because Polymorph does not impact the 6 classes that gain access to that spell (including the Druid). In fact, I'm not sure that Druid being the least played class is even an issue, and that trying to 'fix' that is leading away from the stated design goals to make classes for people who like the class.

Just completed the survey, and offered these suggestions.
1. Leave as in 2014, but provide several beast statblocks as examples.
2. Leave mostly as in 2014, but limit the forms you can turn into to a number equal to your PB. You choose the forms when you finish a long rest. Still provide examples.
3. If templates are going to be the way to go, provide options for each template (moving away from land, sea air). Also replace the Familiar at level 2 with a unique Tiny template that mimics a Familiar but which reverts back if it takes damage. Let this form communicate telepathically with a creature of the Druid's choice. Allows for Ranger/Rogue team-ups with the Druid for scout missions.

 

[Parmandur]

I've completely rejected the idea that WS complexity is hurting the playability of the Druid class, largely because Polymorph does not impact the 6 classes that gain access to that spell (including the Druid). In fact, I'm not sure that Druid being the least played class is even an issue, and that trying to 'fix' that is leading away from the stated design goals to make classes for people who like the class.

Just completed the survey, and offered these suggestions.
1. Leave as in 2014, but provide several beast statblocks as examples.
2. Leave mostly as in 2014, but limit the forms you can turn into to a number equal to your PB. You choose the forms when you finish a long rest. Still provide examples.
3. If templates are going to be the way to go, provide options for each template (moving away from land, sea air). Also replace the Familiar at level 2 with a unique Tiny template that mimics a Familiar but which reverts back if it takes damage. Let this form communicate telepathically with a creature of the Druid's choice. Allows for Ranger/Rogue team-ups with the Druid for scout missions.

3 is about what I reckon will happen: expand choices beyond the original playtest, while still streamlining the "analysis paralysis" potential.

 

[Horwath]

Verbal components are for the camera and the viewer, they don’t have practical purpose!

being gagged, silence spell, unable to use Stealth, subtle metamagic being most popular choice, casting underwater, casting while holding breath due to airborne poison/disease,

 

[OB1]

3 is about what I reckon will happen: expand choices beyond the original playtest, while still streamlining the "analysis paralysis" potential.

I expect that as well, but think choosing a few shapes during a LR to use for the day would do just as much to end analysis paralysis. And again, why isn't there the same concern with Polymorph (which has more options because of the different CR requirement)? Will that become a generic statblock spell as well?

 

[Blue]

Pretty much seals the deal for me that Im not going to be playing OneDND. They butchered the Ranger already with Tashas and they doubled down with One. No thank you.

This sounds like a smart move for you. If you disagree with what the majority of survey responders want, then you will likely not like the full game guided by them. Voluntarily removing yourself from the pool of people playing the popular choices that end up in the 50th Anniversary books means you don't have to listen to the tyranny of the masses and can instead continue to play 5e or some other game.

For those who like the changes, they will likely also find other changes voted on by the same people also to their liking, and will find a game they like.

And then neither group needs to play and complain about the "other" edition.

 

[Parmandur]

I expect that as well, but think choosing a few shapes during a LR to use for the day would do just as much to end analysis paralysis. And again, why isn't there the same concern with Polymorph (which has more options because of the different CR requirement)? Will that become a generic statblock spell as well?

Big difference is that Polymorph is firstly a opt-in Spell instead of a core Class feature, and secondly way, way worse than Wildshape.

Thirdly, dollars to donits we get a new Polymorph proposal shortly.