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.

 

[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.