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.

 

[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.