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]

Do I not?


Do keep in mind, the quip was an indicator that your question is nonsensical. My game isn't DND; there is no proficiency bonus.

To be fair, this is the One D&D forum, so it's reasonable to assume you're playing some variety of 5e.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think this has more to do with Actual Plays rising in popularity than with anything the game did.

Well, I think that that is the BIGGEST reason why 5e has grown so much in popularity over other editions, yes. But there's something about 5e as well that has made it popular. As a game retailer, I've spoken to many people who consider it to be, if not perfect, their favorite edition so far. I mean, obviously there are those that disagree, and I'm not likely to see most of those guys, as they don't need to buy stuff from me to play their game the way they like it. But I think that I have enough of a sense of the market to confidently say that 5e has been very well regarded by D&D players, new and old, regardless of actual play (just even more so because of it).

Part of the problem with TTRPGs in general is that the nature of these games made how they play relatively obscured. Unless you got roped into a group by an already "in" person, prior to Actual Plays you'd have to go out of your way to find examples of how the game plays, and often that meant you'd effectively have to go in blind with the first group you found, or you had to convince your own friends to go in blind with you, playing the game without any prior reference.

Here you nail one of the big reasons the game never hit "mainstream" earlier, for sure.

But, not long after 5e cane along, things like Critical Role came in, got absurdly popular and stayed absurdly popular on a site primarily directed towards video gamers, and nowadays you can find all kinds of lets place on the internet in different formats, most of whom end up playing the same game the early successful streams were.

I think if groups like Critical Role played literally anything else (Like Pathfinder if they decided to stick with it), then 5e wouldn't have ever enjoyed the same level of popularity it has.

I'm not so sure. I think if CR had played Pathfinder they might have become popular among a certain set of gamers and made themselves a good income. Say, the way Will Wheaton did with Tabletop. BUT... the phenomenon that is CR has also got a LOT to do with the mystique of "Dungeons & Dragons" (that game that you've heard of that may involve devil worship, but that's silly so probably not, but is something else interesting but I don't know what so let's check it out).

 

[Emberashh]

I'm here to discuss D&D. When I want to discuss your fantasy heartbreaker, I'll ask about it.

So you asked for an answer, I pointed you to where it was, and you decide to reply with a dismissive and diminuitive comment about my game, and don't even acknowledge the answer you asked for in the process.

Just saying but you could have just not replied if you're going to be like that. I bring up my game because its a ready example I can point to to explain my ideas. I know the Barbarian isn't just Rage because I  wrote a Barbarian that isn't, and my rationale for doing so has already been laid out in earlier posts.

The classical Barbarian is an entirely separate trope from the Beserker, and while it still makes sense to have a Beserker subclass (and I do, I call it Beastheart), that trope isn't what made the concept of a Barbarian.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My point is that, while what they have been doing may be a contributing factor is getting more people to buy and/or play the game, it doesn't necessarily make it a better game, and indeed may make it a worse game for certain segments of the fan base.

That's a potential pitfall, of course.

If OneD&D pulls a 4e Essentials and causes D&D sales to nosedive (and this is coming from someone who both liked and sold tons of Essentials, but I can't argue that 4e was slumping and Essentials did not help, but rather pushed it off the cliff) then you will absolutely be vindicated here and you can tell us all "Told You So!" (I will tip my hat to you and point you out as one who "saw it coming!")

(Just to be clear, while I mean the above to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, I mean it sincerely and not dismissively. Internet communication can be soooo easy to screw up!)

 

[Emberashh]

That's a potential pitfall, of course.

If OneD&D pulls a 4e Essentials and causes D&D sales to nosedive (and this is coming from someone who both liked and sold tons of Essentials, but I can't argue that 4e was slumping and Essentials did not help, but rather pushed it off the cliff) then you will absolutely be vindicated here and you can tell us all "Told You So!" (I will tip my hat to you and point you out as one who "saw it coming!")

If they don't drop the charade of backwards compatibility, I fully expect the game to sell well initially but end up being regarded far worse than 5e is.

5e itself isn't ever going to have its content fixed, and people are going to try and bash things from it into OneDND and it'll never work the way anyone wants it to, and people will hold that against the game.

DMs already have it hard; imagine having to juggle 9 years of content thats never going to be reprinted with fixes that players are going to insist they have access to because WOTC said so.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If they don't drop the charade of backwards compatibility, I fully expect the game to sell well initially but end up being regarded far worse than 5e is.

I doubt it myself, but it's possible.

5e itself isn't ever going to have its content fixed, and people are going to try and bash things from it into OneDND and it'll never work the way anyone wants it to, and people will hold that against the game.

The game would be better off with a new edition, IMO, but the market would not, so they're kind of stuck.

DMs already have it hard; imagine having to juggle 9 years of content thats never going to be reprinted with fixes that players are going to insist they have access to because WOTC said so.

Maybe. I mean, that could be the case. However, nothing has gone out of print yet (AFAIK, other than the original Starter Set, which has been replaced by other starters and the Adventure expanded into an upcoming campaign), which is highly unusual for D&D. Beyond the Core, most D&D books in the past went OOP early and often.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If they don't drop the charade of backwards compatibility, I fully expect the game to sell well initially but end up being regarded far worse than 5e is.

5e itself isn't ever going to have its content fixed, and people are going to try and bash things from it into OneDND and it'll never work the way anyone wants it to, and people will hold that against the game.

DMs already have it hard; imagine having to juggle 9 years of content thats never going to be reprinted with fixes that players are going to insist they have access to because WOTC said so.

Correction:  WotC is never to fix 5e's problems. Many 3PPs have gone a long way in that direction, however.

 

[Kobold Stew]

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.

Wow. The intolerance in these two sentences for well-meaning individuals who do not meet your personal standards for an acceptable gamer is astounding.

 

[Emberashh]

Wow. The intolerance in these two sentences for well-meaning individuals who do not meet your personal standards for an acceptable gamer is astounding.

Please elaborate on the logic you followed that lead you from what I said to accusing me of the bold.

And we'll just skip to the end of that and I'll just tell you straight up that thats fooey and doesn't follow logically from what I said at all, and that you're cynically projecting that accusation onto me.

What I actually said is that some people clearly cannot handle what 5e is, and that regardless of what the circumstances are for these people it would be better for all involved that they play something else with their friends.

I don't expect my video game friends to go out of their way to buy expensive flight simulator hardware and go through the rigmarole to learn how to fly and simulate being military pilots in DCS World with me. We just play something else, and I have other people to play DCS with.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Please elaborate on the logic you followed that lead you from what I said to accusing me of the bold.

And we'll just skip to the end of that and I'll just tell you straight up that thats fooey and doesn't follow logically from what I said at all, and that you're cynically projecting that accusation onto me.

It's easily (though perhaps, not charitably) inferred from what you wrote, even if it's not what you meant. Internet communication being as flawed as it is.

What I actually said is that some people clearly cannot handle what 5e is, and that regardless of what the circumstances are for these people it would be better for all involved that they play something else with their friends.

Unfortunately, there's really no way to say that without sounding gatekeepy. I mean, you're essentially saying that all the many dozens of people that I've played with over the years that really weren't any particularly good at the game should be excluded from their social group (all, or at least most, of the rest of whom were suited - and wanted - to play D&D) just because they're not "good enough" to keep up.

OR, you know, the game could have options that suit them better. I mean, it does have the Champion Fighter, but that one gets a lot of flack for existing too.

I don't expect my video game friends to go out of their way to buy expensive flight simulator hardware and go through the rigmarole to learn how to fly and simulate being military pilots in DCS World with me. We just play something else, and I have other people to play DCS with.

That's not a great comparison, though. I mean, sure, I guess you can do social-time with video games, but it doesn't line up with, say, six of your friends sitting around a table once a week with whiskey and dice.