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.

 

[Remathilis]

Depends on what things they want to change to extend to a wider audience. Personally, I don't consider simplicity in and of itself to be a virtue like WotC does.

Simplicity is a slide scale. Too simple and it's not functional. Too complicated and its use is limited to only those few with the time, interest and aptitude to learn.

A Chromebook is easier to use than a Windows PC, but it is far less powerful. Chromebooks are great for checking email or watching YouTube, but it's worthless for PC gaming or running Photoshop. Both serve a purpose and a specific audience. I got no problem with D&D being the Chromebook to Level Up or Pathfinder's Windows 11 PC. Its only when someone buys a Chromebook and gets annoyed they can't run Call of Duty on it that I get annoyed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Simplicity is a slide scale. Too simple and it's not functional. Too complicated and its use is limited to only those few with the time, interest and aptitude to learn.

A Chromebook is easier to use than a Windows PC, but it is far less powerful. Chromebooks are great for checking email or watching YouTube, but it's worthless for PC gaming or running Photoshop. Both serve a purpose and a specific audience. I got no problem with D&D being the Chromebook to Level Up or Pathfinder's Windows 11 PC. Its only when someone buys a Chromebook and gets annoyed they can't run Call of Duty on it that I get annoyed.

See, that's the problem. WotC, like it or not (not) is the big dog. If they go the Chromebook route, they are cutting out all the people who want to play Call of Duty,  and presenting the face of the industry as suitable for no more than checking email and watching YouTube.

 

[Remathilis]

See, that's the problem. WotC, like it or not (not) is the big dog. If they go the Chromebook route, they are cutting out all the people who want to play Call of Duty,  and presenting the face of the industry as suitable for no more than checking email and watching YouTube.

More people check email than play CoD. WotC is acknowledging that. It would be nice if more rpgs not named D&D got the spotlight, but that's the way it goes. (It would be nice if a lot of industries weren't controlled by the whims of its biggest or two biggest dogs, but such is the way of capitalism).

 

[Micah Sweet]

More people check email than play CoD. WotC is acknowledging that. It would be nice if more rpgs not named D&D got the spotlight, but that's the way it goes. (It would be nice if a lot of industries weren't controlled by the whims of its biggest or two biggest dogs, but such is the way of capitalism).

So the answer is,"Too bad"? Conversation over, I guess.

 

[Emberashh]

Once upon a time I struggled to understand the total exasperation some communities have towards breaking people of the need to use DND for everything.

In time I thought I grew to understand, but Ive never actually been on the receiving end of that exasperation. Until now away.

It is okay to play other games folks, and we don't need a proverbial iPhone in everyones pocket.

 

[Minigiant]

See, that's the problem. WotC, like it or not (not) is the big dog. If they go the Chromebook route, they are cutting out all the people who want to play Call of Duty,  and presenting the face of the industry as suitable for no more than checking email and watching YouTube.

It's not a problem but a choice.

WotCc an only have D&D be a Chromebook or a Gaming PC.
WotC cannot be a Chromebook with a Gaming PC option without killing a ton of sacred cows (ie 4e).

For druid,the choices are

1. A simple nature based primal caster with little baggage that can hint to the tropes of a druids, shaman, witch doctors, medicine men, bouda, miko and other primal, spirtual or natural priests and sages but not strongly in any direction
2. A complex primal druid that hits all the the notes and tropes of past D&D druids first and foremost in mechanics that few play.
3. A mix of 1 and 3 that sacrifices heavily from both to make a base that could be branched of into something similar to the D&D Druid and other primal, spirtual or natural priests and sages.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not a problem but a choice.

WotCc an only have D&D be a Chromebook or a Gaming PC.
WotC cannot be a Chromebook with a Gaming PC option without killing a ton of sacred cows (ie 4e).

For druid,the choices are

1. A simple nature based primal caster with little baggage that can hint to the tropes of a druids, shaman, witch doctors, medicine men, bouda, miko and other primal, spirtual or natural priests and sages but not strongly in any direction
2. A complex primal druid that hits all the the notes and tropes of past D&D druids first and foremost in mechanics that few play.
3. A mix of 1 and 3 that sacrifices heavily from both to make a base that could be branched of into something similar to the D&D Druid and other primal, spirtual or natural priests and sages.

I'm always going to want 2.

 

[mamba]

I'm always going to want 2.

and that is why WotC isn't for you

2. A complex primal druid that hits all the the notes and tropes of past D&D druids first and foremost in mechanics that few play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

and that is why WotC isn't for you

Which of the others would you prefer? They both seem...not worth it, to me.

 

[Minigiant]

Which of the others would you prefer? They both seem...not worth it, to me.

That's the wrong question.

The question is what percentages and grouping of the current 5e fanbase should they design the Druid for?

The small known group who loves the 5e Druid?
The larger potential group who might play or use a less complex druid?
The larger potential group who might play or use an easier druid?
The larger potential group who might play or use a druid not as tied to Old School pseudo-Celtic themes?
The larger potential group who might play or use a druid not as tied to Wild Shape as a major exploration or combat feature?


This is exactly what a survey is/shouldbe for, To see which parts the Fanbase like most:

1. The Druid's Themes
2. The Druid's Attack Spells
3. The Druid's Healing Spells
4. The Druid's Explorations Spells
5. The Druid's Exploration Wild shape forms
6. The Druid's Combat Wildshape forms
7. The Druid's Library of Unique Forms

And build a class off the rankings