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]

I know that you do not agree, but that still makes it a good business decision. As to any cost, you seem to be far exaggerating the cost

It certainly cost me. I no longer wish to buy any of their products, and I've been a loyal customer of WotC since they acquired the D&D license.

 

[Parmandur]

Do you think every game company wants all their games to reach as large an audience as possible? If so, why aren't all games the same?

The ones that stay in business over the long term, yes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I know that you do not agree, but that still makes it a good business decision. As to any cost, you seem to be far exaggerating the cost

And again, why doesn’t every company do what WotC is doing, if it's such a good business decision?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The ones that stay in business over the long term, yes.

Answer the second part please.

 

[Parmandur]

It certainly cost me. I no longer wish to buy any of their products, and I've been a loyal customer of WotC since they acquired the D&D license.

You or I are over 24, and therefore not part of the target market. We are nice-to-have for WotC, not the focus of their products.

 

[Parmandur]

Answer the second part please.

Same reason not all restaurants serve exactly the same food. But neither a pizza place nor a Thai restraunt can afford dingy decor and poor service in the long run.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Same reason not all restaurants serve exactly the same food. But neither a pizza place nor a Thai restraunt can afford dingy decor and poor service in the long run.

I hardly think what we received prior to the last few years is dingy decor and poor service. At least, not worse then it is now.

 

[Parmandur]

I hardly think what we received prior to the last few years is dingy decor and poor service. At least, not worse then it is now.

No, but that was all designed to appeal to as broad a base as possible previously as well. They have shifted with the audience the past few years, but the methodology has been consistent for over ten years now, when they started the D&D Next project. As the audience evolves, so does the game. That's the nature of the beast.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Considering your concern for hyperbole this response is rather ironic.

I mentioned it earlier: I'm okay with hyperbole. It's only a problem when one or the other of the speaker or the listener are not "in on it". As you've understood my exaggeration for effect as intended, my use of hyperbole was fine. (IMO - some people seem to not like its use at all, which I can't fathom. It's a basic part of communication).

To be clear: I only mentioned your use of hyperbole before to double-check that you meant it to be hyperbole, not because I objected to your use of it. Apparently you did not intended it that way.

So: because you've drawn me back into this - If you're not implying some sort of nefarious plot - what are you implying? I didn't think that you really meant that there was a conspiracy - but you do seem frightfully close to suggesting something like one.

I'll bite: What are you getting at?

 

[Clint_L]

I mentioned it earlier: I'm okay with hyperbole. It's only a problem when one or the other of the speaker or the listener are not "in on it". As you've understood my exaggeration for effect as intended, my use of hyperbole was fine. (IMO - some people seem to not like its use at all, which I can't fathom. It's a basic part of communication).

Yeah, I do not see hyperbole as "basic part of communication," at least not in the way that it is used in this forum most of the time.

Hyperbole can be used constructively for poetic effect or irony, but that is not what generally happens in these threads. Instead it is almost always used destructively, for sarcasm, mockery, and building various logical fallacies, such as straw man arguments, black and white arguments, and slippery slope arguments.

So I am often very much not okay with hyperbole on forum threads. It is usually being applied as a weapon. And it often makes me question whether a poster is worth engaging with, since a nuanced and constructive discussion is unlikely to ensue.