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]

I'm sure you're right about ranger, but "D&D" encompasses far, far more than what WotC decides to roll out. 3PP is a big part of that, and absolutely no less D&D than the vaunted market leader.

Absolutely. I was going to google that on Bing but I accidentally spilled my Pepsi can of coke on my keyboard and had to mop it up with some Puff's kleenex.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Absolutely. I was going to google that on Bing but I accidentally spilled my Pepsi can of coke on my keyboard and had to mop it up with some Puff's kleenex.

Trying to decide if this is at my expense...

 

[Parmandur]

Trying to decide if this is at my expense...

No, not at anyone's expense, bit a humorous pointing out that there is a major difference between D&D and third party stuff.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, not at anyone's expense, bit a humorous pointing out that there is a major difference between D&D and third party stuff.

What would that major difference be, exactly, short of the logos involved? It's certainly not quality as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Parmandur]

What would that major difference be, exactly, short of the logos involved? It's certainly not quality as far as I'm concerned.

How often do you Bing anything?

 

[Micah Sweet]

How often do you Bing anything?

Popularity is not a measure of quality and you know it.

 

[Ashrym]

Note I didn't say spellless.per se, but both rangers and paladins (and in a different way, bards) all leaned into spellcasting harder as the editions grew and more class features were needed to round out the progression.

I think leaning more into magic is true of all classes because the entire system leans more into magic.

There was a time clerics didn't get spells until 2nd level. There was a time clerics might have had to roll in order to cast a spell based on WIS score. There was a time when the maximum spell level available was based on WIS score. There was a time the maximum spell level was 7th level spells regardless.

The old rolling system and WIS requirements made it fairly common for 2e clerics to be restricted to 5th level spells and lower, for example, and never more than 7th level. That's why you might see me point out that bards casting 6th level spells in that edition was comparable to those classes. ;-)

There was a time wizards had to roll to learn a spell and they had a maximum number they could learn based on INT score; fail the roll and it's not going into your book. There was a time when the spell level available was based on INT score. That maximum spell level might have been 9th level spells for wizards but it was 7th level for illusionists.

Getting back to a rolling system that typically gives 15 for a high roll it was fairly common for wizards to be limited to 7th level spells, roll poorly to not have access to a spell, and have a limit of 11 spells at those levels in the spell book. That's why a lot of DM's adjusted rolling methods to be more favorable. The actual mechanics restricted spell casting with these classes more than people seem to remember sometimes. ;-)

There's a pretty big difference in older editions compared to now with major spell casters. Spell access, spell levels, cantrips, and rituals.

Other classes added PrC's with magical abilities or spells, and added or increased spells to the classes somehow. We can see it very clearly with paladins and rangers going from 1e to 2e to 3e to 5e. Monks have several spell-like abilities and subclasses add spells. Fighter and rogue subclasses added spells. Even barbarian subclasses added some spell-like abilities. More race traits offer spells and spell-like abilities. Feats add spells and spell-like abilities. Crafting magic items became easier and now with XGtE rules a fighter or barbarian can craft magic items.

I find it challenging to run a low magic campaign in 5e because of how common magic is among the player classes and options.

 

[Parmandur]

Popularity is not a measure of quality and you know it.

Popularity is itself a quality, so that sentence is contradictory. Nothing is popular without reference to a quality that people desire.

Bing is perfectly serviceable. But how often have you used it as a verb...?

And still, at anybrate, rand9m third party stuff is immaterial to OneD&D developments...which is the topic.

 

[Remathilis]

Trying to decide if this is at my expense...

Only to point out "D&D" is not a generic noun (or verb) that means any d20-based fantasy RPG. If I invite you to play "D&D" and slap the Pathfinder 2e core book in front of you, I really haven't invited you to play Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Only to point out "D&D" is not a generic noun (or verb) that means any d20-based fantasy RPG. If I invite you to play "D&D" and slap the Pathfinder 2e core book in front of you, I really haven't invited you to play Dungeons & Dragons.

You have as far as I'm concerned. Ditto with any 5e-compatible product, like Level Up, or something like DCC.