D&D (2024) New Survey Results | Druid & Paladin | Unearthed Arcana | D&D

WotC has shared a new video going over the survey results following the drud and paladin playtests for One D&D.

​

For those who don't have time to watch the video, here are some general notes.

Paladin

• Did extremely well in terms of satisfaction
• All class and subclass features scored 70% or higher - lowest was Divine Smite at 72%
• Got some pushback in written feedback on being able to smite on ranged attacks - class identity concerns, Paladin viewed as melee-centric class, ranged smites might eat into Cleric/Ranger identity too much
• Positive feedback on redesigned smite spells - may become paladin exclusive spells down the road

Druid

• Wild Shape feedback seems to be split - slight majority saying "never want this Wild Shape in print", slight minority saying "this is their favorite version of Wild Shape they've ever seen"
• People love the texture and differences in beast options in '14 Wild Shape, but are open to feature being easier to use (i.e. don't want players to have to weigh the merits of 100+ stat blocks every time they want to use Wild Shape)
• Will have another take on Wild Shape next time Druid appears in Playtest UA
• General concept of Channel Nature seems to have gone over well, but want to see more done with it
• Expected feedback for restoring elemental forms for Moon Druids, but instead found people wanted to lean more into Lunar themes
• Want Moon Druid forms to be more resilient, but still want to reign in power at high levels (frequent/unlimited uses of Wild Shape constantly refreshing HP total)

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Yes, this was well understood. It wasn't what they wanted. At all. They wanted to have their character find, befriend, and train a specific animal. The story was very important to them.

Apparently some people think the Monster Manual stat block should be a sacrosanct representation of that monster/animal in the world, therefore only that stat block should be used to represent that creature, even as part of PC abilities. But stat blocks are blocks of mechanics, name notwithstanding. Monster Manual stat blocks are designed and balanced as Monster threats, not PC options.

Regarding the "real" animal companion rules, the wolf stat block has 11 hit points. Looking at how hard monsters are hitting going forward, I don't know how DMs are going to keep the PC's befriended, loyal, trained wolf alive in combat. Not without ignoring them on purpose. It makes no sense. If that wolf gets a good hit in on that Ogre, the Ogre is going to DESTROY it. Then what is the PC gonna do? Cry? Get a new wolf?

That is why PC-balanced stat blocks are so handy. Whether "Beast of the Land" or "Sidekick" rules, they can be designed to scale with the PC, so their companion can adventure at their side. Even then, how does one deal with a "real, living" animal companion getting killed by the enemy fireball or cloudkill? I've had my nonmagical animal companions get killed, and I've been the DM who has had to try to avoid killing, and has killed, those animal companions. It's going to happen, and it is disheartening if "Hero and Companion" is the theme of the PC. Additionally, if one is ok with their wolf companion using the "Sidekick" rules, any complaint about using a stat block other than the Monster Manual is invalid.

Because of this, I way prefer for "Primal" magic to be able to give physical form to a primal animal spirit, and if it "dies", you can cause it to manifest again. One can still give it a personality, like say it is the spirit of a dead/ascended animal friend, rather than a spirit without personality.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Apparently some people think the Monster Manual stat block should be a sacrosanct representation of that monster/animal in the world, therefore only that stat block should be used to represent that creature, even as part of PC abilities. But stat blocks are blocks of mechanics, name notwithstanding. Monster Manual stat blocks are designed and balanced as Monster threats, not PC options.

Regarding the "real" animal companion rules, the wolf stat block has 11 hit points. Looking at how hard monsters are hitting going forward, I don't know how DMs are going to keep the PC's befriended, loyal, trained wolf alive in combat. Not without ignoring them on purpose. It makes no sense. If that wolf gets a good hit in on that Ogre, the Ogre is going to DESTROY it. Then what is the PC gonna do? Cry? Get a new wolf?

That is why PC-balanced stat blocks are so handy. Whether "Beast of the Land" or "Sidekick" rules, they can be designed to scale with the PC, so their companion can adventure at their side. Even then, how does one deal with a "real, living" animal companion getting killed by the enemy fireball or cloudkill? I've had my nonmagical animal companions get killed, and I've been the DM who has had to try to avoid killing, and has killed, those animal companions. It's going to happen, and it is disheartening if "Hero and Companion" is the theme of the PC. Additionally, if one is ok with their wolf companion using the "Sidekick" rules, any complaint about using a stat block other than the Monster Manual is invalid.

Because of this, I way prefer for "Primal" magic to be able to give physical form to a primal animal spirit, and if it "dies", you can cause it to manifest again. One can still give it a personality, like say it is the spirit of a dead/ascended animal friend, rather than a spirit without personality.

I think putting quirks and personality trait suggestions in the writeup for different critters, would help with that last part.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

While I'm completely in favor of templates (Tasha Beastmaster makes me and my goat happy)...

Even then, how does one deal with a "real, living" animal companion getting killed by the enemy fireball or cloudkill?

On this particular issue, without having to houserule anything, the GM is always the one who decides what gets death saves. Which admittedly wouldn't help much with 11hp critters, because instant death is a real thing for them.

WotC could've made everyone's life easier if they'd just gone 'if the pet drops to 0 hitpoints, it slinks away to lick its wounds and will find its way back after a long rest'. But that would not be realistic.

 

[mamba]

I believe the theory is that because there are more animal statblocks out there to choose from than probably whatever template + list of special features a new system might give... more options to look through gives a person more opportunity to make strategically superior choices.

I’d say the opposite is true. With the existing animals you basically have one or two choices for most levels, with the rest being clearly inferior.

With blocks that scale you theoretically have as many as there are blocks (assuming they are reasonably balanced). If this turns into a few blocks with skill-buy (poison sting / climbing / cast a net / …) then these multiply

 

[Incenjucar]

There are many, many animal species in the real world alone that are not in the monster books. If I want to wildshape into a sand cat, I shouldn't need for WotC to make a stat block for them.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I’d say the opposite is true. With the existing animals you basically have one or two choices for most levels, with the rest being clearly inferior.

With blocks that scale you theoretically have as many as there are blocks (assuming they are reasonably balanced). If this turns into a few blocks with skill-buy (poison sting / climbing / cast a net / …) then these multiply

Exactly. Monsters are not balanced within each CR so that they are all "equally-viable": that's not a concern for a GM, who just wants something reasonably close to the right amount of challenge. Your monster choice doesn't need to be "optimized" so that you get the best monster from every CR. However, as a PC who is getting to choose, that's exactly what you'll do: gravitate to the ones that get the most bang for the buck.

With lenses, you can flavor them via some powers but always have something that is level-appropriate: your cat form will be as powerful as you and you can flavor that however you want. As you level up, you can give more options so that you can take on special modifiers (Maybe you decide you want to be a "stealthy" panther versus a "savage" tiger, so you can pick a set of modifiers that gives you more stealth and a sneak attack bonus versus having improved attacks) over time. You could even do easier restrictions on what you can and can't be: you want to do a flying creature? Well, now you can be, but your stats will be for you at a level lower than you normally would count as. All sorts of design space here to use rather than trying to balance existing monsters and stuff them into a box they weren't really designed to fit in.

Edit: I'd also like to say that this method would also allow you to do certain "monstrosities" that resemble beasts but are not. If you are just attaching stats to a block, you could more easily do, say, a Winter Wolf or an Owl Bear without having to get ultra-specific as to what monstrosity you can chose or that you'll be too open in what Druids can transform into.

 

[Clint_L]

deleted

 

[James Gasik]

IMO, it wouldn't be a problem to have a ranged smiting subclass. Possibly a nature theme (what deity has bows as favorite weapons?)

But I wouldn't want it on the base class.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Solonor_Thelandira

 

[DEFCON 1]

I’d say the opposite is true. With the existing animals you basically have one or two choices for most levels, with the rest being clearly inferior.

With blocks that scale you theoretically have as many as there are blocks (assuming they are reasonably balanced). If this turns into a few blocks with skill-buy (poison sting / climbing / cast a net / …) then these multiply

It probably ends up depending on how one looks at the concept of research in relation to strategy. You obviously lean one way, others sound as though they lean the other. And in truth, the distinction is probably negligible either way.

When people talk about finding that right animal for the job, I'm thinking that the person has like 2-4 book in front of them and combs through them looking for just that best one to use for their current CR... rather than as you mentioned, in having like two of them already pre-chosen and the work having already been done. From your perspective, I'd agree with you. But I dunno... I just get the sense that a lot of players don't actually do all that prepwork beforehand, and instead at the time of necessity they just start hunting. And in that regard, the hunt for the best animal possibly feels like the tactical analysis that they are looking for.

I could be wrong. No real idea.

 

[mamba]

When people talk about finding that right animal for the job, I'm thinking that the person has like 2-4 book in front of them and combs through them looking for just that best one to use for their current CR... rather than as you mentioned, in having like two of them already pre-chosen and the work having already been done.

I am not saying they select them beforehand, but regardless of when they do, there are only two or so viable stat blocks from a power perspective.

Anything else is not optimal but might offer something you want, so you have to settle for the inferior stats because the animal has a feature you want. With scaling stats you do not have to settle