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)

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

I don't think they're going to stick with the "just refluff a parent" thing. In the very least, I expect to see some guidance on mixing a few species' features to create your mix.

I hope so, too, but we'll need to see what they end up with. Hopefully they'll give it a second pass in a UA or two.

I can't say I really understand how this connects to monsters, though if I read you right, you're just saying that you can understand people being reluctant to being told to take an unsatisfactory chunk of mechanics and just handwave it? Sure, yeah, but hopefully we'll get through the playtest with some more satisfying mechanics. It's the point of the thing, after all.

Just commiserating a bit... Pointing out that even though I'm pro-customizable template on the issue of animal forms/companions, I can very much understand getting attached to a specific expression of mechanics as representative of "this race/animal/form I want" and not necessarily seeing the appeal of being told to just use the mechanics for something else instead and pretend they're the same thing.

For me, being able to express mixed-ancestry characters in a bespoke manner is important to how my brain interacts with the game system, in a way that "just play a full-X and reflavor it" doesn't gel with.
For others, the same can presumably be said for how they express their animal forms/companions.

 

[Emberashh]

For me, being able to express mixed-ancestry characters in a bespoke manner is important to how my brain interacts with the game system, in a way that "just play a full-X and reflavor it" doesn't gel with.

Same underlying issue some have a problem with the whole "weaboo fightan magic* stuff. If spells and whatever are mechanically identical no amount of reflavor is going to make that commonality go away for those who have this mindset.

Thats why I think maneuvers are a trap, design wise. They do ostensibly represent a better way forward, but their entire design is only slightly different from that of spells, and in time those slight differences could easily melt away.

This was a big part of the logic thats driven my own games design. The only commonality between martials and mages (and summoners and mystics) is the use of universal resource pools (ie, mana/stamina).

Mechanically they're entirely segregrated, and the designs that bring these together in various ways, like the Mystic/Martial Monk or the Summoner/Caster Conjurer, are distinct in their own right as their mechanics blend together into unique playstyles.

But even between the various options theres a distinct difference. No one Martial feels the same as the next. Just lots and lots of deliberate uniqueness, particularly given Im going for 20 different classes at the same time.

 

[Payndz]

The designers really hate the idea of a player using Wild Shape to wreck their plots by turning into something small like a rat or spider to infiltrate the villain's stronghold, don't they?

Let the players do something cool and fun! Just have the villains follow Blofeld's example and have a cat.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it's strange how some people equate the statblock to the animal as if no other mechanical representation could also be an animal. They use it as an argument, like you do here, by saying "but I want to turn into an animal". As if the MM statblock is somehow more "the animal" than any other statblock that is used to represent the animal.

It's simply not the case. I mean, it IS absolutely the case that some statblocks represent some animals better than others do, of course! But as most "monster" statblocks are a bag of HP and an attack-for-damage, with everything else being imagined fluff, I don't know why anyone bothers to hold too tightly to them.

On the one hand, I get it. I am not a giant fan of reflavoring defined objects in the game to represent different things (a pistol uses the stats of a crossbow, the King has the stats of a goblin, etc). I truly dislike when it's used as an excuse to not add new mechanics to the game (ie refluff magic as psionics or crossbows as firearms).

But I don't have those kinds of feelings about templates because they aren't supposed to represent an animal, but a druid in animal shape. It's not an animal but a magical representation of an animal, and I have absolutely no problem with familiars, wild shapes, summons and even animal companions having different stats from monster versions. If WotC is going to force me to accept that npc necromancers and PC necromancers have different abilities, this seems very easy to accept by comparison.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

On the one hand, I get it. I am not a giant fan of reflavoring defined objects in the game to represent different things (a pistol uses the stats of a crossbow, the King has the stats of a goblin, etc). I truly dislike when it's used as an excuse to not add new mechanics to the game (ie refluff magic as psionics or crossbows as firearms).

But I don't have those kinds of feelings about templates because they aren't supposed to represent an animal, but a druid in animal shape. It's not an animal but a magical representation of an animal, and I have absolutely no problem with familiars, wild shapes, summons and even animal companions having different stats from monster versions. If WotC is going to force me to accept that npc necromancers and PC necromancers have different abilities, this seems very easy to accept by comparison.

Yeah, I mean, I get it when the mechanics that are being refluffed are a poor representation of the thing they represent (I'm looking at YOU, Tiny creature with the Druid's Wisdom for their Strength Score!)

But I have no problem with NPC and PCs working differently. In my mind, it would be a strange, small world indeed if everyone had the same training and did the same jobs in the same ways. PCs generally "stand out" as people who have unique talents, got lucky with great mentors, picked up the right skills at the right times, and come up with unique solutions on-the-fly. They're different by their nature.

So, yeah, their bear could be different than a "normal" bear, why not? It should definitely still feel like a bear, though - but that's easily modeled with a statblock. It's actually a bit hard to screw up, which is one of the (many) reasons that I was so unhappy with the Druid playtest. I can't see how they couldn't understand how terrible it was.

And I don't agree with @DEFCON 1 that it was some kind of plan in order to get feedback on the idea and not the mechanics. I can't see how that wouldn't entirely backfire, and feedback will be muddied by how bad it's implemented.

 

[Gorck]

The ranger isn't a ranged class. It's also a melee class and a stealth class.
If you give the the paladin ranged smite you are encroaching on both the ranger and the fighter.
Therefore to add the ranged smite, you have to redesign the ranger. And redesign the ranger without encroaching on the fighter and rogue.
Plus redesign the paladin to make melee paladin still viable.

That's why WOTC and practically no 3PP has doone it. It is not worth the trouble.

What about the Rogue? Rogues can make ranged attacks that deal Sneak Attack damage - does that also encroach on the Ranger and Fighter?

 

[Minigiant]

What about the Rogue? Rogues can make ranged attacks that deal Sneak Attack damage - does that also encroach on the Ranger and Fighter?

Rogue is squishy

 

[Gorck]

Rogue is squishy

Not if the Rogue is attacking safely from range, and using a Bonus action to Hide, and using Evasion if a creature does manage to get too close for comfort.

Whipping a dagger for 1d4 + xd6 + DEX damage could be seen as encroaching on the Ranger and Fighter as well. Paladins getting ranged Smites aren't much different, other than the potential for rider effects.

 

[Mistwell]

Mechanics define the actual feel of the moment to moment play. They're the visceral part of the game that makes it physically fun to play.

These tend to be quite important because they lend the game a desire to be played as is that theater of the mind fundamentally cannot.

Travelling for instance quickly becomes tedius and unfun if its strictly relegared to TOTM. However, with fun mechanics that reach into the real world, that feeling of tedium may never come if the mechanics are robust and well supported (and aren't negated by abundant and cheap "turn off these mechanics" buttons).

In the context we're discussing, where people are married to wild shape stats for a bear must be identical to bear stats in the monster manual unless they're unhappy, I see zero connection to what you said. It is not more viscerally physically fun to play monster manual stats rather than PHB stats for a bear. The mechanics for the PHB bear are not inherently more or less robust and well supported than the mechanics of a monster manual statblock. Indeed, as monster manual stats are built to be played quickly with fewer decision points by a DM, it's more likely PHB stats for a wildshaped bear would more robust and well supported.

IE in this context people are married to a mechanic because it's a known mechanic and not because it's a necessarily good or interesting mechanic.

 

[tetrasodium]

Not if the Rogue is attacking safely from range, and using a Bonus action to Hide, and using Evasion if a creature does manage to get too close for comfort.

Whipping a dagger for 1d4 + xd6 + DEX damage could be seen as encroaching on the Ranger and Fighter as well. paladins getting ranged Smites aren't much different, other than the potential for rider effects.

There was a reason ranged sneak attack only worked out to 30ft in the past