Official Class/Race Satisfaction Survey

[AriochQ]

I have played a lot of 5e, but am still hesitant to give a very deep analysis of subclasses. I have definite opinions on the ones I have a lot of experience with, but there are many I just haven't interacted with much as a DM or player to really give an worthwhile evaluation/comparison. I wonder just how useful some of that feedback is going to be on the less played subclasses. It could be that there isn't much feedback because they are viewed as inferior in some way. The feedback on the feats and spells should be more solid.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I have played a lot of 5e, but am still hesitant to give a very deep analysis of subclasses. I have definite opinions on the ones I have a lot of experience with, but there are many I just haven't interacted with much as a DM or player to really give an worthwhile evaluation/comparison. I wonder just how useful some of that feedback is going to be on the less played subclasses. It could be that there isn't much feedback because they are viewed as inferior in some way. The feedback on the feats and spells should be more solid.

If the point of the survey is to find out which options are considered inferior, for the purpose of putting out new content that will bring those options back into line, then the public perception is probably more important than the reality.

If everyone believes that valor bard is the weakest option in the book, and nobody has any direct experience because nobody wanted to play a valor bard because they all thought it was too weak, then they should work to improve valor bards regardless of whether those opinions are based on experience or speculation.

 

[guachi]

Since the survey was about "satisfaction" of subclasses and not power, I don't think you actually have to have direct experience with the subclass. My ratings of "satisfaction" was how excited I'd be to play that particular subclass.

Serendipitously, I had just done an extensive reading of all the classes/subclasses so I had a good sense of what I'd actually like to play (or not play).

 

[Yaarel]

Serendipitously, I had just done an extensive reading of all the classes/subclasses so I had a good sense of what I'd actually like to play (or not play).

Out of curiosity, how did you rate options (classes etcetera) that seemed like they were good quality, but regarding a concept that you personally had less interest in?

 

[Li Shenron]

The "which class is more powerful" drove me crazy because it didn't have a tier component. Many start slow and get more or vice versa. Heck, how do you compare to 9th level spells.

Yeah, I had no idea what to vote so I had to vote randomly each time... makes me want to take the survey once again and try to vote the other way around just to offset my meaningless answers, but since the pairs are randomly generated, it would be pointless anyway. I suppose they just aggregate results and count on big data to have some representativeness, but at least for me it delivered a sense of futility of the whole survey that undoubtedly affected the way I less-than-carefully answered the following questions.

 

[Blue]

I would have liked a chance to talk about the classes / subclasses instead of just rating them.

Agreed, but I can understand why they want something they can graph. It's easily consumable and discussable, from designers to managers up the chain outside of D&D.

The amount of time to read thousands of responses per subclass would pull the design team away from anything else for a prohibitive amount of time, and what they come away with would be highly subjective.

The problem is that you're right, in that a discussion can convey information much better. Feature X may be poor because it's overpowered, underpowered, fits poorly into the action economy with other features, it's fine mechanically but isn't thematic, is abusable when combined with feat Y, etc.

 

[Blue]

Since the team is biting the bullet, and publishing core books with errata, I hope they use the opportunity to make some meaningful updates that can help the longterm usefulness of the core rules.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't every single reprinting since Wizards acquired the brand included any official errata? Mind you not all books had official errata nor reprintings, especially in the book-a-month 3.x and 4e days, but the core books and many of the others certainly did.

I wouldn't really call "continuing to do things as we have always done them" biting the bullet.

Now, this is a lot different then 4e, where they would rewrite whole sections to improve them and issue that as errata. They don't seem to be doing any of that.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Went there just to say how much I am unsatisfied with the Beastmaster. I'm fine with everything else.

 

[mortwatcher]

I have played a lot of 5e, but am still hesitant to give a very deep analysis of subclasses. I have definite opinions on the ones I have a lot of experience with, but there are many I just haven't interacted with much as a DM or player to really give an worthwhile evaluation/comparison. I wonder just how useful some of that feedback is going to be on the less played subclasses. It could be that there isn't much feedback because they are viewed as inferior in some way. The feedback on the feats and spells should be more solid.

that's why the option of have not played/have not seen played (not the exact wording but in that spirit) is in the survey
as for the survey itself, did not put any feats/spells as overpowered, was majorly dissatisfied with ranger options (BM especially)

 

[Gradine]

Am I only person who's way more disappointed in the Sorcerer than literally any other class/archetype? I mean I know the Beastmaster (and to a lesser extent the Way of the Four Elements Monk) certainly seem much weaker than they are, but the Sorcerer (and to a lesser extent the Berserker) actually are at a significant disadvantage due to their design, and few people seem to bat so much as an eyelash over them.