Official Class/Race Satisfaction Survey

[abirdcall]

I forgot Find Familiar. With the sage ruling that one is overpowered. Free combat advantage just doesn't make any sense.

The summon spells, too, should not be summoning more than 3 creatures. It's too fiddly and time consuming.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There are some spells that are nonbroken yet too powerful for their spell slot, compared to other spells. For example, Bless and Hunters Mark. These should probably become class features for the Cleric and Ranger, respectively, instead of spells, since they dont actually break the game. The problem is they make other spell options less likely, thus discourage a diversity of spells. For some players the pressure to take Bless or Hunters Mark becomes a boring monotony.



The 5e designers worked hard to remove broken spells from the 5e spell list. At the same time, there seems to have been less attention to spells that are subpar. The problem is especially painful at higher spell slots, where viable spell choices are truly disappointing after striving to attain such a high level.



In the future, I want to see a finetuning of the spell list. Often this finetuning is simply changing the level of the spell to a lower level, where it becomes a more competitive choice.

Some spells need rewriting or removal from the spell list. A number of spells from the old schools spell list are now almost useless in 5e, like Identify because now a short rest can identify any magic item, Legend Lore because a history check uncovers the same info and more, Resurrection at slot 7 because now Revivify at slot 3 makes the higher level spells rarely happen, if ever. And so on. Many spells are terrible. The underpowered spells now require the kind of attention that overpowered spells received earlier.

I disagree. Resurrection is where it belongs. Also Identify. A wizard does not lose anything to have identify in their book and a short rest does not reveal cursed items. You mix up rarely used and useless.
Some spells could indeed be class features. Hunters mark might come to mind but it is rather unproblematic. Find steed and find familiar on the other hand might be betrer as features. Actually in the some playtest packets they used to be features.
At some point however they decided not to have to many subsystems and ended up putting everything into spells.
Some class features ended there too and now you have to find them (Find familiar and steed are cast once spells with unlimited duration).
The thinking might have been that as a spell you can later easily pass it to a future class.
Maybe at least give those spells as bonus spells would help you not to search for those features and maybe miss them.
I really do believe in hindsight they would do some thongs different if they knew how everything turned out. I could also see them doing 6th edition at some point, going dor backwardscompatibility, but they are not at this point I guess.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, no spells are overpowered. But lots of spells are disappointing (to put it politely). Too many underpowered spells disrupt the game, in that what could be interesting concepts prove to be nonviable compared to other options in the same spell slot. It is a similar problem with feats. Too many feats are noncompetitive with other feats.

Some feats I agree with. Some feats are much more powerful at our table than common knowledge of optimizers would suggest.

 

[Jester David]

Yeah, no spells are overpowered. But lots of spells are disappointing (to put it politely). Too many underpowered spells disrupt the game, in that what could be interesting concepts prove to be nonviable compared to other options in the same spell slot. It is a similar problem with feats. Too many feats are noncompetitive with other feats.

I think I only considered polymorph in there, but a few of the conjure spells are close.
A CR 7 or 8 monsters is sooo much better than a level 7 or 8 character, especially one near death and only in the fight for a round or two.

 

[Yunru]

I had it easy, all of my "which class is more powerful" were non-caster vs. caster.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Rated things as dissatisfied that I would otherwise have been satisfied with, like the Hexblade and the new Ranger subclasses, because they should of been part of the core class.

You do realize that by doing this, you're doing more harm than good, right? They don't know your reason. They only see the ratings. So they see lower ratings on classes where they should have been higher. Doing what you did skews the value of surveys based on how the methodology of this survey is set up.

 

[Yunru]

You do realize that by doing this, you're doing more harm than good, right? They don't know your reason. They only see the ratings. So they see lower ratings on classes where they should have been higher. Doing what you did skews the value of surveys based on how the methodology of this survey is set up.

No, it really doesn't.
They don't need reasons, that's for future surveys, they say as much. What skews the value of surveys is not doing as I did, and voicing dissatisfaction about things like how classes are structured.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, it really doesn't.
They don't need reasons, that's for future surveys, they say as much. What skews the value of surveys is not doing as I did, and voicing dissatisfaction about things like how classes are structured.

This survey is about how satisfied you feel with each of the classes. You rated them lower than you actually feel, based on the timeline of implementation, which had nothing to do with how satisfied you are with the actual class. That skews the satisfaction ratings lower falsely.

Any time you answer a question not based on the question actually asked, but by a different interpretation on another unrelated factor, you're screwing up the results. So good job on that.

*Edit: This is what doing what you did will do. Imagine if everyone did what you did. That they actually are satisfied with a hexblade, but they all rated it as dissatisfied because it wasn't part of the core book (not the question asked). If I, as the WoTC team see those ratings as all dissatisfied (again, not know the reasons given by everyone), I'm going to think it's a badly designed class and do a redesign, even though that's not what anyone wanted.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I had it easy, all of my "which class is more powerful" were non-caster vs. caster.

I almost never play casters, and I still voted this way. It is what it is.

 

[Yunru]

This survey is about how satisfied you feel with each of the classes. You rated them lower than you actually feel, based on the timeline of implementation, which had nothing to do with how satisfied you are with the actual class. That skews the satisfaction ratings lower falsely.

Not at all. I'm less satisfied with them for their implementation, than I would be if they just fixed the actual base class. It's not a false lowering, it's an otherwise decent thing being lowered by the obvious hack-job that it is.