D&D (2024) One D&D Survey Feedback: Weapon Mastery Spectacular; Warlock and Wizard Mixed Reactions

Jeremy Crawford discusses the results of the Packet 5 Survey:

• Weapon Mastery at 80% approval, and all options except for Flex scored similarly. Crawford says that Flex is mathematically one of the most powerful properties, but will need some attention because people didn't feel like it was. This feature is in the 2024 PHB for 6 Classes, guaranteed at this point.
• Barbarian scored well, particularly the individual features, average satisfaction of 80% for each feature. Beserker got 84% satisfaction, while the 2014 Beserker in the 2020 Big Class Survey got 29% satisfaction.
• Fighter received well, overall 75% satisfaction. Champion scored 54% in the Big Class Survey, but this new one got 74%.
• Sorcerer in the Big Class Survey got 60%, this UA Sorcerer got 72%. Lots of enthusiasm for the Metamagic revisions. Careful Spell got 92% satisfaction. Twin Spell was the exception, at 60%. Draconic Sorcerer got 73%, new Dragon Wings feature was not well received but will be fixed back to being on all the time by the return to 2014 Aubclass progression.
• Class specific Spell lists are back in UA 7 coming soon, the unified Spell lists are out.
• Warlock feedback reflected mixed feelings in the player base. Pact magic is coming back in next iteration. Next Warlock will be more like 2014, Mystic Arcanum will be a core feature, but will still see some adjustments based on feedback to allow for more frequent use of Spells. Eldritch Invocations were well received. Crawford felt it was a good test, because they learned what players felt. They found the idiosyncracy of the Warlock is exactly what people like about it, so theybare keeping it distinct. Next version will get even more Eldritch Invocation options.
• Wizard got a mixed reception. Biggest problem people had was wanting a Wizard specific Spell list, not a shared Arcane list that made the Wizard less distinct. Evoker well received.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Just noticed it explicitly says, "Other Activity on Your Turn - Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move." I would say grabbing an item with an empty hand is included in "a variety of flourishes" which therefore requires "your turn."

And I would say how you grab your weapon is not a flourish, it is just a choice you make when deciding how to attack. We're both as equally rules-supported.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was quoting the Versatile property which is what we're discussing.

I thought we were discussing whether or not it was possible to attack with a two-handed weapon after using one hand to cast a spell…?

Can you or can you not drop an object outside of your turn?

Of course you can

 

[tetrasodium]

I am right and you are wrong, based on those tweets. I said it requires your turn as part of an action. He confirms that. NOTHING in those tweets talks about doing it outside your turn. If you disagree you show me where that topic was even raised.

It's the loophole you are grounding the entire foundation of your take hand off a versatile or 2h weapon to free it as a null action on. Even if we accept that you "are right" for purposes of discussion here is still the pretty giant waste of text regarding needing a free hand to cast spells with somatic components & it's tangled rabbithole that leads to nullifying the entire thing without at any point being clear about the requirement of a focus item itself before ejecting the somatic component out the window with a pointless verbal statement everyone else needs to sit through.

 

[Rushbolt]

I hope they stick to their guns and require a 70% rating when they revert the warlock back to pact slots. They may never get the class fixed.

 

[Mistwell]

I thought we were discussing whether or not it was possible to attack with a two-handed weapon after using one hand to cast a spell…?

No we were discussing the Versatile property and Flex. What thread did you think this was?

Of course you can

You cannot. It's not your turn. You cannot do anything outside your turn unless a reaction is triggered, and then you can only do the things listed as being reactions. You literally cannot speak when it's not your turn, explicitly.

 

[Mistwell]

It's the loophole

It's not a "loophole". You literally cannot speak outside your turn according to the rules but you think it's a loophole to grab an object outside your turn?

you are grounding the entire foundation of your take hand off a versatile or 2h weapon to free it as a null action on. Even if we accept that you "are right" for purposes of discussion here is still the pretty giant waste of text regarding needing a free hand to cast spells with somatic components & it's tangled rabbithole that leads to nullifying the entire thing without at any point being clear about the requirement of a focus item itself before ejecting the somatic component out the window with a pointless verbal statement everyone else needs to sit through.

You need a free hand to cast a spell unless it has only a verbal component or there is some other exception in the rules allowing you to do it, like a cleric with a holy symbol on their shield, or a feat like War Caster, etc.. Heck Treantmonk has done entire videos on this topic. But I agree all of that is off topic. But hey thank you for accepting that I "am right" about all those tweets specifically being stuff done on your turn, which is what I had been saying all along.

 

[Charlaquin]

No we were discussing the Versatile property and Flex. What thread did you think this was?

So, you’re saying you can’t attack with a versatile weapon two-handed after casting a spell, but you can attack with a two-handed weapon after casting a spell…?

You cannot. It's not your turn. You cannot do anything outside your turn unless a reaction is triggered, and then you can only do the things listed as being reactions. You literally cannot speak when it's not your turn, explicitly.

It’s true that you explicitly can’t speak when it’s not your turn. I think that’s dumb as hell, but it is what the rules say. The rules do not say any such thing about dropping something you’re holding. Moreover, they don’t say anything about the number of hands you “wield” a weapon with, other than that you can use a versatile weapon in one or two hands, and that you need two hands to attack with a two-handed weapon. Nothing about that suggests that you can’t do so if you used a hand to cast a spell on your turn. Like, even if we assume that characters are frozen in time outside their turn except when taking a reaction, and can’t so much as scratch their nose outside of their turn… just put your hand back on your weapon on your turn after you cast the spell. Problem solved.

 

[Ashrym]

Flex is bad as it is linked to next to useless property.

No one is taking Versatile because of off chance that you might lose a shield once in 10 levels of a campaign.

If I were a NPC quartermaster, I would never order longswords, just bunch of rapiers as it's the same damage for STR and DEX characters and I might get a bulk discount.

Longsword and its equivalents need to have d10 damage(V d12) to be used over rapier.

Then flex of d12 with STR attack is comparable to d8 with vex and DEX attack.

You're right, no one is taking versatile because of the off chance they might lose their shield. Versatile comes into play in that situational instance when they are sword and board and coincidently lose the shield. The versatile property is more of a ribbon in that scenario.

People do use versatile when they cannot use a shield in the first place for whatever reason. Monk is an example. Many spellcasters who might be in a silence area or antimagic area forced to melee are going to use versatile as a situational benefit. Or a low level bard (simple weapons) down to vicious mockery and looking for some damage. Situationally something that helps.

The longsword vs rapier point is a criticism of the longsword and not representative of versatile. Not every character who might melee has access to those weapons. Versatile does add damage over a rapier with flex when the other hand is holding a shield or another weapon (using the dual wielder feat), however. Vex only works when advantage doesn't already exist. At that point it's nothing.

If there's another source of advantage vex is pointless. Once an opponent is toppled that opponent cannot be further toppled. Once an opponent is slowed that opponent cannot be further slowed. Once an opponent is sapped that opponent cannot be further sapped. Push is restricted by size. Even nick is pointless for someone using TWF if there's no option to use that bonus action. Flex with versatile always adds damage.

A 13th level fighter can use topple and flex with a long sword, topple an opponent, and then attack with d10's on the prone opponent. That fighter cannot prone the same opponent twice while prone applies the benefits of vex and sap as part of the condition so flex works with that combo.

Versatility isn't just for fighters (monks make the most use of it), and flex as a secondary to topple isn't a poor choice. If the long sword is giving a d12 on flex what's the point of a battle axe or great sword at that point? Most fighters are going to have the same damage plus the AC bonus from a shield at that point and take dueling style.

 

[DevL]

A common theme in this thread seems to be what can and what can’t be done according to RAW. I think this points at the heart of D&D’s problem and in particular with the upcoming revision. Roleplaying is about having fun, not slavishly following a particular set of rules.

Is flex a fun weapon mastery? No? Rework/remove/replace it.

What about wizards? Or warlocks? Same thing.

The fact that WOTC backpedals massively on almost all proposed changes tells me that

a) D&D 5E is already perfect or at least more fun than the proposed changes

or

b) D&D 5E is bound to stagnate and as we all know, stagnation equals death in the long run

or

c) I’m missing something here (false dilemmmas are the worst).

Personally, my money is on alternative b with a little bit of alternative c sprinkled on top.

 

[Clint_L]

A common theme in this thread seems to be what can and what can’t be done according to RAW. I think this points at the heart of D&D’s problem and in particular with the upcoming revision. Roleplaying is about having fun, not slavishly following a particular set of rules.

Is flex a fun weapon mastery? No? Rework/remove/replace it.

What about wizards? Or warlocks? Same thing.

The fact that WOTC backpedals massively on almost all proposed changes tells me that

a) D&D 5E is already perfect or at least more fun than the proposed changes

or

b) D&D 5E is bound to stagnate and as we all know, stagnation equals death in the long run

or

c) I’m missing something here (false dilemmmas are the worst).

C) Allow the game to slowly evolve, exactly as they announced last summer. They have often emphasized the word "evolve" or "evolution." WotC: radical edition breaks that split the player base = bad. Sticking with 5e, which is working fantastically well for them, and allowing it to incrementally adapt and improve = good.

As they explained, that's why the project is called *One*D&D - no more editions. It'll just be D&D, integrated through print, online, and digital tabletop media.