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.

 

[Yaarel]

Spell component pouches are obsolete. All you need to abolish them is for the sorcerer to be able to use a part of themself as the spell focus.

As for the spells that require 50g gems no one is making you take those spells.

And why do you think sorcerers can't do anything at all that way with their own routes in if they try hard? This is the "the sorcerer must be a nerfed wizard" school of thought.

Yeah.

The body of the Sorcerer is itself the material component − a living magic wand. Defacto the "identity" of the Sorcerer class is a physical incarnation of one of various planar energies.


Generally, every class or subclass has its own method for casting spells. The VSM contradicts and gets in the way of every official spellcasting class. Delete VSM from the spell description.


Simply delete costly spell components from the game. They serve little or no mechanical purpose and are horribly problematic for diverse spellcasting concepts. Most costly components are trivial amounts at high levels when characters have too much gold and nothing to spend it on.

There are only about four spells where the costly component might actually matter and be justifiable − but even in these rare cases there are better ways to ensure gaming balance more consistently across different settings and gaming tables.

Delete costly components above all else.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Non-costly material components in particular are twenty years dead. The spell component pouch is at best a weird arcane focus (which is where it should stay), and the only one I've actually seen used in 5e was by a deliberately trad wizard; it really isn't worth the couple of words on almost every spell description. And the classes should have focus options (so the cleric needs either a holy symbol or a gesture).

V and S have a point. Verbal implies something about the spell and means you can't do it that quietly, likewise S means you need to gesture and have some freedom. I disagree that these two contradict every spellcasting class in the game (although I fully support e.g. the Aberrant Mind simply ignoring them at times). That said I'd reverse it and mark spells that don't have V and S as silent or still, but I suspect that that would be not worth the fight.

 

[Yaarel]

Non-costly material components in particular are twenty years dead. The spell component pouch is at best a weird arcane focus (which is where it should stay), and the only one I've actually seen used in 5e was by a deliberately trad wizard; it really isn't worth the couple of words on almost every spell description. And the classes should have focus options (so the cleric needs either a holy symbol or a gesture).

Yeah. Every class rejects M − and Costly is worthless as a balancing mechanism.

V and S have a point. Verbal implies something about the spell and means you can't do it that quietly, likewise S means you need to gesture and have some freedom. I disagree that these two contradict every spellcasting class in the game (although I fully support e.g. the Aberrant Mind simply ignoring them at times). That said I'd reverse it and mark spells that don't have V and S as silent or still, but I suspect that that would be not worth the fight.

For example, the Dancer Bard would never need Verbal. All magic can be Somatic. Likewise, a Bard that plays a musical instrument such as a flute would never need a Verbal component.

Any Psionic subclass needs to ignore every component, including VS.

The Sorcerer concept should ignore M, and probably VS too.

And so on.

The VSM is a worthless waste of space that contradicts how classes actually cast spells. These components need to vanish from the spell descriptions.

It is the class itself that defines the method for casting a spell. Sometimes the subclass modifies the method, and sometimes a feat. But the VSM in the spell description almost never matters.

 

[Mistwell]

Problem is that if they do too much, forum people take out pitchforks. People seem to hate change, as soon as their favourite class is touched.

Weapon Mastery is super popular. Changes to Cunning Action are super popular. It's not any change people don't like, it's taking away things which were popular and not replacing them with anything at all or replacing them with something worse which people tend to not like.

 

[Mistwell]

Thats the thing though….. we don’t know that people don’t want them. just Because something scores 70% doesn’t mean people didn’t like it more than what is in the game from 2014. There isn’t necessarily a direct comparison in the surveys.

There is? They've outright stated what approval was of the 2014 things?

 

[Kobold Stew]

Weapon Mastery is super popular. Changes to Cunning Action are super popular. It's not any change people don't like, it's taking away things which were popular and not replacing them with anything at all or replacing them with something worse which people tend to not like.

I think that's unfair. There is a presumption -- in my opinion, based on the immediate reactions in the first hours after a packet is released, when it has been read once, if that -- that any change is bad. My observation of responses in this forum is that most change is presumed to be worse, when often it is just different.

Different isn't necessarily "worse", but it is treated as such because of an inherent conservatism in the player base.

 

[Yaarel]

If the d4 is a 12-sided die that repeats the numbers 1 thru 4, I would love to roll it more often.

 

[Yaarel]

Redit is probably an even less reliable barometer for the D&D community at large than ENWorld, which is kind of impressive.

My impression is, the discussions on the ENWorld forums matches the statistics of DnDBeyond character sheets.

In this sense, ENWorld is reasonably representative of the D&D community at large, at least a significant sector of it.

 

[Mistwell]

I think that's unfair. There is a presumption -- in my opinion, based on the immediate reactions in the first hours after a packet is released, when it has been read once, if that -- that any change is bad. My observation of responses in this forum is that most change is presumed to be worse, when often it is just different.

Different isn't necessarily "worse", but it is treated as such because of an inherent conservatism in the player base.

You cant call something a presumption with no evidence it's even happening.

 

[Charlaquin]

My impression is, the discussions on the ENWorld forums matches the statistics of DnDBeyond character sheets.

In this sense, ENWorld is reasonably representative of the D&D community at large, at least a significant sector of it.

Oh, I don’t get that impression at all! Half the folks here refuse to believe the D&D Beyond data because it’s so far afield of their own experience.