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.

 

[Umbran]

Yes. Sure is. Don’t be a jerk. I’m not being one to you
pandering according to Webster: to provide gratification for others' desires

Mod Note:
So, that does not seem to admit that the term has connotations beyond the dictionary denotations. Those connotations are the problem.

If you were not aware of that, then it is time to learn. If you were, then your statement is not as jerk-free as you suggest.

Everyone should work a little harder to avoid emotionally loaded language if you want this discussion to go well.

 

[Mistwell]

In the video, Crawford reveals what some of the 2014 options got in the big 2021 Class Duvey that WotC did. The ones that git improvements thus go around, at least.

Yes that was my point.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't disagree that spellcasters of all sorts could and sometimes should use any of the three mental ability scores as their primary caster stat. If it makes sense for the character then there's no reason why you couldn't.

But I also fully understand the reasoning for the default version of the game to go with just one. It's easier for all players of all experience levels to understand and grasp-- Wizards use INT, Clerics use WIS, Bards, Warlocks and Sorcerers use CHA. And there's less worry about additional "dump statting" when you expect at least a certain number of characters to have to use certain attributes. After all... if WotC was to open up all classes to selecting their primary stats, what's more likely to occur-- some Warlocks to select INT as their primary stat, or almost Wizard players dumping INT like a hot potato so they could go with WIS and have the better saving throw? I suspect we would all know what would really happen with INT once Wizards, Artificers and potentially Psions could turn away from it.

 

[Kobold Stew]

That's fair, and it's why I'm glad to see that no one is suggesting having all characters choose their casting stats. And I agree that default assumptions about ability scores feeds into a presumptive narrative about what the classes are. Wizards-Int, Clerics and Druids-Wis. All fine. Sorcerers and Bards with Charisma can also easily be explained with years of accumulated narrative connections.

For me, though, the case of Warlocks is different. First, Warlocks operate out of the normal framework for casting (and the feedback to the recent playtests suggests that that's what warlock players particularly value). Second, the connection with Charisma is less straightforward. I suspect I could make a compelling argument (to some, at least) that the people who sell their souls are those with a low charisma, not a high one.

Allowing a greater range of casting stats for the Warlock adds flexibility to what's already an odd class. What they offered in the playtest -- a choice of casting stat for each of three pacts -- kept things loose enough that for Chain and Blade characters could continue with Charisma, or could have an alternative. There was also a chocie for Tome, an (in my opinion) both Wis and Int are better fits than Charisma (even if it made continuity for porting a Tomelock to 2024 rules no longer straightforward; for me that's an acceptable cost for an elegant design).

I can talk about why I think it's elegant design, but for space I'll just give two reasons here:

I think breaking Charisma's stranglehold on casting stats is a good thing, and (particularly for the many builds that advise taking a 1-level dip in blade, and everything we've seen will suggest this is going to continue in the next PHB) opening up the casting stat allows for a greater diversity of builds -- more options. (Blade dips are popular because they let you choose your attack stat; as long as the option is there it's going to be desireable. I don't see why the choice needs to push you towards Charsima).

I think giving a meaningful choice, that is a real choice, at level 1 is a good thing. We've seen good choices added for clerics and Druids at level 1; the choice of spell list teased for the bard gave a similar choice, and some version of that may remain. Giving such a choice to Warlocks too only adds, and means that there is more than one right way of building a warlock out the gate.

If the desire of Warlock players is to have a different kind of caster, then I say lean into the differences.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's fair, and it's why I'm glad to see that no one is suggesting having all characters choose their casting stats. And I agree that default assumptions about ability scores feeds into a presumptive narrative about what the classes are. Wizards-Int, Clerics and Druids-Wis. All fine. Sorcerers and Bards with Charisma can also easily be explained with years of accumulated narrative connections.

For me, though, the case of Warlocks is different. First, Warlocks operate out of the normal framework for casting (and the feedback to the recent playtests suggests that that's what warlock players particularly value). Second, the connection with Charisma is less straightforward. I suspect I could make a compelling argument (to some, at least) that the people who sell their souls are those with a low charisma, not a high one.

Allowing a greater range of casting stats for the Warlock adds flexibility to what's already an odd class. What they offered in the playtest -- a choice of casting stat for each of three pacts -- kept things loose enough that for Chain and Blade characters could continue with Charisma, or could have an alternative. There was also a chocie for Tome, an (in my opinion) both Wis and Int are better fits than Charisma (even if it made continuity for porting a Tomelock to 2024 rules no longer straightforward; for me that's an acceptable cost for an elegant design).

I can talk about why I think it's elegant design, but for space I'll just give two reasons here:

I think breaking Charisma's stranglehold on casting stats is a good thing, and (particularly for the many builds that advise taking a 1-level dip in blade, and everything we've seen will suggest this is going to continue in the next PHB) opening up the casting stat allows for a greater diversity of builds -- more options. (Blade dips are popular because they let you choose your attack stat; as long as the option is there it's going to be desireable. I don't see why the choice needs to push you towards Charsima).

I think giving a meaningful choice, that is a real choice, at level 1 is a good thing. We've seen good choices added for clerics and Druids at level 1; the choice of spell list teased for the bard gave a similar choice, and some version of that may remain. Giving such a choice to Warlocks too only adds, and means that there is more than one right way of building a warlock out the gate.

If the desire of Warlock players is to have a different kind of caster, then I say lean into the differences.

I agree that charisma is more than a bit overly good and don't hate the idea of int or eis warlocks.... But... This wasn't going to change it because warlock still synergized with sorcerer and paladin so absurdly well. The int and wis based warlock options might have had some positive combos with int and wis based classes but making a warlock dip and almost mandatory nonchoice beyond a given level for so many more classes does nothing about charisma being overvalued.

They would need to give int and wis back their power (fort/reflex/will save instead of rock paper scissors lizard Spock dynamite of 5e saves & int mod to or from skill points/selection with enough skill options for it to feel important). Wotc has not shown any willingness to consider doing anything like that yet.

 

[Remathilis]

That's fair, and it's why I'm glad to see that no one is suggesting having all characters choose their casting stats. And I agree that default assumptions about ability scores feeds into a presumptive narrative about what the classes are. Wizards-Int, Clerics and Druids-Wis. All fine. Sorcerers and Bards with Charisma can also easily be explained with years of accumulated narrative connections.

For me, though, the case of Warlocks is different. First, Warlocks operate out of the normal framework for casting (and the feedback to the recent playtests suggests that that's what warlock players particularly value). Second, the connection with Charisma is less straightforward. I suspect I could make a compelling argument (to some, at least) that the people who sell their souls are those with a low charisma, not a high one.

Allowing a greater range of casting stats for the Warlock adds flexibility to what's already an odd class. What they offered in the playtest -- a choice of casting stat for each of three pacts -- kept things loose enough that for Chain and Blade characters could continue with Charisma, or could have an alternative. There was also a chocie for Tome, an (in my opinion) both Wis and Int are better fits than Charisma (even if it made continuity for porting a Tomelock to 2024 rules no longer straightforward; for me that's an acceptable cost for an elegant design).

I can talk about why I think it's elegant design, but for space I'll just give two reasons here:

I think breaking Charisma's stranglehold on casting stats is a good thing, and (particularly for the many builds that advise taking a 1-level dip in blade, and everything we've seen will suggest this is going to continue in the next PHB) opening up the casting stat allows for a greater diversity of builds -- more options. (Blade dips are popular because they let you choose your attack stat; as long as the option is there it's going to be desireable. I don't see why the choice needs to push you towards Charsima).

I think giving a meaningful choice, that is a real choice, at level 1 is a good thing. We've seen good choices added for clerics and Druids at level 1; the choice of spell list teased for the bard gave a similar choice, and some version of that may remain. Giving such a choice to Warlocks too only adds, and means that there is more than one right way of building a warlock out the gate.

If the desire of Warlock players is to have a different kind of caster, then I say lean into the differences.

Part of my problem WAS why should warlocks be the only class to choose its caster stat? Why not an intelligent or wise sorcerer (esp for clockwork or divine souls)? Why not a Charismatic druid (beast friend)? A wise paladin or an intelligent ranger? Heck, there is a who subclass about Lore in bard and they don't get Int as a casting option. Or is just another case of warlocks getting to play a different game than other casters?

You got pact magic back, suffer with one caster stat like all the other classes.

 

[Parmandur]

Part of my problem WAS why should warlocks be the only class to choose its caster stat? Why not an intelligent or wise sorcerer (esp for clockwork or divine souls)? Why not a Charismatic druid (beast friend)? A wise paladin or an intelligent ranger? Heck, there is a who subclass about Lore in bard and they don't get Int as a casting option. Or is just another case of warlocks getting to play a different game than other casters?

You got pact magic back, suffer with one caster stat like all the other classes.

I think that's why it got voted sown: people don't want every caster to choose, amd they didn't want only si.e casters to choose unlike the others. Ao, tripping around the square of oppoaition, players want no Class to be able to choose.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Part of my problem was why should warlocks be the only class to choose its caster stat?

I have no problem with other classes choosing caster stats. In fact I support it - but it's enough of a change that it should be trialled. If we're to trial it with any class the Warlock is the only class that through a significant history of its life (the whole of 4e) has had multiple options for casting stat, as well as warlocks being the most divergent of the casters. So if it works with the warlock as a trial then roll it out to the other classes.

 

[Remathilis]

I have no problem with other classes choosing caster stats. In fact I support it - but it's enough of a change that it should be trialled. If we're to trial it with any class the Warlock is the only class that through a significant history of its life (the whole of 4e) has had multiple options for casting stat, as well as warlocks being the most divergent of the casters. So if it works with the warlock as a trial then roll it out to the other classes.

Hmm. If only WotC considered some way to test it with the other classes to see if it would work in play. A play test, if you will...

 

[Parmandur]

Hmm. If only WotC considered some way to test it with the other classes to see if it would work in play. A play test, if you will...

Why would theybtest it for other Classes if it failed for the one...? Particularly theybgot feedback of "no Class should choose their ability to use, ever"?