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.

 

[Charlaquin]

Another 4e innovation not brought forward! 4e Rituals put all these big non-combat utility spells into Rituals that were clearly party resources on a separate resource track. Also for a low cost, any character could be a ritual caster. It didn't really solve the "magic is the best utility" but you could have any Character fill the part which I found to be useful in easily creating certain character types that shouldn't be D&D type casters.

Also, skill challenges could be used for more mundane or "creative" solutions without DM decides as the adjudication method.

I wish they had improved on the Ritual system for 5e.

4e rituals were fantastic

 

[Mistwell]

Another 4e innovation not brought forward! 4e Rituals put all these big non-combat utility spells into Rituals that were clearly party resources on a separate resource track. Also for a low cost, any character could be a ritual caster. It didn't really solve the "magic is the best utility" but you could have any Character fill the part which I found to be useful in easily creating certain character types that shouldn't be D&D type casters.

Also, skill challenges could be used for more mundane or "creative" solutions without DM decides as the adjudication method.

I wish they had improved on the Ritual system for 5e.

I am with you. And I liked 4e. I like 5e more, but there are many things I miss about 4e that I wish they had adapted for 5e and yes a more robust ritual system and skill challenges are two of them. Monsters with many and varied special abilities is another.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

These are all things the "lowly Fighter" player can do and come up with. All the roleplaying that has to happen prior to taking the trip. Yes, the Wizard player will eventually be the one who gets to state "I cast teleport"... but that is like the LAST thing in a whole list of ideas and plans that need to be generated first, for which the Fighter player is no different than any other player at the table, game mechanics be damned.

The point remains that any other player can also do this, but some players can do this idea generation and get mechanical ways for their character to contribute to the execution as well and some don't. Why is this?

Combat has 2 parameters:

1) player skill input on what to do (idea)- where to move, who to attack, which ability to use, how to coordinate with other players, if you want to use terrain or other features, etc.

2) character ability input decides how effective the outcome is (execution) - sometimes influenced by random factors of the d20 but mostly based on the character abilities and how they work. There are some "DM decides" situations

Although some would say spellcasters have more going for them in #2 in combat as well, the gap is wider in non combat.

The player skill for non combat is the "idea" generation which everyone can do and a bit broader in non-combat so maybe has a little more importance than in combat. The character ability input is skills, class abilities including spells, and DM decides.

It wouldn't be too satisfying if in combat the Fighter player only got to contribute to deciding where to place the Wizard's Fireball (idea generation) but their character never got to swing their sword and make an attack (character contributing to the execution of defeating enemies)? Or all the Fighters attacks and actions are only adjudicated though DM decides instead of att vs AC, etc.?

There is no easy solution to this however given D&D magic is so powerful and versatile.

You can give non spellcasters some non combat abilities but to match anything higher level I think you have to get into narrative control. Even some lower level stuff this is true because magic tends to "just work" and completes the goal vs contribute partly to the goal.

You can use non-combat resolution systems like skill challenges where you can frame the challenge such that a spell can not result in 100% completion by definition. Yes you teleport, but...

You can remove the non combat spells that should be party resources into a separate system like 4e Rituals and spread around a bit.

I'm sure there are others.

 

[Ashrym]

Dozens of the Fighter's "good ideas" will still mean a journey of 100's of miles will still take weeks, whilst the Wizard's Teleport spell will take moments, no "good idea" required. But it is all the same now isn't it? No difference in agency at all.

It's a class based game. Wizards cast spells and fighters might cast a few depending on subclasses, feats, or multiclassing. The idea that because one class can do something another class should also seems silly to me.

The point remains that any other player can also do this, but some players can do this idea generation and get mechanical ways for their character to contribute to the execution as well and some don't. Why is this?

Because the classes are based on tropes. Teleporting fighters isn't really a trope.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

It's a class based game. Wizards cast spells and fighters might cast a few depending on subclasses, feats, or multiclassing. The idea that because one class can do something another class should also seems silly to me.

Because the classes are based on tropes. Teleporting fighters isn't really a trope.

I haven't heard anyone saying every class should be able to do exactly the same things. The idea is that the game should support all classes with decent character abilities that can have impact on some noncombat challenges. Character abilities not just player ability to generate ideas and plan. 5e has the ambiguously defined skill system as the main non-combat character ability for non spellcasters.

Part of the problem of course comes back to the nature of D&D magic -- it's too versatile, plentiful, low cost, powerful, and reliable. The only trope it's imitating is itself or comic book magic like Dr. Strange, especially at higher levels. You rarely see this kind of superhero magic user in team based fantasy, not even in D&D fiction and movies.

 

[Mistwell]

I haven't heard anyone saying every class should be able to do exactly the same things. The idea is that the game should support all classes with decent character abilities that can have impact on some noncombat challenges. Character abilities not just player ability to generate ideas and plan. 5e has the ambiguously defined skill system as the main non-combat character ability for non spellcasters.

Part of the problem of course comes back to the nature of D&D magic -- it's too versatile, plentiful, low cost, powerful, and reliable. The only trope it's imitating is itself or comic book magic like Dr. Strange, especially at higher levels. You rarely see this kind of superhero magic user in team based fantasy, not even in D&D fiction and movies.

Arguments like yours are easier to discuss with examples. What non-combat encounters do you feel the spellcasters are engaging with and the non-spellcasters are not? Because it seems to me we're back to talking about spellcaster spell slots as effectively party resources rather than PC individual engagement. But you tell me - what are some of the more common scenarios where you find the spellcasters are engaging with the non-combat scenario and the non-spellcasters are not?

 

[Eubani]

It's almost like when it comes to non spellcasters agency is four letter word.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

While every player can contribute ideas for how to use spells to solve the party's problems, it's the caster players who get the story spotlight when those plans are carried out. The caster players can also outright refuse any ideas they don't like coming from the other players.

 

[Mistwell]

While every player can contribute ideas for how to use spells to solve the party's problems, it's the caster players who get the story spotlight when those plans are carried out. The caster players can also outright refuse any ideas they don't like coming from the other players.

Yeah my experience doesn't reflect this at all.

When I cast a Speak with Dead spell as the Cleric to ask the questions the party has agreed should be asked, I don't a spotlight in that moment. I'm rolling no dice, responding to no conversation, there is nothing spotlight-like about the moment. I'd be lucky to even read the questions as the player, as opposed to just say to the DM "I ask those questions" and the DM answers. At most I'm just reading the questions we agreed to. The spotlight is on the DM in that moment with the only "new" thing happening coming from the DM.

And as we're a functional group that has played together for years, it would be extraordinarily unlikely I'd refuse to cast that Speak with Dead spell the party has agreed is the best thing to do in the game for that scenario. Much as the Rogue isn't going to refuse to search for traps, and the Ranger isn't going to refuse to search for tracks in the wilderness.

The niche comes with the responsibility to help the party when those things come up. The entire thing feels not much different from using a party resource magic item instead of a spell slot.

Which is why I am asking what are the out of combat circumstances where you guys feel the spellcaster is actually stealing spotlight or truly being the focus of an encounter, as opposed to similar to what I just described which is like the use of a party resource?

 

[Incenjucar]

Speak With Dead is an excellent example of the kind of things magic is good for, as it advances the story without solving the problem single-handedly.

Contrast with Tiny Hut, which just solves the problem.