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.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Is anyone getting spot light because of tiny hut? No. Is it being used mostly for the casters benefit? No. It's just another party resource which happens to use the spellcasters resource.

The high charisma Paladin with charisma-based skills gets WAY more spot light attention out of combat than a Wizard or Cleric because of their spells.

 

[Incenjucar]

Is anyone getting spot light because of tiny hut? No. Is it being used mostly for the casters benefit? No. It's just another party resource which happens to use the spellcasters resource.

The high charisma Paladin with charisma-based skills gets WAY more spot light attention out of combat than a Wizard or Cleric because of their spells.

It's a boring story-killer feature that trivializes how anyone else could approach what is otherwise a mundane problem.

 

[Mistwell]

It's a boring story-killer feature that trivializes how anyone else could approach what is otherwise a mundane problem.

But that is an entirely different point than the claims being made. The claim was non-casters need better abilities out of combat because the casters were grabbing the spotlight with their spells. Not liking the spell the party (as a whole) chooses to use to deal with rest is nothing like the claim that was being made.

 

[Incenjucar]

But that is an entirely different point than the claims being made. The claim was non-casters need better abilities out of combat because the casters were grabbing the spotlight with their spells. Not liking the spell the party (as a whole) chooses to use to deal with rest is nothing like the claim that was being made.

Yes, it is a different point. There are many issues with D&D's magic, not just one.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, it is a different point. There are many issues with D&D's magic, not just one.

But that one is irrelevant to non-caster out of combat abilities.

 

[Incenjucar]

But that one is irrelevant to non-caster out of combat abilities.

Do fighters have a Defensible Camp ability I missed?

 

[Mistwell]

Do fighters have a Defensible Camp ability I missed?

Would they get spotlight if they did? You can't just force the topic to be something it isn't. Either the spellcaster out of combat spells are stealing spotlight or they are more akin to party resources which are not about spotlight. It's one or the other, no matter how you feel about specific spells or want non-casters to have similar abilities. What's the point if it's not about the spotlight issue?

 

[Incenjucar]

Would they get spotlight if they did? You can't just force the topic to be something it isn't. Either the spellcaster out of combat spells are stealing spotlight or they are more akin to party resources which are not about spotlight. It's one or the other, no matter how you feel about specific spells or want non-casters to have similar abilities. What's the point if it's not about the spotlight issue?

I consider "Party Resources" to only be relevant when it involves other party member participation and only valid when the rest of the party has equal resources to contribute.

Further, the topic is "One D&D Survey Feedback: Weapon Mastery Spectacular; Warlock and Wizard Mixed Reactions"

 

[Charlaquin]

IMO, The problem is not so much spotlight time as authorial power. Mages have the ability to spend their resources to simply decide a thing happens, and many of the things they can decide happen are quite potent - for example, Tiny Hut basically allowing them to decide the party gets to rest safely. Non-mages have little to no such authorial power, they can only declare what they would like to make happen, and must rely on the DM to use their authorial power to make it so, or not.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m a strong proponent of this method of play, where the players describe what they want to do and the DM determines and describes the results. But there is a clear discrepancy between casters who can expend class resources to circumvent this process, and non-casters who can’t. A more equitable situation would be one where either non-casters can also expend class resources to exercise authorial power (a la 4e), or one where magic also functioned by the player describing the effect they want to produce and the DM determining and describing the results, (a la various games with improvised casting systems - Mage the Awakening being the example I’m personally most familiar with).

 

[Clint_L]

I'm just not finding this issue in my games. Players aren't struggling to get spotlight time or authorial agency (whatever that really means; the idea that Leomund's Tiny Hut offers some huge authorial advantage is dubious to me, to say the least). I'm not seeing it in the actual play shows that I watch. The only place it comes up is on this forum, and honestly if you have to reach for Tiny Hut to make a point, I don't think the issue is that serious.