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]

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"

So all members are participating in a rest spell. The purpose of the spell is for the entire party to rest, the spell can't really even be used if the party doesn't agree on a rest, and the decision to use it therefore is a party decision.

As for it only being "valid" if the party has "equal resources" to contribute, I don't even know what that means. If the rogue is checking for traps, that isn't using a resource but it's the same sort of value. It's a BAD thing for the spellcaster that they have to burn a resource that's effectively a party resource when many others do not have to burn a resource to help the party in a similar thing, not a benefit (unless you're casting the spell as a ritual, in which case it's as neutral as the rogue checking for traps). Again, the only benefit it would be is if it were a spotlight issue - which it's not. There is nothing to role play about tiny hut.

And yes I know what the topic is, but the entire reason we're talking about out of combat spells is because of this spotlight claim. "I don't like this spell" isn't really about that right? I mean you could purge a bunch of the out of combat spells you don't like and if there is some spotlight issue with out of combat spells it will remain I assume just as much an issue. So what is the point of bringing up "I don't like some spells" in the conversation?

 

[Incenjucar]

So all members are participating in a rest spell. The purpose of the spell is for the entire party to rest, the spell can't really even be used if the party doesn't agree on a rest, and the decision to use it therefore is a party decision.

As for it only being "valid" if the party has "equal resources" to contribute, I don't even know what that means. If the rogue is checking for traps, that isn't using a resource but it's the same sort of value. It's a BAD thing for the spellcaster that they have to burn a resource that's effectively a party resource when many others do not have to burn a resource to help the party in a similar thing, not a benefit (unless you're casting the spell as a ritual, in which case it's as neutral as the rogue checking for traps). Again, the only benefit it would be is if it were a spotlight issue - which it's not. There is nothing to role play about tiny hut.

And yes I know what the topic is, but the entire reason we're talking about out of combat spells is because of this spotlight claim. "I don't like this spell" isn't really about that right? I mean you could purge a bunch of the out of combat spells you don't like and if there is some spotlight issue with out of combat spells it will remain I assume just as much an issue. So what is the point of bringing up "I don't like some spells" in the conversation?

Benefitting from and participating in are very different concepts. If you wish to assert your preference, that's fine, but trying to abuse language makes it seem like you understand the concern and are trying to fast talk people into thinking it's not real in hopes that you'll continue to be catered to.

It's fine if you like asymmetric play, but others do not.

 

[Mistwell]

Benefitting from and participating in are very different concepts.

In what way are the different for this example? See this is why I keep asking for examples where it's meaningful. There is ZERO difference between telling them DM you cast the tiny hut spell and marking it off on your character sheet, and benefitting from the spell, in this instance. Because the "participating" part IS THE SPOTLIGHT ISSUE. It's the role playing issue I mentioned. That's what "participating" means for a game like this. There is zero satisfaction from just making a check on your character sheet that you're the one who used a resource for this, for this kind of spell. There is no interaction involved. It's the same level of "participation" as saying "I get my pack out," for this kind of scenario.

If you wish to assert your preference, that's fine, but trying to abuse language makes it seem like you understand the concern and are trying to fast talk people into thinking it's not real in hopes that you'll continue to be catered to.

I am using it correctly, and I don't appreciate you making it personal. This has nothing to do with what I want to have "catered to" (I play a Rogue most of the time!) and I am not trying to "fast talk" anyone by discussing the actual issue with examples as opposed to the hypothesis which I believe doesn't hold up to tests.

What meaningful "participation" do you think is involved here? Articulate whatever you think is apparent in this scenario concerning participation?

It's fine if you like asymmetric play, but others do not.

That's meaningless for this scenario if there isn't meaning to the action for the spellcaster in the first place beyond the same meaning it has for the rest of the party.

 

[Remathilis]

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).

Isn't that just magic by another name?

If the fighter can create a safe campsite, isn't that the same as giving them alarm as a ritual with the exception of it being immune to dispel magic? Ignoring the "but the fiction" argument, you're giving the fighter nonmagical magic plot cards. Might as well give them the magical plot cards.

 

[Charlaquin]

Isn't that just magic by another name?

Not necessarily. It could be, but it could also just be part of how the game works that players can spend character resources to exert authorial power.

If the fighter can create a safe campsite, isn't that the same as giving them alarm as a ritual with the exception of it being immune to dispel magic?

They don’t have to be able to do the same things mages can do. But there’s an obvious imbalance when some classes can just press a button and make a thing happen or negotiate with the DM, but other classes can only negotiate with the DM.

Ignoring the "but the fiction" argument, you're giving the fighter nonmagical magic plot cards. Might as well give them the magical plot cards.

Why would you ignore the “but the fiction” argument? The fiction matters. Heck, I’ve heard it said that the fiction is the most important part of D&D (though personally I don’t strictly agree).

 

[Aldarc]

Well the answer to that always comes down to "nerf magic to barely be better than mundane methods" or "give the fighter his own magic". Either get rid of teleportation magic with a range farther than Misty Step or give the fighter the ability to magically manifest wings.

There is also a third option at least. Magic is still far more potent and reality warping than mundane methods, but limit how much magic that the mages can do or increase the cost/difficulty of magic.

 

[Remathilis]

There is also a third option at least. Magic is still far more potent and reality warping than mundane methods, but limit how much magic that the mages can do or increase the cost/difficulty of magic.

I mean, we could absolutely go back to the 1e method of "hours to prep, no rituals/cantrips, 1 prep per slot" casting, but I'm pretty sure that isn't going to meet any 70% thresholds.

 

[Aldarc]

I mean, we could absolutely go back to the 1e method of "hours to prep, no rituals/cantrips, 1 prep per slot" casting, but I'm pretty sure that isn't going to meet any 70% thresholds.

Kind of a non-point as I doubt that any nerf to spellcasting classes would meet the 70% threshold.

 

[Clint_L]

Kind of a non-point as I doubt that any nerf to spellcasting classes would meet the 70% threshold.

Moon druids. WotC is not legally bound to the 70% threshold. They have been clear that there are some changes that are happening because they are necessary for the good of the game, so they are using the feedback to help guide the changes, but not veto them.

The reality is that there is not a widespread perception that there is this huge imbalance between casters and non-casters. Even on this forum, it's mostly driven by a few folks who post a lot about it, some of whom don't even play 5e. 5e class balance is very good, overall, and that's reflected in user numbers.

 

[tetrasodium]

Not necessarily. It could be, but it could also just be part of how the game works that players can spend character resources to exert authorial power.

They don’t have to be able to do the same things mages can do. But there’s an obvious imbalance when some classes can just press a button and make a thing happen or negotiate with the DM, but other classes can only negotiate with the DM.

Why would you ignore the “but the fiction” argument? The fiction matters. Heck, I’ve heard it said that the fiction is the most important part of D&D (though personally I don’t strictly agree).

So what do you propose that the fighter give up to gain all of these "but wizards[and sorcerer and bard and warlock and sometimes cleric/druid]" ritual spells that have you so frustrated about?