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]

Why is authorial power meaningfully about the one wielding it when the power is used due to a choice jointly made by the party and on behalf of the party?

And if it's not about the one wielding it, then it's not about an imbalance of power between classes.

 

[Incenjucar]

Why is authorial power meaningfully about the one wielding it when the power is used due to a choice jointly made by the party and on behalf of the party?

And if it's not about the one wielding it, then it's not about an imbalance of power between classes.

Because people tend to want to feel necessary rather than simply included.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why is authorial power meaningfully about the one wielding it when the power is used due to a choice jointly made by the party and on behalf of the party?

And if it's not about the one wielding it, then it's not about an imbalance of power between classes.

Correct. It is not about an imbalance of power, which I’ve said like seven times now. It’s about a design inequity. All players can engage in “mother may I” but only players who chose to play casters get to pick an ability and have its hard-coded effects happen automatically. That’s inequitable design, regardless of which classes are most or least powerful.

 

[Mistwell]

Because people tend to want to feel necessary rather than simply included.

No class or spell is necessary for the game. Some classes or spells make something easier to do, but none of it is necessary. And since the party makes the decision and benefits form the decision, it's all simply included.

As a comparison, if a party magic item casts the same spell, is the person triggering the magic item "necessary" for the spell to be cast?

 

[Mistwell]

Correct. It is not about an imbalance of power, which I’ve said like seven times now. It’s about a design inequity. All players can engage in “mother may I” but only players who chose to play casters get to pick an ability and have its hard-coded effects happen automatically. That’s inequitable design, regardless of which classes are most or least powerful.

If the party decides on the use of that power, and everyone benefits equally from the use of the power, it's not inequitable design any more than a magic item owned by the whole party which casts that spell would be.

I keep asking for why the person who triggers the ability is meaningful to the experience. Claiming inequitable design without showing any meaning to that for an individual playing is, once again, not answering that question.

 

[Incenjucar]

No class or spell is necessary for the game. Some classes or spells make something easier to do, but none of it is necessary. And since the party makes the decision and benefits form the decision, it's all simply included.

As a comparison, if a party magic item casts the same spell, is the person triggering the magic item "necessary" for the spell to be cast?

When people don't feel like they need to be there they eventually don't show up anymore unless they're engaged with something other than the game.

 

[Mistwell]

When people don't feel like they need to be there they eventually don't show up anymore unless they're engaged with something other than the game.

Since that has not happened to D&D, that should be good evidence your theory is flawed.

 

[Incenjucar]

Since that has not happened to D&D, that should be good evidence your theory is flawed.

Nah. This is basic human psychology. Plenty of people have given up on D&D over the years, play casters or multi-class into being casters, are not super engaged in the game itself, play in games with house rules, or have DMs who smooth things over.

The game is not reaching everyone it could, even if it's reaching a ton of people. A lot of people eat McDonald's too, but plenty of folks won't touch it, and Starbucks is quite popular despite being literally burned coffee that people snub in cities with other options.

 

[Eubani]

1. There is a difference between agency and power.
2. It does not matter if you benefit from a spell if you are just along for the ride.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Nah. This is basic human psychology. Plenty of people have given up on D&D over the years, play casters or multi-class into being casters, are not super engaged in the game itself, play in games with house rules, or have DMs who smooth things over.

The game is not reaching everyone it could, even if it's reaching a ton of people. A lot of people eat McDonald's too, but plenty of folks won't touch it, and Starbucks is quite popular despite being literally burned coffee that people snub in cities with other options.

People stepping away from playing D&D because Wizard characters can "do too much" is one of those things that is extremely easy to say but impossible to prove. So it is an un-actionable complaint. WotC has absolutely no reason to change their game just on the off-chance they can stop some random person from walking away from the game.

WotC makes all sorts of decisions that make some players walk away. It happens. And there's nothing that can be done about that-- this game will not be for everyone. It is literally impossible to keep every player playing. So the question then becomes "Is what we have good enough to keep enough players happy and playing?" And if the answer is 'Yes', then there's no reason to change.

If there are supposedly all these people who are martial combat fans that don't feel as though they are getting to do enough stuff because those Wizard players just use their spell slots every single time they need to make a decision... right now those players are doing a horrible job at convincing anyone of note that that is the case and is an actual problem. Because WotC would have changed the rules by now if it was really an issue or at the very least given us a hint of a change which might be in order in any of these playtests. But the fact they haven't even touched upon the idea of removing large swathes of utility spells or giving martial PCs large numbers of new "out-of-combat" features is a pretty good indication they don't see the issue the same way.

Yes, some of you don't like that spellcasters seem to overshadow your martial PCs in your games. That's going to happen. But if you are in the minority about that and WotC just doesn't agree (at least not for a preponderance of tables), then it's an issue you yourself will just have to figure out a work-around for.