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.

 

[Scribe]

A co-worker came to me this morning and told me he's been playing BG3 for the last week. He then asked me about D&D. Picked up a new player thanks to BG3 haha.

I saw my son over the weekend, I mentioned I was almost complete on BG3 he laughed and told me all the older guys at his work have been talking about it for weeks

 

[Mistwell]

For non-combat spells, I think there are two types, and only one of them has the potential to evoke "Non-casters should get equivalent type non-combat abilities."

Type 1: This type of spell includes all three of A) Party agrees the spell should be cast; 2) Spell benefits the party members equally, and 3) Spell doesn't involve more than incidental spotlight on the caster. Examples include: Tiny Hut, Speak with Dead, Divination spells, etc.. These spells, to me, are essentially no different than a joint party resource similar to a shared magic item. Now of course people can have issues with an individual spell (a lot of people don't like Tiny Hut) but the issue isn't with spellcasters and non-combat specifically, it's with the spell and resting rules. Nothing about that spell involves spotlight issues taking away more than incidental spotlight from another PC.

Type 2: This type of spell, while it might involve the party agreeing the caster should cast it and it may benefit the party members equally, often does draw more than incidental spotlight on the caster. Examples include: Charm Person (they have the Charmed condition only with regard to the caster so the Caster engages in social interaction with them), Familiars and other summoned creatures who engage in extensive scouting, etc..

It's only Type 2 which draws spotlight and therefore is an issue which potentially should be addressed by either granting non-casters equivalent spotlight-drawing non-combat abilities, or adjusting those spells to become a Type 1 spell.

Ways they could do that could be things like Charm Person now charms the target so that the target is charmed by everyone in the party, not just the caster. Familiars could maybe benefit from better scouting rules in general which specify certain information-gathering checks during scouting, and then the ability of the caster to grant control over the familiar during an extended scouting foray to another party member and tie those checks to the abilities of the party member in control. That way if the Rogue has the skills for scouting, the Caster would have incentive to grant the Rogue control over the familiar during the scouting mission, and spotlight falls back on the PC who invested in the scouting specialization.

Another method would be to literally create a shared magic item with the spell. Cast Charm Person into a token whi, and then any party member can use the token to charm someone.

I wish the discussion revolved more around the specific spells that, in my opinion, are most often Type 2 spells rather than grouping all non-combat spells into a single batch of "non-casters deserve equivalent abilities."

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Type 1: This type of spell includes all three of A) Party agrees the spell should be cast; 2) Spell benefits the party members equally, and 3) Spell doesn't involve more than incidental spotlight on the caster. Examples include: Tiny Hut, Speak with Dead, Divination spells, etc.. These spells, to me, are essentially no different than a joint party resource similar to a shared magic item. Now of course people can have issues with an individual spell (a lot of people don't like Tiny Hut) but the issue isn't with spellcasters and non-combat specifically, it's with the spell and resting rules. Nothing about that spell involves spotlight issues taking away more than incidental spotlight from another PC.

Type 2: This type of spell, while it might involve the party agreeing the caster should cast it and it may benefit the party members equally, often does draw more than incidental spotlight on the caster. Examples include: Charm Person (they have the Charmed condition only with regard to the caster so the Caster engages in social interaction with them), Familiars and other summoned creatures who engage in extensive scouting, etc..

It's only Type 2 which draws spotlight and therefore is an issue which potentially should be addressed by either granting non-casters equivalent spotlight-drawing non-combat abilities, or adjusting those spells to become a Type 1 spell.

This is absurd. This is such an unfathomably weird argument that I am having difficulty adjusting to the reality that someone might actually and genuinely believe in it.

You are too hung up on who benefits from the spell rather than who casts the spell. It is the caster who matters, because the caster enables the spell. It is the caster who has the spell in his spellbook or in their divine repertoire or wherever they have it.

This is evident in your proposed modification to the charm spell: Your buff will make the whole spell stronger than it already is, but you argue that all this does is "spread the spotlight". I disagree. All it does it make the caster even stronger than they already are.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is absurd. This is such an unfathomably weird argument that I am having difficulty adjusting to the reality that someone might actually and genuinely believe in it.

You are too hung up on who benefits from the spell rather than who casts the spell. It is the caster who matters, because the caster enables the spell. It is the caster who has the spell in his spellbook or in their divine repertoire or wherever they have it.

This is evident in your proposed modification to the charm spell: Your buff will make the whole spell stronger than it already is, but you argue that all this does is "spread the spotlight". I disagree. All it does it make the caster even stronger than they already are.

I might be able to help there... It's a motte and bailey aimed at buffing a particular class by using weird phrasing about capabilities & spotlight time to point at a horribly designed spell cast by a second class rather than talking about how the badly designed spell should be redesigned to fit the needs & themes of that second class who casts it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The irony in all of this is that WotC GAVE a martial class feature that "just works" to the Ranger in their ability to never get lost in the wilderness-- an ability that for all intents and purposes might as well be magic (although its not)-- and yet people constantly COMPLAINED about that ability because it took away the chance of something happening for the Ranger narratively that they might have gotten if it instead worked on skill checks. People hated that it just worked with no downside because it took away story and the Ranger doing what the Ranger does. And now we have people saying they want other classes to get more of these too because spellcasters get them?

Now, I of course presume these two groups do not in any possible form or fashion overlap-- there's absolutely zero chance that the players who were mad at Natural Explorer are the same people saying they want more martial features that work with the consistency of spells-- but this is probably a good reason why WotC doesn't actually make martial features that always work like spells do... because they've had nine years of people complaining to them about it when they did.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The irony in all of this is that WotC GAVE a martial class feature that "just works" to the Ranger in their ability to never get lost in the wilderness-- an ability that for all intents and purposes might as well be magic (although its not)-- and yet people constantly COMPLAINED about that ability because it took away the chance of something happening for the Ranger narratively that they might have gotten if it instead worked on skill checks. People hated that it just worked with no downside because it took away story and the Ranger doing what the Ranger does. And now we have people saying they want other classes to get more of these too because spellcasters get them?

Now, I of course presume these two groups do not in any possible form or fashion overlap-- there's absolutely zero chance that the players who were mad at Natural Explorer are the same people saying they want more martial features that work with the consistency of spells-- but this is probably a good reason why WotC doesn't actually make martial features that always work like spells do... because they've had nine years of people complaining to them about it when they did.

Delete the wizard and the wizard fans will leave, removing the people who complain about other classes getting nice things.

It all works out.

 

[Charlaquin]

The irony in all of this is that WotC GAVE a martial class feature that "just works" to the Ranger in their ability to never get lost in the wilderness-- an ability that for all intents and purposes might as well be magic (although its not)-- and yet people constantly COMPLAINED about that ability because it took away the chance of something happening for the Ranger narratively that they might have gotten if it instead worked on skill checks. People hated that it just worked with no downside because it took away story and the Ranger doing what the Ranger does. And now we have people saying they want other classes to get more of these too because spellcasters get them?

Now, I of course presume these two groups do not in any possible form or fashion overlap-- there's absolutely zero chance that the players who were mad at Natural Explorer are the same people saying they want more martial features that work with the consistency of spells-- but this is probably a good reason why WotC doesn't actually make martial features that always work like spells do... because they've had nine years of people complaining to them about it when they did.

That’s not a good comparison for spells because spells have a cost (spell slots) and natural explorer does not. An always-on benefit with no drawback, cost, or risk is not equivalent to a single-use ability that you have to expend a limited resource to activate.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

As a DM, I enage with non-magic-using characters differently, in that their intended actions are more fluid in their effectiveness. There is more nuance and story to their actions, because they can get good and bad results based on their ability checks. Essentially, ability checks get more narrative screen time than spells in my game because unlike spells, they do not guarantee sterile, planned results.

Spellcasters are often better at ability checks than martials due to their primary ability scores having more available proficiencies. Do you determine results to an ability check differently based on who rolled it?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Spellcasters are often better at ability checks than martials due to their primary ability scores having more available proficiencies. Do you determine results to an ability check differently based on who rolled it?

Using a Fighter as an example, if they are the ones performing the action, they are describing the their part of the interaction, having a dialogue with me, and they are the ones rolling the dice. I set DCs appropriately for the task based on a variety of factors. It doesn't matter if their buddy the Warlock has a higher Charisma and is trained in Persuasion because they aren't the one engaging in the interaction. The Fighter will have their day.

My game has a lot more "roleplay interactions" than ability checks for the day to day. A PC's skill modifiers inform me of their general aptitude or interest in that area of interaction. I am the kind of DM that just gives the PCs "knowledge" insights based on their backgrounds, interests, or general historical awareness of the world around them. Essentially, my opening dialogue for a social or study encounter assumes the PC's have already succeeded at "taking 10" to get some general background leading into it. I don't require the Fighter make a "knowledge" roll to get a feel for what the general power structure of a city is, rather I will just tell them what people of his background generally know or think about it. If they are asking about perspectives outside their background, or information that is secret or not generally known to the public, I will have them roll.

Using that PC knowledge, if the Fighter takes those insights and tells an NPC Town Guard what they want to hear, they are going to get a natural reaction which may be positive without a roll. When there is something fishy going on or has a potential negative consequence, that is another time when I might call for a roll.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Not quite. My point is that the complaint is pure sour grapes over one class not having the abilities of a second with no end goal other than a spiteful consumption of all capabilities of the second class and more rather than something worth discussing like "I don't feel this collection of strengths justifies that particular gap".

If that is all that you have gathered from this particular discussion, you might want to read through it again. I think you might gain a better understanding of the arguments, and a less antagonistic attitude towards the participants.

Balance between classes is not something that can be measured on a scale and not something that comes from cherry picking isolated features while refusing to analyze or even discuss the whole of a class. You can only decide if two classes are balanced by comparing them as a sum of their parts. The fact that fighters even have nonspecific strengths of their own was an admission only made under protest for purposes of a discussion & there was no willingness to engage in shows the depth of those sour grapes.

Most balance discussions are by their very nature subjective since fun and spotlight preferences vary between people, and even the numerical aspects of different classes can differ greatly between tables. A table full of damage -focused players who take a lot of short rests and spend most of their time in combat with little downtime is probably going to find fighters do really well for example. That is absolutely valid as a data point.