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.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

OK. But presumably that Warlock has their own backgrounds, interests, general world knowledge and skill modifiers, and you grant them the same benefits when investigating an aspect of the world where those are relevant? If you determine a check is needed and neither (or both) characters have relevant benefits from the above, do both characters have the same DC, and both get the same results from rolling the same total?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

OK. But presumably that Warlock has their own backgrounds, interests, general world knowledge and skill modifiers, and you grant them the same benefits when investigating an aspect of the world where those are relevant? If you determine a check is needed and neither (or both) characters have relevant benefits from the above, do both characters have the same DC, and both get the same results from rolling the same total?

If you are asking if I treat everyone equally, then yes. But I make sure that everyone gets their spotlight, has basic background information appropriate for their character, has an opportunity to roleplay, and isn't steamrolled by others who want to muscle in on the interaction because their stats are higher.

They may not get the exact same information delivered in the same way due to differing perspective, but my intent is that they get appropriate information for both the roll and the need for the story to progress.

BG3 is a delightful example that is similar to how I do things. There are usually multiple ways to approach a problem based on background, some more relevant than others based on the NPC being interacted with, with some dialogue options impacting favor without rolls, but also allowing multiple skills to approach the interaction differently. Some DCs are higher or lower based on relevance. The warlock wearing a devil-wing cape is not going to get the same interaction with the town guard as the Paladin wielding the shield emblazoned with the symbol of the sun god. And the paladin will get a different interaction from the green hag in the woods that has the knowledge the heroes seek.

The players know this and when they divvy up the social tasks, they tend to keep that in mind. But if their character is invested in something that they aren't good at, they may still engage in that interaction. It's not always the person who has the best stats doing a thing. We also like failing forward.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This is a really cool way to handle those sort of interactions, but at the end of the day, if the ability checks fail and the NPC won't tell the party the information that they need, the warlock may have the option of casting suggestion, or scrying etc. The fighter does not.

At its core, this is one of the greatest misapprehensions of this particular issue: the fighter class doesn't get creativity, roleplaying, ability checks, and background features to make up for no spells compared to spellcasters. The spellcasters get all of those things as well as spells.

 

[tetrasodium]

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?

I'm not the one you asked but it's not a particularly unusual thing for GM's to do... I can say yes because I engage with every PC differently based on the character itself because the PC is going into the skillcheck with a different chest of knowledge & experiences. Prior to 5e attempting to badly simplify 4e's bounded accuracy linked DC ladder into an objective value with no consideration for who was attempting a check so did d&d itself with a DC scale that included "DC | Example Roll | (Key Ability) | Who Could Do It".

 

[Vaalingrade]

Please do not sully the name of 4e with the concept of 'bounded accuracy'. Characters progress in 4e.

 

[tetrasodium]

Please do not sully the name of 4e with the concept of 'bounded accuracy'. Characters progress in 4e.

Fair enough, I figured that the alexandrian link going into the badly simplified results would provide enough of a line between the two

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not really. They even think the design ethos was 'level up the entire world with the PC's, instead of 'use these numbers for proper challenge bands', so they're not really a good or factual source.

Plus blaming anyone for Bounded Accuracy is just mean.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

For it to not be a good comparison, you would need an entire table whose suite of spellcasters uses every single spell slot every single day so there's no slot left free to spend on a 'Natural Explorer' ability.

So long as more often than not all the casters take their long rests with unused spell slots... then they essentially have "always on" availability at hand and the comparison is fine.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

This is a really cool way to handle those sort of interactions, but at the end of the day, if the ability checks fail and the NPC won't tell the party the information that they need, the warlock may have the option of casting suggestion, or scrying etc. The fighter does not.

At its core, this is one of the greatest misapprehensions of this particular issue: the fighter class doesn't get creativity, roleplaying, ability checks, and background features to make up for no spells compared to spellcasters. The spellcasters get all of those things as well as spells.

There are usually more ways than one to get the job done, and all characters still have options, and all those options have upsides and downsides. Certainly, spellcasters can use their limited spell slots as ways of getting information. But will the scrying be used on the right people at the right time? Do you really want to enchant innocent folk if they'll remember later and report you for a crime?

A character in the above example can switch to use another tactic, from Persuasion to Deception, or seek a different person that might have similar knowledge.

We can play "what if" or "I'm jealous they can do it differently than I can" all we want. But the DM has absolute control to present the players the paths they need to pursue and accomplish their goals. The DM's hands are never truly tied, and therefore neither are their players' hands.

It's not real or indelibly set in stone. They are ideas and ideas are fluid. Just make it fun for people.

 

[Parmandur]

For it to not be a good comparison, you would need an entire table whose suite of spellcasters uses every single spell slot every single day so there's no slot left free to spend on a 'Natural Explorer' ability.

So long as more often than not all the casters take their long rests with unused spell slots... then they essentially have "always on" availability at hand and the comparison is fine.

I mean, in a full Adventure Day the casters will be running out of Slots handily.