D&D (2024) WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!

In a 40-minute video, WotC's Jeremy Crawford discussed the survey feedback to the 'Character Origins' playtest document. Over 40,000 engaged with the survey, and 39,000 completed it. I've summarised the content of the video below.

High Scorers

• The highest scoring thing with almost 90% was getting a first level feat in your background. This is an example of an experimental thing -- like advantage and disadvantage in the original 5E playtests.
• Almost everything also scored 80%+.

About The Scoring System

• 70% or higher is their passing grade. In the 70s is a thumbs up but tinkering need. 80% means the community wants exactly that and WotC treads carefully not to change it too much.
• In the 60s it's salvageable but it really needs reworking. Below 60% means that there's a good chance they'll drop it, and in the 40s or below it's gone. Nothing was in the 50s or below.

Low Scorers

Only 3 things dipped into the 60s --

• the d20 Test rule in the Rules Glossary (experimental, no surprise)
• the ardling
• the dragonborn

The next UA had a different version of the d20 Test rule, and they expect a very different score when those survey resuts come in.

It was surprising that the dragonborn scored lower than the ardling. The next UA will include new versions of both. The main complaints were:

• the dragonborn's breath weapon, and confusion between the relationship between that dragonborn and the one in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons.
• the ardling was trying to do too much (aasimar-like and beast-person).

The ardling does not replace the aasimar. The next version will have a clearer identity.

Everything else scored in the 70s or 80s.

Some more scores:

• new human 83%
• dwarf, orc, tiefling, elf tied at 80-81%
• gnome, halfling tied at 78%

Future installments of Unearthed Arcana

• The next one will have new ardling and dragonborn, a surprise 'guest', and a new cleric. It will be a shorter document than the previous ones, and the one after that is bigger again. Various class groups.
• Warrior group digs into something teased in a previous UA sidebar -- new weapon options for certain types of characters. Whole new ways to use weapons.
• New rules on managing your character's home base. A new subsystem. Create bases with NPCs connected with them, implementing downtime rules. They're calling it the "Bastion System".
• There will be a total of 48 subclasses in the playtest process.
• New encounter building rules, monster customization options.
• New versions of things which appear in the playtest after feedback.

Other Notes

• Playtests are a version of something with the assumption that if something isn't in the playtest, it's still in the game (eg eldritch blast has not been removed from the game). The mage Unearthed Arcana will feature that.
• Use an object and other actions are still as defined in the current Player's Handbook. The playtest material is stuff that has changed.
• Thief subclass's cunning action does not interact with use an object; this is intentional. Removed because the original version is a 'Mother may I?" mechanic - something that only works if the DM cooperates with you. In general mechanics which require DM permission are unsatisfying. The use an object action might go away, but that decision will be a made via the playtest process.
• The ranger's 1st-level features also relied too heavily on DM buy-in, also wild magic will be addressed.
• If you have a class feature you should be able to use it in the way you expect.
• If something is removed from the game, they will say so.
• Great Weapon Fighting and Sharpshooter were changed because the penalty to the attack roll was not big enough to justify the damage bonus, plus they want warrior classes to be able to rely on their class features (including new weapon options) for main damage output. They don't want any feats to feel mandatory to deal satisfying damage. Feats which are 'must haves' violate their design goals.
• Light Weapon property amped up by removing the bonus action requirement because requiring light weapon users to use their bonus action meant there were a lot of bad combinations with features and spells which require bonus actions. It felt like a tax on light weapon use.
• Class spell lists are still an open question. Focus on getting used to the three big spell lists. Feedback was that it would be nice to still have a class list to summarize what can be picked from the 'master lists'. For the bard that would be useful, for the cleric and wizard not necessary as they can choose from the whole divine or arcane list.

The playtest process will continue for a year.

 

[overgeeked]

One thing I want to touch on is a comment Crawford makes around 25:55 about the ranger and mother may I.

What he's saying is basically, unless the DM bought into the features of the ranger, they never came up and so made the ranger feel less useful than the design team intended.

As a referee who's frustrated by the 2014 ranger, as a player who loves the ranger fantasy, and as a fan who's really bothered by the lackluster presentation of the exploration pillar in 5E, I can say the exact reason why I avoided rangers and the ranger features in play. It was because the features amounted to a skip button. The ranger just auto succeeded. There was no risk, no play, no rolls...just I win. That meant they weren't fun in actual play, so we stopped playing through those bits. Because a scene where you just narrate how awesome a character is and they auto succeed at a pillar of play is dull and boring. The UA ranger with expertise is much better. Because there's a risk of failure, there are rolls involved, there's a chance of something interesting happening instead of "yep, I'm awesome. I win."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The survey didn't actually ask us whether we wanted feats at first level.

This is something that really troubles me with these surveys. They ask us to rate specifics (each feat, each background), but they aren't asking the larger questions. I may very well rate a feat full stars, and I may find a background to be fine. That doesn't mean I like the idea of a background granting a level 1 feat. WotC is taking specific ratings and painting an incorrect picture at the broad level with them.

You don’t think that most people who had any sort of issue with level 1 feat would have said so in their written feedback?

 

[OB1]

But will they be good, or based on the magic schools?

I'm guessing picking a school will be a first level feature that gives some benefit across classes (maybe one extra known spell from your school per level that is always prepared and doesn't count against the number of prepared).

The subclasses I'm guessing will be similar across all classes. A Wizard (Mage) which is the iconic version, and then a Wizard (Warrior), Wizard (Expert) and Wizard (Priest). Each class will follow a similar structure in the new PHB, a sort of multi-class lite.

Not surprised at all that this packet had such high approval numbers. I'm betting packet 2 didn't do nearly as well (hence the delay in packet 3).

 

[Blue]

I'm not surprised most things score this high.

People who object to the changes aren't likely to playtest it or bother with filling out any surveys about it.

Just to understand, you are saying that on the internet people are more likely to post positive things than bitch about something?!

Please, I want to live where you do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And not everything did. They feedback still matters, even if you're in the minority.

Maybe the changes are overall good and people like them.

The majority of respondants certainly seem to.

 

[Scribe]

Yep, same as Tieflings, I’m sure. No doubt options like the Archdevil-specific lineages from MtoF will still be available, but it would take up too much space to reproduce those in the PHB. Hence, a more compact general version.

The layout of the Dragonborn section in Fizbans, is a travesty of copy-paste and wasted page space. It could be done way better for sure.

I think I even worked it up, and Tiefling as well, to demonstrate how much easier to could be to save the space and retain the variety.

 

[Blue]

How would they know you tested it? Both kinds of respondants answer the same survey.

You had to indicate on the survey which parts you actually playtested.

 

[OB1]

With the new D20 Test rules being salvageable, here's what I'd love to see as a fix.

Nat20 on a D20 Test gives inspiration. When you Nat20 on an attack roll, you can either gain inspiration or double your damage dice. For monsters, they can double damage dice or auto-recharge any spent power.

This is a best of both worlds and gives both PCs and Monsters a lot of options when they Crit on a hit. Just wish I would have thought of this when I was filling out the survey.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You had to indicate on the survey which parts you actually playtested.

I already covered that. People can just lie if they want WotC to think they playtested it. No one stops them.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I already covered that. People can just lie if they want WotC to think they playtested it. No one stops them.

People can lie about anything in the survey. WotC has to assume that they're telling the truth.