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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

The way he uses it seems reasonable. Not like it was used here, not long ago.

Its not clear what distinction you’re drawing here? Maybe you could elaborate what you have in mind?

What I have in mind is something like the most recent thread I interacted with on the subject had a lengthy section focused on @hawkeyefan ’s play excerpt where his employment of Folk Hero endured a GM veto. This controversy around that subject should seem to be put to bed as it exists very comfortably as a paradigmatic case of why Crawford calls out the Thief's Cunning Action. I mean, just sub-in/out the necessary parts here:

Folk Hero's rustic hospitality has been intentionally changed 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 confounding thing IMO is holding Thief's Cunning Action requiring GM permission = bad in one hand and 5E core noncombat action resolution procedures = good in the other hand. Seems a bit of a philosophical conundrum!
 

Folk Hero's rustic hospitality has been intentionally changed 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.

Same thing with inspiration, really. 'It was ambiguous when you should get inspiration so we decided you get it on a natural 20. Or a natural 1. Or a natural 7. Just, here, take your inspiration and go away.'
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
I hope that means skills and saves are not longer 20 auto pass 1 autofaill
I think it will depend somewhat on the relative popularity of the alternate version in the second playtest. Crawford called it out specifically as A/B testing and I suspect we will see more of that type of testing over the UA series.
 

It’s definitely a departure from Mearls’ direction, but I’m not sure how the Warlord comment is an example of that. I would contrast it more with how they used to talk about the game being a conversation between the players and the GM, and moving away from trying to make the gameplay experience consistent between different tables.

They're both culture war cornerstones yet in the opposite direction. To wit:

IN THIS CORNER, WE HAVE A WARLORD, PROUDLY SHOUTING ARMS BACK ON!

<FANS CHEERING AND DETRACTORS HISSING AND BOOING>

AND IN THIS CORNER, WE HAVE A PLAYER ASKING A GM FOR PERMISSION TO DO THEIR STUFF AND A GM WITH A SIGN THAT SAYS "WHATEVS" ON ONE SIDE AND "VETO" ON THE OTHER...WHAT DO YOU CALL YOURSELF AGAIN? MOTHER MAY I? WTF?

MOTHER MAY I!


<FANS CHEERING AND DETRACTORS HISSING AND BOOING>

Its just rather interesting.
 

Same thing with inspiration, really. 'It was ambiguous when you should get inspiration so we decided you get it on a natural 20. Or a natural 1. Or a natural 7. Just, here, take your inspiration and go away.'

But ambiguity is not the issue here.

Its authority; the authority over PC-build-inherent action declarations being realized (or not) during play <because of its interaction with GM adjudication and veto authority>.
 

Its not clear what distinction you’re drawing here? Maybe you could elaborate what you have in mind?

What I have in mind is something like the most recent thread I interacted with on the subject had a lengthy section focused on @hawkeyefan ’s play excerpt where his employment of Folk Hero endured a GM veto. This controversy around that subject should seem to be put to bed as it exists very comfortably as a paradigmatic case of why Crawford calls out the Thief's Cunning Action. I mean, just sub-in/out the necessary parts here:

Folk Hero's rustic hospitality has been intentionally changed 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 confounding thing IMO is holding Thief's Cunning Action requiring GM permission = bad in one hand and 5E core noncombat action resolution procedures = good in the other hand. Seems a bit of a philosophical conundrum!
Rather not ;)

But...

... I see a difference in "the ranger feature needs a DM that actively plays into your strengt" (what Crawford called out) and general out of comabt resolution mechanics. The first one might render the whole ranger level 1 rather useless. The second one is something that should be resolved in a dialogue between players and the DM, that should not end up in a discussion if you can use an object as a bonus action or not.

Although we just got 3 out of combat actions that help structure out of combat. Crawford spoke about bastion mechanics that help with managing your home and we will probably see more noncombat guidelines.
 

They're both culture war cornerstones yet in the opposite direction. To wit:

IN THIS CORNER, WE HAVE A WARLORD, PROUDLY SHOUTING ARMS BACK ON!

<FANS CHEERING AND DETRACTORS HISSING AND BOOING>

AND IN THIS CORNER, WE HAVE A PLAYER ASKING A GM FOR PERMISSION TO DO THEIR STUFF AND A GM WITH A SIGN THAT SAYS "WHATEVS" ON ONE SIDE AND "VETO" ON THE OTHER...WHAT DO YOU CALL YOURSELF AGAIN? MOTHER MAY I? WTF?

MOTHER MAY I!


<FANS CHEERING AND DETRACTORS HISSING AND BOOING>

Its just rather interesting.
yeah, I guess I can see it as a hard turn on the design philosophy (and again I am biased I am pro warlord and anti mother may I)
 


But ambiguity is not the issue here.

Its authority; the authority over PC-build-inherent action declarations being realized (or not) during play <because of its interaction with GM adjudication and veto authority>.

The DM veto authority is a feature of DnD. So getting rid of it might be a bit too much.
I was always rather fond of being able to have a conversation with the DM and not having to roll on "rage" or "greed" to see how your character acts. I am sure there are more elaborate noncombat mechanics, but I always experienced it more as a straight jacket instead of player authority.

But the old (default) inspiration mechanic always felt like "good boy, here is your cookie". So I like that they are getting rid of it.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top