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

It could be solved with a little update on what HP is, really. I dont mind Warlord healing as Temp HP.
my thing is you CAN'T in any edition shout an arm back on. Cure Wounds, Healing Word, and Cure Light wounds restore HP and HP is nebulas from the start. so Inspiring word (or rubsome dirt on it or healing smite) just give back hp... just like second wind and spending HD.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
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!
D&D 5e was written in a way that you can tell they expected just fans of past editions would be playing it. So They assumed DMs and players had experience and just needing info on the edition's rules changes.

When 5e exploded with new players, the design team realize how poorly it was written for people who didn't have 10-50 years of D&D exp and would just run on that experience.

Further, fans now due to D&D's age have very divergent preferences and expectations.

This is why the MMI is being cut out, because the assumption can't be made anymore.
 
Last edited:



Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
this is it. If they are changing the system for the new age players they should come out and do that.
They aren't.
That's the point.
They aren't changing the system for the new age players.

They are changing the game so each type of player gets a similar percentage of the attention. And anything that doesn't match what at least 60% of the fandom want is going in the trash or being sent to a setting book.
 

I'm going to say no to school based Wizard classes. In fact, I'll go one further and say that domain based Cleric subclasses are also out. My bet is that Cleric domain will be a smaller choice, akin to a Warlock pact, and their subclasses will be brand new.

I hope you're right, I've never really liked how domains worked in 5e. I've said before that I'd love for domains to have less mechanical heft, but you get more of them, something in-between a pact and invocation. You can see two real subclasses hidden in the domains, the Divine Striker and the Potent Spellcaster.
 

I'm glad they're getting what they consider useful information out of the survey. I agree they aren't asking for feedback on the "big questions," by and large, but I'm also not sure I want the fundamental design direction of the game to be crowd-sourced anyway.

As for my part, I couldn't answer any of the survey questions even to my satisfaction without being able to see the whole context. Like, it's true they didn't ask us for feedback on feats as part of backgrounds, but that's fine with me, since I don't know if I like it or not anyway without seeing the rest of the game.
 


darjr

I crit!
Yea. The lack of context is an issue.

However I think I get it when they mean use the whole rest of 5e to fill that in for the test. Sorta.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
D&D 5e was written in a way that you can tell they expected just fans of past editions would be playing it.
Considering all of the stuff they talked about attracting new players, I don't see this at all. There are so many places where a low barrier to entry for new players to RPGs is very evident. Are you trying to say all of that was accidental?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top