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

Oofta

Legend
I do not understand the need to automatically assume bad intent. All WotC has done has been largely up front while producing a hugely popular iteration of a game that I assume we all love. So...why not assume that they mean what they say and are actively using our feedback to inform their development of OneD&D? Like, what makes that an unreasonable assumption?

It's fine to have doubts. Doubts are healthy. But you also have to be able to ask yourself what if I'm wrong? Maybe WotC isn't some corporate conspiracy to screw over their own fans. Maybe the folks working there actually love the game and value their player base and want to make the best version of the game possible, not just because that would be good business but because it would make them feel good as creators and professionals.

Criticizing their proposals is fine. It's what feedback is for. But criticizing their motives is not cool. None of us is a mind reader. It just seems like a lot of folks have made up their minds and are not even open to any positive interpretations. And that is really weird to me considering that WotC have done a very good job with the game.
I agree. I don't understand the seeming need some people have to trash WOTC. Do I agree with everything they do? Of course not. Heck, I look back at decisions I made in the past and can only think "What the **** was I thinking?"

But we have no reason to believe that this is all a show, that they don't really care, or that it would be a real survey if only they added a suggestion box at the end so they could try to read through 39,000 responses of random thoughts on what D&D could do instead. Of course they have ideas where they want to go with the game, that's kind of the point of being game designers. But I have no reason to believe that they aren't being open and forthright that they really do listen to feedback.

No survey will ever be perfect. No game will ever be perfect. Of course as a development team they want the game to be profitable. Duh, they want to continue receiving paychecks. But most of the complaints seem to really be saying "They aren't doing exactly what I want, so therefore they're bad no-goodnicks who are lying to us."
 

Oofta

Legend
Yeah, I'm not a fan of non-optional feats. I told them as much in every feat section that had a comment box. I feel like they listened and are trying to give us all the best of both worlds. I can handle the background feat, then just take the ASI feat when available. This makes me feel good about it.

Not a fan of the Ardling, and told them as much. I'm really hoping they just ditch it or save it for a source book. Just make the Assimer (sp?) A core class. I feel like they may be conflicted with the results they have gotten. I'm just not a fan of the animal thing.

Touching on the few comments about changing the game up for new players. 5e has been the easiest game to teach to new players in my experience. Right now I have a game running with my wife and kids. None of them have ever played before and they have picked up on it very quickly. The oldest kid is 15, the youngest is 9. I personally don't feel like they would need to change much to on board new players.

They clarified that they need to tweak the ardlings, one of the main issues is that they're too close to Aasimar so they're going to be their own thing. I'm personally not a big fan of furries, but a lot of people are, hence tortles, harengon and tabaxi. Good thing no one is forcing me to play one. 🤷‍♂️
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I hear your points, but dont feel I'm missing anything. I am aware of all the differences in generational players (i.e. more anime swordsmen tropes than knights in plate mail, etc.)

Was just trying to say that I dont feel that the way the 5e books are written are any harder (or easier) for a group of new players to learn, play, mess up, homebrew, argue, and play than they ever were.

YMMV.
The 1st Edition Books contain more info and advice on How to Play and How to DM than the 5th PHB/DMG.

And the target audience was a lot more similar in preferences and the rules and advice was tailored to them.
The 5e PHB isnt too bad. But the 5e DMG is mostly useless outside of some of the charts and the magic item rules to new and vet alike.

That's why Crawford made sure to say the 2024 DMG will actually have advice and tools to actually run the game.
 


Mortus

Explorer
Darn - I really do not like feats. Love that they are optional in 5E 2014 since it makes it easier as a DM to not allow them in my games. I guess I can just ignore them in 5E 2024. Since everyone gets them it should balance if I ignore them completely. Or I can just keep running 5E 2014 - I have all the books I need physically and digitally and it will essentially be the same game.

Instead of feats I allow players to attempt just about anything they can imagine and that makes sense with their PC concept - I just use opposed/unopposed ability checks.
 

Incenjucar

Legend
While I personally adore feats, I hope they provide a nice simple default option for non-feat folks. There's really no reason not to. The way it was discussed made it sound like an ad for future feats, but that's just now how reality works.
 


Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
Darn - I really do not like feats. Love that they are optional in 5E 2014 since it makes it easier as a DM to not allow them in my games. I guess I can just ignore them in 5E 2024. Since everyone gets them it should balance if I ignore them completely. Or I can just keep running 5E 2014 - I have all the books I need physically and digitally and it will essentially be the same game.

Instead of feats I allow players to attempt just about anything they can imagine and that makes sense with their PC concept - I just use opposed/unopposed ability checks.
I generally dislike feats, but the way they are presented in the two first packets look kinda interesting. They are fun additions instead of ''must-haves'', ''builds defining'' or ''patches''.

In any case, if there's too many feats to choose or they become too fiddly, I'll just remove them and let the players take the +2 ASI feat by default.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top