OneDnD 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

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

mamba

Hero
I want real change. And if they're not going to do that, if we're just going to get a lukewarm revision that doesn't address anything meaningful, they might as well just slap a foil cover on 5e and call it "Commemorative 50th anniversary edition."
The stuff that they're changing is nothing that anyone has asked for, nothing that has a quantifiable change in the experience.
Sure, these are mostly tweaks, but they do seem to mostly be tweaks for the better and make the whole thing more coherent. Neither of which is bad.

If you feel this is not enough, then do not buy it, it's simple. I am not sure what big changes you want (and by extension whether they would even be considered an improvement by 5e players rather than e.g. the OSR crowd), but WotC is clearly not interested in making any.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mamba

Hero
....that tells us nothing. You cannot reason from the sample size alone to determine how representative nor how intense the responders' feelings are. That is outright statistical fallacy.
Sure I can, if half / the majority of respondents do not like a feature, that is a strong dislike, if most like it, that is a strong like. I doubt the e.g. 15% who do not like a feature based on their reply hate it while the other 85% are only lukewarm, that will be a range on either side.

Not gonna bother with how representative the sample is, neither of us know so it is moot.
 

mamba

Hero
If the 5E adventures used the CR and encounter rules in their design, they assume specific values regarding CR and EL by definition. If the 2024 revision of the game changes those CR and EL values then, by definition, the adventures written for 2014 are no long "compatible" with the 2024 rules.
If the monsters stay the same CR and the rules are improved, I see no downside
If, on the other hand, the adventures weren't designed with the 2014 rules, it proves that those rules were never worthwhile to begin with so revisions of those rules are irrelevant and unnecessary.
The rules were not worthless, they just were not perfect. Improvement is always worthwhile.
Long story short: you can't have it both ways. Either CR and EL is a real, meaningful thing that must be revised along with everything else -- thereby making the earlier adventures incompatible -- or CR and EL was always arbitrary and unreliable, in which case a revision of CR is completely unnecessary and irrelevant and its best dropped entirely.
Something not being entirely reliable does not make it pointless, I am sure you can think of several things where you want a prediction that is say 90% probable instead of going into it uninformed
 
Last edited:

mamba

Hero
For me, 5e is getting a little long in the tooth. Stripping away most of my exaggeration on here, I don't want to see 5e go 10 years only to be extended by 5.1 edition for another 8. I think there's much more dynamic and creative things that can happen in the RPG space than what we're seeing with OneD&D.
I am sure there is, but you won't see that in the D&D juggernaut, nor should you expect to. If you corner 60% or so of the market, you won't be the one innovating / risking your player base
 
Last edited:




Sure I can, if half / the majority of respondents do not like a feature, that is a strong dislike, if most like it, that is a strong like. I doubt the e.g. 15% who do not like a feature based on their reply hate it while the other 85% are only lukewarm, that will be a range on either side.
Not at all. Consider the following hypothetical:
60% of users like it, 40% dislike it.
Half of people who like it (so 30% of the total), like it a lot, and half only like it some.
90% of people who dislike it (so 36% of the overall userbase), dislike it a lot, and 20% (4% of all users) only dislike it some.
People who strongly (dis)like something are guaranteed to respond. People who have mild preferences don't respond.

From this, out of the total body: 30% like it a lot and all of them respond, while 32% dislike it a lot and respond. Even though the userbase has a clear majority which like it--outnumbering the dislikes three to two!--more people dislike it a lot than like it a lot, and thus only a third of all users decide the fate of the whole body.

Not gonna bother with how representative the sample is, neither of us know so it is moot.
But that is literally my point. We have no idea how representative it is, and that is the very reason we cannot conclude that the sentiment is strong based on this!
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
I'll be honest, and it's going to sound terrible.
3.x was out for 8 years and 4e for 5 years.
For me, 5e is getting a little long in the tooth. Stripping away most of my exaggeration on here, I don't want to see 5e go 10 years only to be extended by 5.1 edition for another 8. I think there's much more dynamic and creative things that can happen in the RPG space than what we're seeing with OneD&D.
Having entirely new editions every 5 to 10 years is bad for the game.
And the crux of my concern is that people will tire of 5.1 just like I'm tired of 5e. I think that the new fans brought in with 5e can't imagine a system different than 5e, so it's stifling progress when we're all getting outvoted by tens of thousands of gamers who don't really know game design and probably haven't tried an indie game or played anything beyond 5e.
Most people are not tired of D&D 5e. You're definitely in the minority there. In fact, 5e's still bringing in a ton of new players. And, a big part of why WotC is making these small changes is because they know that 5e is still super popular, but also want to mitigate/remove some of its worse parts to give the system a bit of a boost.

And, no, most of the community probably doesn't know much about game design and how to balance the game. But they know what ideas and general changes they want from playing the game for years. This is why WotC sends out ideas and proposed changes in the UA, gathers feedback from people that just read it and those that actually playtested it, do their own internal playtesting, and balance the UA content before it gets officially released.

OneD&D isn't being "designed" by the survey participants. It's being designed by WotC, and they check with their audience to see if that's what people want, and tweak things to make them more popular.
And it sounds gate-keepy, I know, but I want a game designed by designers, not popular vote by a horde of players who outnumber their DMs and want what's best for their PCs over what makes a more dynamic, fun, and balanced experience at the table.
How do you know that the majority of survey respondents are players and not DMs? I'm a DM, and none of my players are even the least bit interested in filling out any of these surveys. We don't have any evidence to support this view. And, also, I'm not sure that players are any worse at knowing what's fun for their game than DMs are.
 

mamba

Hero
Not at all. Consider the following hypothetical:
I agree that you can construe some oddball scenarios to make you point, but to me they are all pretty unlikely. To me this is more or less one continuous range and at some point it tips from like to dislike. Where that is (85/15 or 60/40) tells you how well it is liked overall.
People who have mild preferences don't respond.
that would be in my favor as it makes the percentages more representative (of the people polled, not overall)
But that is literally my point. We have no idea how representative it is, and that is the very reason we cannot conclude that the sentiment is strong based on this!
If we have no idea, then it is not worth discussing as you are as likely to be wrong as you are to be right.

If your argument is based on assumptions of which you have no idea whether they are even remotely accurate, then you do not have much of an argument.

My only assumption is that I essentially have a linear transition from ‘love’ to ‘hate’, not a wild curve, then the percentages tell me a lot (within the limit of not knowing how representative my poll is).

As to how representative the poll is, no idea, but 39000 probably makes it more representative than you give it credit for.
You can argue that it is a self-selecting crowd, and I’d argue that so are all 5e players, so that evens that out. I.e. it is probably pretty representative of how 5e players feel about the changes and less so how TTRPG players overall would rate them - but that is probably perfectly ok for WotC’s goals
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I was thinking about this and I think it is highly unlikely, mostly because their stated goal is backwards compatibility with adventures. If they fix CR and encounter design,they break all of those adventures.
Do they? I don’t think most adventurers really observed encounter building guidelines anyway.
 

Do they? I don’t think most adventurers really observed encounter building guidelines anyway.
Nes and yo. Naybe. As I'm given to understand, CR is doubly unhelpful. Firstly, the actual CRs of monsters in the books were "tweaked" (that is, made unsystematic in order to try to make them more functional/representative) before publication. Secondly, the formulae for calculating CR for a homebrewed monster are...approximations in absolutely ideal cases (read: big bags of HP that don't have any special features).

BUT that first thing still means that there was some effort at trying to make the encounters balanced, even if they didn't actually follow any systematic method to do so. As a result, introducing an actually systematic, functional system would, formally speaking, make older content outdated. It's not that you cannot use such old content, but that doing so would in fact actually be a loss of functionality. Sort of like trying to work with an outdated but still functional document format; it's not that .xls doesn't work anymore, but rather that increased functionality in .xlsx files means that trying to use both file types together is likely to result in...wrinkles, at the very least.
 

Majesticles

Villager
No, they could be just as easily saying that Humans are the only PHB race that dwarfism common enough to call for its inclusion.
Why the heck would that be the case? even other animals have dwarfism!
And there are already "only some members of this race have this trait" in D&D. Only some Kobolds have wings (Urds). Only some Hobgoblins have red or blue noses, and it's seen as a blessing from their god. Only some people are born with inherent magic (Sorcerers).
Kobolds are defined by their connection to dragons, not the fact that some of them have wings (and you can't play as an urd anyway). Hobgoblins are defined by their warlike culture, not the color of their noses. Sorcerers are a class, not a race; all of them have magic, not some.
Most of them don't need representation
And dwarfism does? Why? Why does dwarfism need to be represented?
There is no good way or reason to mechanically represent Autism or any other mental disorder in D&D.
So physical disorders should be represented, but mental one's shouldn't? Why? That seems arbitrary.
Exactly my point! "Mutations shouldn't be represented in the game" is a terrible guideline for what gets included in the book or not, because all of modern life is a series of mutations on the tree of life that all go back to single-celled organisms a few billion years ago.
That wasn't my point. My point was that a race's listed features are supposed to be the norm, not the sum totality of possibilities. Nobody looked at the 5e stats for a tiefling and assumed that they magically never had physical deformities just because such features weren't listed.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Nes and yo. Naybe. As I'm given to understand, CR is doubly unhelpful. Firstly, the actual CRs of monsters in the books were "tweaked" (that is, made unsystematic in order to try to make them more functional/representative) before publication. Secondly, the formulae for calculating CR for a homebrewed monster are...approximations in absolutely ideal cases (read: big bags of HP that don't have any special features).

BUT that first thing still means that there was some effort at trying to make the encounters balanced, even if they didn't actually follow any systematic method to do so. As a result, introducing an actually systematic, functional system would, formally speaking, make older content outdated. It's not that you cannot use such old content, but that doing so would in fact actually be a loss of functionality. Sort of like trying to work with an outdated but still functional document format; it's not that .xls doesn't work anymore, but rather that increased functionality in .xlsx files means that trying to use both file types together is likely to result in...wrinkles, at the very least.
So, still compatible. “Outdated, but usable” sounds exactly like how backwards-compatibility tends to work.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Why the heck would that be the case? even other animals have dwarfism!
It's a fantasy world.
Kobolds are defined by their connection to dragons, not the fact that some of them have wings (and you can't play as an urd anyway). Hobgoblins are defined by their warlike culture, not the color of their noses. Sorcerers are a class, not a race; all of them have magic, not some.
But Hobgoblins occasionally having colorful noses is a (probably genetic) trait that doesn't affect their playability. You said that no other D&D race had a physical trait that only some of them have. Whether or not that trait is magical or a defining aspect of them is not what we were discussing. You're moving the goalposts.

Humans aren't defined by their height, either.
And dwarfism does? Why? Why does dwarfism need to be represented?
It isn't about need. It's about can. As in "can it be included easily without taking up a ton of space or being disruptive". This isn't disruptive. It's just a small bit of inclusion.
So physical disorders should be represented, but mental one's shouldn't? Why? That seems arbitrary.
There is an important difference between physical disorders and mental ones. Mental ones still have quite a lot of stigmas with them. And they're a lot harder to represent accurately and respectfully than "some people are 3-4 feet tall instead of the usual 5-6 feet".
That wasn't my point. My point was that a race's listed features are supposed to be the norm, not the sum totality of possibilities. Nobody looked at the 5e stats for a tiefling and assumed that they magically never had physical deformities just because such features weren't listed.
So? I don't see how that's relevant at all.
 

So, still compatible. “Outdated, but usable” sounds exactly like how backwards-compatibility tends to work.
As I've said before, it depends on how one defines the terms. Some feel "backwards-compatible" means you shouldn't have to change anything in order to make use of anything--that any changes, even tiny superficial ones, are too much. I don't hold that position, but I'm sympathetic to it. Another says that the only way it's not backwards-compatible is if it is completely impossible to make use of old material. I'm...pretty skeptical about that position.

Obviously, most positions are going to be somewhere between those extremes. But I definitely get the impression that people have been drifting in a fairly permissive direction on what they consider to be "backwards compatibility." E.g., by the standard I've seen posited, every version of D&D except 4e definitely is "backwards compatible," and 4e is only just shy thereof.

I, personally, think that the changes we've already seen in the limited playtest documents we've gotten thus far do qualify as requiring enough adaptation that it's not truly backwards-compatible anymore. To use a physical metaphor, you cannot plug a "One D&D" plug into an "original 5e" socket--you need an adapter. The adapter is cheap to make and readily available, but it is an adapter nonetheless.
 

Remathilis

Legend
As I've said before, it depends on how one defines the terms. Some feel "backwards-compatible" means you shouldn't have to change anything in order to make use of anything--that any changes, even tiny superficial ones, are too much. I don't hold that position, but I'm sympathetic to it. Another says that the only way it's not backwards-compatible is if it is completely impossible to make use of old material. I'm...pretty skeptical about that position.

Obviously, most positions are going to be somewhere between those extremes. But I definitely get the impression that people have been drifting in a fairly permissive direction on what they consider to be "backwards compatibility." E.g., by the standard I've seen posited, every version of D&D except 4e definitely is "backwards compatible," and 4e is only just shy thereof.

I, personally, think that the changes we've already seen in the limited playtest documents we've gotten thus far do qualify as requiring enough adaptation that it's not truly backwards-compatible anymore. To use a physical metaphor, you cannot plug a "One D&D" plug into an "original 5e" socket--you need an adapter. The adapter is cheap to make and readily available, but it is an adapter nonetheless.
I'd say they are on the level of 1e/2e or 3.5/Pathfinder. If you compare a specific element (such as the stats for a hill giant or the fireball spell) they differ, but if you lob a fireball at a hill giant, the mechanics of the resolution will be the same.

Just a few reasons why I feel 1D is compatible with 5e as compared to older editions:

1. The base math/mechanics hasn't changed. The game is still 1d20+bp+stat. Bounded accuracy is still in play. Advantage and disadvantage are still the go-to modifiers.

2. The spell resolution system is the same. Six rolled saves based on ability scores, spells scale with slot level.

3. HP levels are roughly the same. HD still works, the rests mechanics haven't greatly changed. Death saves are still a thing.

4. There has been limited removal of options so far. The changes so far have been the removal of unique stats for half-species and some wizard and cleric subs. It sounds like the vast majority of options will still exist, unlike previous editions that removed classes.

5. Monster math seems like it will be close enough that existing monsters will be compatible. Coupled with the lack of major changes to the resolution system, it means most modules can be run in the system as is.

These are not true of previous editions of D&D. I can't use a 4e power in 5e except as inspiration for a new spell or ability. A 3e spell that scales will caster level and targets fortitude can't be used as is. I can't use a kit, a prestige class, or an epic destiny in 5e again without ground-up rebuilding, but I'm pretty sure I can use most subclasses with just some elbow grease. That's what backwards compatibility means to me.
 

In my opinion; CR is impossible to get right. Too many variables, too many moving targets.

At best they can only give you a rough guideline to bounce your game experience off of.
yeah but I think they could get that rough guide a bit better is all I am saying
Literally their plan.
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but no that is NOT the plan. they aren't just relaseing the 2014 book. No they aren't just releasing the 2014 book+ errata, no the are not releaseing the 2014 book + errata + Tasha's (up till now) optional add ons.

They are rewriting the book. Bard Ranger and Cleric are already very different, and the entire concept of feats and race/ancestry/heritage/species. Every feat is being rewritten and rebalanced, and spells are changing... now MAYBE you could argue feat and spell are just really advanced errata, and the race change is a zeitgeist change. BUT they are changing conditions as well and how rests work... any one or maybe even two or three of these may make it look hard to call it the same game as 2014, but all at once this is NOT the 2014 book, this is NOT 5e anymore.

Now that isn't saying it wont be good. Its not saying I wont (maybe) enjoy it more the base 5e... but it is someting new
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
As I've said before, it depends on how one defines the terms. Some feel "backwards-compatible" means you shouldn't have to change anything in order to make use of anything--that any changes, even tiny superficial ones, are too much. I don't hold that position, but I'm sympathetic to it. Another says that the only way it's not backwards-compatible is if it is completely impossible to make use of old material. I'm...pretty skeptical about that position.

Obviously, most positions are going to be somewhere between those extremes. But I definitely get the impression that people have been drifting in a fairly permissive direction on what they consider to be "backwards compatibility." E.g., by the standard I've seen posited, every version of D&D except 4e definitely is "backwards compatible," and 4e is only just shy thereof.

I, personally, think that the changes we've already seen in the limited playtest documents we've gotten thus far do qualify as requiring enough adaptation that it's not truly backwards-compatible anymore. To use a physical metaphor, you cannot plug a "One D&D" plug into an "original 5e" socket--you need an adapter. The adapter is cheap to make and readily available, but it is an adapter nonetheless.
Yeah, I don’t disagree that 1D&D seems likely to be too different from 5e for “backwards compatible” to be an accurate description. I just don’t think that a better CR and encounter building system would make it backwards incompatible with 5e adventures.
 
Last edited:


Status
Not open for further replies.

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top