• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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...

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.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
I still say that letting humans be size small was a strange and ill-advised idea.
I think it's a good idea and I like the inclusion.
This doesn’t follow. A profit-motivated company would still publish errata if they thought doing so would bring them a greater net profit in the long-term.
But WotC publishes way more errata than is necessary and I don't think that it's necessarily making them money. How many people buy the books because of the errata? Because, IMO, it's almost definitely a negligible minority.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Reynard

Legend
Supporter
It would certainly seem that way, but apparently that approach had poor results in the Next playtest.
I mean to the level of "balance" WotC aims for it will probably be fine. that is to say -- it isn't that impotant. Which is fine. I kind of agree. It's not chess or League of Legends. Balance is just not that important. I just feel like the playtest this time around is essentially all marketing and so it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
It's worth it for people in the minority to respond. Again, just a 10% switch - 1 in 10 people, can bring something from liked to rework, or from rework to discard completely.

If anything, the people with negative opinions have a disproportionately large voice because 60% of replies -- all positive -- are essentially ignored. That 60% just gets you up to "time to debate if trhis is worth including at all".

The people with negative opinions are the strongest, and those who don't want to respond because they feel they are in the minority need to understand that. If I recall, you voted where you had problems, and that's good.
Oh, absolutely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEB


Dr. Bull

Adventurer
The problem is that the original post did not follow regular rules of grammar. The post is rushed and confused. If you are going to post something that many people will read, please use good grammar and punctuation? Half of all these responses are due to miscommunication.
 

Weiley31

Legend
I always thought calling the animal headed race "Ardling" felt like a very weird name choice. Especially for one that was supposed to be angelic or what not.

We have Archons before in the past such as the Hound, Bear, and Owl. We also had the Guardinals too.
 

Clint_L

Hero
Being profit motivated does not make you a terrible person or mean than profits are the only thing that matters to you. I am a teacher, and I expect to get paid. But that doesn't mean that I'm a terrible person who doesn't also want to do the best job that I can or care about my students. The world is a complex place and people can have many motivations.

The folks at WotC who are working on OneD&D are obviously profit motivated. They want to get paid and they want D&D to be successful and make lotsa money - those things are all connected. But you seldom get into those positions unless you also have a passion for what you do and are very good at it. I guarantee you that everyone on the design team is a lifelong gamer who wants to make the best game that they can. If you were in their position, you would also be trying to do the best job possible, wouldn't you?

In thread after thread I see a lot of folks basically assuming that if things aren't exactly how they wanted them to be, or how they interpreted them, then WotC are terrible corporate shills who don't care about the fans and lie for no reason. It's exhausting because thread after thread winds up going nowhere and just repeating the same accusations. Let's just focus on the game proposals and not on WotC's alleged motives.
 

Majesticles

Villager
I think it's a good idea and I like the inclusion.
Why, though? There are so many issues.
1) Why do only humans get this trait? do other races not suffer acondroplasia? Will I also get to play a Tiny halfling?
2) Why is achondroplasia the only disorder being mechanically represented? What if I want my character to have gigantism? Or autism? or club foot? or mermaid syndrome? The logical conclusion here is for WotC to crack open Grey's Anatomy and release an entire splatbook statting every single physical deformity, even ones whose sufferers have no business adventuring.
3)Why would you accept that human size is one of our most variable characteristics, and thus build in rules for smaller people ... but neglect the single most salient aspects of that size difference, i.e. strength, stride length, manual dexterity, girth?
4)And ... if we're really going to accept reality enough to argue for separate rules for smaller humans, then why are other ways that humans vary off the table? There's a LOT of variance in humanity, male to female variance alone has hundreds of measurable differences.
5)And, finally a from a different angle, we're taking a broad category that literally treated all humans identically, which is a profoundly inclusive option and choice, and are now subdividing it, creating special category based on size for variability. Do we even want to open that door, given that we already have the most inclusive option on the table?
6) I've heard some people argue humans being able to be Small is actually meant to represent children, which would have it's own problems. For one, the character is basically a child soldier. For another, does this mean orcs are born 5ft tall? And what am I to do when the pervy problem player gets his hands on this?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top