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 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.

 

[Weiley31]

I'm not quite sure why 5e still resists playable characters being large size,

The reason why, as mentioned by Crawford before, is that things start getting "interesting" as Large size PCs can affect things such as Auras getting an increase in their range and Oversized Weapons, which in the 5E rules, leads to balance going out the window if PCs were suddenly allowed to swing them willy nilly. (such as a greatsword going from 2D6 to 4D6, and so on.)

Basically: it messes with the Bounded Accuracy.

 

[Umbran]

To summarize... "Hush because your comments here won't change anything"

Not quite.

I mean, no, the comments here won't change anything. Anyone taking the position that their own surveys are a bad source, by the same logic, should reject them using EN World, with it's smaller, even more self-selected sample as a source. Comments here shouldn't change anything.

But that's not the point. The point is for folks to think about what is constructive about their commentary. Ask yourself what you, or anyone else, can actually get out of it.

We have seen at other edition changes - relentlessly negative positions generally lead to trouble. There are only so many ways to say, "I don't like it," before you have to up the ante on rhetoric, and that makes people dig in rather than listen and think. Upping the ante makes it an emotional exchange, not a reasoned one.

I can understand frustration when things aren't going in your preferred direction. But how you use that frustration is important. If what you get out of it is "venting", well, that may be fine for you, but it isn't fine for the discussion.

Some people desire the conversation.

Is it actually being presented as a start of a conversation, though? What framing is presented to avoid it being a simple clash of like/not-like?

 

[Charlaquin]

I have the suspicion something broke spectacularly in a playtest involving Large characters, and rather than try to find a way to make it work anyway, they just decided to restrict playable characters to Medium or faux-medium sizes.

There were never any Large playable races in the D&D Next playtest…

 

[Charlaquin]

The reason why, as mentioned by Crawford before, is that things start getting "interesting" as Large size PCs can affect things such as Auras getting an increase in their range and Oversized Weapons, which in the 5E rules, leads to balance going out the window if PCs were suddenly allowed to swing them willy nilly. (such as a greatsword going from 2D6 to 4D6, and so on.)

Basically: it messes with the Bounded Accuracy.

Huh? None of those things have anything to do with bounded accuracy…

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

There were never any Large playable races in the D&D Next playtest…

They might have recognized the problem with them before they ever would have gotten to the playtest stage of development.

 

[Weiley31]

Huh? None of those things have anything to do with bounded accuracy…

Okay.

It throws the Whammie out of the Jammie. Honestly, humblest of opinions, I feel Bounded Accuracy plays a little bit part in 5e's inability to "spreads its wings" in regard to stepping out of its comfort zone with new things.

 

[Charlaquin]

They might have recognized the problem with them before they ever would have gotten to the playtest stage of development.

I guess? I dunno, seems to me like auras and oversized weapons are the only potential issues, and with 1D&D leaning into PC/NPC asymmetry, I feel like oversized weapons are only an issue if the designers decide to make it one. Auras is definitely a thing, but I feel like that’s pretty well balanced out by a Large creature being vulnerable to being surrounded by more enemies at once.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay.

It throws the Whammie out of the Jammie. Honestly, humblest of opinions, I feel Bounded Accuracy plays a little bit part in 5e's inability to "spreads its wings" in regard to stepping out of its comfort zone with new things.

I mean, an argument could certainly be made that BA restricts 5e’s design too much, but auras and oversized weapons simply don’t interact with accuracy, bounded or otherwise.

 

[Weiley31]

There were never any Large playable races in the D&D Next playtest…

They might have recognized the problem with them before they ever would have gotten to the playtest stage of development.

I guess? I dunno, seems to me like auras and oversized weapons are the only potential issues, and with 1D&D leaning into PC/NPC asymmetry, I feel like oversized weapons are only an issue if the designers decide to make it one. Auras is definitely a thing, but I feel like that’s pretty well balanced out by a Large creature being vulnerable to being surrounded by more enemies.

Honestly: Large sized races have their own stuff to deal with so there's a balance factor in that. Trying to fit through spaces, dealing with smaller races, how much food they have to eat. All that stuff. In regard to Oversized Weapons, WoTC should just do it like how Pathfinder does it. An oversized Greatsword goes from 2D6 to 2D8. Etc, etc, etc.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I guess? I dunno, seems to me like auras and oversized weapons are the only potential issues, and with 1D&D leaning into PC/NPC asymmetry, I feel like oversized weapons are only an issue if the designers decide to make it one. Auras is definitely a thing, but I feel like that’s pretty well balanced out by a Large creature being vulnerable to being surrounded by more enemies.

Auras, the reach of weapons is effectively higher, oversized weapons doing an extra dice of damage, trouble fitting into dungeons/other Medium-designed spaces in a setting, and the ability to grapple Huge and smaller monsters while you can't be grappled by Small and smaller monsters.

There's a lot of minor benefits from being Large that add up to make them overpowered as a character option. Min-Maxers would pretty much always choose to be Large if they want to be a frontliner. And 5e tries to keep the race options relatively balanced.