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.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm annoyed elf scored so well. After the sea elf, astral elf, eladrin and shadar-kai, the "three-in-one, only difference is spells" elf felt so uninspired.

Maybe people simply prefer usable content over inspiring content.

 

[Horwath]

Oh, man, you should have seen what it was like in late 3E. The power gamers are cute fluffy kittens nowadays in comparison.

there are power players in 5E?

 

[Aldarc]

there are power players in 5E?

See Treatmonk's "hello optimancers" audience and all the tier listing videos.

 

[Horwath]

See Treatmonk's "hello optimancers" audience.

I would not call that power players.

just "don't take useless features" players.

 

[Aldarc]

I would not call that power players.

just "don't take useless features" players.

You asked. I answered.

 

[Hussar]

when they talk about potentially removing the object interaction rule, the Thief's subclass ability from 5e stops working. Just one example.

Now, just to take this particular example and run with it.

In 10 years, I can't remember the last time a rogue bothered with a free item interaction from his subclass. I'm sure it happened. I have no doubt it happened at some point, but, it was so infrequent that removing that would make pretty much zero difference.

So, I have to ask, how often has this come up in your last campaign? Or whenever you've either played (or DM'd a player who had) a rogue character? Would this make even the slightest difference in your game? Because it honestly wouldn't in mine. Until just now, I'd actually completely forgotten that this existed.

I wonder just how often people start talking about how these are "huge" changes but don't actually take the time to drill down to how much of a real impact it would have in their games.

 

[Retreater]

I guess I'm having difficulty engaging with these playtests because they're all looking at player options - which I don't think need much work in 5e. Where 5e doesn't work for me is DM-facing: the challenge ratings and encounter design, the lack of meaningful treasure distribution rules, generic monster design.
To me, the single most important thing player-focused change they can make is to the Action Economy. The bonus action has to go. I still have players every session confuse that actions can't be traded for other actions, that bonus action spells can only be cast alongside a cantrip, that the game hits a brick wall regularly when players pause to search their options for a bonus action (that they probably don't have).

 

[Blue]

I think it’s entirely possible to make a catch-all anthropomorphic animal race with a cohesive story. I mean, Shifters already kinda do so, albeit with some added lycanthropy baggage. Again I point to 4e’s Hengeyokai as an example of this kind of race done well. The key is just to make the diversity of forms part of their story.

I'm for this. We already accept that there can be subraces with different physical characteristics and culture in 2014 D&D, having a common theme but different aspects to an anthropomorphic race is barely a stretch.

 

[Horwath]

I guess I'm having difficulty engaging with these playtests because they're all looking at player options - which I don't think need much work in 5e. Where 5e doesn't work for me is DM-facing: the challenge ratings and encounter design, the lack of meaningful treasure distribution rules, generic monster design.
To me, the single most important thing player-focused change they can make is to the Action Economy. The bonus action has to go. I still have players every session confuse that actions can't be traded for other actions, that bonus action spells can only be cast alongside a cantrip, that the game hits a brick wall regularly when players pause to search their options for a bonus action (that they probably don't have).

We just house ruled that.

Action can be used for Bonus action
You can have your speed drop to 0 at the start of the turn to have extra Bonus action
Extra object interaction as Bonus action

Action->Bonus action
Move->Bonus action
Bonus action->Object interaction

works like a charm

 

[OB1]

Another thing, why?

Why go through it all if they already decided? Why make a survey? Why pretend to have gone through it and generate a video? Is this marketing really worth that much?

I'd think a bean counter would nix that idea before it was a bud.

Because change management techniques are an amazingly good way to get people to accept change. And while I do think that is the primary goal of the playtest, I also believe that WotC is listening to the survey and will refine based on it, especially around concepts that they aren't 100% sure about. To be clear, I'm assuming the cost of the playtest is justified by marketing and change management, and any actual changes they make to the original plan are an additional benefit to ensure greater success of the new product. It's smart business.