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

Incenjucar

Legend
So a key part of the infamous switch to New Coke was the new formula doing better in taste tests. I had already taken to using New Coke as the metaphor for edition changes (to emphasize that I think the general rpg industry approach of retiring you existing product line, even when it's going strong, in favor of a new product line branded as the old one is a gonzo business model) but now that that they are claiming to base every decision on surveys, OneD&D is definitively "New Coke D&D" in my mind.
...a superior product that people are too stubborn to realize they'd enjoy more than the old product despite proof?
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
out of curiosity, which one is that and why?
13th Age. It came out a bit before 5e, a passion project from a lead designer of D&D 3ed and the lead designer of D&D 4e. It was "A Love Letter to D&D", and the game that they wanted to play in their Wednesday night game. Like 5e it's quite streamlined from earlier editions, even moreso perhaps. But it brings some improvements like a fantastic background system, the Escalation Die, and a bunch of other things. It's a step more narrative and more gamist than D&D while still being familiar, and wants to tell damn big stories.

The whole system is up on their SRD, but the books are worth it for all of the designer sidebars. Why they did certain rules the way they did, suggestions on what tweak and changing the rules will lead, places they disagreed and alternate rules - it's a very hackable system, robust that you can futz with it and not worry about things going haywire.
 

mamba

Legend
13th Age. It came out a bit before 5e, a passion project from a lead designer of D&D 3ed and the lead designer of D&D 4e. It was "A Love Letter to D&D", and the game that they wanted to play in their Wednesday night game.
heard of it, never played it. I believe a new version should come next year (mostly minor changes from what I understand - sounds familiar…), might give it a try then
 

Majesticles

Villager
It's a fantasy world.
Is that really your justification? What if I said I wanted a good portion of humans to have, say, vitiligo, for no other reason than "It's a fantasy world?"
You said that no other D&D race had a physical trait that only some of them have.
No, I said that no other race is defined by a trait that only some of them have, which was the exact justification you gave here: WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!.
It isn't about need. It's about can
That's not what you said, though. You specifically said that other physical deformities don't need to be represented: WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!
There is an important difference between physical disorders and mental ones. Mental ones still have quite a lot of stigmas with them.
So does dwarfism. For a long time Achondroplasia has been seen as inherently comical, the same way being Mentally Challenged once was.
So? I don't see how that's relevant at all.
Even according to dwarfismawareness.com: Statistics Dwarfs (that's the proper plural when discussing the real-life condition, "dwarves" is the plural for the race) comprise only 1in 10,000 people. Meanwhile wikipedia says that as many as 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 500 people are born with a cleft lip: Cleft lip and cleft palate - Wikipedia and 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 250 are born with club foot: Clubfoot - Wikipedia So if 1 in 10,000 is common enough to warrant representing, then these other conditions would be even moreso.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I think we can. For example, when my son shows a sudden interest in D&D due to Stranger Things, I can hand him the latest Basic Set for 5E and he can figure it out. Although 3E did have a couple starter sets, and I think he might have been able to figure those out, I know that the next step: reading the actual main rulebook and not feeling overwhelmed, is considerably easier for someone today with 5E than it was with 3.5. Can a 12 year old figure out the 3.5 PHB? Probably, sure.....I mean, I figured out AD&D when I was 11, but the problem is that WotC is making a product for a broad audience for which there is a lot of competition with very easy to access entertainment....and that means that the PHB needs to be more accessible and easier to figure out than it used to be.
Sure, but easier to figure out doesn't equate to more fun. Don't get me wrong, I like 5e a lot. I just enjoyed 3e more. 3e was also not nearly as hard to understand and figure out as 1e/2e were. While it was harder than 5e to understand, it still wasn't hard at all. System mastery was a different beast.

I think that had 3e been out when the main stream boosts happened, D&D would have seen a huge surge just like we have with 5e. Simplicity alone isn't enough to say that it would have been smaller than 5e. We just don't know and there's no way that we can know.
 

mamba

Legend
I've generally been in agreement with a lot of what you are say. I just want to point out that none of the questions were "Do you like this better than the existing feature". I can rate pizza highly as a food I enjoy, but that doesn't mean I like it better than steak, or would want to replace a steak meal with pizza.
this assumes two things which I believe are both false.

1) that no one gave feedback outside of a rating, ie no explanations / comparisons / recommendations
2) that everyone rates a feature without considering what we have now and rates something high because it is ‘still good’ instead of low because it is ‘worse than what we have now’

That the latest playtest round has changes to dragonborn specifically because people liked the Fizban version better than the previous playtest version contradicts both of them
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Is that really your justification? What if I said I wanted a good portion of humans to have, say, vitiligo, for no other reason than "It's a fantasy world?"

No, I said that no other race is defined by a trait that only some of them have, which was the exact justification you gave here: WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!.

That's not what you said, though. You specifically said that other physical deformities don't need to be represented: WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!

So does dwarfism. For a long time Achondroplasia has been seen as inherently comical, the same way being Mentally Challenged once was.

Even according to dwarfismawareness.com: Statistics Dwarfs (that's the proper plural when discussing the real-life condition, "dwarves" is the plural for the race) comprise only 1in 10,000 people. Meanwhile wikipedia says that as many as 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 500 people are born with a cleft lip: Cleft lip and cleft palate - Wikipedia and 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 250 are born with club foot: Clubfoot - Wikipedia So if 1 in 10,000 is common enough to warrant representing, then these other conditions would be even moreso.
I don't know what you're trying to prove or achieve, but it doesn't appear to be anything constructive.
 

13th Age. It came out a bit before 5e, a passion project from a lead designer of D&D 3ed and the lead designer of D&D 4e. It was "A Love Letter to D&D", and the game that they wanted to play in their Wednesday night game. Like 5e it's quite streamlined from earlier editions, even moreso perhaps. But it brings some improvements like a fantastic background system, the Escalation Die, and a bunch of other things. It's a step more narrative and more gamist than D&D while still being familiar, and wants to tell damn big stories.

The whole system is up on their SRD, but the books are worth it for all of the designer sidebars. Why they did certain rules the way they did, suggestions on what tweak and changing the rules will lead, places they disagreed and alternate rules - it's a very hackable system, robust that you can futz with it and not worry about things going haywire.
I bought the books and still like the escalation die (and just learned how to make one on roll20 5e)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top