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
In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy… 🤣
I can see how that would be possible with some of the responses, but, yeah, that's almost definitely not possible the majority of the time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy… 🤣
of everything they said that scared me the most... Written communication more then any other communication style can end up with you reading what you want into it.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
So maybe, just maybe, there are a lot of people that actually like the changes and you and I are in a minority?
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.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
In the video Jeremy Crawford was like “we can tell from the written responses which are based on initial impressions and which are from actual playtest experience.” I’m just like… sure you can, buddy… 🤣
Well they can somewhat.

People who responds based on just look would say things a lot differently from people who respond based on actual testing.

The thing is you will only be able to tell this in two ways.

One if they actually mentioned their actual play test experience and describe things that actually would happen in play.

Two based on their errors and things that they did wrong. There's some mistakes that you only make if you didn't play and if you did play.

But the only way to really tell the difference between a reader and a playtester is if they gave a long response that you can pick out significant aspects of what they said to figure out if they actually played the game off they just read it.

If they go on a rant you can tell. If they don't you won't.
 

OB1

Jedi Master
Back in the video for the Origins UA, they said their intent was for recharge abilities to fill the role of critical hits in monster/NPC stat blocks, as the dynamic “something more dramatic than usual happens” moments, but in a way that is more under the DM’s control. Which logically makes sense, but of course it was never going to win out against the emotional reaction to actual critical hits.
I missed that in the Origins video. Since it's in the salvageable range, maybe they make attack Crits give an option to PCs and Monsters. PCs can gain inspiration or double their damage, monsters can double their damage or recharge a spent ability.

As a side note, I hope that the 'mother may I' approach they are talking about doesn't extend to skill checks. I wasn't a fan of the way they codified Search, Influence and other skill related checks in packet 2, but agree that MMI shouldn't come into play in class abilities.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I have no doubt that there were plenty of people who filled out the survey who made it quite clear with all kinds of whackadoodle responses and points that it showed the designers those folks were just talking out their rear-ends in a stream-of-consciousness rant based on just a single reading of the packet and no playtime whatsoever.

Just like we get here on EN World after each playtest release. ;)
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
Donto
The survey didn't actually ask us whether we wanted feats at first level.

This is something that really troubles me with these surveys. They ask us to rate specifics (each feat, each background), but they aren't asking the larger questions. I may very well rate a feat full stars, and I may find a background to be fine. That doesn't mean I like the idea of a background granting a level 1 feat. WotC is taking specific ratings and painting an incorrect picture at the broad level with them.
Don't they normally have a free text section where you can state things like this?
 



Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top