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

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Yeah, it's interesting the 5E design team defaulted to "aura would have to scale up" instead of "aura doesn't scale up, sorry".

Kobold Press's take on centaurs also has them Large size, but with a Medium-size torso for armor/weapon purposes. MCDM also provided somewhat more complicated rules for Tiny and Large PCs in an issue of Arcadia.
Level Up handles large heritages well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

darjr

I crit!
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.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
You do realize that they aren't talking about their methodology right? They're distilling it down for those of us who aren't statististions and really, really, don't care about the math. Why would you assume that not only are they doing it in-house, but also they should lay every point out in the open so that armchair statisticians should be able to second guess every single thing they say?

FFS, take it at face value. Presume, just for a moment, that a multi-million dollar project that has this enormous load of information, just maybe hires a firm that knows what they're doing?

Why the automatic presumption that they are lying or being deceptive? They're telling you flat out that with certain bands they will react in particular ways. Seems pretty straightforward.

Oh, and, they have to be able to distill that huge amount of information in a couple of months. :erm: Yeah, I think I'll settle for taking what they say at pretty much face value thanks. Endlessly kvetching about their methodology when you aren't actually privy to it is a bit too far into conspiracy theory territory for me.
I think he was more intimation incompetence than malice.
 

They clarified that they need to tweak the ardlings, one of the main issues is that they're too close to Aasimar so they're going to be their own thing. I'm personally not a big fan of furries, but a lot of people are, hence tortles, harengon and tabaxi. Good thing no one is forcing me to play one. 🤷‍♂️
True. But you might need to DM to them.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You really think people would rather respond to a lengthy fiddly survey rather than just complain on Reddit (or ENWorld)? Option 2 is so much easier, and sometimes you just want to get your feelings out there.
Speaking for myself, I'm much more likely to complain to the company asking for my opinion than I am on some a forum, though I'm not shy here, either. I let them know in no uncertain terms what I thought.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Edit: What I mean by that last point is that they are basically saying "Hey, we've got cat-people and turtle-people and several flavours of bird-people , etc., but if none of that is working for you...why just be an Aardling and be whatever fill-in-the-blank-people you want. Which is flexible, but also going to make it hard to build a cohesive Aardling racial story.
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.
 

Hussar

Legend
I think he was more intimation incompetence than malice.
That's not really any different though. Good grief, WotC has been doing this sort of thing for more than 20 years. It's not like this is their first rodeo. And, before anyone gets on about 4e, let's just remember that they did listen to a LOT of gamers for 4e - notably RPGA. But, because they focused on organized play elements, home play became problematic.

There's no sense here that they are only listening to some of the fandom.
 



Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top