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.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

Yeah, there are ways. You could island of Doctor Moreau it, for example. But I think this also risks stepping on top of the identity of races like Tabaxi, Kenku, and Tortles. It just starts to become cluttered/confusing. "Wait...are you an Ardling Turtle-Folk? Or a Tortle? What is the difference, again?"

Also...I hate the name "Ardling" because I see "Yardling" miniatures for sale in the FLGS and they are like kiddie versions of RPG minis.

I'm not opposed to the concept - I am a serious miniatures enthusiast and painter, and I've got tons of cool minis this would let me use within official 5e rules. I'm looking forward to seeing how WotC approach this general concept from another angle.

 

[Charlaquin]

There's a scientific reason for this. The PBS-funded Youtube channel "Be Smart" (previously known as "It's Okay to be Smart") has a video on the effect. Long story short, stress messes with your sense of time.

Makes sense. I also started transitioning in not-online spaces with what seems to have been the worst possible timing, so that’s definitely contributing to stress levels. sigh. Anyway, thanks for the video recommendation, I’ll check it out and stop derailing this thread with unprompted venting

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Makes sense. I also started transitioning in not-online spaces with what seems to have been the worst possible timing, so that’s definitely contributing to stress levels. sigh. Anyway, thanks for the video recommendation, I’ll check it out and stop detailing this thread with unprompted venting

No problem. I'm an autistic nerd. Infodumping and going off on unrelated tangents in conversations are some of my favorite pastimes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, there are ways. You could island of Doctor Moreau it, for example. But I think this also risks stepping on top of the identity of races like Tabaxi, Kenku, and Tortles. It just starts to become cluttered/confusing. "Wait...are you an Ardling Turtle-Folk? Or a Tortle? What is the difference, again?"

Also...I hate the name "Ardling" because I see "Yardling" miniatures for sale in the FLGS and they are like kiddie versions of RPG minis.

I'm not opposed to the concept - I am a serious miniatures enthusiast and painter, and I've got tons of cool minis this would let me use within official 5e rules. I'm looking forward to seeing how WotC approach this general concept from another angle.

I’m not too worried about the toe-stepping. Being a fan of anthropomorphic animals myself, I am confident most of us will always favor the option that more specifically expresses the animal we want if one is available, and use the generic option when one isn’t. That is to say, if you see a tortoise-person, it’s almost always going to be a tortle, because that expresses the idea of a tortoise-person with more mechanical specificity than a generic anthro race will.

I agree Ardling is a terrible name though.

 

[Majesticles]

Other D&D races have a bunch of defining characteristics, a lot of them magical. Why can't Humans have the unique trait of the dwarfism mutation.

Because that makes no sense. It'd be like if the defining trait of the hazodee was, say, that some of them have fangs or that some of them don't need to sleep. Also, are you seriously telling me that none of the other races ever have deformities?

Because it doesn't make much of a mechanical difference, is really easy to represent mechanically, and is pretty inoffensive to include.

But what about the myriad of other deformities that meet that description?

You can. But people with gigantism are only a few feet taller than the average person. So they'd still be Medium and there would be basically no mechanical differences.

Robert Wadlow was 8ft, the size of an ogre, which are Large.

No, no, no, no, no. As someone that has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, I do not want WotC or any D&D publisher to touch the condition mechanically with a 10 foot pole. No. There is no good reason to every include mechanics for it, and basically any mechanical representation is doomed to be extremely offensive. No. Just no.

So do I. +1 Int -2Wis -2Cha. Easy.

Because those disorders would actually effect day-to-day life in a D&D world, and there might be magical treatments.

And you think having stumpy limbs and being half the height of all your peers doesn't?

"The logical conclusion here is for WotC to crack open Grey's Anatomy and release an entire splatbook statting every single physical deformity, even ones whose sufferers have no business adventuring." No it isn't.

Are we being inclusive or not?

Because including one genetic condition is not and should not be a slippery slope that requires you to require all of them.

But what abut when people with those conditions start badgering WotC for stats?

Having six fingers is actually a dominant gene. Having 5 fingers in the real world was originally a genetic mutation. Why do D&D humans have 5 fingers instead of 6?

Because that's how evolution works. By that logic our characters should be archaea drifting in the prehistoric ocean. Also, just because an allele is dominant doesn't automatically mean it's the one that came first, especially considering that the majority of other vertebrates also have five fingers.

 

[Minigiant]

Not Halfling got a 78% Which means that it is good but it has a noticeable issue. My guess is Halflings' Luck not working with Heroic Inspiration.

Dragonborn's main gimmick was bad and Aardling was out of focus so those dropped to the 60%
But

What pull Gnome out the 80%? Did people not like Gnome features just being upgrades of spells?That's my guess.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

What pull Gnome out the 80%? Did people not like Gnome features just being upgrades of spells? That's my guess.

People generally don't like Gnomes. Or, at least, they're everyone's favorite punching bag in the PHB.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Because that makes no sense. It'd be like if the defining trait of the hazodee was, say, that some of them have fangs or that some of them don't need to sleep. Also, are you seriously telling me that none of the other races ever have deformities?

No, they could be just as easily saying that Humans are the only PHB race that dwarfism common enough to call for its inclusion.

And there are already "only some members of this race have this trait" in D&D. Only some Kobolds have wings (Urds). Only some Hobgoblins have red or blue noses, and it's seen as a blessing from their god. Only some people are born with inherent magic (Sorcerers).

But what about the myriad of other deformities that meet that description?

Most of them don't need representation. Or would take way more words to include than just the additional two words "Small or" to their possible sizes.

Robert Wadlow was 8ft, the size of an ogre, which are Large.

No, Ogres are 9-10 feet tall. Goliaths can get up to 8 feet tall, and they're Medium.

So do I. +1 Int -2Wis -2Cha. Easy.

No. Just no. Autism is a spectrum. There is a vast variety of different traits that people on the spectrum can have. There is no single "autism mechanic" that could respectfully and correctly represent it in the game. And it doesn't need mechanical representation, that's just something you can roleplay.

There are many, many ways that saying "autistic people are smarter, less charismatic, and less perceptive than neurotypicals" in a game book can go very wrong. Not to mention that you're not even covering other typical traits, like bad motor skills (Dexterity), the 3 different "levels", emotional confusion, and commonly comorbid conditions (ARFID, ADHD, EDS, and many others).

There is no good way or reason to mechanically represent Autism or any other mental disorder in D&D. It's hard, it's messy, it's controversial. "Sometimes people are 3 feet tall" isn't hard, isn't messy, and isn't anywhere near as controversial as representing autism in D&D.

Are we being inclusive or not?

Inclusiveness isn't a requirement to include every possible option imaginable. That's impossible. The act of including one genetic disorder or mutation doesn't mean that they have to include all others. They don't have to give mechanical representation to people without earlobes or those with heart disorders because they included a few words about how dwarfism exists.

But what abut when people with those conditions start badgering WotC for stats?

I have autism. I will actively fight against anyone that wants it to have any kind of mechanical representation in D&D or any other TTRPG. Even other people on the spectrum. It is not a good idea. I highly doubt that any notable amount of people of any genetic disorder have "badgered" WotC into including their condition in the official books. What I suspect was the reasoning behind this inclusion was the recent changes to many races in Monsters of the Multiverse and Spelljammer (mainly the planetouched and beastfolk) that allowed for characters to be Small and Medium, and a designer at WotC recognized that this is also possible in the real world for humans, and decided to include it because it's fairly accurate to the real world. It wasn't necessary. I just thought that it was nice, like how they included sign language in the first playtest document. No one was "badgering" for its inclusion.

Because that's how evolution works. By that logic our characters should be archaea drifting in the prehistoric ocean. Also, just because an allele is dominant doesn't automatically mean it's the one that came first, especially considering that the majority of other vertebrates also have five fingers.

Exactly my point! "Mutations shouldn't be represented in the game" is a terrible guideline for what gets included in the book or not, because all of modern life is a series of mutations on the tree of life that all go back to single-celled organisms a few billion years ago. Humans are a genetic condition caused by random mutations over the course of billions of years. We're just an accident, yet we're included in the conscious design of D&D. However, our ancestors, proto-humans like Australopithecus aren't included in D&D, yet we're just a mutation of them. Neither are our cousins (some of which we interbred with), like the Denisovans and Neanderthals. Neanderthals would say that we're the ones with the "genetic condition", because they came first, and that they should be included in the game, not us.

And, six digits on the limbs that became hands did come first. It just died out a long, long time ago. Having five digits is the mutation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The problem with large races is simple. Unless you restrict them to invertibrates or the like they get stuck in places in your average dungeon. In a wilderness adventure they are fine, but in an average dungeon crawl they have perma disadvantage and the party might have to leave them behind.

 

[Hussar]

Not Halfling got a 78% Which means that it is good but it has a noticeable issue. My guess is Halflings' Luck not working with Heroic Inspiration.

Dragonborn's main gimmick was bad and Aardling was out of focus so those dropped to the 60%
But

What pull Gnome out the 80%? Did people not like Gnome features just being upgrades of spells?That's my guess.

At the risk of opening that can of worms again, might I suggest that this is just another example of where halflings and gnomes just don't really register all that much on people's radars?

I have a sneaking suspicion that you could literally hand out twenty dollar bills to promote halfling PC's and it would still not rate very highly.