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


log in or register to remove this ad

1. At the mega-corps what you say about the company in public can directly affect your livelihood, especially if it's derogatory about the company. Which means at best you are only really hearing half the story from the people working there.

2. It's not so much that they are necessarily untrustworthy, it's that there's a gaping conflict of interest. Kind of like with a used car salesman or a politician.
allow me to say Walmart sucks as a company and an employer. I have a fiancé that was working there when I met her and 2 friends that 1 still does... do you know what the two that don't work there have in common... they talk 200% more trash about the company then they did when they were there... the 1 that still works there always down plays it "they are trying" type things.
I never worked for walmart, but I have worked for my share of crappy employers. I often didn't notice how bad they were until I got out.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
This was a reply to a post that explicitly called out that Wizards doesn't get to define backwards compatibility and then claim "we hit the target". Backwards compatibility has a reasonable, common usage meaning - putting up a narrower one does not make them right nor make it backwards compatible.
Well, they do, Software companies have been doing for 40 years or more. Why should anyone expect things to be significantly different with regard to D&D?
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
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.
I agree with this, though the magic item expec tation in Xanathar's (pg 135) is a blessing for part of it. But tweaking player content is the most hobbyiest facing part of this. Even Forever-DMs deal with characters.

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).
With 5e there has never been action economy trading - if players bring in rules from other games and other editions that is not on 5e or OneD&D to solve.

On the other hand I agree wholehearedly about the bonus action casting; it's confusing in several ways.
 


SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
I feel your pain. First time I tried to play Rifts, I made a rogue scholar PC, and the GM was visibly disappointed in my choice. (Shockingly, it didn't get past one session.)
Our rogue scholar lived for several months of play time.

Granted, he stayed OUT of the big outdoor mecha versus mega battles. He drove the truck and coordinated from the rear, like Professor X or something.
 

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.
in a campaign... about a year (remember I just showed I have no sense of time) ago we had a theif with a healers kit and the healer feat to bonus action stabalize and bonus action heal (once per short rest per target) as a back up healer who ended up being our primary incombat healing sometimes.

That experence made us in our artificer game have our prime healer take the healer feat even WITHOUT being able to BA it.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
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 admit, I haven't used it compared to the dash or hide use of the bonus action. I kind of wonder if this has been a problem because people forget that Fast Hands can't be used to activate magic items that require an action (DMG 141)?
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
It sure is… I swear, it feels like November was four days long. Is it just because I’m getting older that time is compressing like this, or do you think there’s a social/cultural element to it? Like, I certainly felt it before 2020 but it seems significantly more extreme since.
Both.

/throws hands up in the air and waves cane before going back into the house from the porch...
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top