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...

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


log in or register to remove this ad




mamba

Legend
But, if you do adjust individual creatures CRs and what constitutes encounters of different difficulties, and you actually used that system to build adventures, then by definition it is going to break the encounter design of those adventures? How is this even a point of connection? It is very basic logic.
No, by definition it has zero impact on the encounter design of already published adventures
We built this adventure on the premise that A+B=C. But then we realized A+B=D and codified that in the rules. Since C=/=D, the adventures are therefore broken.
yes, it could expose them for being broken, but the encounter would either have been fine or broken regardless, the only difference is it being exposed
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Yes, if the adventures didn't actually follow the design for CR, then it won't matter. If that's the case, congratulations, you have proven that CR and encounter design are naughty word and the "fix" for 1D&D should be to just eliminate it.

I have to ask you to keep the rhetoric away from curse words.

But other than that, no - for one thing, when most folks say CR and encounter design guidelines are "broken" they are saying, "broken" but the problem is actually, "doesn't work the way they want".

For another, these guidelines being flawed does not automatically mean the fix is to eliminate them entirely. That does not follow in the least. When your tire goes flat, you don't eliminate tires - you repair or replace them. 'Cuz, so far, making cars levitate isn't practical.
 

JEB

Legend
Do them the courtesy of not dismissing them out of hand because it's not like you were going to like what WotC made anyways were they to do it.
Who said I, or anyone else in that sub-thread, was dismissing 3P products out of hand? I have literally hundreds of 3P products for 5E, between print and digital, and integrated many of their rules into my games, sometimes in place of the official option. If an official take on, say, non-Medium PCs wasn't to my liking, I could just use one of the alternative approaches. In the meantime, such rules' existence would benefit others who do rely on official options. Seems like a win-win to me.
 

JEB

Legend
I was thinking about this and I think it is highly unlikely, mostly because their stated goal is backwards compatibility with adventures. If they fix CR and encounter design,they break all of those adventures.
Or, they have an excuse to revise and re-release existing adventures in new, "rebalanced" forms.
 

Jaeger

That someone better
It's hard to not view this in light of something Jeremy said back in 2018: that a majority of D&D players don't use feats.

Evidently they all very much wanted to though...


Again, we have many PHB species -- independent of elves -- with fewer differences than gnomes and halflings currently have.

And they should be combined or eliminated altogether as needed.


They're not removing either of them.

Of course not!

I have my preferences but I'm not delusional.

If anything, I fully expect WotC to add new races and sub-variants as often as they think that they can get away with it.

They sure aren't gonna let the arselings die on the vine with their 60%ish approval rating. Those guys are absolutely getting rehabbed in every playtest packet until they pass muster!

Yes, I could go through the survey process to 'make my voice heard'... But everyone and their dog here knows that there are some things that WotC just isn't gonna do. And there are also some things that are getting done come hell or high water.
 
Last edited:

Retreater

Legend
Not sure I follow, reprinting the 2014 edition seems to be the opposite of real change, so why would you want them to do that.
I want real change. And if they're not going to do that, if we're just going to get a lukewarm revision that doesn't address anything meaningful, they might as well just slap a foil cover on 5e and call it "Commemorative 50th anniversary edition."
The stuff that they're changing is nothing that anyone has asked for, nothing that has a quantifiable change in the experience.
Are DMs beating down the door to tell them to take away monster crits? Are players demanding tremorsense for their dwarves? Is anyone even requesting "a slightly updated version of 5e that most people can't even tell has changed?"
Do it big - or just throw some new art in a book and incorporate errata (like the 2e Players Option era "black border" books).
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top