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.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Do they? I don’t think most adventurers really observed encounter building guidelines anyway.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Do they? I don’t think most adventurers really observed encounter building guidelines anyway.

Nes and yo. Naybe. As I'm given to understand, CR is doubly unhelpful. Firstly, the actual CRs of monsters in the books were "tweaked" (that is, made unsystematic in order to try to make them more functional/representative) before publication. Secondly, the formulae for calculating CR for a homebrewed monster are...approximations in absolutely ideal cases (read: big bags of HP that don't have any special features).

BUT that first thing still means that there was some effort at trying to make the encounters balanced, even if they didn't actually follow any systematic method to do so. As a result, introducing an actually systematic, functional system would, formally speaking, make older content outdated. It's not that you cannot use such old content, but that doing so would in fact actually be a loss of functionality. Sort of like trying to work with an outdated but still functional document format; it's not that .xls doesn't work anymore, but rather that increased functionality in .xlsx files means that trying to use both file types together is likely to result in...wrinkles, at the very least.

 

[Majesticles]

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

Why the heck would that be the case? even other animals have dwarfism!

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).

Kobolds are defined by their connection to dragons, not the fact that some of them have wings (and you can't play as an urd anyway). Hobgoblins are defined by their warlike culture, not the color of their noses. Sorcerers are a class, not a race; all of them have magic, not some.

Most of them don't need representation

And dwarfism does? Why? Why does dwarfism need to be represented?

There is no good way or reason to mechanically represent Autism or any other mental disorder in D&D.

So physical disorders should be represented, but mental one's shouldn't? Why? That seems arbitrary.

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.

That wasn't my point. My point was that a race's listed features are supposed to be the norm, not the sum totality of possibilities. Nobody looked at the 5e stats for a tiefling and assumed that they magically never had physical deformities just because such features weren't listed.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nes and yo. Naybe. As I'm given to understand, CR is doubly unhelpful. Firstly, the actual CRs of monsters in the books were "tweaked" (that is, made unsystematic in order to try to make them more functional/representative) before publication. Secondly, the formulae for calculating CR for a homebrewed monster are...approximations in absolutely ideal cases (read: big bags of HP that don't have any special features).

BUT that first thing still means that there was some effort at trying to make the encounters balanced, even if they didn't actually follow any systematic method to do so. As a result, introducing an actually systematic, functional system would, formally speaking, make older content outdated. It's not that you cannot use such old content, but that doing so would in fact actually be a loss of functionality. Sort of like trying to work with an outdated but still functional document format; it's not that .xls doesn't work anymore, but rather that increased functionality in .xlsx files means that trying to use both file types together is likely to result in...wrinkles, at the very least.

So, still compatible. “Outdated, but usable” sounds exactly like how backwards-compatibility tends to work.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Why the heck would that be the case? even other animals have dwarfism!

It's a fantasy world.

Kobolds are defined by their connection to dragons, not the fact that some of them have wings (and you can't play as an urd anyway). Hobgoblins are defined by their warlike culture, not the color of their noses. Sorcerers are a class, not a race; all of them have magic, not some.

But Hobgoblins occasionally having colorful noses is a (probably genetic) trait that doesn't affect their playability. You said that no other D&D race had a physical trait that only some of them have. Whether or not that trait is magical or a defining aspect of them is not what we were discussing. You're moving the goalposts.

Humans aren't defined by their height, either.

And dwarfism does? Why? Why does dwarfism need to be represented?

It isn't about need. It's about can. As in "can it be included easily without taking up a ton of space or being disruptive". This isn't disruptive. It's just a small bit of inclusion.

So physical disorders should be represented, but mental one's shouldn't? Why? That seems arbitrary.

There is an important difference between physical disorders and mental ones. Mental ones still have quite a lot of stigmas with them. And they're a lot harder to represent accurately and respectfully than "some people are 3-4 feet tall instead of the usual 5-6 feet".

That wasn't my point. My point was that a race's listed features are supposed to be the norm, not the sum totality of possibilities. Nobody looked at the 5e stats for a tiefling and assumed that they magically never had physical deformities just because such features weren't listed.

So? I don't see how that's relevant at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, still compatible. “Outdated, but usable” sounds exactly like how backwards-compatibility tends to work.

As I've said before, it depends on how one defines the terms. Some feel "backwards-compatible" means you shouldn't have to change anything in order to make use of anything--that any changes, even tiny superficial ones, are too much. I don't hold that position, but I'm sympathetic to it. Another says that the only way it's not backwards-compatible is if it is completely impossible to make use of old material. I'm...pretty skeptical about that position.

Obviously, most positions are going to be somewhere between those extremes. But I definitely get the impression that people have been drifting in a fairly permissive direction on what they consider to be "backwards compatibility." E.g., by the standard I've seen posited, every version of D&D except 4e definitely is "backwards compatible," and 4e is only just shy thereof.

I, personally, think that the changes we've already seen in the limited playtest documents we've gotten thus far do qualify as requiring enough adaptation that it's not truly backwards-compatible anymore. To use a physical metaphor, you cannot plug a "One D&D" plug into an "original 5e" socket--you need an adapter. The adapter is cheap to make and readily available, but it is an adapter nonetheless.

 

[Remathilis]

As I've said before, it depends on how one defines the terms. Some feel "backwards-compatible" means you shouldn't have to change anything in order to make use of anything--that any changes, even tiny superficial ones, are too much. I don't hold that position, but I'm sympathetic to it. Another says that the only way it's not backwards-compatible is if it is completely impossible to make use of old material. I'm...pretty skeptical about that position.

Obviously, most positions are going to be somewhere between those extremes. But I definitely get the impression that people have been drifting in a fairly permissive direction on what they consider to be "backwards compatibility." E.g., by the standard I've seen posited, every version of D&D except 4e definitely is "backwards compatible," and 4e is only just shy thereof.

I, personally, think that the changes we've already seen in the limited playtest documents we've gotten thus far do qualify as requiring enough adaptation that it's not truly backwards-compatible anymore. To use a physical metaphor, you cannot plug a "One D&D" plug into an "original 5e" socket--you need an adapter. The adapter is cheap to make and readily available, but it is an adapter nonetheless.

I'd say they are on the level of 1e/2e or 3.5/Pathfinder. If you compare a specific element (such as the stats for a hill giant or the fireball spell) they differ, but if you lob a fireball at a hill giant, the mechanics of the resolution will be the same.

Just a few reasons why I feel 1D is compatible with 5e as compared to older editions:

1. The base math/mechanics hasn't changed. The game is still 1d20+bp+stat. Bounded accuracy is still in play. Advantage and disadvantage are still the go-to modifiers.

2. The spell resolution system is the same. Six rolled saves based on ability scores, spells scale with slot level.

3. HP levels are roughly the same. HD still works, the rests mechanics haven't greatly changed. Death saves are still a thing.

4. There has been limited removal of options so far. The changes so far have been the removal of unique stats for half-species and some wizard and cleric subs. It sounds like the vast majority of options will still exist, unlike previous editions that removed classes.

5. Monster math seems like it will be close enough that existing monsters will be compatible. Coupled with the lack of major changes to the resolution system, it means most modules can be run in the system as is.

These are not true of previous editions of D&D. I can't use a 4e power in 5e except as inspiration for a new spell or ability. A 3e spell that scales will caster level and targets fortitude can't be used as is. I can't use a kit, a prestige class, or an epic destiny in 5e again without ground-up rebuilding, but I'm pretty sure I can use most subclasses with just some elbow grease. That's what backwards compatibility means to me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In my opinion; CR is impossible to get right. Too many variables, too many moving targets.

At best they can only give you a rough guideline to bounce your game experience off of.

yeah but I think they could get that rough guide a bit better is all I am saying

Literally their plan.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but no that is NOT the plan. they aren't just relaseing the 2014 book. No they aren't just releasing the 2014 book+ errata, no the are not releaseing the 2014 book + errata + Tasha's (up till now) optional add ons.

They are rewriting the book. Bard Ranger and Cleric are already very different, and the entire concept of feats and race/ancestry/heritage/species. Every feat is being rewritten and rebalanced, and spells are changing... now MAYBE you could argue feat and spell are just really advanced errata, and the race change is a zeitgeist change. BUT they are changing conditions as well and how rests work... any one or maybe even two or three of these may make it look hard to call it the same game as 2014, but all at once this is NOT the 2014 book, this is NOT 5e anymore.

Now that isn't saying it wont be good. Its not saying I wont (maybe) enjoy it more the base 5e... but it is someting new

 

[Charlaquin]

As I've said before, it depends on how one defines the terms. Some feel "backwards-compatible" means you shouldn't have to change anything in order to make use of anything--that any changes, even tiny superficial ones, are too much. I don't hold that position, but I'm sympathetic to it. Another says that the only way it's not backwards-compatible is if it is completely impossible to make use of old material. I'm...pretty skeptical about that position.

Obviously, most positions are going to be somewhere between those extremes. But I definitely get the impression that people have been drifting in a fairly permissive direction on what they consider to be "backwards compatibility." E.g., by the standard I've seen posited, every version of D&D except 4e definitely is "backwards compatible," and 4e is only just shy thereof.

I, personally, think that the changes we've already seen in the limited playtest documents we've gotten thus far do qualify as requiring enough adaptation that it's not truly backwards-compatible anymore. To use a physical metaphor, you cannot plug a "One D&D" plug into an "original 5e" socket--you need an adapter. The adapter is cheap to make and readily available, but it is an adapter nonetheless.

Yeah, I don’t disagree that 1D&D seems likely to be too different from 5e for “backwards compatible” to be an accurate description. I just don’t think that a better CR and encounter building system would make it backwards incompatible with 5e adventures.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ew, do they claw? They really are sad.

(I make it a rule to not interact with dogs smaller than my cats.)

I mean I have been scratched by yorkies and miniature schnauzer but also dalmatians and huskies and shepherds. none of them I would think as there main attack though.