WotC Survey Result: Classes OK, Eberron Needs Work

WotC has posted the latest D&D survey results. The survey covered the character classes not included in the previous survey - the barbarian, bard, monk, paladin, sorcerer, and warlock - and the recent Eberron material. Overall, it reports general satisfaction, with concerns in specific areas. The big ticket issues were sorcerer options, monk Way of the Four Elements opton, and more sweeping issues with the Eberron stuff, icluding the warforged and artificer. Mike Mearls says, but doesn't announce, that "I expect that you’ll see some revisions to the Eberron material before the end of the year."

The survey report is as follows:

Overall, the barbarian, bard, monk, paladin, sorcerer, and warlock all graded very well. The areas of concern were limited to specific areas of the classes.

For instance, we’ve heard consistent feedback that the sorcerer doesn’t offer enough options within the class. Not everyone is excited about the wild mage, thus leaving some players with only the dragon sorcerer as an option. It’s no coincidence that we showed off a favored soul option for the sorcerer in Unearthed Arcana. Plus, we have another sorcerer option on tap for that article series.

We also saw some dissatisfaction with the monk’s Way of the Four Elements option. Feedback indicates that this path focuses too much on adding more ways to spend ki points, rather than giving new options or maneuvers that a monk can use without tapping into that resource. We’re doing some monk design right now that used the Way of the Four Elements as an option, so we’ve shifted that future work in response to that feedback.

Like with the first wave of class feedback, things remain very positive. The issues we’ve seen look like they can be resolved by trending toward what people liked in our future design. Nothing stood out as needing serious changes.

The Eberron material, as you can expect for stuff that is in draft form, needs some more refinement. The changeling will likely have its ability scores and Shapechanger ability tweaked. The shifter scored well, so expect a few shifts there (pardon the pun) but nothing too dramatic.

The warforged had the most interesting feedback. I think we’re going to take a look at presenting a slightly different approach, one that ties back into the original race’s armored body options to make them feel more like innately equipped characters.

The artificer still needs a good amount of work, so that one will go back to the drawing board. I think the class needs a more unique, evocative feature that does a better job of capturing a character who crafts and uses custom items. We played it too conservatively in our initial design.

I expect that you’ll see some revisions to the Eberron material before the end of the year. Unearthed Arcana is proving a useful resource in giving new game content every month while giving us the chance to test drive mechanics.

Thank you all for taking part in these surveys and making our job of producing great RPG content much easier. I’m looking forward to seeing how our work evolves and hope you enjoy the option of weighing in on our work.

 

[delericho]

I don't know, they swore no PHB2.

Yeah, so they'll call it "Unearthed Arcana" or "Advanced Players Guide", or something else. A rose by another name...

Though, I still think the point of playing the game is for the storyline contained in the adventure and the focus on your character's personality.

I know, and it's a good strategy. But nonetheless I think they'll find they hit a point where they start losing ground to whatever the "new hotness" is - be it a Pathfinder 2nd Ed, or some new game entirely, or even just a new crop of video games. People like new things, so if D&D stays still, I fear it will lose out.

Besides, printing a big supplement of new stuff should delay the inevitable 5.5e (or whatever they call that), so that's probably a good thing.

Though, we already know that there WILL be new races and new class features. They've already been released. You can get them online. Putting them into a book doesn't really help anyone.

I disagree, sort of. Compiling all these things together (either into a single hardbound book, or a PDF collection, or a DDI 5e) certainly does help - it means we have one source to reference rather than a scattered selection of web materials (many of which may have multiple versions).

Print is already dead.

Egon Spengler said that in Ghostbusters, 30 years ago. Yet, somehow, it's still here.

So I'll agree that print is dying, but saying it's dead is premature. Indeed, right now I think it's more likely that D&D 6e will appear in print than not.

(You're certainly right about the trends, though. A day may come when the clatter of printers fails, when we forsake all pages and break all bindings, but it is not this day! An hour of tablets, and electronic glows, when the age of print comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we read! Or something. )

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think proficiencies or spellcasting rates by themselves are reason enough to jam the artificer anywhere than under wizard. If we can have a spell-less ranger, we can have a half-caster wizard who wears medium armor and wields simple weapons and has more skills if that's what seems appealing.

 

[Klaus]

I don't think proficiencies or spellcasting rates by themselves are reason enough to jam the artificer anywhere than under wizard. If we can have a spell-less ranger, we can have a half-caster wizard who wears medium armor and wields simple weapons and has more skills if that's what seems appealing.

At what point you can change the Wizard until it's no longer a Wizard? It's pretty easy to remove the spellcasting progression from the Ranger and replace with stuff at certain levels, since the Ranger already had other stuff to begin with (spellcasting was just the icing on the cake). But spellcasting *is* the Wizard's entire cake. If you take the Wizard, add skills, light armor, simple weapons, reduce his spellcasting by 1/3, you're not making a variant Wizard, you're making an Arcane Trickster.

 

[delericho]

I don't think proficiencies or spellcasting rates by themselves are reason enough to jam the artificer anywhere than under wizard.

No, by themselves they're not. That said...

A class really should have some 'thing' going for it, something that makes the class unique. So Wizard is distinct from Sorcerer because of the emphasis on the schools vs the emphasis on metamagic. (Or, if you prefer, the difference between knowing many spells but having to prepare them versus knowing few but having them always available.)

I would argue that the Artificer's main 'thing' is that he derives his power from the items he crafts/carries, in a way that no other class does: he's Iron Man to the wizard's Doctor Strange or the fighter's Hulk. That seems to me to be unique enough to stand alone.

 

[I'm A Banana]

At what point you can change the Wizard until it's no longer a Wizard? It's pretty easy to remove the spellcasting progression from the Ranger and replace with stuff at certain levels, since the Ranger already had other stuff to begin with (spellcasting was just the icing on the cake). But spellcasting *is* the Wizard's entire cake.

I think since you're calling it an Artificer, and not a Wizard, it should definitely look more like the former than the latter. That doesn't mean it's not also the latter.

I don't agree that spellcasting is the Wizard's entire cake, any more than it's the sorcerer's entire cake or the cleric's entire cake or the bard's entire cake. Wizards are not just one-trick ponies, and reducing their spellcasting isn't any more dramatic than subtracting expertise dice from fighters or adding spellcasting to rogues (or removing spells from rangers).

Using magic through knowledge is part of the wizard's identity, and it's part of the artificer's identity, too. They both use magic and they are both trained to know how magic works. Artificers use items that have it, wizards cast spells from memory, but they're both defined to a large extent by their magic. An artificer who didn't make magic items wouldn't be an artificer - she's not defined by her magic at that point. A fighter who forged a magic sword blessed by the gods wouldn't be an artificer - he hasn't got the magical knowledge, he's just special.

If you take the Wizard, add skills, light armor, simple weapons, reduce his spellcasting by 1/3, you're not making a variant Wizard, you're making an Arcane Trickster.

No sneak attack, no cunning action, no mage hand tricks...a class is more than its list of spells.

So Wizard is distinct from Sorcerer because of the emphasis on the schools vs the emphasis on metamagic. (Or, if you prefer, the difference between knowing many spells but having to prepare them versus knowing few but having them always available.)

It's a lot more than that. A Wizard is distinct from a Sorcerer because the Wizard masters magic through training and specialization, while a Sorcerer masters magic through self-confidence and control. The spellbook and schools are one reflection of how training and specialization can look, and metamagic and a list of spells known are one reflection of how magic through self-confidence and control can look.

I would argue that the Artificer's main 'thing' is that he derives his power from the items he crafts/carries, in a way that no other class does: he's Iron Man to the wizard's Doctor Strange or the fighter's Hulk. That seems to me to be unique enough to stand alone.

To me, without anything more robust, that just looks like knowledge and specialization by another name. Nothing is stopping me form playing a wizard tomorrow that is Iron Man - hell, a dwarf abjurer gets most of the way there without even a cosmetic refluff. And then if instead of "preparing spells in my mind" I say I am "preparing infusions in my wands" well, who is going to stop me?

As always, not saying that an artificer can't be a new class, or a subset of some other class, I'm just questioning the thought process that says they should be because of their proficiencies or their take on spellcasting.

 

[Mercule]

I went over the 3e artificer, and found that the half-caster skeleton of the Paladin or Ranger is a better fit.

Or, if you want to make it really distinct, the Warlock (replacing Pact Magic with Infusion Magic, and Invocations with Craftings).

That was exactly my thought. It doesn't "feel" right as a Warlock sub-class, and I really like the Warlock being unique, so maybe not a great fit. The half-caster of Paladin/Ranger might be better.

 

[darjr]

Didn't see the link in the thread.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/march-survey-results

 

[delericho]

It's a lot more than that. A Wizard is distinct from a Sorcerer because the Wizard masters magic through training and specialization, while a Sorcerer masters magic through self-confidence and control. The spellbook and schools are one reflection of how training and specialization can look, and metamagic and a list of spells known are one reflection of how magic through self-confidence and control can look.

Okay, I don't have a problem with that.

To me, without anything more robust, that just looks like knowledge and specialization by another name. Nothing is stopping me form playing a wizard tomorrow that is Iron Man - hell, a dwarf abjurer gets most of the way there without even a cosmetic refluff. And then if instead of "preparing spells in my mind" I say I am "preparing infusions in my wands" well, who is going to stop me?

Here I disagree. Actually for exactly the same reason you give above: the difference is a lot more than that, and the artificer is more than just "some infusions in wands".

 

[Klaus]

I think since you're calling it an Artificer, and not a Wizard, it should definitely look more like the former than the latter. That doesn't mean it's not also the latter.

I don't agree that spellcasting is the Wizard's entire cake, any more than it's the sorcerer's entire cake or the cleric's entire cake or the bard's entire cake. Wizards are not just one-trick ponies, and reducing their spellcasting isn't any more dramatic than subtracting expertise dice from fighters or adding spellcasting to rogues (or removing spells from rangers).

I disagree. Look at the Wizard's table. He gets Spellcasting, plus a way of getting some more spellcasting (Arcane Recovery), 4 school features (which mostly revolve around spellcasting), plus 2 features giving more spells. Look at the Ranger: apart from Primeval Awareness, none of the other 11 features (not counting simple imrpovements) deal with spells in any way.

Plus, Wizards have spells readily available to them. Artificers don't (at least as originally conceived). They could patch up constructs, temporarily improve weapons and armor, and sometimes create objects out of thin air. Any other spellcasting was dependant on the Artificer creating an item during downtime.

Wizards and Sorcerers are all about direct access and mastery of magic (either through rigorous study or through innate talent). Artificers are all about indirect access to magic. In that regard, Warlocks are closer to Artificers than the other spellcasting classes (after all, what is a Book of Shadows if not a "magic item" that grants its creator the ability to cast two spells at-will and use rituals?).

 

[gyor]

Bard makes the most sense, it has access to healing and support spells, its a skill monkey, it can borrow spells from other classes. Even the Bards song can be fluff as reciting arcane formulas.

Charisma vs. Int is the problem, but a variantion option to switch out normal bard spell casting could work.

But honestly the best choice is starting from scratch and make it and Psion they're own classes.