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."

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

halfling rogue

Explorer
Regarding the new survey:

It looks like they're trying to judge how and when people play in order to meet the needs of gaming groups. At least that's what I gathered from the questions being asked. As usual I skipped the Is X more powerful/weaker than Y? questions, and I wished I could have skipped (or written in a different answer) the questions asking about your Ideal or Realistic expectations for what level a campaign should end on. I've never based the completion of a campaign on what level the PCs are.

But it did afford me the opportunity to (hopefully) show them my gaming schedule and how little we get to play. I took the opportunity to write in more or less that while we think the new APs are great, that there is no way we'd be able to play them as a group because of our schedules. That my group never completes full campaigns as such and that we require shorter one shots or an adventure that lasts only a few sessions, much like Lost Mine or some of the old AD&D modules with drag and drop playability. I don't know if they will heed any of it, but it is nice to get that info straight to the source rather than just bitching about it on here:D
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Goodness gracious, it sounds like Mike is saying the game won't receive any errata.

Uh, what? I think you're reading into things that are not there. Why do you think he said that?

Does anyone else but me feel lied to?

Hyperbole

The game is great but it's not perfect, and feedback from the masses is not sufficient to say that something ain't broke.

Umm...feedback from the masses IS sufficient to say if something is broken. Why wouldn't it be for a game like this?

Not sure if I'm overreacting here...

IMO you are.

...but I hope if he sits back and coasts on the launch success indefinitely that they replace him.

You're calling for the firing of a person? A real person, who posts here sometimes, who is a gamer? Because you personally are not happy with the errata?

Think about how that makes you look.

Survey results are not sufficient to claim that a product has no issues worth fixing.

Except for the fact it's a good way to tell if your audience thinks something is or is not working well.

I'm incredulous at this kind of arrogance displayed here.

You can say that again! Irony...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

spinozajack

Banned
Banned
You realize that a survey is not equivalent to the truth on any given issue, right? Millions of people voted for Bush, who thinks the world was created 6000 years ago. Do that make it true? Because of votes? Seriously? Don't make me laugh. Popularity doesn't make something true or false, or a game mechanic broken or well designed.

The rest of your post is just snark, not worth responding to.

But yes, I do think people who don't do their jobs should be replaced. They told us they were going to fix game issues through errata, and according to this latest article and what Jeremy Crawford wrote, they don't consider "errata" to mean anything else than grammatical or punctuation mistakes. And they aren't going to fix any balance issues, except issue new options that are supposedly better balanced. In other words, stuff I bought and paid for in my PHB only last august is already obsolete. Dragon sorcerer? Nah, I'll take Favored Soul, thanks.

The fact that they took off the table fixing issues in the product they sold us is an act of bad faith, when on multiple occasions they told us that errata would definitely come, but they would be yearly instead of monthly like they were in 4th edition. Then they changed the definition of what they consider errata, basically moving the goal posts. Yes, I consider that dishonest and even lying. When you use a word which people expect to mean one thing, and then say well I meant it but I meant it only because I'm using a different definition, that's a Bill Clinton "it depends on what your definition of is is" type move. Errata in a games rules book includes functional changes to game rules to make them work as intended, not just correcting for editing errors or proofreading mistakes.

It's not hyperbolic to call a false statement a lie, because that's the literal truth. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

77IM

Explorer!!!
Supporter
I think artificer matches the wizard's fluff the best, and hacking the wizard seems totally doable. Here's a really simple change for wizard chassis: make them spells-known casters instead of preparation casters, with the sorcerer's spells-known progression, and take away Arcane Recovery. Suddenly the artificer is a MUCH more limited spellcaster, and could easily justify better weapon and armor proficiency and d8 hit dice and an extra skill, PLUS some artificer goodies like gadgets, infusions, potions, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Halivar

First Post
You realize that a survey is not equivalent to the truth on any given issue, right? Millions of people voted for Bush, who thinks the world was created 6000 years ago. Do that make it true? Because of votes? Seriously? Don't make me laugh. Popularity doesn't make something true or false, or a game mechanic broken or well designed.
GWB believes evolution is scientifically proven; thus, sorcerers are well-balanced and do not require adjustment. And this is the most non-sequitur argument I've ever seen on EnWorld.

It's not hyperbolic to call a false statement a lie, because that's the literal truth. Nothing more, nothing less.
You need a less stressful hobby.
 




Zaukrie

New Publisher
I think a character that is all about using different kinds of magical stuff is a separate class. You can skin that for artificer or rune lord or whatever.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top