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

Greg K

Legend
I am still extremely disappointed with both the cleric and the monk.

I also want unique Shaman and Witch classes rather than subclasses of existing classes. They are both common archetypes with room for subclasses (Personally, I would also like to Steve Kenson writing it as his 3e versions for Green Ronin are the best takes I have seen for those classes. Witches (Mayfair Games) by Nigel Findley for AD&D was also very good.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad



spinozajack

Banned
Banned
The ranger was listed in the last survey IIRC, and they said it clearly needed some work too.

Well I hope so. I don't like chopping down extra trees for stuff like worthless character class options. They need to patch the books we already own, not sell us new ones or tell us to use this other (hopefully less underpowered / unbalanced) variant instead. But I'm not optimistic there, they've told us several times that their plan for fixing lackluster options is to go the path of option bloat by superceding PHB choices with AU article choices.

I really hope that's not the case in the end. Some real crunch changes need to be made for the PHB errata document, not minor cosmetic phrasing clarifications.

I've brought dozens of people into D&D in the past year, and bought two sets of books. I take my hobby seriously, and so should Wotc. A tepid errata document is not going to cut it if they expect future legal purchases from me. I expect aftermarket support and maintenance / service packs, not vague promises or untested web publications.

If they make a BeastMaster 2.0 and publish that, instead of patching BeastMaster 1.0, I'm probably going to vow that from now on, that kind of attitude will not be financed by my dineros or support or advocacy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Staffan

Legend
I disagree. I think errata should be used to fix things that are actually wrong, like references to spells that don't exist.

Poor balance should also be fixed, but I don't think errata is the place to do it - more like an annual document review or something. I don't want a situation like 4e where they basically said "drop the wizard from the PHB and use this instead."
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Well I hope so. I don't like chopping down extra trees for stuff like worthless character class options. They need to patch the books we already own, not sell us new ones or tell us to use this other (hopefully less underpowered / unbalanced) variant instead. But I'm not optimistic there, they've told us several times that their plan for fixing lackluster options is to go the path of option bloat by superceding PHB choices with AU article choices.

I really hope that's not the case in the end. Some real crunch changes need to be made for the PHB errata document, not minor cosmetic phrasing clarifications.

I've brought dozens of people into D&D in the past year, and bought two sets of books. I take my hobby seriously, and so should Wotc. A tepid errata document is not going to cut it if they expect future legal purchases from me. I expect aftermarket support and maintenance / service packs, not vague promises or untested web publications.

If they make a BeastMaster 2.0 and publish that, instead of patching BeastMaster 1.0, I'm probably going to vow that from now on, that kind of attitude will not be financed by my dineros or support or advocacy.
Prepare to be disappointed.

WotC has clearly said errata will be reserved for obvious stuff.

If there's ever a Beastmaster 2.0 it will come as a new sub-class rather than official errata to the existing one.

And you know what? That's perfectly fine for me.

The important part is getting there, not how you got there.

I want an official option for a ranger with a independent combat pet. I want more sorcerer builds. (That's the big two. More cleric domains and so on are also welcome, but not nearly as needed for my table)

But whether I get that because the current stuff is errataed, or simply because new options become available; not so important.

In fact, I can sympathize to a certain degree with the peeps that dislike having to remember that parts of their existing books have been erased/replaced.

But mainly, I recognize how WotC needs to sell more books.

And here, frankly, I realize that the approach of past editions, errata followed by surreptious power creep, doesn't work.

Much better then to clearly state "here's a better ranger, please spend money on him. But there's nothing particularly wrong with the existing one. Sure, he wasn't as popular as we hoped but he still works, so, somewhat like basic rules, if you don't need better rangers, keep your money and use the PHB one"

Hope that helps blunt your disappoint :)
 


Celtavian

Dragon Lord
I am still extremely disappointed with both the cleric and the monk.

I also want unique Shaman and Witch classes rather than subclasses of existing classes. They are both common archetypes with room for subclasses (Personally, I would also like to Steve Kenson writing it as his 3e versions for Green Ronin are the best takes I have seen for those classes. Witches (Mayfair Games) by Nigel Findley for AD&D was also very good.)

What's wrong with the monk?

Cleric is boring, but not weak. They've almost always been that way save for in 2E when Faiths and Avatars made them highly interesting and unique by way of specialty priests. I've always felt clerics needed to be written with a specific god in mind. The generic cleric one size fits all domains makes them uninteresting. Clerics should be as different as the religions they represent. I imagine it is not profitable to write a book detailing clerics and religion.

I keep wishing WotC would produce a book of that caliber for clerics again. It hasn't happened. Even Pathfinder chose to go the generic domain route for clerics. Not enough people play clerics to put the effort in to create a book filled with specialty priests. I'd love it myself, but I'm in the minority.

I think the new cleric paradigm would fit perfectly with a specialty priest book. Given they only take one domain, they could instead take one god or goddess and gain the powers a priest of that goddess or goddess provide rather than a domain. Instead of picking trickery, you pick to be a priest of Tempus with specific abilities that only priests of Tempus have. They could do it much like they did the Paladin domains providing a code of ethics each priest follows including holidays that help maintain the abilities. I hope they have some kind of plans like that in the future. I may even develop this type of material for our world campaign. I think it would be amazing. I can use the domain structure as a guideline for building each god or goddess.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
Goodness gracious, it sounds like Mike is saying the game won't receive any errata.

Does anyone else but me feel lied to?

The game is great but it's not perfect, and feedback from the masses is not sufficient to say that something ain't broke. Stuff is broke, and they need to fix it. Unless he thinks their product is flawless and they can count on future money from everyone without actually giving any post-launch after-market rules updates. They told us there were would fewer errata, not none.

Not sure if I'm overreacting here, but I hope if he sits back and coasts on the launch success indefinitely that they replace him. Companies that don't fix rules issues eventually lose players, especially when they promise to "fix" future products in the same way. In other words, once they have your cash they deny any responsibility to provide after-market support. Typical.

Survey results are not sufficient to claim that a product has no issues worth fixing. I'm incredulous at this kind of arrogance displayed here.

Is there a consensus of what is broken? What glaring problems exist that require errata?

I can only think of a few and they are rare:

1. Demilich with 80 hit points being killed by Power Word Kill in one round.

2. Scaling of GWM and Sharpshooter. And I'm still not sure I'd reduce either of these due to the power casters wield at higher level.


Other than those two, I don't have huge issues with the game. What else do you think requires errata? Is there a consensus that agrees with you?
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Cleric is boring, but not weak. They've almost always been that way save for in 2E when Faiths and Avatars made them highly interesting and unique by way of specialty priests. I've always felt clerics needed to be written with a specific god in mind. The generic cleric one size fits all domains makes them uninteresting. Clerics should be as different as the religions they represent. I imagine it is not profitable to write a book detailing clerics and religion.
This is a side track, but...

...for NPC clerics, perhaps.

...for PC clerics, absolutely not.

Having Clerics being "vastly different" based on what god they serve only leads to god cherrypicking. And that, in my opinion, is far worse.

Even in 3rd edition, where it arguably matters little which god you choose, the Forgotten Realms gods were seen as a menu, where you would pick an alignment and then choose the best combination of favored weapon and domain ability for that alignment, with little regard to the actual deity.

This is because D&D offers so many deities that differs so little. (Meaning, there are always a dozen deities that work for any given character concept).

In your home-brew campaign world, perhaps, where you have a dozen gods total, tops, then perhaps your wish would work.

But not in the popular settings with 100+ gods.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top