@mikemearls : First D&D feedback survey is up. Let us know how the game is working for you so far - http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/fifth-edition-feedback-survey …
Done
Finito.
Terminado.
終わり
I have to admit, I was expecting something a bit more detailed...
"Are you not entertained?!?"
Check one:
ChrisTheS wrote:
pukunui wrote:
seti wrote:
Left most of the feedback regarding feats.
Sharpshooter and Great Weapon master are out right broken.
Resilient and Warcaster feel like feat taxes.
Grappler needs errata as it is unclear,
Polearm Master is overpowered and broken with great weapon master.
Crossbow expert is unclear and broken with sharpshooter.
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
bawylie wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
The question about supplements and boxed sets had me flumoxed. Can you have boxed sets of supplements? Why? I said "No preference". There isn't an option for "this question doesn't make sense to me"
I skipped all the questions about which classes are more powerful than other classes because the way we play, the power comes from the player's imagination, not from the rule book.
I did vote on all the feats, though, except for a few that we've never actually used.
BoldItalic wrote:
Done.
bawylie wrote:
Fin.
While I was giving feedback about the feats, I realized that so many of them have situational elements or roleplaying elements that make them really difficult to compare with each other.
I was unable to comment on the Ranger or the Sorcerer since I have not DMd either or played either yet. I tried to comment only on issues I've experienced in play.
I thought the 'additional comments' box was just for comments on feats, so I didn't get to mention that the reason I was 'very dissatisfied' about Thieves Cant was because I thought it should have been an archetype feature, not a class feature.
My feedback on the feedback. Where all the questions about DM stuff at?! What do just player opinions count? "Are you satisfied with monster variety," should be a question. How about "Are you satisfied with the random tables?" What he heck wizards? DMs are people too!
tehsquirrely wrote:
I assume that a) they are only looking at PHB options for now (and will ask about DMG and MM options at a later date), and b) they are currently asking broad question in order to figure out what they should poll about in more detail.
Anyways, like most of the people in this forum, I don't agree with Zard's complaints. I think there are seeds of truth to them, but I think he hyperbolizes the problem to a great extent. I also think that his "fixes" would be worse than the problem. Making sharpshooter or greatweapon master grant a 1:1 ratio would cause those feats to be worthless if you don't have someone in the party buffing with something like bless. I do, however, think that those two feats and the combination of greatweapon master with polearm master or crossbow master with sharpshooter could use a minor balance tweak.
For example, maybe either the bonus from bless or else the attack to damage trade from the feats could be usable only once per turn. Perhaps the sharpshooter ability to attack at melee range could be replaced with something that doesn't simply turn crossbow users into melee range characters. I think tweaks of that nature are in order.
The ranger did get the largest amount of "dissatisfied" and "very dissatisfied" ratings from me. Pretty much everything else (including the above mentioned feats) got satisfied and very satisfied ratings from me. A few things got neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The ranger, however, got a number of dissatisfied and very dissatisfieds, and it was the only class I rated with a lower rating than at least satisfied (I rated it as neither satisfied nor dissatisfied overall). Hopefully the ranger gets some love soon. It is the least well designed class overall.
In the comments box, I just put a link to this:
At the very least, the Grappler feat needs something, since the last benefit doesn't appear to do anything.
One thing I noticed while flipping through the feats as I completed the survey -- is the fourth bullet point of Dungeon Delver accurate? ("You can search for traps while traveling at a normal pace, instead of only at a slow pace.") I know that if you are travelling at a "fast pace," there is a -5 penalty to passive Wisdom (Perception) to notice hidden threats -- is this what Dungeon Delver provides an exception to? I'm pretty sure there is no rule that says you can only search for traps while travelling at a slow pace...
Regarding the survey itself, I think it would be useful if they surveyed how common it was to take various character options / feats. There are some feats that I think I'm satisfied with, or more accurately just don't have a strong opinion about either way, but if it turned out that they were never or nearly never actually being chosen by PCs, I would think that would be an issue...
seti wrote:
ChrisTheS wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
mellored wrote:
seti wrote:
mellored wrote:
Survey completed.
mellored wrote:
Done...had to skip the feats part. My group hasn't used them.
pukunui wrote:
Finished. 
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I said I liked nearly everything. I did recommend the following for feats:
For GWM & SS, delete -5/+10 aspect and in lieu +1 stat. (The extra dmg is overkill and the penalty too easily cancelled with flanking, etc, as Zard points out).
For CE, delete part about not having disad shooting in melee, in lieu +1 stat. (As is it makes ranged great in all situations/too strong, there ought to be a drawback if caught out in melee).
For Elemental Adept, substitute it completely with the caster being able to change the element used, and reroll 1's on damage. (The current feat is boring and too weak).
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
So, we're actually still playtesting the game system?
Undrhil wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
pukunui wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Done.
On par, if not less viable as a Survey than the Playtest ones, IMO. Too subjective without any gauge of the Playstyle choices or why a Player/DM might feel good or bad about a given subject.
Zardnaar wrote:
If you haven't read through/played all of these classes, or don't want to compare them this way, you can skip this series of questions.)
Zardnaar wrote:
Why do we care about the numbers at level 20? That's more or less the end of Character progression, if you're not making a mess of most of the MM monsters, there's something wrong with the game.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Party combos, synergies, etc. are great. In my experience, 3.5e (and 2e, and 1e...) got grilled for high level caster superiority. Not teamwork. Well, a sort of 'teamwork'. "Cleric! you heal, then shut up!" fighter! protect me until I reach level 5!" "rogue! be a skill monkey!" "Wizard! hide until you're level 5, then kill evenything in room with one action!" "We rest when the wiz is out of spells!" At least 4e and 5e incourage many different combos.
Just curious...I suggested earlier if those feats were -5 for a +5 instead of -5 for a +10...Would that help balance it?
From what I've looked at (and, no I haven't played or DMed 5e up into the realm of levels 17+ yet) fighter-types need that single target damage boost to keep up with the awesomeness of casters in the realm of damage output. True, the casters often have multi target damage, so each 'hit' is a bit lower...But, there's caster DoaM, and AoE madness which more than makes up for slightly (SLIGHTLY) lower single target damage.
IMO, the feats in question, + the low level buffs in question, balance party member damage output pretty well. (Without going full on into 4e TOTAL BALANCE land that many hated.)
It's hard for me to say, in a way, I loved 4e, but it seems to me that 5e has done a pretty good job so far at not totally bringing back what turned me off to playing TSR D&D and playing 3/3.5/PF D&D after a while.
seti wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Ok so I filled the survey out. I didnt like how they did the class vs class on the survey. Its too simple, one class might be better in a scenario than another one. It also didnt let me point out how the hunter ranger is a ok subclass while the beastmaster leaves a sour taste in my mouth. They say that they will only errata after the surveys, but if the survey doesnt ask the right questions than its not going to fix any actual problems.
I wonder, will these eventually lead to... 5.5e?
ArcShot wrote:
It would be great if they also did a Survey of which products we would prefer to see released over the coming year. Hint hint WotC.
Zardnaar wrote:
I do agree with Zard on one thing--Resilient(Con) and/or Warcaster seem pretty critical for anyone who wants to reliably succeed on Concentration saves. This is particularly true for spellcasting characters who fight in the front lines and therefore get hit a lot.
Zardnaar wrote:
seti wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I liked the "provide feedback" section in the feats part. At 500 words, no less! Was it for the WHOLE system, though? Because I just filled it out about feats, because it was in the feats section...
I did like the Class v Class section, with the exception that some pairings I got were pretty class. Sure, Paladin is better than Warlock, Wizard better than Sorcerer, Druid is better than Ranger, and Bard is (just slightly) better than Barbarian (thanks to one of those two getting access to Wish, if anything!). But what about Fighter and Monk, or Cleric and Rogue? o_O That seems down to flavor and/or playstyle. Cleric has more options, so I chose them, and I basically had to flip a coin in order to pick Monk...It's like the eye doctor "Is it better or worse?" "Uhhhhh, it's negligible? Is that an option?"
But yes, as others mentioned, I hope that things either get errata'd directly, or "fixed" indirectly by offering more/new options. So giving Beast Master errata would be a nice touch. But also offering another "optional" capstone for Rangers would be awesome, too!
(also, "lol" at everyone basically saying the same thing: "Rangers are cool, but boy they need help!" Surprised no one mentioned straight-up Warlocks!)
My only point (negative) was the Ranger class.
seti wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
mellored wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Hey I'm having trouble remembering but doesn't GWM have a base strength requirement?
All the weapons the -5/+10 covers are Str only so... yes.
mellored wrote:
Ah yes, that all important... 5%
The original point still stands.
Yunru wrote:
So by that right you are likely dumping out on dex, or some other score down the line, somewhat to get the feat and put it to full use? meaning your dex saves are lower your ac is possibly lower and your ability with a lot of skills or ability based checks are lacking. Basically you guys are whiterooming this way too much. You take out all sides of the equation where the fighter needs to not get fricken mind controlled or hit with fireballs! Sure they have a 20 strength, but strength is quite possibly the least useful ability score outside of breaking down doors and beating the tar out of things. By making the election of going GWM you likely lose out on dex...by far the most useful ability score, or you super sacrifice on another score so that you don't need to sacrifice dex, and I will bet you ten to one that score you dump out on is charisma...say hello to your mind control later inthe game for me. Yeah GWM is strong but the sacrifices you make along the way to make that the core of your build are somewhat costly in the doing anything but beating the crap out of things department.
In that same vein sharpshooter is missing some of these drawbacks because it allows you to concentrate on what is most arguably the best ability score in the game, Dex. However sharshooter lacks in usefulness until you get crossbow expert and can make ranged attacks in melee without concern. Up until then sharpshooter has the issue of becoming useless once someone closes to melee. This method also suffers from being far less capable of gaining advantage because the easiest way to get advantage (knocking things prone) does nothing for ranged attacks. Also, and this argument may not mean anything for the people here, Sharpshooter/Crossbow expert suffers another issue that GWM does not: you can run out of ammo. Now I know you will all call BS on that because none of you actually track arrows (I am guessing), but in reality Sharshooter has a limiting factor in that if you run out of arrows/bolts you just can't use the feat any more and now it is a complete waste till you can replenish your arrows/bolts.
Also looking at things at level 20 is somewhat useless mainly because in general adventures don't stay in that range. It is better to look at builds in the 7 to 15 range and seeing what those entail because that is where the bulk of people will spend actual gameplay time. At level 20 things are going to be out of whack because everyone is so strong. Yeah sure the level 20 fighter can outdamage the whole party by a large margin....the casters can staraight up rewrite reality and bury cities in earthquakes (how much DPR is it when you set off an earthquake in a city?).
nothing about barbarian, paladin, sorcerer, warlock? I hope this mean they are already working on changing them (but then why ask about ranger? if they know sorcerer need work they should have know about ranger)
Feat basically what I propose is to put all the feat to the same level. I don't care if you nerf Great Weapon MAster to the power level of Linguist, or if you boost Actor to the power level of Polearm Master, but would be nice if all feat had included within them:
- a mechanical improvement (Great weapon master, Sentinel, Crossbow expert) to make mechanical oreitned player happy with all the feat
- a Role play improvement (Actor, Keen mind etc..) so Role player can also be happy with all the feats
Then taking the "smaller" feat (like savage attacker, elemental adept etc...) and buff them up so they become as attractive as Great Weapon Master and Polearm master) (PS if those feat are to be nerfed, then the smaller feat need to be buff to the nerfed powerlevel of great weapon master)
For Elemental adept I would liek to see it get merged with a +1 to the spellcasting stat of your choice (or maybe even with a +2 but then with a prerequisite of having a caster level of at least 2) so you could take it at level 4 without ruining your DC curve)
Some feat like Sentinel or Magic Adept deeply change your character way of playing. A fighter who want to be defender, then protector of his team, untill he take sentinel nothing is stoping the ennemy from running pass him, take a weak AoO then start killing the squishie mage. Once the same fighter take Sentinel BAM you are now a real protector, you are now stoping the ennemies, preventing them from reaching the squishies, but then you need to make a choice do I become what I'm suppose to become, but keep a low 16 Strenght or do I wait untill level 12 so I can reach my 20 Stenght so I can hit and damage the ennemy, then take Sentinel to do my job right. (and as a defender you also probably want to boost your Constitution. So it would be nice to get an additional feat at CHARACTER LEVEL 1 (if you play without feat, then you get an extra stat boost at that level, but you cannot boost a stat higher then 17 with that stat boost)
Cyber-Dave wrote:
the survey is bad lol imo xd
doesnt give much feedback for the system as a whole :/
it tries to compare 2 random classes, but the classes are good for diffrent situations, how am i suppose to tell which is more powerful a rogue or a barb? seriusly?
Here is my quick review
Overall the classes feel pretty good, many have 3 or more "paths" to choose which is good
the 2 things that bug me the most with the PHB is the following
*sorcerers only get 2 choice for origin when there are several amazing ones, like elemental, arcane, or stars, undead etc etc. steal some from pathfinder?
*sorcerers with dragon blood get 13 ac when dragonborn are already half dragon and dont get this
i understand the game balance and all that, but i really really really hate inconsistencies like that, so this bugs me so much that i just took out draonborns from my campaign
So for the DMG
It was a complete mess to me, it did have some great features like the diffrent planes and circles of hell etc, which was pretty cool for flavor and inspiration, and the part with owning nad running buildings
speaking of buildings, the economy of a town, city or a kingdom are poorly explained, and how much tax income or tax rate etc is normal?
my biggest issue is with magical items.
There is a huge list of items and they give you some help with making your own, a more structured system would be nice like the one from 3rd edition, where you have a list of features a weapon can have and a power value for that feature.
While there are some poisons in the DMG, the system seems completly random and even monsters with poison attacks don't seem to have ANY consistency
Diffrent materials
While there are some items in the DMG that are made from mithril or dragonscale etc it does nothing to help you make other items of these materials. What would happen if i made a dagger out of dragonbone or adamantine? While D&D ofc is a game of imagination, these are the questions i would like WotC to atleast consider and while i have come up with my own system for mithril and adamantine and dragonskin etc I am really disappointed.
Awie wrote:
Finally got around to working out the odd stumble of password and username updating, so expect posts! #BackInAction
I liked the random pairings. I can see many different ways they could leverage the big data to suss out "strengths" in terms of pillar support, as opposed to class feature support. As an example, I imagine the classes intended to perform best in the combat pillar will fare better than those intended to fare better in the exploration and interaction pillars, so effort will be put towards beefing the exploration and interaction pillars' ability to support capability. (At least, that's how I'd approach it.)
Consistent with most of you, the ranger is the only class that I find lacking, but it's really only in terms of the combat pillar. I've come to the unexpected realization that I'm a survival horror-type storyteller recently, and our group's ranger has seen a lot of use in the exploration pillar. (Freezing, starving, exhausted... but not lost!)
As for feat feedback:
- The third bullet of Dual Wielder relies on the relatively vague and contentious rules for interacting with objects. (We've all been able to suss out intent, but there needs to be a more cohesive presentation of what's intended for those who do not spend their days trolling the social interwebs for clarification.)
- The name of the Lucky feat is redundant with the name of the halfling Lucky trait, which is confusing because their benefits differ. They should either do the same thing, or they should have different names.
- The benefits of Weapon Master are lackluster.
I wish they asked about the bard. Is it just me, or should it be easier to avoid exhaustion during a forced march with a bard in tow? Hopefully it's not just me. (Seems simple, but that's just something I think a bard should be able to contribute by virtue of being a bard.)
Timborama wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mellored wrote:
I really think that the sorc needs more sub-classes. I've advocated for an undead/vampire bloodline, and an elemental bloodline to be published ASAP. Luckily, dragon bloodline can be re-worked into an elemental bloodline with out too much work, and a cool DM/player relationship. But, mechanically, it's an ok class. Has great synergies when taking a few levels in another CHA class. Sorlocks kick ass and a sorbard would be fun, and be a great addition to a smaller party (ie: it can be a rocket launcher, and an inspirational leader as needed).
The ranger is the one that it seems we all agree is...Pathetic compared to your other choices in the PHB. Wanna be an awesome archer? a DEX fighter archer build is better. Wanna cast nature spells? Duh. Druid. Wanna be a dual-wielding dervish like Drizzt? Again, fighter build. The only things ranger has going for it is a few 'arcane archer' type spells (cool) and the lackluster beast pet (could be cool, but isn't there yet.) Also, the ranger has by far the worst capstone class ability...+WIS mod on attack or damage? That's it? When I read that, I thought the paragraph got cut off in printing or something.
PS: I'd like a star/void/far realm-type sorcerer build too, but I don't want it to step on the warlock...So maybe a time/space/gravity 'bloodline' might be better?
Yeah, I agree that the ranger needs work.
I also think that the sorcerer in the most in need of addition subclasses. Elemental variants are the obvious choice, but I'd really love to see a Shadowfell/Plane of Shadow-based bloodline that's all shadow-magey. If the bloodlines are going to cover casting approaches (like wild magic), having a bloodline that's about blood magic would also be interesting (heh heh, I got to use "blood" a lot in that sentence). Obvious choices like fey and fiendish bllodlines seem like they would step on the toes of the warlock, unfortunately.
I'd like to see more choice of abilities for the elemental-monk, so it's easier to base a character around a single element.
The battle-master fighter, could use some more options, too, IMO.
Well, it seems you can lead a horse to water, but...
I am going to give explaining this to you one more try. I am trying to help you out here. If you insist on believing in your own error after that, I don't care to explain basic statistical math to you in any more detail than I will in this post. But, if you continue to calculate your statistical probabilities in the manner you are currently calculating them, your conclusions will be in error, which would be a shame (as otherwise, I have found your posts to be helpful).
mellored wrote:
Done!
I really like the feedback approach. Errata, more feats and a bit of Ranger (maybe also Monk) strengthening are my priorities, the rest isn't that urgent to me.
Also i hope many players will ask for a future psionic class, it's my favorite, RP-wise
Done.
Put far left clicks on Moon Druid and Beastmaster Ranger as the poster chidlren of OP beast-in-play and UP beast-in-play choices, but the rest was very positive overall.
Good edition.
Caliburn wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote: