New D&D Survey: What Do you Want From Older Editions?

WotC has just posted this month's D&D feedback survey. This survey asks about content from older editions of D&D, including settings, classes and races. The results will help determine what appears in future Unearthed Arcana columns.

The new survey is here. The results for the last survey have not yet been compiled. However, WotC is reporting that the Waterborne Adventures article scored well, and that feedback on Dragon+ has been "quite positive".

"We also asked about the new options presented in the Waterborne Adventures installment of Unearthed Arcana. Overall, that material scored very well—on a par with material from the Player’s Handbook. Areas where players experienced trouble were confined to specific mechanics. The minotaur race’s horns created a bit of confusion, for example, and its ability score bonuses caused some unhappiness. On a positive note, people really liked the sample bonds and how they helped bring out the minotaur’s unique culture.

The mariner, the swashbuckler, and the storm sorcerer also scored very well. A few of the specific mechanics for those options needed some attention, but overall, players and DMs liked using them.

Finally, we asked a few questions about the Dragon+ app. We really appreciate the feedback as we tailor the app’s content and chart the course for future issues. The overall feedback has been quite positive, and we’re looking at making sure we continue to build on our initial success."

 

[Darrius_Adler]

I went with Eberron and Ravenloft, along with the goblinoid races and gnolls to be given PC writeups. I have wanted to do a goblin/Dhakaani campaign for a long time in Eberron. Gnolls are also a good race for Eberron

 

[I'm A Banana]

I WANT IT ALL

But I am a setting whore and I would even love to see their updated take on also-ran classes like seekers and runepriests, just to see what they'd do with 'em. Like, iteration is key for good design, so if they had to think about "what did the Seeker offer and how did it succeed and how can it be improved and what is worth saving in it?" I think we'd see something interesting. It's not like these things are inherently bad ideas, but the context they were presented in was less-than-encouraging, so I'd like to see another take on it. If there is a world where illumian runepriests and catfolk seekers and shardmind warmages are the new hotness, I'd like to see what that might look like.

So, yeah, there is nothing on that list that I would not like to see in one form or another.

I also like how they said "character types" not "classes." Savvy.

I also don't exactly trust that anyone not on drugs has provided positive feedback for Dragon+

IIRC, the questions on this were a little wonky for that result - most of the questions were like "what's your favorite bit?" and "what would you like to see more of?" and not "do you think this concept is fundamentally flawed?"

 

[Tony Vargas]

Warlord not on the list

It was never even mentioned in any of the Playtest surveys, either.

 

[timbannock]

I WANT IT ALL

But I am a setting whore

I'm not, but after two seconds of skimming all those lists, I pretty much clicked on every option (maybe 85-95% of them, at least).

I mean, I don't need fluff -- that's what Dndclassics is for -- but if they want to give me fun and interesting, playtested and balanced mechanics for stuff, I'm ALL FOR IT.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Asked for a warlord update in the comments as well. I don't see it as core material, but still would want to see a 5E take on the class by WotC.

 

[amerigoV]

Kender! Kender! Kender! You know you want to!

 

[fuindordm]

I tried to limit myself to a few options on each question. For settings, I love many of them but only voted for my top 3: Eberron, Dark Sun, and Greyhawk.

I wish I'd thought of asking for a Binder update in the comments.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Warlord not on the list

I noticed that as well. I guess they think the joke that is the fighter suffices...

 

[Agamon]

I also like how they said "character types" not "classes." Savvy.

D'oh, I missed that. I checked None of the Above for the classes, and wrote in the notes that I'd rather see them as archetypes than new classes.

 

[spinozajack]

I noticed that as well. I guess they think the joke that is the fighter suffices...

The fighter's one of the strongest classes in the game! Why on earth would anyone think it needs moar power?

I'm very happy the warlord is not coming to 5th ed. If you want a combination of fighting man with tactics and some healing, multiclass a valor bard with a battlemaster, and you're done.

I'm going to fill the survey tonight to make sure my vote cancels out any others desire to add the kitchen sink of bad ideas and overpowered classes to the new edition.