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."

 

[RodneyThompson]

Anybody else write-in Al-Qadim?

 

[Barantor]

I voted for Greyhawk, Mystara and Dark Suns, three which I think are more interesting than Forgotten Realms.

Shaman, Cavalier and Warden (even though Fey Pally is really close to Warden) are the classes I chose. I think they offer something just a little different than the current offerings.

Races I chose none of the above, because the majority of the races they listed have bonuses listed already in the DMG and Aasimar and Eladrin are fully fleshed out in the DMG as examples.

 

[MoonSong]

Races I chose none of the above, because the majority of the races they listed have bonuses listed already in the DMG and Aasimar and Eladrin are fully fleshed out in the DMG as examples.

But aren't AL legal and lack that visibility that lets players use them.

 

[Eric V]

Anybody else write-in Al-Qadim?

I should have!! It's taking up all my free time to convert it to 5e! I just didn't know if it fell under FR or not....

 

[greylurk]

Say it with me: Spelljammer! Planescape, Ravenloft, and Dark Sun too, for the fun of it. Mystara, FR, and Greyhawk are all interchangeable as far as I can tell, so just pick one and stick with it. I don't care which one, though it seems 4e piled a lot of love on FR, so we might as well keep going on that.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I wrote in a vote for Al-Qadim.

I LOVE Al-Quadim (and am currently playing in a 5E Al-Q game), but I'm wondering if why it (and Maztica) didnt make the list was because they are technically part of the Forgotten Realms.

Al-Quadim would make a good UA article. The're not much meta plot in the setting, so while we might need a lot of updates on the realms post sundering, you really can just grab the 2E book/boxed sets and go with it. The single element wizards work well as refluffed dragon sorcerers, Shai'ir and warlock go really well in flavor and mechanics, and all you'd need is a new dual element wizard tradition.

The Sha'ir's Handbook had a bunch of really awesome and gonzo kits that were actually more full blown classes that might be harder to convert.

 

[Halloween_Jack]

It's irrational to play a game that I find ridiculous, yes.

One can heal their ally from a grievous injury due to falling into a trap or getting a critical from an ogre's club, or you can play a strictly non-magic using class. Not both. You have to pick one.

That exclusion is required, because : logic.

Thankfully Mr Thompson is gone now so the chance of Mike Mearls adding the warlord back in is very low. Maybe working on Destiny will disabuse Rodney of such unrealistic and to my mind, lazy game design as he is known to use. Verisimilitude is exclusionary. I want my non-magical PCs to follow the laws of newtonian physics, as best as they can be approximated in a table top game. Which means no spooky action at a distance, no quantum mechanics, no spiritual ghost particles making stuff happen over there when your character is over here.

Why play D&D at all? It is not, and never has been, a physics simulator.

 

[greylurk]

I have a vague worry that Al-Quadim is a bit too close to Al-Queda to be republished without a name change.

 

[CM]

Added warlord and a proper bladesinger (no I don't like eldritch knight, bladelocks, and valor bards), was happy to checkmark Birthright, Eberron, and Spelljammer.

I suspect that a good array of new spells would go a long ways to making the eldritch knight feel more like the 4e bladesinger and/or swordmage. Currently the great majority of spells are more aligned towards a full caster.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Why play D&D at all? It is not, and never has been, a physics simulator.

Excluded middle here. One can prefer a certain level of verisimilitude without it needing to be a physics simulator. Everyone has certain levels of "expected realism" in their games about how things work. I'm assuming you wouldn't let your players defy the laws of gravity, for example, unless they had a magical (or similar) ability to do so.