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."

 

[Klaus]

Anybody else write-in Al-Qadim?

Crap on a stick, I forgot to write in Al-Qadim!

 

[Zaran]

First: Wow. Lazy game design? Really?

Second: What makes you think I had anything to do at all with the warlord?

Third: ...but you're fine with the Battlemaster, which I did help design?

Just ignore him Rodney. Your work in the RPG industry is exemplary. You are already missed.

 

[spinozajack]

The last thing you contributed to the game was a spell-less ranger that had a limit on poultices that he could carry. Because : gamism, to heck with why.

Many others besides myself thought that was ridiculous.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Why couldn't Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, and Maztica be a part of Forgotten Realms since they are already on the same planet?

 

[Zaran]

The last thing you contributed to the game was a spell-less ranger that had a limit on poultices that he could carry. Because : gamism, to heck with why.

Many others besides myself thought that was ridiculous.

Dude, that UA was the best one so far. It is a Beta draft.

 

[spinozajack]

First: Wow. Lazy game design? Really?

Second: What makes you think I had anything to do at all with the warlord?

Third: ...but you're fine with the Battlemaster, which I did help design?

I already answered your first question, above (using but one example, there were many others).

If you didn't have anything to do with the warlord, that's good, because the warlord is the single most immersion breaking class to ever have been introduced to D&D and one of the reasons many wouldn't touch 4th edition with a ten foot pole. It doesn't take a game design genius to not include that a second time. Hence, the 5e PHB doesn't include one. And neither does this survey. Too logic-breaking and headache-inducing to imagine how anyone can make an unconscious ally stand up from across the room. That is lazy game design, disassociated mechanics which 5e largely nixed, and pervasive throughout 4th edition.

The battlemaster works and isn't lazy design at all. Every single maneuver can't be spammed, requires your character to be within a ballpark range of size difference to even attempt to pull off, then requires checks to actually function. No more halflings sliding around dragons any more, thank the heavens.

 

[spinozajack]

Just ignore him Rodney. Your work in the RPG industry is exemplary. You are already missed.

Excuse me? That's pretty rude. What makes you think his opinions on RPG design are worth more than mine? That's an argument by authority and invalid.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Dude, that UA was the best one so far. It is a Beta draft.

Yeah, I liked it. And I just ignore the limit in medicine to whatever you can carry and what materials are available. Funny enough, they aren't mutually exclusive.

For example, the limit to WIS modifier can easily be explained as "the higher wisdom/perception you have, the more herbs you were able to find." That makes total sense, and isn't gamist at all.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The last thing you contributed to the game was a spell-less ranger that had a limit on poultices that he could carry. Because : gamism, to heck with why.

Many others besides myself thought that was ridiculous.

It's also narrativist simulation, because that's what the story says you find.

 

[spinozajack]

Yeah, I liked it. And I just ignore the limit in medicine to whatever you can carry and what materials are available. Funny enough, they aren't mutually exclusive.

For example, the limit to WIS modifier can easily be explained as "the higher wisdom/perception you have, the more herbs you were able to find." That makes total sense, and isn't gamist at all.

Nope. A higher wisdom score does not and cannot in any logical way impact how much of anything that a character can carry. It's purely gamist on its face. The fact that it's beta is no excuse at all, the problem is is that it was even considered in the first place. The thought process is lacking a "does this make sense, logically" counterpoint.

Even Mike Mearls' articles on overall 5e design having associated mechanics, where a character has a similar understanding of his abilities in-game as what the player has when deciding whether to use it, makes it clear that this type of ivory tower game design was being curtailed in favor of rules that made sense.

Imposing a limit of wis mod number of poulstices that a ranger can carry, makes about as much sense an int-mod limit on the number of daggers a rogue can carry.