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]

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.

Actually, the original text (which may not have made it through editing; not sure) said that the ranger can only maintain so many poultices at a time, the idea being that the ranger needs to keep the herbs they use fresh, keep them from drying out, etc. and that as you gain levels you get more efficient at maintaining them. So, it wasn't "to heck with why" by any stretch.

 

[spinozajack]

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

What if you're in a field with those herbs all around and want to stock up for the long journey into the frozen wastelands?

It's not a simulation of anything, because it don't make no sense, bro. There is no story, logic, physical, reason for why that type of limitation should exist. It has no foundation, no rationale, at least none that even makes remote sense.

 

[Halloween_Jack]

Once again, you're excluding a giant middle. Also, I'm pretty sure if I were in your game and said my 1st level fighter wanted to jump over that 30' wall via high jump, you wouldn't just say, "Roll high enough,and sure."

I'd tell the guy playing a 1st level anything that he knows he can't jump that far. A few levels later, though...

Stop acting like someone who likes more than you is trying to run a physics simulator. That isn't helpful to the conversation.

I'm not throwing a fit at people who have different tastes from me, and saying what they like should be written out of the game and forbidden. That's spinozadude you're thinking of.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

I imagine you'd have a less vitriolic response if you went back and reread what I wrote. I said the WIS modifier can be directly tied to how much you find. And since WIS = perception, that's entirely logical. Kind of hard to carry 8 poultices when you only find enough material for three.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ever since 3e tried to turn D&D into a universal system, some people have gotten into their heads that D&D rules are supposed to be a virtual reality simulator. Everything has to make sense in terms of physics, unless it has the "magic" label applied to it, which means it's full of midichlorians that can do anything even if it makes no sense.

All very true.

This is not D&D.

Not true. The supremacy of magic and denigration of classic heroic archetypes is a very D&D trope.

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

I've always been curious who worked on each of the 4e Martial Classes. It always seemed to me that the Warlord and Rogue had a different style to their design than the Ranger or Fighter. Were they giant collaborations built by consensus, did Heinsoo make the final calls an everything, or did each have a distinct 'Auteur?'

 

[RodneyThompson]

I've always been curious who worked on each of the 4e Martial Classes. It always seemed to me that the Warlord and Rogue had a different style to their design than the Ranger or Fighter. Were they giant collaborations built by consensus, did Heinsoo make the final calls an everything, or did each have a distinct 'Auteur?'

I'll be honest, I don't really know; when 4E was being designed and developed, I was running the Star Wars RPG line, so I didn't have a lot of insight into who was responsible for what. Sorry.

 

[spinozajack]

Actually, the original text (which may not have made it through editing; not sure) said that the ranger can only maintain so many poultices at a time, the idea being that the ranger needs to keep the herbs they use fresh, keep them from drying out, etc. and that as you gain levels you get more efficient at maintaining them. So, it wasn't "to heck with why" by any stretch.

I find this explanation only slightly less implausible than a carry limit.

There are better and simpler ways to implement poultices that don't require such arbitrary, head-scratching limits. Like, for example, it's up to the DM how many you can find. Then you just say they don't last more than 24 hours. There is already a wisdom limit on the number you can find, if I remember correctly, so a wis limit on the number you can maintain is redundant. We aren't playing a videogame here, there is a human DM, as I'm sure you're well aware. If the DM doesn't want the ranger to have incredible access to healing, he simply says, "no, you can't find any more in this region, no matter how many times you try".

 

[Halloween_Jack]

Excuse me? That's pretty rude. What makes you think his opinions on RPG design are worth more than mine?

You take "dissociated mechanics" seriously.

 

[SuperTD]

spinozajack, have you ever considered that you not liking something doesn't make it objectively bad? Including the Warlord means anyone who wants to use it can. Anyone who doesn't want it can outlaw it at their table.

 

[RodneyThompson]

There is already a wisdom limit on the number you can find, if I remember correctly, so a wis limit on the number you can maintain is redundant.

This is, where I believe, the change was made, from the original maintain to the word find, but I can't say for certain, as I don't have my files in front of me.

As for the rest, well, I guess I must be a truly lazy game designer, since it seems to me like putting the burden of determining how much a player can heal another character wholly on the Dungeon Master strikes me as a good way to put one more task on the plate of the DM, thus making the game more difficult to run and potentially slowing the game down. Not to mention the perils of distracting the Dungeon Master from his or her other tasks, and the potential discomfort that a DM might face when being asked to adjudicate a player-expended resource. I'm all for verisimilitude, and I felt like it was acceptable to say that the ongoing attention to maintaining a delicate herbal remedy was dependent on some level of expertise. My wife used to bake professionally, for example, and she would tell you that some baking requires your attention, and at a certain point you can only have so many things in the oven at once, despite abundant available resources, because the in-progress baked goods require her time, focus, and effort beyond just mixing ingredients and pouring them.