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."

 

[spinozajack]

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.

One of the brilliant things that the designers did for 5e, including RT presumably, was to recognize different playstyles have wildly different tolerances for various types of game mechanics, and made the common ones default, and the rare ones optional in the DMG instead of always-on player choices in the PHB.

Placing something in the DMG or even a PHB sidebar is hardly forbidding it, it's just acknowledging that the default game rules should not contain things that people don't want to play with. I don't want to play another edition with non-magical warlords healing unconscious allies from across the room. I'm not alone in that. Presumably, again, the reason it wasn't included is because they actually wanted to recognize the playstyle tension (even angst) that this type of class created in the game and drove players away. Come and get it was another one. Effectively, the Martial Power Source was a magical power source, so that means there were effectively no strictly non-magical classes in 4e.

Many of us wanted the inclusion of non-magical classes or at least subclasses, and to do that, it means recognizing and properly identifying what should be and what shouldn't be considered magical. A little hint : if something is otherwise impossible, it can only be included by magic. Which means, we exclude it from class abilities for classes that don't use magic. It's very straightforward common sense.

I just don't understand why a spell-less ranger would need his wisdom to find poulstices, which is subject to DM veto as well if there aren't any around, and then another wismod limitation on the number he can maintain. Just say they don't last more than 24hours, then you have to find more. It's easy and doesn't require any kind of mental gymnastics. If your DM wants to, you could search again and again and find wis mod each time and stock up for the dungeon. I don't see why Sam couldn't stock up barrels worth of those elven herbs if he had enough time. There was also a limit on how many a given player could benefit from their application, if I remember correctly. So that made the "maintenance" limit redundant anyway.

Why not trust DMs to limit how much to let the ranger find and keep? Is this not the exact same reasoning that people said fighters had when the party is deciding how many short rests should be allowed in a row?

I'm not sure why it's important to impose a carry limit on ranger poultices but not a daily limit on Second Wind. The former done for balance reasons, which is understandable (from a game balance point of view), but there is no limit on the number of times a level 1 fighter can use his Second Wind. Does not make sense to put a limit on one but not the other. Inconsistent application of the same balance concern. I think balance is important, so I don't allow fighters in my games to use second wind as a bonus action, instead it's involuntary and happens on a reaction to going under half HP, but I don't see the point in a carry limit on herbs and such. All one needs is the number of times a character can benefit from healing herbs in a day, to make wanting to carry more or gather more strictly a question of game time spent and ability to find and carry them.

As a DM, I'd rather rangers have a chance to stock up on healing herbs in the Abundant Forest of the Elves (even if there is a chance of random spider encounters) before delving into the Frozen Wastes, which could take them days and days to get through. The main question is how much healing one can benefit per day. And these two mechanics are at odds. There is a scaling factor by level in the poultices that are not there for second wind either, keeping poultices relevant for higher character level than second wind is. And Rodney even mentioned that in his article! That it's important to have it scale by character level to maintain utility. So why isn't second wind scaling by level in a similar way? Second Wind is overpowered at level 1-5, and gradually more and more useless after that.

Whereas the poultices make sense from a scaling point of view, but having arbitrary carry limits, when finding them is already subject to DM approval in a way that taking a few short rests in a row instead of one longer short rest isn't.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

My god yes.

If it was up to me how much a character could heal I'd probably shrug and say "uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" a lot and roll a dice and it would have zero correlation to anything resembling a carefully thought-out consideration of balanced healing resources.

 

[Halloween_Jack]

So, some of us like a variety of class options, and some of us experience tension, even angst, at the thought of other people having fun we think is "illogical." And WotC decided to cater to the latter group.

That's definitely not crazy at all.

 

[Umbran]

What makes you think his opinions on RPG design are worth more than mine?

It may have to do with your apparent tendency to conflate your own preferences with what should be allowed in a game, coupled with your harsh and occasionally rude approach to discussion.

 

[spinozajack]

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.

Restricting DM preoccupation with such things, like easy access to healing resources is very important, as you say.

But for consistency, let me ask, why did you (or the other designers) not put a similar daily limit on the number of Second Winds a fighter can use per day? That has caused a huge amount of discussion, with the usual solution of "let the DM throw a random encounter after the first hour" to prevent that kind of (ab)use. I don't find that fair, when I play a fighter who wants to second wind twice because I can, being told that after each hour an orc will show up to prevent me from healing without spending HD.

Second Wind, contrary to Poulstices, doesn't have a "con mod" limit per daily use, so it does do exactly what you just said is bad, it places the burden on DMs to threaten players resting more often to bring the fighter back to full, with arbitrary / punitive / coercive random encounters to make up for that lack of game rule limit.

As a DM, I find it very easy to say "your ranger has scoured the area for three hours and found enough herbs for 10 poulstices total, but you think you will have to venture much further to find any more", than to say "you can't ever rest for more than one hour at a time" to prevent Second Wind abuse. If the PCs find a safe cave to rest in, why not let the fighter heal to full without spending HD? Because of balance! Like you said. Right. So why not add a daily limit.

The maintenance requirement of the herbs definitely feels gamist and rather odd, no matter how it's justified with fluffy ribbons.

It's just simpler to add "the poulstices lose their potency after 24 hours, and any character can't benefit from more than your wis mod per day". So there are other ways to limit it without saying "no", you have to play a game of herb juggler, which to me destroys immersion.

Maintaining immersion is important, right? That's why halflings can't trip dragons or oozes in 5th ed, right? Many of us bought into your game because the rules were grounded in plausible explanations and made sense in the story.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, some of us like a variety of class options, and some of us experience tension, even angst, at the thought of other people having fun we think is "illogical." And WotC decided to cater to the latter group.

That's definitely not crazy at all.

To be fair, I think there's a lot of room to have issues with inspirational healing in a game. It's certainly not a foregone conclusion that this is a welcome thing. So WotC leaving it basically out of the core rules is a smart move.

Which isn't to say it can't be brought in as an option somewhere along the line.

I, for one, consider the Battlemaster a worthy successor to the "leader and commander" Fighter archetype that goes back to name-level OD&D Lords, and pre-dates the warlord by years, and I'm not exactly enthusiastic about morale-hit-points. But it's not like 5e doesn't have room for something more of what folks liked about the 4e warlord.

But for consistency, let me ask, why did you (or the other designers) not put a similar daily limit on the number of Second Winds a fighter can use per day?

Speaking as someone who isn't exactly thrilled with Second Wind, I think it might have to do with actual problems people actually experience in play.

My issue with SW is more or less aesthetic. It's a little annoying to think of a fighter standing in the corner just taking Second Winds, chilling out for an hour, and doing it again, until he's topped up.

But in practice, the short rest limitation - and short rests being an hour - means that this really isn't happening in practice. I've seen lots of fighters! Lots of second winds! Nothing close to what I was concerned about.

Like most of my issues with 5e (I'll chuck the 3-item limit for attunement into there, too!), it disappears in practice and becomes a non-issue.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think I'm just gonna say this:

"Let s(he) who disparages game design or designers create their own game and be judged by the masses first."

Armchair game designers bug the heck out of me, because they don't have a clue as to how much work actually goes into it, and they fail to understand the concept that not everyone will be happy but that doesn't make it a bad game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Like most of my issues with 5e (I'll chuck the 3-item limit for attunement into there, too!), it disappears in practice and becomes a non-issue.

This. OH, so much this. Probably more than any other rpg I've ever played. I've been harping it for a long time--theorycrafting or assumptions do 5e a huge disservice, because in actual play, 99% of "problems" aren't.

 

[spinozajack]

The problem with inspirational, non-magical healing is that it forces those of us who believe the orc critical that landed on the fighter caused real damage, can no longer do so, when that damage is reversed by a warlord saying "there, there".

It effectively makes combat a cartoonish joke with no real threat. When you can erase any and all physical damage with words alone, you can no longer interpret any damage as physical. And that is just stupid. Nobody imagines that PCs never get wounded in mortal combat with deadly weapons. If you can get knocked out and come this close to bleeding to death, it shouldn't be possible to just talk such a person back to their feet or even back to full health. No way. That's exactly what the 4e warlord could do, and it was incredibly immersion-breaking.

 

[Halloween_Jack]

To be fair, I think there's a lot of room to have issues with inspirational healing in a game.

Then don't play a warlord! You're happy, and I'm happy, because I don't care about enforcing my tastes on complete strangers. The warlord has never been like, say, casters in 3e, where the party is screwed if they choose not to play those classes.

I'm not exactly enthusiastic about morale-hit-points.

HP in D&D have always been part morale. Or at least since AD&D.