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."

 

[Greg K]

No love for Magic of Incarnum or Dragon Magic classes?

Nope. None whatsoever from me.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Nah...its an argument by comparison...we've seen his opinions and we've seen yours. And a conclusion was drawn.

 

[SkidAce]

I could literally quote half this board saying otherwise. If Gygax posted here, would that make his opinions about D&D, right? Gygax, unlike Rodney, actually invented this game. That makes him a genius.

Gygax did post here.

 

[Hussar]

Going back to the practical aspects of adding a new Warlord class, there's a few big stumbling blocks.

1. Warlord healing isn't really needed in the form that it was in. In 4e, because combat was generally so long, the group needed mechanisms to "unlock" healing surges during combat. So, all the leader classes got lots of powers that let you heal in combat. But 5e doesn't work that way. Combats are generally only 3-4 rounds at most and you aren't really healing in combat all that much. The fighters can self heal anyway, so, it's not like they need a second character stroking their HP every round to keep them on their feet.

2. Tactical positioning in 5e is less important. In 4e when every single class had burst and blast effects, it really mattered where characters were on the battle map. Additionally, since 4e combats tended to focus on larger scale encounters with a dozen or more PC's and NPC's on the board at once, it was very important to know where everything was. So, the Warlord got lots of battle map friendly powers to change the positioning on the map. 5e, where you have far fewer opportunity attacks, far, far fewer area attacks and, again, much shorter combats, means that tactical positioning in combat is far less important.

So, I'm not sure what a 5e warlord would actually look like. I understand why they didn't bring it forward. A lot of its raison d'être simply doesn't exist in 5e.

What I think I'd like to see is a non-magical Bard of Valor who has some of the 4e style tactical options, but a lot simpler than a 4e warlord.

 

[Sacrosanct]

What game designers do is really not that important, and that complex if you ask me. It's pure thought, and rather simplistic if we're being honest. The smartest people in games are not game designers anyway.

I'd love to read more about the games you've designed.

Seriously though, I cannot disagree with you more on this. I've designed games. An award winning one even (Gasp!). And there is a BIG difference between Joe Schmoe coming up with some weird hybrid of a game in his parents basement and someone who has designed a game where LOTS of people enjoyed playing it.

Right now you're coming off as "that dude" who claims auto mechanics is super easy and simple because it's just turning a wrench. I feel pretty comfortable in saying that everyone who has designed games is reading your posts and just shaking their heads at the sheer ignorance about what you think goes into the process.

 

[spinozajack]

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.

Nice to know that so many people agree with me that Second Wind should never have been published as it was, without any daily limit on its use.

Thanks.

 

[spinozajack]

Gygax did post here.

Considering that I've often seen people mock 1st edition, and many of the assumptions behind it, I think we all know the answer about how seriously "due respect" is granted to those who truly deserve it.

Someone working on Windows 10 is hardly to be put on the same pedestal as Bill Gates, yet it's popular to mock industry visionaries and greats while giving respect to Nth iteration contributors.

The currency of who one gives respect to is lessened if one is expected to respect anyone who contributes, 40 years later, to a successful iteration.

If anyone on this board came out with a new game idea that is successful as D&D was and I'll take note and give respect. Until then, I'll treat anyone who does a competent job at making minor improvements to a previous product comparably with the noteworthiness it deserves. Gygax is a somewhat famous name, worldwide. Everyone else who iterated on his ideas? Not really. Let's keep things in perspective here.

 

[Hriston]

I voted for Greyhawk, the Shaman, and all the humanoids.

Twice.

 

[The_Gneech]

Gygax did post here.

Mostly about his favorite books. But he was a class act, to coin a phrase.

-The Gneech

 

[SkidAce]

Considering that I've often seen people mock 1st edition, and many of the assumptions behind it, I think we all know the answer about how seriously "due respect" is granted to those who truly deserve it.

Someone working on Windows 10 is hardly to be put on the same pedestal as Bill Gates, yet it's popular to mock industry visionaries and greats while giving respect to Nth iteration contributors.

The currency of who one gives respect to is lessened if one is expected to respect anyone who contributes, 40 years later, to a successful iteration.

If anyone on this board came out with a new game idea that is successful as D&D was and I'll take note and give respect. Until then, I'll treat anyone who does a competent job at making minor improvements to a previous product comparably with the noteworthiness it deserves. Gygax is a somewhat famous name, worldwide. Everyone else who iterated on his ideas? Not really. Let's keep things in perspective here.

Was just letting you know since you brought him up. Thats all.