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."

 

[Obryn]

For example, marking. What does it mean? What does it do? It was a meaningless concept that the character didn't think about, but the player did. That's disassociated.

Marking is a soccer/football term which amounts to sticking to a guy and preventing them from organizing an effective offense. Hilariously, it's used by defenders, often against strikers. Really! Look it up.

In a colloquial sense it's "keep that monster occupied!" In a narrative sense, it's a combat style which protects your allies and presents a threat to enemies. Just because it's abstract is irrelevant; hit points, initiative, class/level... All of those are abstractions for game purposes, too.

 

[Mallus]

Mike Mearls has written about player vs character understanding of the same mechanic in Legends and Lore, but I can't seem to find any links on their site any more.

Here, let me help.

A character's "understanding of a mechanic" is a fictional viewpoint. A work of fiction itself; a part of character's mental state, which is invented by the player/author.

A player's "understanding of a mechanic" is a real viewpoint. Held by a real person reflecting their understanding of real thing, ie a rule. Though it's true a player's understanding of a mechanic may sometimes bear more relation to fiction that fact, depending on their grasp of the particular rules. For example, my understanding of a lot of 3e (for the first year or two I ran, it least . Maybe longer...).

 

[Patrick McGill]

Levels and experience to me are far worse than warlord healing. There is actual and fictional precedent for getting inspired to push through your wounds. Levels and experience as they exist make no immersive sense.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My objection is to non-magical healing in combat, whether done by a warlord or by anyone else.

On the theory you "can't shout a hand back on," I guess? Really, if you want healing to only represent realistic closing and healing of severe physical injuries, even 5e HD & overnight healing or the full week to recover from a mortal wound in 1e, are questionable, given the realistic challenges of recovering from injuries under medieval medical care. Of course, Cure Wounds can't grow back a hand, either, and hps in D&D are so broad and abstract in what they model that there's nothing at all wrong with restoring hps by boosting morale.

(I can see how using 'healing' as the jargon term for it could be unintuitive, though - a more neutral 'restores' would work better for the rules jargon term than 'heals.' "Healing Potion restores 2d4+2 hps. Inpiring Word restores 1d6+CHAmod hps, etc...)

I see healing as something mostly done in safety after the battle's over, and that should be very risky to do during battle. Shouting at someone to keep them going, while elegant and dramatic, doesn't carry much risk; where trying to cast a spell in the middle of a battle certainly does - or certainly should.

Casting a spell in combat currently carries no risk, just an action-economy price. And, Rallying allies could certainly entail a great deal of risk, at least in the lead-from-the-front style.

Though, in both cases, for game purposes, a resource and action-economy 'price' would be sufficient.

I could be wrong, but reading between some lines tells me there's a large overlap between those who want the warlord back and those who are looking to do away with (or very much reduce the role of) the traditional healer or combat medic. So what then becomes of the Cleric?

The same thing that became of the Cleric when the Druid got healing, the Bard got healing, or Wands of Cure Light Wounds became commodities: people who actually want to play Clerics play Clerics. People who want to play something else, play something else.

Did you vote for 'Cavalier', then? That could easily be your jumping-off point for a class like this.

Lanefan

I assumed by Cavalier they meant the 1e Cavalier, of which the Paladin was briefly a sub-class. It was an armored Knight, who, like the Fighter, was all about doing lots of damage, just from horseback while wrapped in metal. So, not really, though a mounted-combat-focused fighter sub-class would be a nice addition. (The 4e Cavalier was a divine aura-based defender, a Paladin sub-class. Not the worst thing in Essentials, but indifferent, IMHO.)

 

[spinozajack]

Marking is a soccer/football term which amounts to sticking to a guy and preventing them from organizing an effective offense. Hilariously, it's used by defenders, often against strikers. Really! Look it up.

In a colloquial sense it's "keep that monster occupied!" In a narrative sense, it's a combat style which protects your allies and presents a threat to enemies. Just because it's abstract is irrelevant; hit points, initiative, class/level... All of those are abstractions for game purposes, too.

There's a line beyond which the narrative becomes too abstract to be workable or acceptable. 4e crossed that line for many people, including myself. The fact that we're discussing this in a 5th edition thread only a few short years after 4e came out is proof that excessive abstraction is not a good direction to take the game.

KISS

 

[spinozajack]

Levels and experience to me are far worse than warlord healing. There is actual and fictional precedent for getting inspired to push through your wounds. Levels and experience as they exist make no immersive sense.

"Don't make perfect the enemy of good" -Umbran

Just because there exist immersion-breaking abstractions in D&D, does not mean we should make the game so abstract that it becomes meaningless or hard to understand.

Simple, straightforward, easy to understand, natural language. These are all cornerstones of 5e design, and it's a massive success because of it.

 

[Obryn]

There's a line beyond which the narrative becomes too abstract to be workable or acceptable. 4e crossed that line for many people, including myself. The fact that we're discussing this in a 5th edition thread only a few short years after 4e came out is proof that excessive abstraction is not a good direction to take the game.

KISS

Uh, you're the one who brought it up. We're talking about it because you brought it up. You asked what "marking" even means and now you have your answer.

 

[Lanefan]

On the theory you "can't shout a hand back on," I guess? Of course, Cure Wounds can't grow back a hand, either, and hps in D&D are so broad and abstract in what they model that there's nothing at all wrong with restoring hps by boosting morale. (I can see how using 'healing' as the jargon term for it could be unintuitive, though - a more neutral 'restores' would work better for the rules jargon term. "Healing Potion restores 2d4+2 hps. Inpiring Word restores 1d6+CHAmod hps, etc...)

All true; and would be further helped if h.p. were broken down into body points and fatigue points (or wound-vitality, whatever).

Casting a spell in combat currently carries no risk, just an action-economy price.

And people wonder why casters have become so overpowered through the editions...

The same thing that became of the Cleric when the Druid got healing, the Bard got healing, or Wands of Cure Light Wounds became commodities: people who actually want to play Clerics play Clerics. People who want to play something else, play something else.

I see Druids as a sub-class of Clerics anyway; and Bardic healing and dime-a-dozen cure wands are both design mistakes IMO.

I assumed by Cavalier they meant the 1e Cavalier, of which the Paladin was briefly a sub-class. It was an armored Knight, who, like the Fighter, was all about doing lots of damage, just from horseback while wrapped in metal. So, not really, though a mounted-combat-focused fighter sub-class would be a nice addition. (The 4e Cavalier was a divine aura-based defender, a Paladin sub-class. Not the worst thing in Essentials, but indifferent, IMHO.)

Yes, the 1e Cavalier; but it wouldn't be a huge jump to work that into some sort of non-magical holy warrior, would it? Maybe lose some of the horsey bits and replace them with holy bits?

Lanefan

 

[Obryn]

"Don't make perfect the enemy of good" -Umbran

Just because there exist immersion-breaking abstractions in D&D, does not mean we should make the game so abstract that it becomes meaningless or hard to understand.

Simple, straightforward, easy to understand, natural language. These are all cornerstones of 5e design, and it's a massive success because of it.

This is nonsensical.

It amounts to, "this is okay because I'm used to it." If D&D, tomorrow, removed hit points and levels, but added marking, it would be a less abstract game. If it used simultaneous initiative, it would be a less abstract game. If it started using Phoenix Command rules for combat, it would be less abstract.

Abstraction is not bad. Abstractions are what allow us to play RPGs.

 

[Eric V]

I understand why people don't feel the battlemaster is a sufficient warlord, but how is avenger not covered by the paladin subclass? Aren't they just really angry paladins? The one I'm playing right now feels fine.

Not really. They were introduced as 'Batman with a holy symbol.' In 4e, they were dexterous, stealthy, Wis-based toons who wielded big weapons in the name of their god. You are right, that OoV paladins cover some of the concept, but people who played them in 4e couldn't really convert them over well.

That said, it probably would just require some ability exchanges, as described in the DMG. I would want them to be WIS based as opposed to CHA-based, however.