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."

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

I'm not sure if that would be 'helped' rather than 'complicated.' I've played games that make that sort of distinction, and they can easily break down if you can find a way to target just one of those pools, typically the smaller, make'em dead, one.

D&D hps actually work pretty well, apart from over-promoting 'focus fire,' for capturing the 'plot armor' common to the genre. (Well, they worked a little better at it with old-school saving throws at high levels.) But, they are abstract and varied enough in their definition, in order to do that, that they do leave the door open for all sorts of odd ways to heal or do damage - including inspiring back hps or intimidating them away.

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

Preach it, brother.

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

You think the Cleric concept is so unappealing that it needs that level of niche-protection for it's healing function?

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?

'Holy?' Holy, sure, like I said, Paladin with a sub-class briefly in post-UA 1e, for those that used it at all. I guess turn it around: have a Cavalier as Paladin sub-class in 4e. But another divine sub-class that could just as easily be done with MC'ing doesn't really accomplish much, IMHO.

This is nonsensical.

It amounts to, "this is okay because I'm used to it."

Yes. Or, to put it another way "representative of the feel of the Classic Game."

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.

We could play RPGs without Abstraction. We'd probably get arrested or killed, but we could do it.

My point is, one shouldn't have to "look it up" to pay D&D.

That's a hard fail for every edition, then.

Not everyone who wants to play a fighter wants to run interference, or be akin to a defensive line. That is another place where the game designed failed to match player expectation, by assuming the default fighter meant anything beyond "striker". Putting the line "role : defender" immediately turned me off playing a 4e fighter.

The 'defender' was /based/ on the fighter's Iconic role, from 2e, all the way back to Chaimail, as a front-line infantry figure who protected his back-line artillery support.

Part of the awesome of the 3.x fighter was that it could thumb it's nose at iconic role. It could interdict a portion of the battle field with a pole-arm, loose hails of arrows from the back lines, tank in the front, leap-attack-charge with a big weapon, mow through lesser foes like wheat before the scythe, disarm or trip less skillful foes, and on and on - and that's just combat, with 18 feats to everyone else's 7 (instead of 8 to their 6), it actually /could/ manage to pull together some interesting alternatives. Compared to that, the 4e & 5e fighters are both potentially disappointing.

The 5e fighter starts to go there: it can be STR or DEX based, style lets it be melee or ranged... and then, multi-Attack DPR, that's it, you're a beatstick, non-negotiable. You've already pointed out the downside of the Defender-role 4e fighter relative to the 3.x fighter's customizability.

Oh, maybe something like what they did to make a spell-less ranger would work? I wonder if the battlemaster could also be warlordified in this way. As I understand it, the main problem was just that there wasn't enough focus on combat maneuvers, and running out of shouting felt weird. Maybe if you could make a couple maneuvers at-will abilities that don't add superiority dice to their attacks and things. Commander's Strike, for instance, doesn't sound too strong if the attack doesn't do extra damage.

The spell-less ranger took away a major class feature, so, yes, you could take the Fighter, take away it's major class feature (those extra attacks, or maybe even just two of them), and replace them with, say, 'Commands.' So, as his action, instead of 3 attacks, a mid-level Warlordified Fighter might Make 2 attacks and issue 1 Command. Commands would be similar to Battlemaster maneuvers, but give up damage (thus have room to be much more powerful), and be essentially at-will. Presumably, you could trade in an attack for an extra Command, too.

Could work. Would need more commands/maneuvers, and "higher level" and/or resource-limited ones, as well.

 

[Yaarel]

I did the read the rules. And I didn't see this part: "below half full, it's definitely serious wounds and when you reach 0, you're knocked out, bleeding on the ground, about to die from a fatal injury." Could you point me to the page number for that?

I did find this: "When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises." Cuts and bruises, I should point out, that are really of such little importance that 8 hours of rest make them a non-issue as Obryn points out.

You read the part about below half...what about above it? Does your imagination allow for, in the game, inspiration-based restoration of hp when the target is above half its hp?

I am going to go ahead and guess "no."

Point is, in 5e, Hit points "represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck." Warlord-type healing makes perfect sense under that definition, even if it isn't in everyone's imagination.

Yeah, reaching 0 hp defines the moment when critical damage occurs. Zero is the moment when the spear goes thru a vital organ, when the target succumbs to blood loss, when the target goes into shock, or so on.

 

[Yaarel]

The concept of the 4e Warlord makes sense in 5e too.

My only worry is, the 4e Warlord was extremely grid-oriented.

Is it possible to design an effective Warlord that doesnt refer to specific grid positioning?

If not, then the Warlord might need to be an exclusive feature of a more grid-oriented variant setting.

 

[Shasarak]

It's funny, because it's the best name they've ever come up with. Marshal is terrible - it has two possible meanings, to Europeans, it's a general, so locks in military rank and all that implies, to Americans, it's a law-enforcement officer, totally inappropriate. Most other alternatives are military ranks, or otherwise imply rank (like Captain, which can also refer to the civilian commander of of ship) - too narrow in what they imply, and in-use, today, so bringing with them modern anachronisms. Warlord both has a strong fantasy sound to it, and has no implication of military rank. A Warlord can lead merely by example, by formal authority such as military rank, by acclaim, by threat, etc... And, yes, a Warlord could be an aweful person like a tribal strongman or rapacious orc chieftain - just as a Sorcerer or Wizard is often a villain in genre (or RL, where 'Sorcerers' are charlatans who exploit the superstitious).

Personally I would prefer an implication of law-enforcement officer rather then tin-pot African dictator.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, reaching 0 hp defines the moment when critical damage occurs. Zero is the moment when the spear goes thru a vital organ, when the target succumbs to blood loss, when the target goes into shock, or so on.

Kinda sorta. After all, I could roll a 20 the next round on my death save and stand right back up. I could go negative to 1 short of flat out dying and a single HP of healing and I'm back on my feet and 12 hours later, I'm back to full health.

IOW, you can't narrate that the spear went through a vital organ until the PC dies. It's Schroedinger's HP all over again. The only difference this time around is that it's not written in a 4e book, so, it's okay.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Personally I would prefer an implication of law-enforcement officer rather then tin-pot African dictator.

It sounds like something you'd hear in genre, and it can be taken many ways. For an American listener, 'Marshal' just gets you Matt Dillon or some other guy in a western, it misses the mark completely. Ranks, including 'Marshal' to the European ear, just get you officers in a formal military hierarchy, too narrow in concept. Marshal is the worst of 'em, but all military ranks are right out. It would be like calling the Fighter a Grenadier.

Are there evil warlords? /Sure/. No alignment restriction on the class.

I've yet to hear any suggestion that's near as good, that way.

 

[Yaarel]

Kinda sorta. After all, I could roll a 20 the next round on my death save and stand right back up. I could go negative to 1 short of flat out dying and a single HP of healing and I'm back on my feet and 12 hours later, I'm back to full health.

Yeah, but that happens in reallife too. A person falls out of an airplane, hits the ground, but stands up, and seems to be ok. Of course, there are many other examples that are less extreme.

IOW, you can't narrate that the spear went through a vital organ until the PC dies. It's Schroedinger's HP all over again. The only difference this time around is that it's not written in a 4e book, so, it's okay.

Narratively, a vital organ *was* struck, when reaching zero. But miraculously, the hero comes to, and presses on.



In my gaming, because nonzero injuries are by definition superficial, actually reaching zero is always a big deal.

 

[aramis erak]

Pedantic, but not true. In AD&D, it was "physical damage, luck, skill, and other magical factors." Morale was it's own rule.

Loss of HP always has triggered morale rolls, since Morale was added in AD&D. They're related.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, but that happens in reallife too. A person falls out of an airplane, hits the ground, but stands up, and seems to be ok. Of course, there are many other examples that are less extreme.



Narratively, a vital organ *was* struck, when reaching zero. But miraculously, the hero comes to, and presses on.



In my gaming, because nonzero injuries are by definition superficial, actually reaching zero is always a big deal.

Let's see someone do it twice.

And totally fair. Everyone has different levels of unbelievability. But, I guess my point is, if reaching zero is always a big deal, do you have a similar issue with warlord healing? That's always been my issue. Some people, and i'm not saying you personally, have no problems with the idea of reaching zero being this big deal, but totally healable in a day or two, but, can't accept the idea of morale healing. It's totally baffling to me.

 

[Hussar]

Thinking about it a bit, the idea that Warlords heal by letting you use Hit Dice is something that I think has legs.

It would result in a very different pacing in the game. Clerics give a group stamina - you don't heal so much in combat, simply because combat is so short, but, clerics let you have more encounters per day because you're not running out of Hit Dice as fast. OTOH, if you're burning Hit Dice with a Warlord, that would give the group speed but less endurance. You wouldn't have to short rest as often because you could recover HP without a short rest. But, you'd burn through Hit Dice faster, meaning your adventuring day might be a bit shorter.

But, if we continue the thought, maybe warlords could give bonus HP on Hit Dice to give a bit more endurance, and then have other powers/commands that might refresh short rest abilities in other characters. The higher the level of the warlord, the more HP he grants and the more he can refresh other character's powers. In combat, he grants additional actions for the rest of the party, or buffs/debuffs.

Now, he's not stepping on the cleric's toes, the cleric still has a nice solid niche, but, also has a nice niche of his own - a tactician character makes the party faster and deadlier, but, lacks endurance and perhaps lacks a bit of the effects mitigation - no curing poison or removing other effects or raising the dead. The cleric keeps his information gathering schtick as well.

I could really see that. Not sure if it needs a new class, perhaps a fighter or a spell less paladin or bard could work here as well.