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."

 

[aramis erak]

Military rank, connotes command of a vessel. Fatally narrow. Also, just as much trouble with the bogus achievement rubric. ( Shouldn't your first level "Captain" be a middie?)

Actually, Captain was the first formal military rank still in modern use to acquire its modern name, but the role was to command a unit of 10 to 300 men... what would now be considered a US/UK platoon to company... It comes from the latin "caput" - "Head" - and the armies had basically 3 levels of organization: The army, the 3 battailles (vanguard, maingard, hearthguard), and the various companies - typically each company was a Lord's contribution - commanded by the lord if present, or an assigned caput miles or caput bellator. (Head soldier or head warrior), or from capitaneo (Cheiftain). (I've seen compelling arguments for both derivations, and caput is the root of capitaneo...) It was, and still is, the first command rank of the army, and the army use is older. But note that the latin terms post-date the empire - the Roman equivalent to the dark ages and later captain is the Centurion. (The tribune was equivalent to a modern major, lieutenant colonel or colone, and the Princeps ("first") to a brigadier/brigadier general. The Legatus was equivalent to the modern lieutenant general, colonel-general, general, or marshal, depending upon specific assigned duties and legions under their authority.

A naval captain also commanded a company of between 10 and 300 men in military service with a commission from a nobleman... the difference being that he was granted permission to lease, purchase, or build a ship as well.

Commissions as captains have been found dating back to before 1000 AD...

Thing is, a Naval captain, until roughly 1700, usually commanded the same number of men as an army captain... 10-300. But, the company regularized around the 100-200 man mark in the 1700's while the ship of the line ran 200-400 men... plus a company of naval-soldiers... the term Ship's Company is still a holdover in english from that period. (Note that, generally, until the 19th C, a civilian ship's commander was a Master, not a captain... unless he held a commission, in which case he was a captain...) Even in the US, until the second quarter of the 19th C, a naval captain didn't actually outrank a ground captain, except positionally. (Until 1862, The USN had 4 officer ranks: Captain, Commander/Master-Commandant, Lieutenant-Commandant, Lieutenant. The RN had "Master & Commander" instead of Master-commandant. And Master was a warranted rank of officer granted by a RN flag officer or a US Captain to a passed midshipsman or to a petty officer... the passed midshipsman could later become a lieutenant. There were multiple grades of naval captain...)

Oh, and the term Marshal? it's got multiple derivations, too - Officer Martial was a court appointment for the noble overseeing the captains and captains-general. And then there is the french derivation, which comes from the french term for Farrier - the King's Farrier came to be the Marshal of Horse... (Marechal de Equites...)...

Colonel dates to the 16th C. It's from Spanish Coronel (royal officer) and Cabo de Colunelas (head of column)... due to the formal organization of multiple companies into a unit called a colunela (column). Noting that captains were commissioned by lesser nobles than the crown... while captains-general and coronels were commissioned by the crown. The French borrowed it, but changed the term to colonel, and the english grabbed the rank, the spelling, and the unit title from the French, but somehow used the Spanish pronunciation and then dropped a vowel...

http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110111-034.pdf
http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-army/roman-army-ranks.htm


Also note: In the US, Captain is used not only for a ground or air forces officer of O3, but also for the officer commanding a police precinct (in large departments) or shift (in small departments) (either way, directly comparable to the commonwealth police rank Inspector), the positional title of a commissioned officer (of any grade) in command of a ship, a naval officer of O6, the elected head player of a sports team, as a synonym for the foreman in certain fields of labor (especially when elected; falling out of favor), as the term for the head mechanic of a given aircraft (properly plane-captain - usually an enlisted man, rarely a warrant officer), and as a derisive term for an officious ex-military person (especially an enlisted man) trying to pull rank on a civilian...

if one wants a proper yet unique term, centurion would seem to be a good fit - it's not used in colloquial english, it's a military leader term, it is roughly equal to captain in terms of historic use, and only BSG fans are likely to be upset about it...

 

[Talmek]

I chose FR, Eberron, Greyhawk and Dark Sun for my preferred campaign settings. Artificers were my #1 choice in the way of additional classes for future UA.

I like that WotC is providing surveys now instead of just throwing darts - that actually gives me a good amount of hope for the future of the game.

 

[Patrick McGill]

When 5th edition was first released, I remember a lot of praise given over to the fact that they were setting a hard limit on the number of classes, trying to keep it down to what is in the PHB and using those classes and new subclasses to support anything new they wanted to create.

So in this survey asking about these classes, does anyone actually want to see new classes, or just subclasses?

I'll admit I didn't vote for any of the classes listed because I like the hard limit of classes, though I did write in warlord.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

When 5th edition was first released, I remember a lot of praise given over to the fact that they were setting a hard limit on the number of classes, trying to keep it down to what is in the PHB and using those classes and new subclasses to support anything new they wanted to create.

So in this survey asking about these classes, does anyone actually want to see new classes, or just subclasses?

I'll admit I didn't vote for any of the classes listed because I like the hard limit of classes, though I did write in warlord.

I want to see a handful more classes, because I don't belive we have the right mix just yet, but I agree there needs to be a limit.

In my mind I see a warlord, one or two psionic classes, and maybe a new 5e class that is wholey new as a good rounding out... more then one or two past that might be much...

I would love to see martial adepts (Warblade, swordsage, crusaider) made into sub classes (fighter,monk, and paliden) I would love the shaman to become a druid sub class, and the warden to become a spell casting barbarian...

 

[Obryn]

Someone needs to reread the DMG optional rules... My home game does use the lasting injury rules for crits and for Deathsave-rolled-a-5-or-less....

It's all well and good that there's optional rules, but that doesn't mean the base game has, by default, any severe injuries. I could start using the crit tables from Arms Law, but that doesn't mean 5e has rules for slipping on invisible, dead turtles.

 

[aramis erak]

It's all well and good that there's optional rules, but that doesn't mean the base game has, by default, any severe injuries. I could start using the crit tables from Arms Law, but that doesn't mean 5e has rules for slipping on invisible, dead turtles.

It does, however, have rules for lasting injuries. They're not required, but they ARE in the rulebook. Which makes them entirely unlike rules for slipping on turtles. And puts them well above GM handwave - they're a standard option that, unless one is playing AL, is available at the GM's discretion, complete with how magic interacts with them. (Lesser restoration suddenly gets much more useful.)

 

[CM]

Let's call the warlord a "Leader"!

Life Coach IMO.

 

[SigmaOne]

It does, however, have rules for lasting injuries. They're not required, but they ARE in the rulebook. Which makes them entirely unlike rules for slipping on turtles. And puts them well above GM handwave - they're a standard option that, unless one is playing AL, is available at the GM's discretion, complete with how magic interacts with them. (Lesser restoration suddenly gets much more useful.)

This is my biggest complaint about 5e. I knew the designers were just being lazy when I saw there were no rules for slipping on turtles. How can they consider the game to be complete? I mean, no rules for stubbing your toe on an aardvark I get --- that's just extraneous. But slipping on turtles is "core 3" content.

 

[Obryn]

It does, however, have rules for lasting injuries. They're not required, but they ARE in the rulebook. Which makes them entirely unlike rules for slipping on turtles. And puts them well above GM handwave - they're a standard option that, unless one is playing AL, is available at the GM's discretion, complete with how magic interacts with them. (Lesser restoration suddenly gets much more useful.)

Okay.

When I'm talking about the game, I'm talking about the core baseline. The default, if you will. While the modular things in the DMG are maybe a step above UA and houserules, they're not at the same level of table penetration as the PHB.

That's important, otherwise there is no such thing as a game to discuss.

 

[spinozajack]

Second wind already has a daily limit. In fact, it has several different daily limits.

It has a hard limit of 24, for the number of one hour rests that can be taken in a day.

It has a rational hard limit of 16, for the number of one hour rests that can be taken in a day between long rests.

It has a soft limit of the number of times the party is willing to stop for an entire hour and do nothing just so one character can use her second wind.

It also has a practical soft limit of 2-3, representing the average number of short rests one can expect to take during an adventuring day.

Every single one of the things you just mentioned could apply to any of the other daily limited powers that were being discussed, in other words, they could all become short rest refresh, according to you, without any impact on the game.

Maybe, just maybe, the designers made those other abilities have strict daily limits to prevent abuse? And then we get back to my original point, which is why prevent abuse for some powers but not others. Healing abuse prevention is easily as important to the proper functioning of the game as preventing any other kind. Probably more.

In short, your point isn't one.