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]

The various Exceptional abilities of 3e are also effectively magical abilities, with the description of exceptional abilities stating that they "may break the laws of physics." The only thing that makes them non-magical is the book saying they aren't magical, which is no different that the 4e martial power source.

3rd edition fighters did not have Ex abilities, as far as I remember. Sometimes players don't want to play a non-magical class. In 4th edition, they did not have that choice, because much of the Martial Power source was basically Ex-like abilities, as you correctly mention.

More choice is better than less choice. Some people don't want their fighters to be magical. Why can you not understand that? Your idea of what makes a fun fighter is not more valid than mine. And there are magical fighters in 5th edition, it's called an Eldritch Knight. Most of the classes and subclasses of the game have magic of some sort.

All I'm asking is for some honesty. Don't call impossible abilities non-magical. Label them properly.

 

[Remathilis]

Lets suppose there is a warlord class in the works that is supposed to fill the healer role, as in full cleric replacement. Right now, two classes can do this role easily: druid and bard. (BCD for short).

How does a warlord...

... Restore Hit Points? (BCD get cure wounds, healing word, and mass versions. What would a warlord have to match that?)
... Cure status aliments like fear, blindness, poison, or lost limbs? (BCD get access to lesser and greater restoration, as well as Regenerate. CD get heal. How is the warlord healing these status conditions?)
... Return someone to life (BC get raise dead, D gets reincarnate. If my PC falls, how is the warlord bringing him back up?)

Even the Paladin can do these things, a bet at a slower rate thanks to 1/2 spellcasting (but made up for some in lay on hands). If the warlord doesn't have a mechanic to do these things, he's a pretty poor healer class. (Enough that I wouldn't want a one instead of a BCD or even P).

 

[spinozajack]

I'd leave out the misogyny and/or transphobia, though. It was a bit uncalled for.

My comment was:

"So D&D combat is a bunch of guys with makeup on whacking each other with nerf baseball bats and pillows, right?"

I used to play pillow fights as a boy, and use nerf bats as well. It was fun, non-lethal combat. We also used to disguise ourselves as orcs or the Hulk on halloween, using makeup. The fact that you choose to interpret my post as being misogynist or transphobic is more a reflection of how your own mind works, not mine. Save your personal attacks for someone who cares.

My point was, if you believe D&D combat to be non-lethal and never results in any injuries unless death occurred and you interpret it that way, you are free to do that, but I am free to think that that's totally stupid. Because it is. That's not how the game is narrated, and there are tons of examples in the books that not only describe damage as incurring wounds, but that not describing HP loss as such is completely bizarre and misses the entire point of the game.

Combat is not a sport, it's life threatening. D&D combat is not a game of nerf bats, no matter how much you try and distort the definition of HP to make that the case. HP makes no sense if as they decrease, your character is more injured. Because of an accrual of injuries finally results in the character dying at the end. It's not only the last sword thrust that matters, it's every other one as well. That keeps the story consistent and make sense. Your definition of HP makes the game a jumble of contradictory and irrational absurdity. But to each his own, right? You're free to do whatever you want. Attacks that hit cause wounds and damage in every D&D game I've ever seen in 30+ years of playing. I don't know what game you're playing, but it's got to be an alien experience to me. Even when we played 4th edition we still thought of HP loss as damage, and the rules encouraged us to think that way by the inclusion of the "bloodied" condition which was visible to others. So HP loss was explicitly causing blood to come out, and by extension, what causes blood to come out of your body? Not exercise. Not fatigue. Wounds.

 

[Obryn]

We also used to disguise ourselves as orcs or the Hulk on halloween, using makeup. The fact that you choose to interpret my post as being misogynist or transphobic is more a reflection of how your own mind works, not mine. Save your personal attacks for someone who cares.

Riiiiiight. [emoji38]

 

[GMforPowergamers]

3rd edition fighters did not have Ex abilities, as far as I remember. Sometimes players don't want to play a non-magical class. In 4th edition, they did not have that choice, because much of the Martial Power source was basically Ex-like abilities, as you correctly mention.

More choice is better than less choice. Some people don't want their fighters to be magical. Why can you not understand that? Your idea of what makes a fun fighter is not more valid than mine. And there are magical fighters in 5th edition, it's called an Eldritch Knight. Most of the classes and subclasses of the game have magic of some sort.

All I'm asking is for some honesty. Don't call impossible abilities non-magical. Label them properly.

I played a warlord for twenty something levels, he was based on a mix of a character from star gate (no supernatural abilities) and a character from Babylon 5 (no supernatural abilities) and we never broke from things they could do... I never had a problem playing a warrior I would expect to see in Game of thrones in 4e either....

so YES I call it as POSSIBLE in popular fiction...if not real life itself.

edit: in fact in 4e I only saw 2 clerics played, both were ment to be devote deity worshipers... other then that we had druids, warlords, shaman, and Ardents... now in 5e over the course of 4 campaigns we have had 5 clerics, and none wanted to play a cleric so they were basicly healing spellcasters... funny how that feels like D&D

 

[MechaPilot]

3rd edition fighters did not have Ex abilities, as far as I remember. Sometimes players don't want to play a non-magical class. In 4th edition, they did not have that choice, because much of the Martial Power source was basically Ex-like abilities, as you correctly mention.

More choice is better than less choice. Some people don't want their fighters to be magical. Why can you not understand that? Your idea of what makes a fun fighter is not more valid than mine. And there are magical fighters in 5th edition, it's called an Eldritch Knight. Most of the classes and subclasses of the game have magic of some sort.

As far as having choice, I absolutely understand that. You are the one that has failed to understand choice by demanding that a martial healing option not even exist as a condition of your continued patronage of D&D. As choice relates to 4e fighters, simply don't take the powers you don't like. You have issues with Come and Get It? You were never required to take it.

All I'm asking is for some honesty. Don't call impossible abilities non-magical. Label them properly.

3e barbarians and rogues did have Ex abilities; where was all the complaining about magical rogues and barbarians? Where was the complaining about dishonesty when the 3e PHB explicitly states that Ex abilities "may break the laws of physics" but "are not magical?" The description of the martial power source in the 4e PHB parallels the 3e description of Ex abilities so much that no claim of dishonesty is tenable if you accepted the 3e description of Ex abilities.

 

[MechaPilot]

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.

I do have a point. I forgive you for not seeing it.

Could short rest abilities become daily abilities? If you scaled them up properly, yes they could (by the same token, dailies could be scaled back to become short rest abilities.). The short rest abilities have been scaled down so that a more frequent use is not abusive.

Also, "maybe, just maybe, the designers made. . ." short rest abilities so that every class didn't blandly follow the same resource schedule (which I recall being a criticism of 4e's unified AEDU structure).

 

[spinozajack]

Lots of rude, patronizing, and personal attacks, yet no substance or anything worth reading, by forum posters who believe they are god's gift to game design, and probably don't even play 5th edition anyway.

Mod Note: This is well past enough, and you've had more than sufficient warning. Spinozajack will be taking a break from conversation. ~Umbran

 

[Leif]

Thank you, Umbran!

 

[RotGrub]

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 certainly don't want to see more classes. More sub classes are fine however. I'd also restrict new a sub classes to iconic concepts and not things that have strange and meaningless names.