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]

Put in 'role' terms the Fighter (or any heavy class e.g. Paladin, Cavalier, etc.) should be both defender *and* striker,

That would, of course, render strikers obsolete. The Thief wasn't a striker yet in AD&D, while the Fighter very much was, and, it didn't go great for the Thief. 3.0 was on the right track with SA.

But, really, virtually everyone does at least some damage, so the Striker role is always a matter of degree. The fighter has been wholly a Striker, a Defender 'secondary' Striker, and too customizeable to pin a label on. He is, once again, solidly in the Striker box (except, perhaps for the EK, and with maybe a little optional defender with the right style or optional feat).

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - would you by any chance be getting to GenCon this year? It'd be fun to sit down over a beer and bash on things like this.
Lanefan

nope. DunDraCon, if you're ever on the Left Coast.

Lets suppose there is a warlord class in the works that is supposed to fill the healer role, as in full cleric replacement.

Seems vanishingly unlikely, but I'm always up for some baseless speculation. So, for the purposes of this one post, I'll assume that.

Right now, two classes can do this role easily: druid and bard. (BCD for short).

OK, also assuming that, for right now.

How does a warlord...

... Restore Hit Points? (BCD get cure wounds, healing word, and mass versions. What would a warlord have to match that?)

Mechanically? Probably let's go with: triggering HD in combat. It doesn't add to the party's endurance over the day, but replaces the function of standing a fallen ally.

Inspiring Leader, OTOH, adds to endurance. Maybe some mechanics like that, if the Warlord is to be brought up to full band-aid status.

... 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?)

Anything temporary that you got or are still getting a save against, could probably be handled by inspiring an extra save. Probably an alternate use of the same mechanic as restore hps.

Anything permanent would require a much more limited, much higher level mechanic. I suppose compensation training would be a reasonable concept. The warlord can't Regenerate you lost limb, but he can drill you to fight every bit as effectively with that hook or peg-leg, or train you so well in blind-fighting that you take no penalties. The mechanics for that would have to be limited in some way comparable to the kinds of rituals used to heal such extreme (and, typically, never actually happening in the course of the game - there aren't Rolemaster-style Crits in 5e's Standard game) injury. Maybe using time moreso than exotic components?

... Return someone to life (BC get raise dead, D gets reincarnate. If my PC falls, how is the warlord bringing him back up?)

Something like the 3.x Revivify might be reasonable. Not from death, but from the brink of death, which is mechanically the same thing for a few moments, at least. That could be done with the same mechanics as healing and granting saves, in-combat.

Ironically, I suppose the Warlord could just recruit a replacement, fill it in on everything, and have it slip into the same role in the party. It wouldn't /feel/ the same in RP, but it could serve the same end purpose: the party is back to full strength. The mechanic would have to as heavily-limited as Reincarnate, which the concept resembles more closely than it does resurrection.


OK, enough of that.


Of course, the big flaw in that bit of speculation is that 5e doesn't design classes to fill eachother's roles exactly or completely - or at all, really.

Of course, the Warlord could do all the above in his original version, but that's only because all the out of combat restoration rituals were available via a feat. Classes only contributed things like hp, restoration, save triggers, buffing & the like.

 

[Remathilis]

Of course, the big flaw in that bit of speculation is that 5e doesn't design classes to fill eachother's roles exactly or completely - or at all, really.

Of course, the Warlord could do all the above in his original version, but that's only because all the out of combat restoration rituals were available via a feat. Classes only contributed things like hp, restoration, save triggers, buffing & the like.

No, not exactly. Bards and druids (and somewhat paladins) can still fill the healer role though, so while there is no "official" roles, anyone with cure wounds/healing word, lesser/greater restoration, and one return to life spell can do that job.

Which leads me to think a 5e warlord won't be a "martial healer" per se, since he can't really fill that role well. At best, he'd be a healer-of-last-resort rather than the "nonmagical cleric replacement" that some people want. Even if he can somehow restore hp, he's rubbish in the other areas healers are needed and would need magical backup anyway. Seems like one if its key design goals really doesn't work well with 5e...

 

[Yaarel]

I see the Warlord as the healer (ie, restorer) of the first resort, who especially heals while allies have about half-max hit points.

Cleric and other ‘menders’ - after its too late - are the last resort.

 

[RotGrub]

If I had to pick one thing from older editions that I'd like to see return to D&D, it's old healing rates coupled with the complete removal of non-magical healing.

 

[Obryn]

If I had to pick one thing from older editions that I'd like to see return to D&D, it's old healing rates coupled with the complete removal of non-magical healing.

They're already back. They're an optional rule in the DMG as I think was pointed out upthread?

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

I picked the Cavalier as something I'd like to see more of. Also more on the Forgotten Realms.

 

[RotGrub]

They're already back. They're an optional rule in the DMG as I think was pointed out upthread?

I've read them. Those rules don't accomplish that without modifications. They do not remove Hit Dice either.

 

[Yaarel]

I agree it is useful to distinguish ‘healing’ (physically mending wounds and refreshing physical stamina) and ‘inspiring’ (mentally improving alertness and galvanizing resolve). Both restore hit points but the flavors and narrative implications are different.

If there is a mechanical difference (such as inspiration requiring the target to ‘hear or see’), then it is easier for the ‘hp=meat’ players to modify the rules for a grizzlier setting.

Personally, the hp=meat setting is impossibly unrealistic, medically speaking. So I appreciate how hp are both mental and physical. If I ever did a hp=meat campaign, almost every battle would cause lasting disease-like mechanical conditions, including all kinds of penalties for broken bones and other injuries.

Explaining most of the loss of hp as mental depletion helps keep D&D narratives more realistic for me.

 

[GobiWon]

I've read them. Those rules don't accomplish that without modifications. They do not remove Hit Dice either.

My house rule - No hit point restoration after a long rest, but full hit dice restoration. It is more generous than previous editions, but I feel it more accurately portrays hp as both stamina and physical damage. Their use of hit die in the morning to recover wounds reinforces the idea of recovery, and they start the day down a limited resource (hit die). This reminds the party of what they have been through. A complete reset to perfect would trivialize what they have endured.

 

[SkidAce]

My house rule - No hit point restoration after a long rest, but full hit dice restoration. It is more generous than previous editions, but I feel it more accurately portrays hp as both stamina and physical damage. Their use of hit die in the morning to recover wounds reinforces the idea of recovery, and they start the day down a limited resource (hit die). This reminds the party of what they have been through. A complete reset to perfect would trivialize what they have endured.

Interesting.