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."

 

[BryonD]

If WotC has worked out that the optimal point on their profit curve can be reached by excluding inspirational healing beyond what's already in the game (HD and second wind, plus the fig leaf of "healers' kits"), then of course that's their prerogative. They can only work with the fan base that they have, and perhaps it really is true that introducing the warlord will cost them more sales and players then it would gain them.

I wouldn't jump to this conclusion. I think hyper-slow release of anything has a lot more to do with it.

But in discussions among the fans, it seems to me that the situation is a bit different. For WotC, the preferences of the fan base are more-or-less fixed. But when Fan A is telling Fan B that A will quite the game if the option that B wants is introduced, is A entitled to take his/her preferences as a fixed point? Or is it reasonable for B to expect A to be a little more flexible in ignoring published options that don't appeal to him/her?

Amen

 

[Mistwell]

Are we talking about the Warlord because it is an option people want to play or like someone said earlier, is it simply a proxy for a rehash of the edition war between 4e and 5e? I think the lack of a true gish character with arcane strike and magical abilities that focus on personal abjuration, personal buffs, and elemental damage focused through martial weapons is the class really missing. The eldritch knight is lacking in my mind.

I think people genuinely want to play a Warlord. It was a very popular class for 4e. There is appeal to it.

 

[Lanefan]

OK, so a little less Asgardian, a little more Highlander?

Weird. I'd've thought you'd object to something that made every living thing innately magical, that way.

Except I don't see it as necessarily magical, as I define magic in the game; and this is also where elegance comes in. Some explanation is probably required...

In the real world we have the four forces of physics (of which I currently only remember 3: gravity, weak electromagnetic, strong electromagnetic, and ???); I just have magic as a 5th force of physics which, unlike the other 4, can be directly manipulated by some lifeforms in various ways. Now, if I take this latest idea and simply stick "life energy" in as a 6th force, away we go.

This also lets me explain the existence of fantastic creatures (kind of) - in very short form they need the magic force to sustain their lives. Yes, this means in my game a really really powerful Dispel Magic can kill an Elf* outright; and an Elf who finds itself in a null-magic zone (or on a magic-less world such as real Earth) won't last long at all. And yes, this means a great many things living in the game world are by definition innately magical; though real-Earth creatures such as humans and rabbits and ordinary fish are not. That said, I've no problem with this idea of a "life energy" force for all and giving exceptional humans access to a bit more of it so they can gain some hit points while adventuring.

The reason I had to think all this through was that the basis of my first big campaign was that world had a glitch in the magic force caused by a meteor strike some centuries back introducing a new element (uranium) which in tiny quantities corrupts magic and in normal earth-like quantities nulls it entirely (thus Earth is a non-magic world). So, I did all the required heavy thinking back then and have just kept the same system since, because for me it works. For what it matters, I see non-magical worlds like our Earth as being the exception in the game universe rather than the norm.

* - or any other fantastic creature e.g. Dragon, Pixie, Goblin, etc.; the Giant-Dwarf class creatures are more resilient vs. lack of magic but even they will eventually succumb.

Blows the doors off any nod to realism or verisimilitude, I mean.

Well, the h.p. system as written already does that. This idea reels it back in a bit, to at least tie it in with -well, let's call it a unified theory of in-game physics.

Lan-"if this doesn't make sense, don't worry - it won't make sense tomorrow either"-efan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except I don't see it as necessarily magical, as I define magic in the game; and this is also where elegance comes in. Some explanation is probably required...

To put it mildly.

In the real world we have the four forces of physics (of which I currently only remember 3: gravity, weak electromagnetic, strong electromagnetic, and ???);

Strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetism, gravity. At extreme states found shortly after the Big Bang, the weak and electromagnetic forces unify. (No, I'm not that into physics, I just coincidentally looked that up last week, for a joke, of all things.)

I just have magic as a 5th force of physics which, unlike the other 4, can be directly manipulated by some lifeforms in various ways. Now, if I take this latest idea and simply stick "life energy" in as a 6th force, away we go.

So, not 'magic' the way psionics is not magic - still supernatural.

Well, the h.p. system as written already does that.

Not so much: it's at least remotely plausible, the supernatural elements like magical protection or divine grace can be done without (for an atheist fighter with no magic items, for instance) you still have physical durability, skill, luck, endurance, &c. His survival is often improbable in the extreme, but not supernatural in nature in any demonstrable way.

This idea reels it back in a bit, to at least tie it in with -well, let's call it a unified theory of in-game physics.

It makes hit points into pools of life-force. Any high-level character becomes like a movie zombie that you can blow holes in without killing, no matter how many vital organs end up splatted against the wall. How 'realistic' is that 'verisimilitude?'

 

[Saplatt]

I think people genuinely want to play a Warlord. It was a very popular class for 4e. There is appeal to it.

I suspect it wasn't on the list of options for the same reason we didn't get a psionics option: it's a no-brainer and they already plan to address it at some point.

It may be taking longer than many would like, simply because, on one hand, it tends to step on the toes of other classes and multiclass combinations, and on the other, an underpowered Warlord would probably cause as much distress as none at all.

 

[Eric V]

I suspect it wasn't on the list of options for the same reason we didn't get a psionics option: it's a no-brainer and they already plan to address it at some point.

It may be taking longer than many would like, simply because, on one hand, it tends to step on the toes of other classes and multiclass combinations, and on the other, an underpowered Warlord would probably cause as much distress as none at all.

I hope you're right!

 

[Curmudjinn]

Kits. And PlaneScape. Kits and PlaneScape.

 

[Yaarel]

I never use ‘kits’. What exactly are they? Are they just swapping class features, like 4e did pretty well? Are they more like a 3e ‘template’, an overlay of additional powers? Or maybe, something like a prestige class? Or are they moreorless the same thing as a 5e class ‘archetype’, what other editions might call a ‘subclass’?

 

[Obryn]

I never use ‘kits’. What exactly are they? Are they just swapping class features, like 4e did pretty well? Are they more like a 3e ‘template’, an overlay of additional powers? Or maybe, something like a prestige class? Or are they moreorless the same thing as a 5e class ‘archetype’, what other editions might call a ‘subclass’?

It depends. Largely, they're minor subclasses.

Most kits - the baseline - required you to use some weapon proficiency slots in certain ways, and provided a few nonweapon proficiencies and other benefits in exchange. As 2e got older, kits got crazier, culminating in The Complete Book of Elves.

Like, a swashbuckler fighter needed Int/Dex of 13 each. They need to learn classical swashbuckler weapons - rapier, main gauche, etc - and must learn them first. They could learn Rogue nonweapon proficiencies, got an AC bonus in light armor, and the ladies/mens loved them. But trouble seeks them out - rival swashbucklers, etc.

 

[Yaarel]

Ok, so a ‘kit’ is more like the 4e ‘theme’ and like the beefed-up 5e ‘feat’, to significantly customize the way the class feels?