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."

 

[Staffan]

I expect the binder to show up as a "vestige pact" option for the warlock...that is how they handled it in 4e and I believe Mearls mentioned that this is likely what they would do in 5e if they brought it over.

That's a bit of a shame. The cool stuff about the Binder was that they got to connect with these weird entities and gained strange powers from doing so, and each day they got to connect with different entities. It made them very flexible, in a way usually only highly diversified wizards are - but with a slightly more martial/skill-based bent. It was also nice that many of the vestiges granted what was effectively 1/encounter abilities (once per 5 rounds), which was a pretty new thing in D&D at the time.

The warlock, on the other hand, is a very un-flexible class - there are plenty of ways to make a warlock, but once any power is chosen it is pretty much locked in. That's the very antithesis of the binder.

 

[Minigiant]

The Cavelier

Now, it was a walking sack of bonuses with a code to balance it.

Do we want:
A warrior who gets +X bonuses to attack and damage rolls with certain weapons
A warrior treats certain weapons as magic
A warrior who can trade those +X bonuses to AC.
A warrior who straight up is attached to his or her mount in combat
A warrior who gets even more ability score increases
A warrior who attacks things in toughest order, toughest to wimpiest

maybe?
If we have the cri-happy champion, how much worse could Mr(s) 20Str/20Dex/20Con lance/sword/flail guy be?

That's a bit of a shame. The cool stuff about the Binder was that they got to connect with these weird entities and gained strange powers from doing so, and each day they got to connect with different entities. It made them very flexible, in a way usually only highly diversified wizards are - but with a slightly more martial/skill-based bent. It was also nice that many of the vestiges granted what was effectively 1/encounter abilities (once per 5 rounds), which was a pretty new thing in D&D at the time.

The warlock, on the other hand, is a very un-flexible class - there are plenty of ways to make a warlock, but once any power is chosen it is pretty much locked in. That's the very antithesis of the binder.

You could still do that.
You could have the warlock form a pact each day with vestige and get different but weaker features.
I suspect the patrons were written in that way on purpose so they can swap out a single patron for a collection of vestiges for the binder.

 

[tuxgeo]

< bulk of post snipped for space >
. . .

No warlord on the survey means they won't go there again. They already told the fans of the warlord class how to play one : a war college bard. Why make redundant classes? You can already do exactly what you want. But you do need to use magic to do it. Because that's life.

(Emphasis added.)

When you say, "war college bard," do you mean College of Valor? If not, where is this "war college bard" of which you speak?
(Link, please?)

 

[spinozajack]

Yes, that's what I meant. If you actually read L&L and tweets from the developers, that's precisely the advise they give.

If they start turning 5e back into 4e to lure a handful of customers back, not only will they not get my money, I'm probably done with table top. I cannot, will not, abide through going these types of debates about whether a non-magic using class should have access to instantaneous healing from across the room. I would rather literally burn my money than give it to a company that thinks it's okay to release a warlord after feedback roundly told them not to include it.

 

[Umbran]

Didn't you get the memo?

Overruled.

Please keep it respectful.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, that's what I meant. If you actually read L&L and tweets from the developers, that's precisely the advise they give.

If they start turning 5e back into 4e to lure a handful of customers back, not only will they not get my money, I'm probably done with table top. I cannot, will not, abide through going these types of debates about whether a non-magic using class should have access to instantaneous healing from across the room. I would rather literally burn my money than give it to a company that thinks it's okay to release a warlord after feedback roundly told them not to include it.

Wow. So, if they include an optional class, perhaps in a UA article, that includes martial healing (which 5e ALREADY HAS), you'll drop the hobby? Really? You hate the idea so much that giving it to someone else will make you stop.

Do you think that's a ... rational position to take?

 

[spinozajack]

If you think "warlord" is synonymous with martial healing, then i'm sorry, but you don't know warlords at all. It's so much more than that. Note that nowhere in my post did I even mention healing.

By the way, "because it might not fit every campaign" is about the weakest argument around to not flesh out a class. More options does not infringe on your fun.

Thanks for not telling me what impinges on my fun or not, bro.

Warlords were overpowering every single 4th edition game I saw them in. I've played one twice, it got tiresome how easy the game was. They make a mockery of the action economy, make it so enemies literally couldn't even get a turn in before they were smoked by your party. It's like being a liberal on Fox news, unable to get a single word in edgewise because being assaulted from all sides. It's fun to see that once or twice, but after that it cheapens the game and I don't want my game cheapened through reducing the challenge to zero.

Their non-magical shouting healing was just one area that I never want to see happen again in another game of D&D I play in, either as a player or a DM. I also don't want players controlling other players every round, and grossly unbalancing the game with out of turn shenanigans that make straightforward play impossible and slow the game down.

No, I never want to see such a class again. I've seen DMs give up on trying to throw encounters together because the players had a warlord who make the game a walk in the park. I want the game to be a challenge, not a gotcha or an exercise in futility for DMs.

So yes, my fun does depend on the game remaining as it is. There are already a few exploitatively strong elements in the game as is (polearm master + gwm is better than anything else on the battlefield), I don't want them compounding this with even more reason that the only way to challenge PCs is to give NPCs at least 4 levels in character classes so they can compete.

Take the warlord power "Reorient the Axis". Now how on earth would you explain how a warlord can grant extra movement rate to his entire group every 5 minutes the second any combat starts, without using magic? Why even bother having combats? Just let the wookie win. I don't enjoy playing games in god mode.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6794198]spinozajack[/MENTION] - considering that the complaints you are making about the Warlord class are very specific to your experience and are not generally (as far as I know) shared by the wider community, what conclusions would you make from that?

You're the only person I've ever read consider the warlord to be so overpowered that it's like playing in God mode. Have you considered that your experiences might just be the result of user error rather than mechanical?

By the way, "Move your asses!" would be pretty much the way I'd narrate Reorient the Axis. But, then, I have never really thought of game mechanics as having physics explanations.

 

[spinozajack]

Wow. So, if they include an optional class, perhaps in a UA article, that includes martial healing (which 5e ALREADY HAS), you'll drop the hobby? Really? You hate the idea so much that giving it to someone else will make you stop.

Do you think that's a ... rational position to take?

It's irrational to play a game that I find ridiculous, yes.

One can heal their ally from a grievous injury due to falling into a trap or getting a critical from an ogre's club, or you can play a strictly non-magic using class. Not both. You have to pick one.

That exclusion is required, because : logic.

Thankfully Mr Thompson is gone now so the chance of Mike Mearls adding the warlord back in is very low. Maybe working on Destiny will disabuse Rodney of such unrealistic and to my mind, lazy game design as he is known to use. Verisimilitude is exclusionary. I want my non-magical PCs to follow the laws of newtonian physics, as best as they can be approximated in a table top game. Which means no spooky action at a distance, no quantum mechanics, no spiritual ghost particles making stuff happen over there when your character is over here.

That kind of sheer absurdity offends my rational sensibilities and is therefore, not fun to me. Back in the playtests you couldn't go two days without a new warlord thread. And people wanting that lost. What on earth would make anyone think that Wizards wants to throw money away like that? Like Donald Trump, Wizards is one off-the-cuff "come and get it" or warlord shout away from alienating their players off that 3-5 year sales cliff Mearls was tweeting about. Fortunes can be made and they can just as easily be lost. They are well aware of these hot button topics and have already shown their hand, namely that they want to keep making money with this game. Adding in disruptive elements that drive customers away isn't good for business.

 

[Hussar]

I'm thinking that perhaps you may be overstating things just a smidgeon. After all, 5e already has non-magical healing. A fighter's second wind is a perfect example. I could take lethal levels of damage over the course of a day, yet finish that day with full hp, presuming I get to short rest a few times. How does this not trip your "lazy game design" issues? How is it perfectly fine for a fighter to have non-magical regeneration, but, not okay to have a warlord grant extra movement or attacks?

Heck, have you read a battle master? How does me smacking something with my sword allow an ally to move (allowing an ally to move half its speed without drawing opportunity attacks from the guy I smacked)? Or, how is it I can give up my attack to grant someone else an attack, with bonuses, but, no one else in the game can do that? Why do these things not offend your "rational sensibilities"?

And, how in the hell does allowing an OPTIONAL class into the game, that you are in no way obligated to play, cause you to leave the game? Good grief. Are you really so arrogant to think that your preferences are just that important?