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]

I'd hazard a guess that the great majority of players interested in a warlord class specifically do not want a magic-using class.

It's clear that the designers of 5th edition listened to the mass of feedback from the playtests saying they didn't want instantaneous, non-magical healing happening from across the room again.

Didn't you get the memo?

Overruled.

Your fun is not more important than my fun. I can't play a game of D&D where healing an ally is happening like that without using magic or even touching the PC or using bandages or some such.

There already is a way for non-magical healing to occur, walk up to your fallen ally, use your healing kit from the healer feat that you took, and spend your action doing that.

Let's let magic take care of magical things. It's easy, we play a game with magic in it, so we already have that design space open to us. It's called a paladin, a cleric, or a ranger, or a bard, or a favored soul, or a druid can all do that. Using spells or other magic.

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.

 

[spinozajack]

There's even more room that than. There are only 5 arguably-pure 'martial' sub-classes in 5e. All are focused on DPR as their main combat contribution. That leaves a healer or leader, a less-focused damage 'blaster' type, a battle-field-interdiction 'controller' type, an action-enabling Commander, even a more effective 'defender' build. There were six Warlord builds, plus the unofficial 'Lazy' build. There were 3.x fighter builds you couldn't do in 4e, and still can't in 5e. Really, martial design space is wide open. 5e has barely touched it.

Martials aren't getting across-the-room healing without magic in 5th edition, sorry man. You lost that debate. The PHB is proof of that. Plus the comments by the designers that if you want to play a warlord, with healing, you have to multiclass a bard to get it. Or just play a paladin or a ranger, take some feats, or use maneuvers to grant allies some attacks. All that design space has already been used.

"Design space" to let specifically non-magical classes do magical things is not a design space I want to ever see explored. Because it's stupid.

 

[CM]

<impressively arrogant edition war bait snipped>

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.

 

[CM]

...makes me wonder what a spell-less bard a la the spell-less ranger would look like...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-at-the-nonmagical-bard&p=6558638#post6558638

 

[Tony Vargas]

Martials aren't getting across-the-room healing without magic in 5th edition. The PHB is proof of that.

So what you're saying is, the PH is it, nothing else will ever be added to the game. I am unconvinced.

Plus the comments by the designers that if you want to play a warlord, with healing, you have to multiclass a bard to get it.

Mearls has made some very anti-martial/anti-warlord comments, in an off-hand way, in the context of a podcast not actually about D&D. Maybe they reflect his own personal prejudices, and maybe he'll let those prejudices get in the way of making 5e the best game it can be. Or maybe not.

"Design space" to let specifically non-magical classes do magical things is not a design space I want to ever see explored.

Nothing magical about hp restoration, everybody does it every night. Nothing magical about the design space (everything but DPR) left open to martial archetypes by 5e.

 

[SigmaOne]

Mearls has made some very anti-martial/anti-warlord comments, in an off-hand way, in the context of a podcast not actually about D&D. Maybe they reflect his own personal prejudices, and maybe he'll let those prejudices get in the way of making 5e the best game it can be. Or maybe not.

Out of curiosity, what podcast?

 

[ppaladin123]

It's a long shot but I added a request for the Tome of Magic Binder in the comments section. @kalil, maybe you could do the same for the Warlord.

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.

 

[ki11erDM]

I only selected FR and Greyhawk. None of the other items interest me at all. And I left comments that Eric's Grandmother would not approve of in regards to the fact they have not published any settings as yet.

 

[SteveC]

I selected all of the class content. I'd sure love to explore settings in more detail, but character customization is much more lacking in this edition. I'd really like to see some playtested and fully developed character options.

I also suggested the Warlord. The Warlord I played so much is not a fighter, they're a support character. As it was the most popular 4E character I hope someone will dust off those books and take a look at it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Out of curiosity, what podcast?

Apparently, 'Blood of Gruumsh,' March 2013, though I can't confirm that atm, due to a "CRITICAL FAILURE!"