D&D General Did 5e 2024 Not meet the economic goals set, and if not, why not?

[Sulicius]

Except 5e started with:

• less than ten races and now it's over forty
• less than fifteen backgrounds and now it's over fifty
• less than fifteen classes and now it's over one hundred (with the subclasses)
• less than fifty feats and now it's over one hundred

Power-creep involves everything that comprises a character in terms of capability.

I don’t see the issue. They make new options, and a few of them are more powerful in certain situations. I think you’re just talking about an increase in options? I don’t understand what this has to do with the revision.

The new encounter-building math? As in Challenge Rating? I'm still seeing GMs complain about how broken it is.

D&D 5E (2014) Thread 'Level = Challenge Rating'

Apr 28, 2024

I hope 5e 2024 eliminates the esoteric and often imbalanced terminology of monster "Challenge" rating. Instead, refer to "levels", such as a "level 13 Red Dragon", or whatever.

In any case, there exists a direct link between Level and Challenge, via the "Proficiency" bonus. Notice how the monster "challenge" in the Monster Manual and again in Mordenkainen Presents corresponds exactly to a player character "level".


Proficiency: Level = Challenge

+2: Level 0 (Background) = Challenges 1/8, 1/4, 1/2

+2: Levels 1 thru 4 = Challenges 1 thru 4
+3: Levels 5 thru 8 =...

• Yaarel
• Replies: 113
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 

And please understand we're not looking for "perfect" - we just want something that works. This is the only area where WotC has been consistent: leaving GMs without the necessary tools to run the system and 5e's co-designer Mike Mearls said the very same thing.

Which explains why D&D isn't doing as well as anticipated.

That thread doesn’t talk about experiences using the new monsters and encounter building math. It’s just about making something the OP likes to use more. If every homebrew rule means that the original rules are bad, then D&D must be the worst game ever made .

I haven’t seen many actual complaints from people who use it yet, apart from the fact that using experience is really annoying to do quick math with, and I agree.

Once again, where is the proof D&D isn’t doing as well as anticipated?

 

[mamba]

Once again, where is the proof D&D isn’t doing as well as anticipated?

we have no proof either way, that does not mean the default assumption is that it did unless we have proof to the contrary however. There is no default assumption

 

[Belen]

A lot of people who have played it agree with it being an improvement.

Sure. I am playing it now and have a different opinion. It is not an improvement. I know folks who disagree but the level of mixed reaction to 5.5 is not a good thing.

 

[TheSword]

Sure. I am playing it now and have a different opinion. It is not an improvement. I know folks who disagree but the level of mixed reaction to 5.5 is not a good thing.

There’s been a similar reaction to every edition change and half edition change of every game that has ever been made. The reaction even here is mild as milk-water by comparison.

Some like the changes and think they’re better, others don’t like them and either threaten to stick with the original, reluctantly proceed or play a different game entirely.

Change is inexorable as is the reaction.

Y’ggrilv tkak Tzeentch!

 

[The Firebird]

I don’t see the issue. They make new options, and a few of them are more powerful in certain situations. I think you’re just talking about an increase in options? I don’t understand what this has to do with the revision.

An increase in options will cause power creep even if those options are no stronger than before. The original set is a distribution, with some a bit below average, some a bit above. The new options are the same. But their addition means instead of 2 or 3 things being noticeabley strong, you get 4 or 5. Then 6 or 7.

Lots and lots of player options and a tightly balanced system work against each other.

 

[Theory of Games]

There remains no evidence of this

Sure there is: ICv2 and Bookscan. Most people that have access and study the numbers know the reality of things

 

[TheSword]

An increase in options will cause power creep even if those options are no stronger than before. The original set is a distribution, with some a bit below average, some a bit above. The new options are the same. But their addition means instead of 2 or 3 things being noticeabley strong, you get 4 or 5. Then 6 or 7.

Lots and lots of player options and a tightly balanced system work against each other.

Does D&D need to be a tightly balanced system? Is there no room for people who value different things from the game?

The more I play games that don’t attempt to be balanced, the more I realize it has little bearing on how much fun the game is.

 

[Theory of Games]

I don’t see the issue. They make new options, and a few of them are more powerful in certain situations. I think you’re just talking about an increase in options? I don’t understand what this has to do with the revision.

That thread doesn’t talk about experiences using the new monsters and encounter building math. It’s just about making something the OP likes to use more. If every homebrew rule means that the original rules are bad, then D&D must be the worst game ever made .

I haven’t seen many actual complaints from people who use it yet, apart from the fact that using experience is really annoying to do quick math with, and I agree.

Once again, where is the proof D&D isn’t doing as well as anticipated?

Oh it's an issue, whether you understand it or not

Power Creep - TV Tropes

Power creep is the process in multi-player games (Collectible Card Games, Tabletop Games, Video Games, etc.) in which newly-added content (such as character abilities or equipment) can be played alongside old content, but the new content is far …

tvtropes.org

And I just posted a thread from EnWorld with people complaining about D&D 2024's encounter design system. So you're purposely closing your eyes to something that is real, whether you want to admit it or not.

Get a Bookscan subscription and the truth about what's selling the best is clear

 

[TheSword]

Sure there is: ICv2 and Bookscan. Most people that have access and study the numbers know the reality of things

I was reminded of this article on ICV pointing out the many errors in the claims made by just one of those people ‘studying the numbers’. Bookscan data isn’t reliable. It doesn’t include all the hobby store sales if any, online retailers or VTT/digital sales.

My favorite quote from the article…

“[…] a large segment of the RPG players are predisposed to distrust WotC already. So, believing WotC would deliberately overstate sales plays into that storyline and would attract attention, which it did (after all, I just wrote a column on it).”

I think this thread is more of the same. As is the YouTube video that started it, by someone who’s opening comments mention that he plays Pathfinder 2

Rolling for Initiative – 3,773 Copies Sold?

Column by Scott Thorne

icv2.com

 

[payn]

Sure there is: ICv2 and Bookscan. Most people that have access and study the numbers know the reality of things

By "most people" you mean influencers and what #13 has to say will AMAZE YOU.