Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zardnaar" data-source="post: 6931677" data-attributes="member: 6716779">Some people want more 5E content some people are happy with what WoTC is doing.  However those who want more are not having their needs met at all by WoTC. Myself I use 3pp but I have not bought CoS or SKT as I have not played the earlier WoTC APs and I have 3pp options there as well.  So WoTC is not getting any money from me personally and I doubt I am the only one.However I am just one voice. I think there is a legitimate desire for more material and 5E is doing well by most account so I am sure they can afford to hire say 2 writers to make a book. If they can't D&D has bigger problems. The grow the brand thins I would hazard has also not worked as AFAIK they no longer make D&D Kreo, Sword Coast Legends flopped and the D&D novel line might be dying from the sounds of it. My expectations of a D&D movie appearing and being a smash hit are also low.  We do not know exactly how many PHB WoTC has sold and we do not know the profit margin on them but even if they have sold 1 million PHB and make $10 profit per book (unlikely in both scenarios) that is "only" $10 million dollars.  If i had to guess they need to print more books whether they want to or not. We do know that they are working on at least 1 book focused on PC options which will land next year. This means around 3 years will have passed for the 1st major splat book,(SCAG was not that major and was not that good as fluff or splat). 3 years in 4E had its production cut in half, 3E had released 3.5, 2E had put out several class books, the tome of magic and several campaign settings.  Older D&D did not they had a different model and the splatbook era did not begin until 1985 (because TSR needed a quick buck). They had other advantages back then such as Gary Gygax whose name could sell books- that is why his name is on Unearthed Arcana, Temple of Elemental Evil and Oriental Adventures despite others doing most of the writing/work instead. The modern era lacks that with the possible exception of Monte Cook. And he left the team because he wanted to do RPG stuff and early in the lead up to 5E the focus changed from bringing back Dragon/Dungeon and the RPG to licencing.  They also promised a bit in the lead up to 5E. How is that tactic module coming along? The idea of 5E to me was a toolbox. No psionics for fans of Darksun and Eberron for the last 27 years we have had psionics by now in an editions timeframe. Designing classes is hard so it is ot like you can homebrew psionics that easily. We know they are working on them in previous editions we have had them by now. They have never been 1st out the gate but close to the launch. Not sure if putting them in the 1st splat book is a great idea, Paizo for example never developed psionics in PFRPG leaving it to 3pp.  And there is a big difference between bloat and nothing whatsoever (or some downloads and SCAG). IMHO they shold have had a splat book out by now, even if they make 1 every 2 years and 5E lasts for 10 eyars that is 5 of them. That could be the 1st 4 complete books like 3.5+ UA or something like Pazios Ultimate Magic/Combat, and advanced players guide. 5 books, 10 years.1 Class book1 Class book1 Race book1 Unearthed Arcana book1 PHB type book (a bit of everything).  Hell throw in some DM stuff for the off years.MM2MM3Fiend FolioCampaign SettingCampaign setting At one book a year I do not think this is really bloating badly at least in a 2E/3E/4E sense of the word over a 10 year period. Note I do ot count adventures as bloat as they are easily ignored and do not generally add much to a games mechanics. There seems t be plenty of room ofr at least 2 books 1 for the DM and one for the players. They are trying something a bit more fluff orientated with the Volos Guide to Monsters- to me that is a more mid edition book but we will see how it pans out. Padding page count would be my default assumption.  Generally in an editions lifecycle the good stuff comes out 2-4 year in and then quality tails off towards the end as things get a bit more niche and/or a bit more gonzo and they start testing stuff for the new edition. This is not new going back as far as 1E from 1985-87 they released Unearthed Arcana and the Wilderness and Dungeoneers survival guides of which they mined for the 2E PHB. Remember the 5 setting they were talking about? So far its only been FR. Remember the quality over quantity thing? Well several 5E release have been average (SCAG, HotDQ, SKT) so less doesn't mean better at least so far. THat being said there is also a legitimate fear of to much. Archetypes are the new prestige class bloat og 5E IMHO. They are easy to make and do not require that much though to make. For example consider the cleric. I decide to make the shadow domain so you pick some thematic spells, add an extra d8 weapon damage (necrotic in this case) or to cantips, pick some effect for channel divinity and you are more or less done. Some thins I think that are missing from 5E.3 classes not archetypes. They are the Psion, Psychic Warrior and A Gish PC. The existing arcane gish type have issues (dabbler or to much spell caster being bad at combat, armor and free hand rules, MAD etc). I think the psychic warrior and psion need to be separated or we get a repeat of the valor bard/bladelock/bladesinger.  Also some more archetypes for the least supported classes in the PHB, those classes being ones that only got 2 subclasses to start with. SCAG helped i that regard. Also missing are things from previous editions such as domains from 3E, a generic wizard and the warlord. if they added elemental domains+psionics for example I can do my own Darksun conversion so tools to do that would be nice.  So that is about it and that is just IMHO of course. Its not something I am particularly upset about but I understand where those who want more stuff are coming from. They should have had 1 book out by now primarily focused on player stuff- SCAG is a bit thin and thin on content in that regard.</blockquote>

Verification