D&D 5E Amazon best and worst sellers for 5e so far

[Zardnaar]

We played some of the Pathfinder AP which were good, but restricted ourselves to the core rules.



And still, some noticeably changed the way the game was played, again in particular the buffs and some class changes.

And the problem, in an edition that was extremely technical and generated many debates, you could not do with the previous edition, you needed to have the changes.



And still, it changed the feel of the game, and honestly for what ? The game exploded relatively shortly after (I has been playing AD&D for 20 years and not switched to 2e except in rare cases), overgorged on its own production which made the game completely unsustainable and way too complex to manage.

And, by the way, thinking about it, were there that many more changes from 1e to 2e than from 3 to 3.5 ? We played a lot of planescape and spelljammer and dark sun with 1e without any trouble whatsoever... It was NOT the case with 3 to 3.5.



Huh, no. Sorry. First, the changes in Tasha are totally optional, and we are not using most of them. It did not change the game.



First, it was still a NEW publication, not an old one with small changes all over the place. And it contained more than just changes.



You are awfully defensive about that, you know ? Why ? What's the subtext here ?

May be a 3E grognard. They're rare but exist.

 

[TheSword]

Forcing you to buy a set of 3 core books after just a few years ? Really sounds like a scam.

Moreover, the list of change was not small and in particular the effect on the game, it really felt different, in particular with the changes in the buffs.



And this is why I never invested in pathfinder after the problem with 3e. Once was enough, I was not ready to do it on something that again felt like a 3.8. Because it was exactly that.

We played some of the Pathfinder AP which were good, but restricted ourselves to the core rules.



And still, some noticeably changed the way the game was played, again in particular the buffs and some class changes.

And the problem, in an edition that was extremely technical and generated many debates, you could not do with the previous edition, you needed to have the changes.


And still, it changed the feel of the game, and honestly for what ? The game exploded relatively shortly after (I has been playing AD&D for 20 years and not switched to 2e except in rare cases), overgorged on its own production which made the game completely unsustainable and way too complex to manage.

And, by the way, thinking about it, were there that many more changes from 1e to 2e than from 3 to 3.5 ? We played a lot of planescape and spelljammer and dark sun with 1e without any trouble whatsoever... It was NOT the case with 3 to 3.5.


Huh, no. Sorry. First, the changes in Tasha are totally optional, and we are not using most of them. It did not change the game.


First, it was still a NEW publication, not an old one with small changes all over the place. And it contained more than just changes.



You are awfully defensive about that, you know ? Why ? What's the subtext here ?

I’d say the folks you claim were scammed by a book are more defensive than I am. The cost of our hobby used to justify people’s arguments in favour of not changing rules continues to be a poor one… it gets my goat and implies that people won’t pay good money for rpg products.

The books tweaked the game for those that wanted it tweaked. Either you like the changes in which case it was an improvement, or you didn’t in which case don’t use the 3.5 phb.

The fact that you said you played with pathfinder core books demonstrates my point that buying extra books are optional. You don’t need them. Sure the rules within update the game, that’s just progress. 3.5 rules were optional. You could play with a 3e bard or a 3.5 bard in the party alongside PCs of the opposite PHB.

Can you point to any changes that actually caused a problem in real play between 3e and 3.5e?

 

[Zardnaar]

I’d say the folks you claim were scammed by a book are more defensive than I am. The cost of our hobby used to justify people’s arguments in favour of not changing rules continues to be a poor one… it gets my goat and implies that people won’t pay good money for rpg products.

The books tweaked the game for those that wanted it tweaked. Either you like the changes in which case it was an improvement, or you didn’t in which case don’t use the 3.5 phb.

The fact that you said you played with pathfinder core books demonstrates my point that buying extra books are optional. You don’t need them. Sure the rules within update the game, that’s just progress. 3.5 rules were optional. You could play with a 3e bard or a 3.5 bard in the party alongside PCs of the opposite PHB.

Can you point to any changes that actually caused a problem in real play between 3e and 3.5e?

People tend to switch to the latest books.

Up take of 3.5 was only around 50 % and it caused problems with stores obsoleting their stock. Very few people want to buy obsolete books.

3.5 was essentially out of print by 2007 before 4E landed.

Collectively 3E is actually one of the bigger selling D&D's. It's just split over 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder. 5E, and Basic/,1E probably outsold it.

 

[Lyxen]

I’d say the folks you claim were scammed by a book are more defensive than I am. The cost of our hobby used to justify people’s arguments in favour of not changing rules continues to be a poor one… it gets my goat and implies that people won’t pay good money for rpg products.

I don't like to pay the complete price again for something containing a shitload of vague changes, whatever I'm paying for. The cost per hour or whatever is irrelevant, it's still double the cost on fairly expensive books. Especially for players, by the way.

And it was the same thing with the stupid Essentials in 4e, which were absolutely not needed except to make some money because WotC knew that corebooks and especially the player books are what makes the real sales.

The books tweaked the game for those that wanted it tweaked. Either you like the changes in which case it was an improvement, or you didn’t in which case don’t use the 3.5 phb.

And I'm not the only one telling you that it was a pain to do so, with arguments (like the ruleslawyering that was so much enhanced by this edition and its stupid player-centricity). Deal with it.

The fact that you said you played with pathfinder core books demonstrates my point that buying extra books are optional. You don’t need them. Sure the rules within update the game, that’s just progress. 3.5 rules were optional. You could play with a 3e bard or a 3.5 bard in the party alongside PCs of the opposite PHB.

And we could do this because we also changed the way we were playing the game, from a club where everyone had to be on the same page to simpler campaign with one table.

Can you point to any changes that actually caused a problem in real play between 3e and 3.5e?

No, I have better things to do than go over these damn lists again. Not even mentioning the 20 pages of house rules that we had to write for clarification. I'm done with that edition. You have your feelings, I have mine and I'm not alone in this, deal with it.

 

[TheSword]

I don't like to pay the complete price again for something containing a shitload of vague changes, whatever I'm paying for. The cost per hour or whatever is irrelevant, it's still double the cost on fairly expensive books. Especially for players, by the way.

And it was the same thing with the stupid Essentials in 4e, which were absolutely not needed except to make some money because WotC knew that corebooks and especially the player books are what makes the real sales.



And I'm not the only one telling you that it was a pain to do so, with arguments (like the ruleslawyering that was so much enhanced by this edition and its stupid player-centricity). Deal with it.



And we could do this because we also changed the way we were playing the game, from a club where everyone had to be on the same page to simpler campaign with one table.



No, I have better things to do than go over these damn lists again. Not even mentioning the 20 pages of house rules that we had to write for clarification. I'm done with that edition. You have your feelings, I have mine and I'm not alone in this, deal with it.

Cool, no examples. I’ll consider the matter settled. It takes two to tango.

 

[Lyxen]

Cool, no examples. I’ll consider the matter settled. It takes two to tango.

If you took the time to read more than argue, you would have seen that I have given you plenty of examples so far in previous posts, and I've not been alone. But you do you, you know...

 

[GreyLord]

While I can't say I enjoyed Ravnica or Strixhaven, I LOVED Theros.

I thought it was great.

 

[Parmandur]

It's a common assumption that's always proven wrong. It's not D&D fans plus MtG fans that picks these up, it's the subset of people who are fans of both.

I picked up Ravnica without knowing anything about Magic.

 

[darjr]

The Magic settings books are where WotC does a lot of experimentation. I like that. I wan't more of that. I expect we'll see more of that too.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok. Point them my way. 3.5 had minimal impact. You could run a 3.0 adventure with 3.5 rules with no changes (except damage reduction) and vice versa. Like no change at all. Your PCs wouldn’t even know the difference. Let’s no pretend this is like an edition change.

It was a big shift, not in rules, but in design philosophy. Rules were very compatible, but the mindset was different. In 3.5 the shift from DM has the last word to players have the last word happened. Also balance over fun was the new guideline. (My personal opinion, but i can back it up).
5e turned the wheel back a bit by presenting a quite well balanced and still fun rules design. And the biggest shift was firmly establishing that the DM has the last word.