Unearthed Arcana Poll: How will the US Class Feature Variants be brought to Market?

[Sunsword]

3.5 leading to Pathfinder within 5 years was a failure state. WotC has gone over the reasons they won't do a "5.5" many times, but it boils down to it being bad business to do so. Hasbro wouldn't want them to do that, because of the bottom line. If corporate mandates anything at this point, it will be Edition conservativism because it has been what works so far.

These new options aren't unbalanced with what came before. A handful of variants for each Class and some retraining rules a new edition do not make.

Do you play Magic: the Gathering? Are you aware of the changes they've been making? The increased schedule release?

Hasbro only cares for it's bottom line.

I don't know how you claim 3.5 was a failure? In my stores it sold for years as D&D and then for years as Pathfinder 1. And you seem to be overlooking 4.5.

My advice is to look at what's been happening with M:tG.

Magic item changes and some class changes was the major focus of 3.5, IMO they are the basics for an edition change especially if we keep getting more UA updates every week.

 

[Parmandur]

Do you play Magic: the Gathering? Are you aware of the changes they've been making? The increased schedule release?

Hasbro only cares for it's bottom line.

I don't know how you claim 3.5 was a failure? In my stores it sold for years as D&D and then for years as Pathfinder 1. And you seem to be overlooking 4.5.

My advice is to look at what's been happening with M:tG.

Magic item changes and some class changes was the major focus of 3.5, IMO they are the basics for an edition change especially if we keep getting more UA updates every week.

Every two weeks, and that indicates more a new supplement, not a "5.5" reboot while they are still selling big.

I don't really lay Magic in stores, no.

3.5 was in stores for a few years, while the publishing schedule was in disarray and people were being constantly laid off while they planned a new Edition which also afailed. Pathfinder is, from a business point of view for WotC, a failure for Wizards. Essentials was in stores for barely a year before 4E was canned entirely. Not something they are going to repeat while the core books are still selling like hotcakes.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Do you play Magic: the Gathering? Are you aware of the changes they've been making? The increased schedule release?

Hasbro only cares for it's bottom line.

I don't know how you claim 3.5 was a failure? In my stores it sold for years as D&D and then for years as Pathfinder 1. And you seem to be overlooking 4.5.

My advice is to look at what's been happening with M:tG.

Magic item changes and some class changes was the major focus of 3.5, IMO they are the basics for an edition change especially if we keep getting more UA updates every week.

sigh Again with the hot-take of "Hasbro is evil"?

Hasbro has almost no role in Wizard's internals, because Magic/D&D make are very profitable.

If you don't like the current strategy with Magic, blame the team at Magic. Hell, there's little crossover between Magic teams and D&D's teams right now, so I don't know how this is related.

 

[Parmandur]

sigh Again with the hot-take of "Hasbro is evil"?

Hasbro has almost no role in Wizard's internals, because Magic/D&D make are very profitable.

If you don't like the current strategy with Magic, blame the team at Magic. Hell, there's little crossover between Magic teams and D&D's teams right now, so I don't know how this is related.

I mean, even if we grant Hasbro corporate involvement, that would preclude a "5.5" since it has been demonstrated to be bad business.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

It seems that in 5e they've decided that having a PHB2 is something they don't want.
They seem to have decided to keep new class features and new races fairly separate as well. Volo's and Mord vs Xan.

So, i expect these, and possibly more, and possibly some new subclasses in a Xanathar style book, with the updated class features (all the ones that updates to existing features not new or replacement features) EITHER being released in an adventurers league pdf and applied to all characters of appropriate classes, OR being AdvLeague non-legal.

 

[ad_hoc]

No. There are two separate points: revising the PHB, which is a terrible idea, and the PHB+1 design ethos of 5E which is great even for tables that don't stick to that in play.

The original post I was replying to said that making it a separate book is problematic for those who use the PHB +1 rule.

Examples weren't given but here's one - Ranger with Horizon Walker. If someone wants to use these rules they will lose out on the big Ranger buffs just to take a subclass they want from Xanathar's.

I said that they shouldn't make decisions with that in mind to which you are arguing with me about it.

So, what side are you on?

I've said that they shouldn't assume other books in play when designing a new book. I've also said they shouldn't assume a rule of PHB +1 is being used. That would severely hamper their design space.

What statements are you disagreeing with?

 

[Parmandur]

The original post I was replying to said that making it a separate book is problematic for those who use the PHB +1 rule.

Examples weren't given but here's one - Ranger with Horizon Walker. If someone wants to use these rules they will lose out on the big Ranger buffs just to take a subclass they want from Xanathar's.

I said that they shouldn't make decisions with that in mind to which you are arguing with me about it.

So, what side are you on?

I've said that they shouldn't assume other books in play when designing a new book. I've also said they shouldn't assume a rule of PHB +1 is being used. That would severely hamper their design space.

What statements are you disagreeing with?

Ah, sorry, comprehension failure on my part: I agree with you.

 

[Yaarel]

From the twitch video, Todd Talks, with Todd Kenreck, the UA Ranger options seem intended to be available for the Horizon Walker from Xanathars.

The consideration of the Core +1 rule suggests, the UA will be available as some kind of addendum to the Players Handbook itself. Even if it is also included a separate new book at the same time.

 

[Sunsword]

3.5 was in stores for a few years, while the publishing schedule was in disarray and people were being constantly laid off while they planned a new Edition which also afailed. Pathfinder is, from a business point of view for WotC, a failure for Wizards. Essentials was in stores for barely a year before 4E was canned entirely. Not something they are going to repeat while the core books are still selling like hotcakes.

3.0 was in stores for 3 years. 3.5 was in stores for 5 years. It sold like crazy, but they released multiple hardcovers a month and competed with themselves the way TSR had in the past.

4 was in stores for 2 years and then Essentials was in store 2-3 years.

If WotC had not been afraid of 4E being OGL, Pathfinder 1 wouldn't exist, most likely.

I run a chain of comic and game stores and WotC has done it's best to run local stores out of Magic. I don't have a lot of faith in their decisions.

It's been great talking to you and I hope you are right.

 

[Parmandur]

3.0 was in stores for 3 years. 3.5 was in stores for 5 years. It sold like crazy, but they released multiple hardcovers a month and competed with themselves the way TSR had in the past.

4 was in stores for 2 years and then Essentials was in store 2-3 years.

If WotC had not been afraid of 4E being OGL, Pathfinder 1 wouldn't exist, most likely.

I run a chain of comic and game stores and WotC has done it's best to run local stores out of Magic. I don't have a lot of faith in their decisions.

It's been great talking to you and I hope you are right.

Essentials was released in Q3 2010, while the Next playtest was announced in January of '12. That's a year and a half before abandonment, even if the game was still in print for a while.

Point is, they have got the numbers to show that half editions don't help.