D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[Tony Vargas]

Is D&D 5e a success as a product that sells and makes the company money?

All depends on how much money you put into it and what kind of RoI you expect.

PF, for instance, is probably successful as long as it keeps Paizo solvent. It was plenty successful to that standard getting it's (probably lion's) share of the 12 mil (?) in revenue there was to be had at at the nadir of the hobby in 2013 (with no competition from D&D).

4e, for the other extreme, needed to bring in at least 50 mil to justify its existence to Hasbro, at a time when the whole industry was pulling down maybe half that in a good year, before the 'great recession' hit.

We haven't heard so much as a rumor about the RoI or revenue goals for 5e. But, WotC is signing fewer paychecks to produce D&D than Paizo is to produce PF, so there's probably a very comfortable margin between what it must bring in to stay in print, and it's (lion's) share of the recovered 30 mil industry.

You're assuming that the recovery is due to a slow release, when it's more likely due to the vastly better system than 4e was. A lot more people LIKE this edition.

It's a much more familiar and traditional system. It is also, strictly speaking & judged as written, a really bad system, in a technical sense - because it's not written to be a technically good nor even a smoothly functional system, but, rather, to be a good starting point for an Empowered DM to build and awesome campaign, whether it bears much mechanical resemblance to the next guy's or not. Well, and also to be comfortingly familiar to fans of 20th century editions of the game (which, since the game was primitive back then, rather precludes it being all that technically slick or 'elegant' by modern standards).

Aside from the massive nostalgia factor and return to familiar, traditional design approaches, 5e also represents a seismic shift from 3e RAW-worship & rewards-for-system mastery player-focus and from 4e's tight balancing & ease of DMing (both also, actually, supporting more player-focused styles), to a very DM-centric approach.

All of those things contribute to 5e's success, IMHO. And it even manages to be refreshing along with nostalgic, IMHO, because of 'em.

But it's till all correlation, not proof.

For other correlations, though, Battletech, D&D 2e, and Storyteller were all enormously successful from the late 80s through into the early oughts with very rapid release schedules focusing on setting over crunch. D&D/d20 was successful with a rapid release schedule focusing on crunch. The nadir of the hobby came not when D&D was spewing out the most product, but, in 2013, when it was absent from the market, with only 3.5-clone PF carrying the torch.

But again we have 3e and 4e sitting there as pretty strong evidence that a fast schedule isn't healthy for the hobby.

We did get some pretty strong evidence that going to an OGL was good for the broader hobby, in some ways (tough on some in the industry, though) and that edition warring was particularly bad for the hobby.

 

[Shasarak]

Is D&D 5e a success as a product that sells and makes the company money?

Because if you have a different answer to that than the people you are debating, you need to cover that basic difference in starting positions.

How much is enough money to qualify as a success?

 

[Hussar]

No we don't. We have 4e as evidence that a bad system fails. We have 3e/3.5 as a single edition with modifications that lasted 8 years and did very well, as evidence that an edition with a lot of splats can succeed.

Then don't buy one.

Ahh, so, your evidence requires redefining what "edition" means? I'm sorry, but, if you bang out a new core 3, then that's a new edition. Obviously sales of the 3e core three died after 3.5 was released.

OTOH, if we go by the typical definition of edition - release of a core 3 or version thereof (Essentials for example) - then your evidence falls apart.

Obviously we're working with considerably different definitions of "edition". But, just for S&G's, is eight years between massive investments (an investment that actually failed to succeed in the case of 4e) actually a healthy model?

I think WotC is saying no. It's not. They are looking at a much, much longer cycle. I mean, how many games completely rewrite their entire game every ten years? To the point where the new version is unrecognizable as the same game from the previous version. Hand a 3e character sheet to an AD&D player who has never seen 3e and do you really think they'd recognize it as a D&D character sheet?

I'd be far happier with a much longer cycle.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait... for 3e/3.5 are you discussing a single edition or a single system that was modified? Because they are two different things.

They are not two different things. The changes to 3e were not enough to warrant a new edition, but were enough to warrant new core books to help DMs with the all the errata.

 

[Maxperson]

Ahh, so, your evidence requires redefining what "edition" means? I'm sorry, but, if you bang out a new core 3, then that's a new edition. Obviously sales of the 3e core three died after 3.5 was released.

No. I use the actual definition. 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e are definitions. 3.5 was just a bunch of errata that caused new core books to be put out.

I think WotC is saying no. It's not. They are looking at a much, much longer cycle. I mean, how many games completely rewrite their entire game every ten years? To the point where the new version is unrecognizable as the same game from the previous version. Hand a 3e character sheet to an AD&D player who has never seen 3e and do you really think they'd recognize it as a D&D character sheet?

Yes, the AD&D player would recognize the sheet as a form of D&D. I played both and have seen both sheets. Even 4e, the most alien of D&D editions would be recognizable, because the core terminology hasn't been changed much. Armor class, hit points, movement, saving throws, fighter, cleric, etc. are consistent from edition to edition.

 

[delericho]

Ahh, so, your evidence requires redefining what "edition" means? I'm sorry, but, if you bang out a new core 3, then that's a new edition.

Both 1st and 2nd Ed put out "new core 3" books partway through their lifespan. Were those new editions?

 

[Zardnaar]

No we don't. We have 4e as evidence that a bad system fails. We have 3e/3.5 as a single edition with modifications that lasted 8 years and did very well, as evidence that an edition with a lot of splats can succeed.

Then don't buy one.

3.5+WoW helped crash the D&D market in 2004.

They also released 3.5 2 years early presumably to get that core book sales they saw in 2000/2001 and they kind of failed with that.

Late 3.5 books apparently were selling very badly as they got more and more niche and quality went down- most of the good 3.5 stuff was 2004-2006. 4E did not do as well as Pathfinder which outsold it and Pathfinder did not out sell 3.5.

3.0 did not outsell 2E although 3.0+3.5 did.

In terms of PHB,

2E splat combined outsold everything AFAIK they lost money doing it though and bankrupted TSR (TSR almost went bankrupt twice before this)

If you release stuff to fast you have nothing to sell later so they release a new edition and at that rate each edition was selling less than the one before it, 5E has been the 1st one to break that trend since 1983. Think about that for 33 years each edition was getting smaller and smaller.

The 1st 3 big splat books in Pathfinder were really good, after that they went downhill. And you don't really want to lug around a heap of books and I own around 400 D&D items.

5Es schedule could be a little higher with 1-2 more books a year without bloating it much. THe less you make though the easier it is to buy all of them ($50 every 6 months vs monthly) and the pent up demand likely helps as well.

 

[Maxperson]

3.5+WoW helped crash the D&D market in 2004.

External pressures like WoW don't really have a place in this discussion. While interesting, we're talking about how WotC's methods affected the editions and would likely affect 5e.

They also released 3.5 2 years early presumably to get that core book sales they saw in 2000/2001 and they kind of failed with that.

Which, while interesting, doesn't mean that releasing splat books killed the edition.

Late 3.5 books apparently were selling very badly as they got more and more niche and quality went down- most of the good 3.5 stuff was 2004-2006. 4E did not do as well as Pathfinder which outsold it and Pathfinder did not out sell 3.5.

Right. LATE in 3.5 the books sold badly due to niche and primarily, poor quality. 4e was also not as good of quality as the early and mid 3.5 books, which did sell well. Finally, Pathfinder is not D&D. It's D20. D&D sells better due to the name, unless it's poor quality like late 3.5 splat books and 4e.

So again, while interesting, nothing there suggests that an increase in quality general content splat books from say 0, to 1 per year would be bad for 5e.

2E splat combined outsold everything AFAIK they lost money doing it though and bankrupted TSR (TSR almost went bankrupt twice before this)

2e failed to focus and put out way to many settings. By splitting the base like that, it guaranteed that it would lose money. Nothing there suggests that putting out general release content which would be usable in almost every setting AND homebrew game, would cause a similar loss of money.

If you release stuff to fast you have nothing to sell later so they release a new edition and at that rate each edition was selling less than the one before it, 5E has been the 1st one to break that trend since 1983. Think about that for 33 years each edition was getting smaller and smaller.

Awesome. Nobody is suggesting a fast release rate. At a rate of 1 per year, 3e would have lasted 60 years, and wouldn't have started declining due to poor content until about the 50th year. 5e has plenty of room for an increase to 1 per year of general content splat.

5Es schedule could be a little higher with 1-2 more books a year without bloating it much. THe less you make though the easier it is to buy all of them ($50 every 6 months vs monthly) and the pent up demand likely helps as well.

5e has a general content rate of 0 per year. If we add in setting books to the rate above, 5e can release 1-2 setting books AND 1 general content release per year and not have to worry until the 40-50th year. 3e put out more setting books than general content.

 

[Imaro]

They are not two different things. The changes to 3e were not enough to warrant a new edition, but were enough to warrant new core books to help DMs with the all the errata.

Yet the changes did create a new edition... invalidating third party 3.0 published content and creating changes in the classes, skills, spells, feats and general rules of 3rd edition. Not sure how much change is needed to constitute a new edition but any way you slice it a new edition was created and new corebooks released that were not just reprints or errata 'd 3.0 rules.

Here's a quick, non-comprehensive run down of the most important changes from 3.0 to 3.5... seems pretty significant to me.

Class Changes

• Bards received more skill points and spells on their spell lists were changed.
• Clerics are allowed to spontaneously cast cure and inflict spells of the "mass" variety.
• Druid Animal companions advance as the druid levels up now, making the druid more playable, Druids were given access to far more spells than before.
• Fighters Feat list received an overhaul and many of the feat descriptions changed.
• Monk's Flurry of Blows was changed to have different advancement, and received different options for bonus feats. (It didn't help much in the long run, Multi-attribute-deficiency cripples this class)
• Paladin's can summon their mounts instead of them being ever-present. They can also smite evil more times per day.
• Rangers received a hit die increase, more skill points, Favored enemy and animal companion also received large revisions for the class, making it playable.
• Sorcerers were allowed to make small revisions to their spells known when they level up (but still have stunted casting when compared to wizards, picking up their spells a full level later)
• Wizard spell specialization was changed, and Familiars bonus stats were changed as well.

Skill Changes

• Alchemy was rolled into Craft(Alchemy)
• Animal Empathy was removed from the game and instead Ranger and Druid now get the skill as a class ability.
• Innuendo which before was used to covertly pass messages along was rolled into the Bluff skill.
• Intuit Direction was rolled into the new Survival skill.
• Perform was rolled into its own skill, which works similar to the Craft and Profession skills.
• Read Lips was removed from the game and rolled into the Spot skill.
• Ride no longer is specific to different mount types.
• Pickpocket was rolled into the Sleight of Hand skill.
• Scry was removed, and now only relies on the spell Scry.
• Wilderness Lore was rolled into the Survival skill.

Feat Changes

• Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon fighting were rolled into each other so that Two-Weapon Fighting provides the benefits of both feats.
• Expertise was renamed to Combat Expertise
• Weapon Finesse was redone, and now provides a benefit to every light weapon instead of requiring a new taking of the feat for each individual weapon that needed to be taken advantage of.
• Sunder was rolled into the Sunder special attack, and the Improved sunder feat was added to avoid Attacks of Opportunity while using Sunder.
• Shield Expert was rolled into the feat Improved Shield Bash.
• The feat Improved Critical was changed to not allow stacking with other Critical Range Enhancing effects.

Spell Changes
The following spells were added to the game:
Acid Splash, Animate Plants, Arcane Sight, Arcane Sight (Greater), Baleful Polymorph, Bear's Endurance (Mass), Blight, Bull's Strength (Mass), Call Lightning Storm, Cat's Grace (Mass), Command Undead, Cure Critical Wounds (Mass), Cure Moderate Wounds (Mass), Cure Serious Wounds (Mass), Daze Monster, Deep Slumber, Dimensional Lock, Disrupting Weapon, Eagle's Splendor, Eagle's Splendor (Mass), Enlarge Person (Mass), False Life, Fox's Cunning, Fox's Cunning (Mass), Glibness, Heroism, Heroism (Greater), Hold Monster (Mass), Inflict Critical Wounds (Mass), Inflict Moderate Wounds (Mass), Inflict Serious Wounds (Mass), Longstrider, Moment of Prescience, Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, Owl's Wisdom, Owl's Wisdom (Mass), Polar Ray, Prying Eyes (Greater), Ray of Exhaustion, Reduce Person (Mass), Shout (Greater), Summon Instrument, Symbol of Weakness, Sympathetic Vibration, Touch of Fatigue, Touch of Idiocy, Undeath to Death, Waves of Exhaustion, Waves of Fatigue.
The following spells were completely removed or changed:
Animal Friendship, Emotion (Fear), Emotion(Friendship) became Charm Person, Emotion (Hate), Mass Haste, Negative Energy Protection became Death Ward, Nystul's Undetectable Aura became Nystul's Magic Aura, Polymorph Other became Baleful Polymorph, Polymorph Self became Polymorph, Symbol (Discord), Symbol (Hopelessness).
The following spells had their names changed:

• Change Self → Disguise Self
• Charm Person or Animal → Charm Animal
• Circle of Doom → Inflict Light Wounds (Mass)
• Command Plants → Control Plants
• Emotion (Despair) → Crushing Despair
• Emotion (Hope) → Good Hope
• Endurance → Bear's Endurance
• Enlarge → Enlarge Person
• Greater Dispelling → Dispel Magic (Greater)
• Healing Circle → Cure light wounds (Mass)
• Improved Invisibility → Invisibility (Greater)
• Invisibility to Animals → Hide from Animals
• Invisibility to Undead → Hide from Undead
• Mass Charm → Charm Monster (Mass)
• Minor Globe of Invulnerability → Lesser Globe of Invulnerability
• Protection from Elements → Protection from Energy
• Rage → Emotion (Rage)
• Random Action → Confusion (Lesser)
• Reduce → Reduce Person
• Resist Elements → Resist Energy
• Symbol → Symbol of (Death, Fear, Insanity, Pain, Persuasion, Sleep, Stunning)
• Teleport Without Error → Teleport (Greater)
• Vanish → Teleport Object

On top of that, Many spells had their spell schools changed as well as some substantial changes to spell levels as well.
The spell effects of the following spells were changed:
Blade Barrier, Blindness/Deafness, Call Lightning, Endure Elements, Eyebite, Flame Arrow, Harm, Haste, Heal, Neutralize Poison, Otiluke's Freezing Sphere, Polymorph, Reduce Person, Righteous Might, Scrying, Scrying (Greater), and Wall of Force.
Along with those, many Domain spells were changed to either different domains or removed from domains entirely.
Damage Reduction Changes
Damage reduction was changed to allow many different types of things to bypass that damage reduction, Including Special materials such as Silver, Adamantine, and Cold Iron; Weapon Types, such as Slashing, Piercing, and Bludgeoning; Alignments, such as Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic; Magic and Epic were also added to indicate physical damage reduction, and epic damage reduction. These factors were also combined to indicate monster weaknesses to certain aspects.
Equipment Changes
Equipment is now listed in small and medium-sized version for use by small and medium sized characters. The largest effect of this adjustment is the Shortsword/Small Longsword issue, which means that small characters will usually do one die-size less damage.
(The medium shortsword and small longsword both do 1d6 damage. In 3.0, only medium sized weapons were listed, and a gnome rogue could use the medium shortsword. In 3.5, our gnome needs to use a small longsword to get 1d6 damage, which requires martial weapon proficiency, or a small shortsword, doing only 1d4 damage.)
DMs should take this into account and make sure small characters can get small weapon rewards (or just house-rule it away.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*