D&D 5E (2014) Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[Maxperson]

Sure. But I was asking about the part where you said that it was the 3.5 books that hurt them. The core books. Or is that not what you meant?

What I was saying is that re-printing the core books with the errata and calling it 3.5 fooled people into believing that it was a new edition. That misperception caused people to view 3e stuff as incompatible, costing the 3rd party market to suffer. Had they not called the errata 3.5 and just published errata, those companies would have continued to do well with their fully compatible material.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What I was saying is that re-printing the core books with the errata and calling it 3.5 fooled people into believing that it was a new edition. That misperception caused people to view 3e stuff as incompatible, costing the 3rd party market to suffer. Had they not called the errata 3.5 and just published errata, those companies would have continued to do well with their fully compatible material.

Right. So my points that more books hurt them, and buyer perception can be a huge factor both seem in line with what you said.

Because when you boil it down, there was enough different about 3.5 to warrant a new set of books. Call it a new edition or errata or French Vanilla ice cream, WotC decided that new books were needed. And those new books led to problems.

 

[Maxperson]

Right. So my points that more books hurt them, and buyer perception can be a huge factor both seem in line with what you said.

Re-printing the core books as 3.5 hurt the 3rd party sellers. It did not hurt WotC.

Because when you boil it down, there was enough different about 3.5 to warrant a new set of books. Call it a new edition or errata or French Vanilla ice cream, WotC decided that new books were needed. And those new books led to problems.

No, there wasn't enough difference to warrant a new set of books called 3.5. That's why 4e didn't do that and just posted tons of errata instead.

 

[Zardnaar]

Re-printing the core books as 3.5 hurt the 3rd party sellers. It did not hurt WotC.

No, there wasn't enough difference to warrant a new set of books called 3.5. That's why 4e didn't do that and just posted tons of errata instead.

It did hurt wotc though. It fractured the fanbase and they sold less than 3.0. Future 3.5 books were selling to half the userbase. Less than 3 years after that they started work on 4E.

 

[Shasarak]

Reading failure.

But, having problems remembering that a swashbuckler gets sneak attack in situations that NO OTHER ROGUE gets is something that trips us up frequently.

Obviously the Swashbuckler has no trouble remembering what his character does. Why dont you just let him get on with running his character?

But, hey, go with the snark if it helps.

Imagine if you had a Wild Mage in your group that does not follow the normal rules at all!

 

[Maxperson]

It did hurt wotc though. It fractured the fanbase and they sold less than 3.0. Future 3.5 books were selling to half the userbase. Less than 3 years after that they started work on 4E.

It hurt them because you didn't need to buy the errata to play the game and use all future supplements. That's what fully compatible means. I bought the 3.5 PHB and MM, but I didn't bother with the 3.5 DMG because I didn't need it to play or run the game. Truth be told, I didn't need the MM, either. I bought it for convenience in having the errata. The only book I needed was the PHB, and only because I was also a player in other games where people wanted to run all the errata as written.

The fracture you mention was more of a slight crack. 3e players still bought 3.5 products.

 

[Corwin]

The fracture you mention was more of a slight crack. 3e players still bought 3.5 products.

I know I did. I bought all thee new 3.5 core books. My 3.0 books were then relegated to my "past editions" shelf with all my OD&D, 1e and 2e stuff. I never went back to them for as long as I continued playing 3.5.

 

[Satyrn]

So you admit the changes made 3.0 material unusable but because you didn't like the unusable material or want to use it... it worked fine. Ok, got it. Also there were spells in 3.0 that no longer existed in 3.5 how did you reference those with your 3.5 handbook?

If my group hadn't bothered switching to the 3.5 classes - the key improvement of 3.5 to my mind - then it seems to me that us playing 3.0 while using 3.0 and 3.5 splats would've been akin to to AD&D players not using the Unearthed Stuff while still using the Wilderness Survival Guide or Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, picking what they could from it from around all the stuff that referenced Unearthed Arcana rules. And that, to me, is part of the fun of this hobby - using what we like, discarding the rest, and then homebrewing something new out of the whole mess.

 

[Zardnaar]

It hurt them because you didn't need to buy the errata to play the game and use all future supplements. That's what fully compatible means. I bought the 3.5 PHB and MM, but I didn't bother with the 3.5 DMG because I didn't need it to play or run the game. Truth be told, I didn't need the MM, either. I bought it for convenience in having the errata. The only book I needed was the PHB, and only because I was also a player in other games where people wanted to run all the errata as written.

The fracture you mention was more of a slight crack. 3e players still bought 3.5 products.

Having 40% less customers is very bad though. Doesn't mean you make 40% less profit you might lose all your profit.

Your fixed costs are the same regardless of how many books you sell. Selling more copies of a book is better than selling a larger number of more books (unless the numbers get absurd of course).

Your fanbase also has a finite amount of money, most of us can probably afford 2-3 books a year, they were releasing a book a month during 3E and 4E. Even I could not keep up and I have 80 3E books on the shelf. I think I spent 5k on D&D stuff in 2005 or 6 (damn minis).

I would like them to make more material and they probably should have had some sort of PC option book ou in 2015 but there is one in the works which should be out next year. I have been buying 3pp and that is money WotC misses out on if there is enough people like that they will figure it out, if not oh well I still have my 3pp options.

 

[Maxperson]

Having 40% less customers is very bad though. Doesn't mean you make 40% less profit you might lose all your profit.

You have hard numbers showing that 40% of 3e customers not only didn't buy the 3.5 core books, but didn't buy the fully compatible 3.5 splat books?

Your fanbase also has a finite amount of money, most of us can probably afford 2-3 books a year, they were releasing a book a month during 3E and 4E. Even I could not keep up and I have 80 3E books on the shelf. I think I spent 5k on D&D stuff in 2005 or 6 (damn minis).

Two things. First, I think it's more like 4-5 books a year for most customers. Second, nobody is asking for the 15 per year that 3e/3.5 put out. We're asking them to up the general content releases from 0 to 1 per year, which when combined with their setting specific releases, puts 5e in the 3-4 books a year range

I would like them to make more material and they probably should have had some sort of PC option book ou in 2015 but there is one in the works which should be out next year. I have been buying 3pp and that is money WotC misses out on if there is enough people like that they will figure it out, if not oh well I still have my 3pp options.

Yep. They've lost out on a lot of money.