D&D General Who is this made for (Not Beginners) - the New D&D Starter Set

[occam]

It did not occur to me to look at the combat portion of the Card for something like Spell DCs. I saw the area, I saw that it had to hit bonuses and such, but it never occurred to me to look specifically for a Spell DC item in that location of the card. I thought at the time it would have been located more towards where the spell cards and spells were, or even at least on or with that space where you would put a spell card.

I... really don't understand what you're saying here. The spell save DC is located directly below the spot you place spell cards on the character board:

When you say that you thought the save DC "would have been located more towards where the spell cards and spells were, or even at least on or with that space where you would put a spell card", how much closer do you think it could've been?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Exactly. It's chock full of other stuff besides the rules.

For comparison, the 1983 Mentzer Basic set which also only covered levels 1-3 had an MSRP of $12, which is roughly what the AD&D 1E PH cost at the time. Though of course you'd need the DMG as well to even make characters for 1E.

Mentzer Basic had dice and two books including tutorial solo adventures and a short intro adventure. The books might be more comprehensive, but the set didn't have character sheets, tokens, or all those (full color) maps!

The 1981 Basic set went for $8.95 or $8.99 in '81, which was about a dollar less than the PH, but it also had a single book and a shorter module instead of two full books like Mentzer.

The 1991 black box "new, easy to master" D&D starter set had an MSRP of $20, which is also what the AD&D PH sold for at the time.

I suspect if we compare across the years, the 2014 starter set is going to stand out as an exception to the rule, being a super-cheap loss leader (IIRC the 4E Essentials one was as well).

The Metzer Basic set was not a 1e product. BECMI and 1e are separate games. The red box had no PH equivalent, because it was the first part of the core rules for that game. It was also an amazing teaching tool.

The whole package.

 

[Parmandur]

But it's not equivalent to a PHB. It's equivalent to a Starter Version of the PHB, DMG, MM, and an Adventure, plus character sheets, minis, dice, and battle maps!

It is, for all intents and purposes for marketing, a board game.

It is super cheap for a board game of that size and heft (I lifted one in my FLGS the other day, it's freaking heavy).

The PHB is a book, and is pretty inexpensive for a book of that size and heft.

I mean, heck, the 2024 PHB is effectively 25% cheaper than the 2014 PHB started out, thanks to inflation devaluing the MSRP which is identical ($50 today is a bit over $36 in 2014 USD...which means that this Starter Srt is also cheaper than the 2014 PHB).

 

[Parmandur]

Exactly. It's chock full of other stuff besides the rules.

For comparison, the 1983 Mentzer Basic set which also only covered levels 1-3 had an MSRP of $12, which is roughly what the AD&D 1E PH cost at the time. Though of course you'd need the DMG as well to even make characters for 1E.

Mentzer Basic had dice and two books including tutorial solo adventures and a short intro adventure. The books might be more comprehensive, but the set didn't have character sheets, tokens, or all those (full color) maps!

The 1981 Basic set went for $8.95 or $8.99 in '81, which was about a dollar less than the PH, but it also had a single book and a shorter module instead of two full books like Mentzer.

The 1991 black box "new, easy to master" D&D starter set had an MSRP of $20, which is also what the AD&D PH sold for at the time.

I suspect if we compare across the years, the 2014 starter set is going to stand out as an exception to the rule, being a super-cheap loss leader (IIRC the 4E Essentials one was as well).

OD&D White Box in 1974: $10 > $68 adjusted for inflation

Moldvay: $8.99 > $33.48

Mentzer: $12 > $39.75

Black Box: $20 > $48.14 (practically the same as Heroes of the Borderlands!)

2014 Starter Set: $19.99 > $27.48

 

[Pedantic]

I... really don't understand what you're saying here. The spell save DC is located directly below the spot you place spell cards on the character board:
View attachment 417972View attachment 417973
When you say that you though the save DC "would have been located more towards where the spell cards and spells were, or even at least on or with that space where you would put a spell card", how much closer do you think it could've been?

Moving to an actual piece of bad visual design: it's a little awkward that the rules for concentration ask you to cover them with the spell you're concentrating on, right? You'd want the "what breaks concentration" stuff to be visible over the spell, if you're assuming players don't understand it yet.

 

[Mannahnin]

The Metzer Basic set was not a 1e product. BECMI and 1e are separate games. The red box had no PH equivalent, because it was the first part of the core rules for that game. It was also an amazing teaching tool.

The whole package.

You objected to the new boxed starter set costing as much as a PH. I pointed out that a starter set costing as much as a PH and having different and more contents has been the case for as long as boxed starter sets have existed, with the 2014 starter set being exceptionally cheap, and the current starter, while comparably priced against a PH as the 1981,1983, and 1991 starter sets, being packed with much more (and more expensive-to-produce) contents than the 1981 and 1983 classic starter sets.

Objecting that they're different games seems kind of spurious, given a) that TSR-era D&D was highly cross-compatible, and b) that TSR chose not to sell starter sets for AD&D itself, expecting the D&D starter sets to serve for new player onboarding, using a simplified set of rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You objected to the new boxed starter set costing as much as a PH. I pointed out that a starter set costing as much as a PH and having different and more contents has been the case for as long as boxed starter sets have existed, with the 2014 starter set being exceptionally cheap, and the current starter, while comparably priced against a PH as the 1981,1983, and 1991 starter sets, being packed with much more (and more expensive-to-produce) contents than the 1981 and 1983 classic starter sets.

Objecting that they're different games seems kind of spurious, given a) that TSR-era D&D was highly cross-compatible, and b) that TSR chose not to sell starter sets for AD&D itself, expecting the D&D starter sets to serve for new player onboarding, using a simplified set of rules.

I specifically said the issue was equal cost for an equivalent PH, which the 1e book is not. They are clearly separate games, whether or not that is relevant to you. It is relevant to me and my feelings on the matter. WotC 5.5 and A5e are pretty cross-compatible. Should a starter set for one be considered appropriately paired to the PH equivalent of the other? Not to me, because they are separate games.

There is nothing spurious to my objection here IMO.

 

[Mannahnin]

I specifically said the issue was equal cost for an equivalent PH, which the 1e book is not. They are clearly separate games, whether or not that is relevant to you. It is relevant to me and my feelings on the matter. WotC 5.5 and A5e are pretty cross-compatible. Should a starter set for one be considered appropriately paired to the PH equivalent of the other? Not to me, because they are separate games.

There is nothing spurious to my objection here IMO.

I did an apples to apples comparison (price and contents) of the onboarding boxed sets for new players available at five points in time (1981, 1983, 1991, 2014, now) vs the PH available at the same time.

I get the distinction you're trying to draw, but it seemed like you were making an argument that such a boxed starter (with all its contents directly supporting its function, which is different than that of a PH) is NEVER worth the same price as a PH. And I'm pointing out that the producers of D&D have virtually always priced them to match, including during the first fad/boom.

You can object to starter boxes on any grounds you like, but arguing that this one in particular is poor value for money against a PH seems dubious at best, given the contents and their respective use-cases.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I specifically said the issue was equal cost for an equivalent PH, which the 1e book is not. They are clearly separate games, whether or not that is relevant to you. It is relevant to me and my feelings on the matter. WotC 5.5 and A5e are pretty cross-compatible. Should a starter set for one be considered appropriately paired to the PH equivalent of the other? Not to me, because they are separate games.

There is nothing spurious to my objection here IMO.

My feelings about that matter is that you are cherry picking what should be compared with each other and what not.

It is ok to make a decision. I won't buy it either in English. But I will probably get it in German, as it seems a nice entry product for my kid.

I am more torn about the Stranger things starter set as I have the feeling that chances for it to be translated are far lower (the last one was not). I might try out the digital + print package.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Moving to an actual piece of bad visual design: it's a little awkward that the rules for concentration ask you to cover them with the spell you're concentrating on, right? You'd want the "what breaks concentration" stuff to be visible over the spell, if you're assuming players don't understand it yet.

This is a great example of the things I mean when I say it's "not perfect". Another is the spell cards - they have a nice AoE design, but the Ability Score affected by it is often lost in the text.