D&D 5E Xanathar's Guide errata coming

[Essafah]

Please note that it has turned out to be a much more profitable business model to produce books slowly that keep their value (5e) then to produce a book with character options every month that has the same authorial, design, development, editing, layout, art costs but peaks and then doesn't sell very many.

The other part of the business model that has worked very well with 5e was keeping required books to a minimum to reduce the barrier of entry to new players and grow the player base. AL does PHB+1. With power creep, more books become "required".

So, actual real life changes in the business models between 3.x & 4e vs. 5e has show less books and no power creep is more successful for the business. Hasbro praised D&D regularly in their stockholder meetings, something not true with the earlier editions.

5E has been unquestionably successful but WOTC has not been forth coming with how much of that is from book sales vs. other revenue such as computer game sales, D&D Beyond, the D&D themed board games and toys, etc.

I have a high suspicion that is a good majority of the sales and 5Es success is from the additional sources.. I think Hasbro wanted a reduced book schedule because for the profit margin RPGs make from print books (most RPGs don't make a lot of money) and they felt resources would be better spent elsewhere. Thus a reduction in books I think was more of a corporate decision that the game design team is obligated to support vs. something they would be behind if WOTC was still independent. This is just my speculation but it is based on 1) my own experiences of how corporations work and 2) comments made by non-WOTC industry designers. This is one reason why I think WOTC would actually be better at this point outsourcing D&D to someone else or selling it off (not that I want to see Jeremy Crawford or anyone else out of a job). I just think we would see a lot more material.

Skipping all that as again I don't work at WOTC or in RPG design, but my point is you can't definitively say the current book print model at WOTC has been what has contributed towards their success vs other factors such as D&D Beyond, increase media presence, etc. I am thinking the microtransactions from D&D Beyond alone has got to be fairly substantive just based on the nature of how microtransactions work. What I can tell you has happened from my own experience and from the 14 or so people in my local gaming community that I interact with (the community is larger than that but I only am including people I have actual friendships and regular interactions with) is that due to the leisurely production pace of official D&D material where we were individually spending at least $50+ dollars a month on D&D we have expanded into buying other games and getting supplements for other games including Kickstarter buy-ins, etc. I would love to be giving that money to WOTC for actual rules expansions like a Tome of Magic, Psionics, etc but alas it is not to be. Even from a DM perspective I bought 2 official adventures but mostly we can create our own or convert older adventures so those don't excite us.....options do. shrug

 

[Blue]

"You realize" that a simple email could solve that problem. I love people that conjure excuses for underperformance. Makes firing easy.

sigh

Wasn't "conjuring excuses", was showing you the absurdity of your position. Which you seem incapable of understanding enough to escalate back to talk about firing.

We don't know why DnD Beyond isn't updated. Might be a lack of communication like you mentioned. Might be that they weren't allowed to release the change ahead of the official errata documentation. Might be that they were given a date of release by WotC and it's queue and ready to go for their next internal data update. Or some other reason. We don't know. But we do know that they are different companies so there well me legitimate reasons for it - not just your dismissive and potentially baseless take on it.

If I was using your terms, "I love people who conjure their own scenarios without basis in reality and try to use them to rationalize. Makes firing easy."

If you want a legitimate complaint, why isn't there an official errata out if the books have hit print. That's same company, and it's the same errata group. But whining that a separate company is slower on errata than the company that produced the errata without knowing why is just that - whining.

 

[shadowoflameth]

A straight Hexblade is fine, but its Lv. 1 is way too much and is more multiclass-baity than anything else by far. Its benefits needed to be split up and pushed to higher levels. There's just way too many of those ridiculous Hexblade/Paladin/Sorcerer combinations out there.

Interesting. When I conceived the character, I did consider doing a paladin, but the using Charisma for attacks with his signature weapon was potent. No MAD but to be fair, he hardly used his weapon in the first few levels. It might have been different if he multi-classed to paladin. Sorcerer, I'm not sure what he could have done broken. Sorcerer uses Charisma for spells anyway and doesn't go into combat much. You could use sorcery points and maybe abuse something but nothing terrible comes to mind from memory without poring over the books.

 

[Azzy]

Might be that they weren't allowed to release the change ahead of the official errata documentation.

I think thatthis is the most likely scenario.

 

[Essafah]

Emphasis mine.

Page 207 of the PHB only demonstrates different classes have different spell lists. It's an assumption that those spells are meant to be more or less powerful based on class just they are different lists, and that assumption is the opposite of the PHB quote on spell levels preceding that list (that I quoted above for you).

There's no reason to make an assumption that's opposite of what the text states about spell levels.

If WotC wanted to buff rangers they would do that with errata, UA articles, published alternative subclasses, etc. They would not give them a spell that also benefits druids and bards.

It looks to me like you've jumped to a conclusion based on your perception of needed a ranger buff.

And yeah, valor bards are better ime. They aren't better on their own but for making the party more effective I would go that route.

Heading out of town now so I'll argue more later.

The assumption is not opposite of what the text states. The text on spell level says spell levels given a general indication of how powerful a spell is. Keyword general. By using the term general it means1) there will be specific cases that are outside the norm and 2) there are factors besides a spells level to determine how powerful the spell is such as the components required, the time to cast, and who has access to the spell, etc. The fact that HS is limited to who has it serves as a counterweight to the spell.

Yes. I do think rangers need to be buffed. Guilty as charged

That being said UA and additional rules including spells absolutely have been used to shore up a seen weakness of a class.

Be safe traveling during these times!

 

[BacchusNL]

Interesting. When I conceived the character, I did consider doing a paladin, but the using Charisma for attacks with his signature weapon was potent. No MAD but to be fair, he hardly used his weapon in the first few levels. It might have been different if he multi-classed to paladin. Sorcerer, I'm not sure what he could have done broken. Sorcerer uses Charisma for spells anyway and doesn't go into combat much. You could use sorcery points and maybe abuse something but nothing terrible comes to mind from memory without poring over the books.

Here's the basic idea: 1 lvl Hexblade for cha-attacks and hexblade curse. 6 Levels paladin for smites, 2 attacks and ST-aura. Pump the rest into Sorc for many more spell-slots compared to paladin (full caster vs 1/2 caster) plus the ability to turn sorc points into spell slots/ smites, and quicken booming blade for more smites.

If you want to get fancy you start as a Half-drow (SCAG variant), pick up Elven Accuracy along the way, and one or two more levels of warlock for Devil's Sight. You can now smite with triple advantage while in the Darkness spell. You also get 4 sorc points per short rest back by turning your 2 level 2 warlock slots into sorc points. That's what sorceror's normally get as a level 20 capstone ability.

 

[Stilvan]

sigh

Wasn't "conjuring excuses", was showing you the absurdity of your position. Which you seem incapable of understanding enough to escalate back to talk about firing.

You're just continuing the same line of thinking. Let's just agree not to work together

 

[jasper]

I think it is irritating and amusing that a print book has more up to date rules than DnD Beyond

I think you don't know how coding, updating, testing, and QA works. AKA Give it time.

 

[jasper]

...

Yes. I do think rangers need to be buffed. Guilty as charged

...

Drop and give 100 pushups rangers.
Drop and give 100 situp rangers.
Lift these two dwarfs over you head 100 times rangers.
100 side straddle hops rangers.
Drop and give me 100 burbies rangers.
Now go polish yourselves.
***
Problem solved.

 

[ad_hoc]

I've been playing a single class Hexblade pact of the blade human. Haven't multi-classed to anything. We're at 11th level. I haven't experienced broken. The assassin keeps wanting invisibility and it's effective but what's broken?

It's far and away better than every other patron for every type of Warlock.

It's not even close. It's just better.

Patrons usually have minor abilities. Hexblade gives you medium armour and shields. That alone is a bump of 4-5 AC and worth taking over any other patron.