On ENworld and a few other places it is being reported that the new PHB 2024 is selling more copies than the original PHB. I am not sure I believe this but here is the article on Enworld. Discuss:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/2024-player%E2%80%99s-handbook-is-%E2%80%98fastest-selling-d-d-book-ever%E2%80%99.706875/
Core books and character options always sell well. This is both.
Unlike 2014 where it was a slow build of returning players and then those drawn into the fad by Stranger Things and Critical Role, all of those are now already customers who will snatch up the latest release, so it's high because the existing customers added over a decade are snatching up in a few months.
There's no evidence that rate will continue once the current player market is saturated though. If anything I think the fad-driven market probably peaked in 2022-23 and they'll never likely exceed the total sales of the 2014 ones.
I am definitely skeptical.
It's worth noting that Enworld really doesn't give us any figures of note to actually analyze. The only numbers they actually give are WotC's own figures on how large their consumer base is and how many people have accounts on D&D Beyond.
There's no information on how old the WotC consumer base figure is or how active the D&D Beyond accounts are. A survey saying they had 85 million consumers back in 2015 is wildly different than one in 2023, and having 18 million D&D Beyond accounts is much more impressive if 17 million of those have recently bought something or renewed their subscription than if only 1 million accounts have ever provided WotC with payment information. My point is not that these are lies, but after reading the article--all 100 words of it--I think these numbers could be very easily cherry picked.
I think we all can assume the PHB did well. However, "best sales ever" right on the heels of an inflation spike and two straight years of WotC putting it's foot in it's mouth every few months culminating in Critical Role going it's own way? And anecdotally, one of the life-long D&D players I know dropped D&D for Lancer in early 2023.
Good sales are to be expected, but do fantastic sales actually make sense in this context? I think not.
I expect this is speculative purchasing. The 2024 PHB is widely being sold as one of the last physical releases of D&D, which means that if you buy extra copies and let it sit on a shelf for a few years you can resell it as a semi-rare collectible at a markup. Putting on my jaded cutthroat businessman hat on, it's also possible WotC itself is buying it's own books to gain position within Hasbro. But knowing WotC's habit of collecting speculators...I think it's speculative purchasing.
Quote from: Fheredin on September 30, 2024, 12:01:20 PMI think we all can assume the PHB did well. However, "best sales ever" right on the heels of an inflation spike and two straight years of WotC putting it's foot in it's mouth every few months culminating in Critical Role going it's own way? And anecdotally, one of the life-long D&D players I know dropped D&D for Lancer in early 2023.
The operative words are "By This Point" which is the key to fudging the numbers into a news story.
We're just a couple weeks into the full release of the 2024 PHB. 5e didn't explode into a juggernaut overnight. It took time for people to give WotC another shot after 4E. Stranger Things and Critical Role didn't take off immediately. The pandemic didn't lock people down until 2020.
The point is... during the first couple of weeks the sales of 5e were solid, but nothing like its total sales ended up being. It wouldn't be hard to triple those early 2014 numbers if even a fraction of the current players were snatching it up.
The real test is what those numbers look like into 2025 as the existing customers now have their copies and there isn't a stream of new players looking to join in on a fad that is past its prime.
In graphic form... the total sales of 5e was __----; slower start then consistent sales for years thereafter; while 2025's is likely to be /\_____; a strong start but then a quick drop off.
The news is basically comparing the first _ of 2014 to the / of 2024... By 2025 things will be very different (Christmas sales will probably be the peak before the falloff to well below the 2014 numbers at the same point).
If they are including "digital books" on DnDBeyond in this, which are not really purchases but are licensed copies, then yes it is probably outselling the 2014 PHB. If we are just talking about physical books, then I personally doubt that is the case.
Quote from: DataDwarf on September 30, 2024, 02:52:31 PMIf they are including "digital books" on DnDBeyond in this, which are not really purchases but are licensed copies, then yes it is probably outselling the 2014 PHB. If we are just talking about physical books, then I personally doubt that is the case.
Funny you should say that. That's exactly what Dungeoncraft thinks this is; selling digital/ physical bundles, but counting them as two separate "product" sales.
I mean, that would be quite disingenuous, but this is also normal Wolf of Wall Street behavior, and not super-alarming levels of manipulative corporate-speak indicating an immediate bankruptcy.
In the political world a politician will write a book and their party will buy up a ton of copies to give away and thus pop the new book to the top of the bestseller list at which point it generally gets higher sales because of the perceived quality associated with a best seller.
I've always wondered if that would work for something like a Players Handbook when you have already admitted the game shouldn't be any different so its not strictly a necessary purchase.
It is corporate shenanigans. In terms of physical book sales, the first week sales have been very low, around 7000 copies. The number they're using takes into account the pre-orders and digital sales, which is not really the same. Of course, for them, it seems positive, because what they want is for people to play digitally. But it's a bit like claiming that your video game sold better than a novel.
Quote from: RPGPundit on September 30, 2024, 06:28:12 PMIt is corporate shenanigans. In terms of physical book sales, the first week sales have been very low, around 7000 copies. The number they're using takes into account the pre-orders and digital sales, which is not really the same. Of course, for them, it seems positive, because what they want is for people to play digitally. But it's a bit like claiming that your video game sold better than a novel.
A digital copy doesn't necessarily mean playing digitally. I own a lot of games in PDF only, but I still play them in person -- printing out stuff like character sheets and some reference pages, but keeping my laptop out at the game for my GM notes and rules reference. I'm sure that has become more common between 2014 and 2024. Having a digital rulebook doesn't mean playing a video game.
Also, I would say pre-orders of the physical book should count as a physical book sale. If anything, pre-ordering indicates greater interest than buying off the shelf.
Given the kinds of advantages that D&D 5.5 has over older editions (way more people into TTRPGs than any time in the past, huge marketing budget, easier to sell electronic copies, etc) it'd be hard for them not to exceed previous edition metrics in some capacity.
So the lukewarm actual sales numbers is telling.
Quote from: jhkim on September 30, 2024, 07:03:14 PMA digital copy doesn't necessarily mean playing digitally. I own a lot of games in PDF only, but I still play them in person -- printing out stuff like character sheets and some reference pages
Last I looked, D&D Beyond doesn't even sell PDFs, it's all broken up into individual text entries. So you can't print it.
So original source context helps. ENWorld says WotC sold three times as many, but the actual WotC press release according to more responsible journalists is that WotC PRINTED three times the number of 2024 PHBs in anticipation of sales.
Hasbro is publicly traded. People there can go to jail for lying about sales. They aren't going to just lie as some here claim. They will play with statistics so that a statement is technically true but misleading, but they're not going to just make the numbers up.
Corporations rarely outright lie. Lying leads to expensive lawsuits and possible jail time depending on the specifics. They bury data in minutiae and fine print and release very carefully worded press releases that are intended to present an image while not technically lying.
In this case the precise statement (printed three times the number of PHBs as we did by this point in the 2014 release in anticipation of sales) is likely true. It's just also meaningless since the 2014 PHB had around 17 printings in English alone so even three times the number is maybe a sixth of what the 2014 PHB actually sold in its lifetime. They probably WILL sell 16% of the 2014 numbers... eventually.
Except it was not so meaningless because the 'reporters' at ENWorld read 'in anticipation of sales' as "we've already sold that many" and wrote a story that multiple other outlets see and report so now you can find a raft of "best selling ever" articles pushing a narrative that WotC technically never said but will reap the benefit of.
So even RPG journalists are in fact, dogshit and you don't hate them enough.
Quote from: Nobleshield on October 01, 2024, 08:33:26 AMSo even RPG journalists are in fact, dogshit and you don't hate them enough.
Greetings!
*Laughing* WORDS OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Fheredin on September 30, 2024, 05:33:57 PMFunny you should say that. That's exactly what Dungeoncraft thinks this is; selling digital/ physical bundles, but counting them as two separate "product" sales.
Interesting video. I disagree with a couple of things he says, but its an interesting take.
Quote from: Nobleshield on October 01, 2024, 08:33:26 AMSo even RPG journalists are in fact, dogshit and you don't hate them enough.
RPG Journalists aren't real journalists. Anyone can start a blog and call themselves a journalist.
Quote from: jhkim on September 30, 2024, 07:03:14 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on September 30, 2024, 06:28:12 PMIt is corporate shenanigans. In terms of physical book sales, the first week sales have been very low, around 7000 copies. The number they're using takes into account the pre-orders and digital sales, which is not really the same. Of course, for them, it seems positive, because what they want is for people to play digitally. But it's a bit like claiming that your video game sold better than a novel.
A digital copy doesn't necessarily mean playing digitally. I own a lot of games in PDF only, but I still play them in person -- printing out stuff like character sheets and some reference pages, but keeping my laptop out at the game for my GM notes and rules reference. I'm sure that has become more common between 2014 and 2024. Having a digital rulebook doesn't mean playing a video game.
Also, I would say pre-orders of the physical book should count as a physical book sale. If anything, pre-ordering indicates greater interest than buying off the shelf.
But it's all tied to the VTT. What they're really doing is subscriptions to a video game, the books are incidental.
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 01, 2024, 01:00:42 PMBut it's all tied to the VTT. What they're really doing is subscriptions to a video game, the books are incidental.
Yep. The fact that if you pre-ordered the books you would get a digital dragon for the VTT. They don't care about people who buy books because you can buy it once and play it forever. As everyone knows, they want the subscription model where they can turn their players into ATMS.
Well, as long as people are having fun. :) I might grab a used 5e book or two one of these days. But so far I'm more interested in playing with what I have, including free Basic 5e when the mood arises.
Quote from: Opaopajr on October 03, 2024, 07:09:50 AMWell, as long as people are having fun. :) I might grab a used 5e book or two one of these days. But so far I'm more interested in playing with what I have, including free Basic 5e when the mood arises.
That's true. As soon as I am done with my 5e games I am getting rid of my books and only playing OSR related fantasy games. Since I am NEVER going to buy another product from scumbags of the coast I have no interest in the new books. But if people are having fun then great.
Quote from: GhostNinja on October 03, 2024, 11:32:52 AMQuote from: Opaopajr on October 03, 2024, 07:09:50 AMWell, as long as people are having fun. :) I might grab a used 5e book or two one of these days. But so far I'm more interested in playing with what I have, including free Basic 5e when the mood arises.
That's true. As soon as I am done with my 5e games I am getting rid of my books and only playing OSR related fantasy games. Since I am NEVER going to buy another product from scumbags of the coast I have no interest in the new books. But if people are having fun then great.
Worth noting is that if you're buying the books second-hand then no additional money is going to WotC, just to Half-Price Books or whoever you pick it up from.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2024, 01:51:38 PMWorth noting is that if you're buying the books second-hand then no additional money is going to WotC, just to Half-Price Books or whoever you pick it up from.
While that is true I feel that 5e is shit. I want to play a fantasy rpg not a tabletop MMORPG which is what 5e feels like.
Quote from: GhostNinja on October 03, 2024, 09:53:38 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2024, 01:51:38 PMWorth noting is that if you're buying the books second-hand then no additional money is going to WotC, just to Half-Price Books or whoever you pick it up from.
While that is true I feel that 5e is shit. I want to play a fantasy rpg not a tabletop MMORPG which is what 5e feels like.
As a 4E fan, the irony of you calling 5e a tabletop MMO is joyous (back in 2014 most everyone was saying it had SAVED D&D after the MMO edition).
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 04, 2024, 09:14:54 AMAs a 4E fan, the irony of you calling 5e a tabletop MMO is joyous (back in 2014 most everyone was saying it had SAVED D&D after the MMO edition).
4e was just like an MMO as well. That's why I have left D&D for the OSR. WOTC has destroyed D&D.
It's fine your like 4e. If it's fun for you, great. 4th nor 5th edition is not for me.
There is no such thing is badwrongfun.
Quote from: GhostNinja on October 04, 2024, 03:41:11 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on October 04, 2024, 09:14:54 AMAs a 4E fan, the irony of you calling 5e a tabletop MMO is joyous (back in 2014 most everyone was saying it had SAVED D&D after the MMO edition).
4e was just like an MMO as well. That's why I have left D&D for the OSR. WOTC has destroyed D&D.
It's fine your like 4e. If it's fun for you, great. 4th nor 5th edition is not for me.
There is no such thing is badwrongfun.
I just created a 1st Level Human 4E Ranger, with an Archery Focus. It yielded: 28 HP, Stacking to Hit Bonuses for Ranged and Melee Attacks, 9 Healing Surges per Day for 1/4th of Total HP restored each time, Stacking Bonuses for different types of Saving Throws, Bonus for Perception Checks, etc. That doesn't even include Daily, Encounter, or At Will Powers.
That's a 1st Level Starting Character. Wow. That would be a 5th or 6th Level Character, in some rulesets. And 4E had 30 Character Levels.
Quote from: Man at Arms on October 05, 2024, 12:49:22 AMI just created a 1st Level Human 4E Ranger, with an Archery Focus. It yielded: 28 HP, Stacking to Hit Bonuses for Ranged and Melee Attacks, 9 Healing Surges per Day for 1/4th of Total HP restored each time, Stacking Bonuses for different types of Saving Throws, Bonus for Perception Checks, etc. That doesn't even include Daily, Encounter, or At Will Powers.
That's a 1st Level Starting Character. Wow. That would be a 5th or 6th Level Character, in some rulesets. And 4E had 30 Character Levels.
Numbers are only relevant to the system they're in.
For comparison in 4E, a 4E Kobold (level 1 Skirmisher) has 29 hit points. More than your Ranger. It also has a +8 for its Stealth check which your Ranger needs to beat with their Perception to notice them lying in ambush of you. Without the class skill bonus to Perception you'd never seem them until its too late and even then at level 1 you're probably running even odds on not seeing them hiding).
It also has a +6 to hit (+8 if it catches you flat-footed via ambush or can flank with his buddies) vs. your AC 17 (as an Archery Ranger you most likely have Dex 18 and hide armor). So the level 1 kobold hits you on an 11+ (or a 9+ if it has you surprised or flanked... which it can do easily, because it can shift up to 20' per turn, meaning no opportunity attacks as it moves from out of reach to your opposite side in a single turn).
And it hits you for 1d6+3 base damage, plus 2 extra damage per 5' it shifted before attacking... so on a full shift, which it can do on every one of its turns unless you can immobilize it, it deals an average of 14.5 damage. i.e. a Kobold can drop you from your 28 hit points to dying in two hits (which are landing at least half the time... four kobolds rushing you from ambush and you're most likely down before you can even react).
Now, you do have those nine healing surges, but unlike 5e Hit Dice, those aren't extra healing, they're your CAP on daily healing. You can only benefit from things like healing potions or a cleric's healing word spell 9 times during the day and they only give you back a base of 7 hit points each. Healing Word from a level 1 cleric is most efficient since they can tack an extra 1d6+4 hit points onto that, or just enough to counter ONE kobold hit, but they can only do that twice between short rests and has to cover the entire party.
So, even if used with optimal efficiency of the party cleric restoring every hit point lost, you can only take 11 hits from a kobold in a day. After that not even a level 30 cleric's healing word can help you; your body is at the limit of what it can recover for the day and you need a long rest (which can't be repeated for 16 hours after the six hour long rest) before you can again regain any hit points.
That's definitely NOT a 5th to 6th level character in some ruleset... potentially being killed by a single kobold in under half a minute is pure newbie territory.
* * * *
Heck, even by D&D standards that's on a the weak end. A 1e Ranger starts with 2d8 hp (so about 9) and probably AC 5 or 6 depending on their starter armor and/or shield use. They do about 1d8 with a longsword or 1d6 with a bow.
They also are skilled in Tracking, are only surprised on a 1-in-6 chance (these to probably explain why a 4E Ranger might have a very good bonus to Perception) and can surprise other creatures on a 3-in-6 chance. They also deal +1 damage per ranger level against "giant" type monsters (OSRIC expands this to evil humanoids). Even the 1e Ranger's hit point losses are more easily mitigated, as there is no cap on the limit of magic potions or healing spells they can receive in a day.
By comparison, the 1e Kobold has 1-4 hit points, needs a 16+ on the die to hit the 1e Ranger's AC 5, and only deals 1d4 damage on a hit.
The 1e Ranger is a BEAST compared to the stats of the creatures its fighting.
It can reasonably survive 4 hits from a kobold before dropping and is half as likely to get hit by any given kobold attack than the 4E ranger is and it would take a single kobold an average of 16 MINUTES to drop a ranger who didn't just kill them first (as they can hit that AC 7 kobold on at least a 13+, less with a good stat for their attack roll).
* * * *
This is why numbers in a vacuum mean little. A starting 4E Ranger is seriously threatened by a single kobold warrior while a 1e Ranger is almost certain to defeat a single kobold warrior (and may not even take a hit while doing so).
To me, that is the true measure of a character's abilities in the respective editions; how well they deal with equivalent threats.
Why the incredible HP bloat for PCs and monsters, then? If everyone's HP goes up, it's all meaningless; overall.
"I do 15 points of damage!!!"
"OK, but he has 45 HP."
"Oh....."
Quote from: Man at Arms on October 05, 2024, 12:53:25 PMWhy the incredible HP bloat for PCs and monsters, then? If everyone's HP goes up, it's all meaningless; overall.
"I do 15 points of damage!!!"
"OK, but he has 45 HP."
"Oh....."
No, it's not meaningless. It gives a less swingly range when the range of the random damage die (often a d6 or a d8) roll is proportionately smaller compared to the overall HP total.
Quote from: HappyDaze on October 05, 2024, 01:48:31 PMQuote from: Man at Arms on October 05, 2024, 12:53:25 PMWhy the incredible HP bloat for PCs and monsters, then? If everyone's HP goes up, it's all meaningless; overall.
"I do 15 points of damage!!!"
"OK, but he has 45 HP."
"Oh....."
No, it's not meaningless. It gives a less swingy range when the range of the random damage die (often a d6 or a d8) roll is proportionately smaller compared to the overall HP total.
Pretty much this.
With 1d8, the best result is 8 times better than the worst. That is VERY swingy.
With 1d6+11, the best result is only 41% better than the worst. That is an order of magnitude less swingy than the 1d8 is.
Quote from: Man at Arms on October 05, 2024, 12:53:25 PMWhy the incredible HP bloat for PCs and monsters, then? If everyone's HP goes up, it's all meaningless; overall.
Also, in 4E,
starting hit points are much higher, because it is a base number plus full Constitution score. But the
increase per level is similar to other editions: around 4 to 6 added hp per level. Having more hp at the start does mean that there is more room for beings weaker than a starting PC, like an untrained commoner or a cat.
In early D&D, you can have a PC start with 1 or 2 hp, which makes them seem extremely weak - with possibilities like a PC being killed by an angry barmaid or a cat, say. Conversely, high level mundane PCs can seem extremely tough, like falling off a cliff and then dusting themselves off.
This change reduced that differential.
Quote from: Man at Arms on October 05, 2024, 12:53:25 PMWhy the incredible HP bloat for PCs and monsters, then? If everyone's HP goes up, it's all meaningless; overall.
"I do 15 points of damage!!!"
"OK, but he has 45 HP."
"Oh....."
I was told it's because everyone can do like 1d10 or more damage (cantrips, etc.) so monster HP scales exponentially. It's the old videogame mindset: monsters have to scale way higher than players.
Quote from: Nobleshield on October 05, 2024, 05:21:59 PMQuote from: Man at Arms on October 05, 2024, 12:53:25 PMWhy the incredible HP bloat for PCs and monsters, then? If everyone's HP goes up, it's all meaningless; overall.
"I do 15 points of damage!!!"
"OK, but he has 45 HP."
"Oh....."
I was told it's because everyone can do like 1d10 or more damage (cantrips, etc.) so monster HP scales exponentially. It's the old videogame mindset: monsters have to scale way higher than players.
Monster HP scaled up faster but they generally had few ways of regaining HP in a fight. PC HP scaled slower, but they typically have many ways of regaining HP mid-battle.
Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2024, 03:53:08 PMQuote from: Man at Arms on October 05, 2024, 12:53:25 PMWhy the incredible HP bloat for PCs and monsters, then? If everyone's HP goes up, it's all meaningless; overall.
Also, in 4E, starting hit points are much higher, because it is a base number plus full Constitution score. But the increase per level is similar to other editions: around 4 to 6 added hp per level. Having more hp at the start does mean that there is more room for beings weaker than a starting PC, like an untrained commoner or a cat.
In early D&D, you can have a PC start with 1 or 2 hp, which makes them seem extremely weak - with possibilities like a PC being killed by an angry barmaid or a cat, say. Conversely, high level mundane PCs can seem extremely tough, like falling off a cliff and then dusting themselves off.
This change reduced that differential.
Also of note is that in 4E you did NOT add your Constitution modifer to your hit points per level. The fighter gets +6 hp per level (just above the average of a d10) whether their Con is 8 or 18. The high Con PC has a few more hit points from adding their full Con score at level 1 and more healing surges per day, but are quickly eclipsed by the +Con modifer hp per level in 3e and 5e in terms of base hit points.
The aforementioned 4E Ranger with 28 hit points at level one has a Con score of 16. At level six it has 53 hp.
A 5e Ranger with just a Con 14 starts with 12 hp at level one. At level six it has 52 hit points using the non-rolled option. If it's Con was a 16 it would instead have 58 hit points. Every level thereafter increases the gap further.
Quote from: RPGPundit on September 30, 2024, 06:28:12 PMIt is corporate shenanigans. In terms of physical book sales, the first week sales have been very low, around 7000 copies. The number they're using takes into account the pre-orders and digital sales, which is not really the same. Of course, for them, it seems positive, because what they want is for people to play digitally. But it's a bit like claiming that your video game sold better than a novel.
I think the bigger lie wotc is covering is that they are counting a single purchase twice when it is not.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 06, 2024, 12:39:01 AMQuote from: jhkim on October 05, 2024, 03:53:08 PMQuote from: Man at Arms on October 05, 2024, 12:53:25 PMWhy the incredible HP bloat for PCs and monsters, then? If everyone's HP goes up, it's all meaningless; overall.
Also, in 4E, starting hit points are much higher, because it is a base number plus full Constitution score. But the increase per level is similar to other editions: around 4 to 6 added hp per level. Having more hp at the start does mean that there is more room for beings weaker than a starting PC, like an untrained commoner or a cat.
In early D&D, you can have a PC start with 1 or 2 hp, which makes them seem extremely weak - with possibilities like a PC being killed by an angry barmaid or a cat, say. Conversely, high level mundane PCs can seem extremely tough, like falling off a cliff and then dusting themselves off.
This change reduced that differential.
Also of note is that in 4E you did NOT add your Constitution modifer to your hit points per level. The fighter gets +6 hp per level (just above the average of a d10) whether their Con is 8 or 18. The high Con PC has a few more hit points from adding their full Con score at level 1 and more healing surges per day, but are quickly eclipsed by the +Con modifer hp per level in 3e and 5e in terms of base hit points.
The aforementioned 4E Ranger with 28 hit points at level one has a Con score of 16. At level six it has 53 hp.
A 5e Ranger with just a Con 14 starts with 12 hp at level one. At level six it has 52 hit points using the non-rolled option. If it's Con was a 16 it would instead have 58 hit points. Every level thereafter increases the gap further.
Yes. Con score of 16.. I used the standard array, and placed the 16 in Constitution.
I did a little comparison long ago on HP changes.
Basically AD&D you didnt get any change from CON 7 to 14. And only Fighters could gain a bonus better than +2 for CON over 14. Fighter rolls for HP to level 9 giving an average of 49.5 base HP if has a con under 15. And 3 HP for level thereafter. So by level 20 they'd have a base 82 hp. +20 more per point of CON over 14.
A 5e PC gets max HP at level 1 + con bonus and bonuses start at 12. The big diff is that they keep getting HP all the way to level 20. So the base average is 114. 124 if taking the average. 32 or 42 more HP before even factoring in CON which is easier to get. A fighter with a con if just 12 will have 134-144 HP, 154-164 at CON 14. 174-184 at con 16 while the AD&D Fighter would have only 112 hp.
The disparity is even greater with the Magic user/wizard.
That wotc designers really do not understand the game is prevalent with every edition.
Quote from: Man at Arms on October 06, 2024, 11:48:01 AMQuote from: Chris24601 on October 06, 2024, 12:39:01 AMQuote from: jhkim on October 05, 2024, 03:53:08 PMQuote from: Man at Arms on October 05, 2024, 12:53:25 PMWhy the incredible HP bloat for PCs and monsters, then? If everyone's HP goes up, it's all meaningless; overall.
Also, in 4E, starting hit points are much higher, because it is a base number plus full Constitution score. But the increase per level is similar to other editions: around 4 to 6 added hp per level. Having more hp at the start does mean that there is more room for beings weaker than a starting PC, like an untrained commoner or a cat.
In early D&D, you can have a PC start with 1 or 2 hp, which makes them seem extremely weak - with possibilities like a PC being killed by an angry barmaid or a cat, say. Conversely, high level mundane PCs can seem extremely tough, like falling off a cliff and then dusting themselves off.
This change reduced that differential.
Also of note is that in 4E you did NOT add your Constitution modifer to your hit points per level. The fighter gets +6 hp per level (just above the average of a d10) whether their Con is 8 or 18. The high Con PC has a few more hit points from adding their full Con score at level 1 and more healing surges per day, but are quickly eclipsed by the +Con modifer hp per level in 3e and 5e in terms of base hit points.
The aforementioned 4E Ranger with 28 hit points at level one has a Con score of 16. At level six it has 53 hp.
A 5e Ranger with just a Con 14 starts with 12 hp at level one. At level six it has 52 hit points using the non-rolled option. If it's Con was a 16 it would instead have 58 hit points. Every level thereafter increases the gap further.
Yes. Con score of 16.. I used the standard array, and placed the 16 in Constitution.
Standard array is 15/14/13/12/10/8
Quote from: Corolinth on October 08, 2024, 12:10:12 PMQuote from: Man at Arms on October 06, 2024, 11:48:01 AMQuote from: Chris24601 on October 06, 2024, 12:39:01 AMQuote from: jhkim on October 05, 2024, 03:53:08 PMQuote from: Man at Arms on October 05, 2024, 12:53:25 PMWhy the incredible HP bloat for PCs and monsters, then? If everyone's HP goes up, it's all meaningless; overall.
Also, in 4E, starting hit points are much higher, because it is a base number plus full Constitution score. But the increase per level is similar to other editions: around 4 to 6 added hp per level. Having more hp at the start does mean that there is more room for beings weaker than a starting PC, like an untrained commoner or a cat.
In early D&D, you can have a PC start with 1 or 2 hp, which makes them seem extremely weak - with possibilities like a PC being killed by an angry barmaid or a cat, say. Conversely, high level mundane PCs can seem extremely tough, like falling off a cliff and then dusting themselves off.
This change reduced that differential.
Also of note is that in 4E you did NOT add your Constitution modifer to your hit points per level. The fighter gets +6 hp per level (just above the average of a d10) whether their Con is 8 or 18. The high Con PC has a few more hit points from adding their full Con score at level 1 and more healing surges per day, but are quickly eclipsed by the +Con modifer hp per level in 3e and 5e in terms of base hit points.
The aforementioned 4E Ranger with 28 hit points at level one has a Con score of 16. At level six it has 53 hp.
A 5e Ranger with just a Con 14 starts with 12 hp at level one. At level six it has 52 hit points using the non-rolled option. If it's Con was a 16 it would instead have 58 hit points. Every level thereafter increases the gap further.
Yes. Con score of 16.. I used the standard array, and placed the 16 in Constitution.
Standard array is 15/14/13/12/10/8
In 5E. In 4E (Essentials) there are three:
Balanced: 16, 14, 14, 11,10, 10
Specialist: 18, 14, 11, 10, 10, 8
Dual Specialist: 16, 16, 12, 11, 11, 8
Quote from: Corolinth on October 08, 2024, 12:10:12 PMQuote from: Man at Arms on October 06, 2024, 11:48:01 AMQuote from: Chris24601 on October 06, 2024, 12:39:01 AMQuote from: jhkim on October 05, 2024, 03:53:08 PMQuote from: Man at Arms on October 05, 2024, 12:53:25 PMWhy the incredible HP bloat for PCs and monsters, then? If everyone's HP goes up, it's all meaningless; overall.
Also, in 4E, starting hit points are much higher, because it is a base number plus full Constitution score. But the increase per level is similar to other editions: around 4 to 6 added hp per level. Having more hp at the start does mean that there is more room for beings weaker than a starting PC, like an untrained commoner or a cat.
In early D&D, you can have a PC start with 1 or 2 hp, which makes them seem extremely weak - with possibilities like a PC being killed by an angry barmaid or a cat, say. Conversely, high level mundane PCs can seem extremely tough, like falling off a cliff and then dusting themselves off.
This change reduced that differential.
Also of note is that in 4E you did NOT add your Constitution modifer to your hit points per level. The fighter gets +6 hp per level (just above the average of a d10) whether their Con is 8 or 18. The high Con PC has a few more hit points from adding their full Con score at level 1 and more healing surges per day, but are quickly eclipsed by the +Con modifer hp per level in 3e and 5e in terms of base hit points.
The aforementioned 4E Ranger with 28 hit points at level one has a Con score of 16. At level six it has 53 hp.
A 5e Ranger with just a Con 14 starts with 12 hp at level one. At level six it has 52 hit points using the non-rolled option. If it's Con was a 16 it would instead have 58 hit points. Every level thereafter increases the gap further.
Yes. Con score of 16.. I used the standard array, and placed the 16 in Constitution.
Standard array is 15/14/13/12/10/8
No. The Standard Array in 4E, has a 16 as it's highest score. I used the standard array, found in PHB1.
I lost track of which edition you were on.
On the back cover, it reads "the essential reference for every fifth edition dungeons and dragons player." That makes it sound like it's a mandatory book, required to play fifth edition? As though one can't properly play fifth edition, without it?
Quote from: Man at Arms on October 13, 2024, 07:42:02 PMOn the back cover, it reads "the essential reference for every fifth edition dungeons and dragons player." That makes it sound like it's a mandatory book, required to play fifth edition? As though one can't properly play fifth edition, without it?
While not being 5th edition.
Quote from: Man at Arms on October 13, 2024, 07:42:02 PMOn the back cover, it reads "the essential reference for every fifth edition dungeons and dragons player." That makes it sound like it's a mandatory book, required to play fifth edition? As though one can't properly play fifth edition, without it?
Doesn't the 2014 version say that too?
Do you think the artist's intent was to portray a male or female face here in this upcoming D&D art?
(https://i.ibb.co/DG6Jn38/face.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Spoiler
Because this is apparently Bobby from the D&D cartoon all grown up as pictured in the upcoming DMG. The full original picture...
(https://www.enworld.org/attachments/bobby-jpeg.381410/)
I'm convinced this is 3.0 to 3.5; all over again.
Quote from: Man at Arms on October 17, 2024, 06:11:04 AMI'm convinced this is 3.0 to 3.5; all over again.
I think that was their intent with their dubious "compatible" claim just like they said initially said 3.5 was. While I haven't actually read through 5.5e other than a quick skim of the defacto SRD on dndbeyond, I suspect that the changes will noticeable to the point that using prior content is just enough of a hassle as to dissuade most GMs from doing so. In 3e, it was definitely doable but I found that I had to either prep the adventures more to avoid small issues or just houserule them on the fly when weirdness came up.
Finally got a chance to see a physical copy. Just a two-minute look, but the artwork looked... off. So many pictures of wide-eyed, glassy-stared women with open-mouthed smiles. So weird!
Quote from: RNGm on October 17, 2024, 09:16:40 AMQuote from: Man at Arms on October 17, 2024, 06:11:04 AMI'm convinced this is 3.0 to 3.5; all over again.
I think that was their intent with their dubious "compatible" claim just like they said initially said 3.5 was. While I haven't actually read through 5.5e other than a quick skim of the defacto SRD on dndbeyond, I suspect that the changes will noticeable to the point that using prior content is just enough of a hassle as to dissuade most GMs from doing so. In 3e, it was definitely doable but I found that I had to either prep the adventures more to avoid small issues or just houserule them on the fly when weirdness came up.
Greetings!
Exactly! 3.5 was "Compatible" with 3.0, technically true. However, it was definitely enough of a pain in the ass so that only the most convenient and minimal aspects of 3.0 were kept--otherwise, you definitely wanted everything to be 3.5. That was certainly true for myself, and I liked 3.0 and 3.5. It was just easier to update everything as much as possible to 3.5. Which is what I did.
So, yeah, 5.5 D&D will be "Compatible" with 5E just in the same manner that 3.5 was "Compatible" with 3.0. Yeah, we know how all this goes, don't we? *Laughing*
I'm so glad I have left WOTC behind. I don't care what they do anymore. How "Compatible" 5.5 is with 5.0 for me, is irrelevant. I'm not buying their 5.5 monstrosity no matter how many YouTube WOTC shills gush over how super-duper wonderful it is.
They can *PACK IT*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Aglondir on October 19, 2024, 11:27:59 AMFinally got a chance to see a physical copy. Just a two-minute look, but the artwork looked... off. So many pictures of wide-eyed, glassy-stared women with open-mouthed smiles. So weird!
Greetings!
Aglondir! Yeah, my friend! I haven't seen the book, of course, but the artwork previews I have seen here and elsewhere are jaw-dropping laughable and...sad, you know? Such a steep drop from the heights attained in past D&D editions which featured truly gifted fantasy artists. The new art for 5.5 reminds me of bad comic books. And, as you mention, all the wide-eyed, glassy-staring women depicted. So heroic, and inspiring, right?
None of these people could pour a glass of water for someone like Franzetta. The artists remind me of C-grade college artists. That's right. Not the gifted, super-talented students that have jobs already lined up with companies after they graduate--no, we're talking about the uninspiring, modestly-talented art students that barely pass the class. This is the level of artists that WOTC has producing work now for D&D.
Then, of course, there is probably some kind of weird sexual kink fetish thing they are trying to push in all this stuff now, too. That idea isn't mine, either, but comes straight from one of the WOTC artists that was interviewed where she giggled triumphantly and smugly announced that she intentionally made her art to promote rainbow hippos and rainbow sex issues. So, if such is a strong theme and goal with her, I can't help but think it is also motivating other artists involved with WOTC as well. Furthermore, she mentioned that WOTC fully supports the artist's "messaging" that they include in their art.
So, I expect the WOTC art to be hacked, and weird, and off, in a dozen ways and more. It is produced by low-skilled activists rather than genuine artists.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Wizards of the Coast is disgusting and terrible. It is utterly unsurprising that a book which panders woke art and left wing bullshit would also need to have its sales presented as better than they are through wordplay chicanery.