From EnWorld yesterday:
mearls;6651737 wrote:
It's not the silence on the lack of releases that is the real problem. It is the lack of releases itself.
Mistwell wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
I knew of the playtest but didn't know of the release of the basic stuff mid year last year or books slightly later in the year. I picked it up based on cover art alone in my FLGS around November when the DMG came out. I flipped through the PHB, thought, this looks pretty cool, same with others and bought them in one quick purchase, been hooked ever since.
As far as information, I'm burned out on the whole social media circus and rarely on FB so I didn't find out via the apparently online presence of the new edition. But since it's come out and I've enjoyed it, I have created a twitter account and others social media to follow (still rarely) the D&D game, and popular game designers, not just D&D but other well known people as well. I can see where they are playing to the current market of online social media more now than back in 3.5 and 4.0 since social media seems to have boomed in the past 5 years.
edited part - the explanation of the lack of release information makes more sense to me know that I know what they are shooting for or why they are doing it.
Yeah, I mean, we don't need another 320 page rulebook, per say. Even a small 120 page splat would suffice if it was good enough. Hell, I'd probably buy one of those $15 paperback books they did for the Dragonborn back in 4e. "Player's Handbook Races," I think it was called. It never caught on, sadly, but I thought it was a fine idea in itself.
Mistwell wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
While I'm curious about things to come, I'm not surprised or upset about the silence. I'd rather have them do quality than quantity.
I also accept the as much as I may be passionate about gaming, it's a business and they have to make a profit.
Hurin88 wrote:
The schedule silence happened at the worst time when it took so long to announce the Elemental Evil storyline and Princes of the Apocalypse. It was not announced til, what, 2 or 3 months before it was released? You had the core books, the basic set, a DM screen, and the two books for the Tyranny of Dragons arc announced in 2014, then nothing announced for months before the PotA reveal. But they announced the new Rage of Demons storyline shortly after PotA hit store shelves, rather than more silence for months before the reveal. So I think they learned their lesson on waiting too long before announcing the next story arc. So if this pattern holds, we know we will get a new story arc announced roughly every six months, and that is easier to wait for, rather than sitting around wondering if anything new at all will ever be announced.
And if we could also get at least one new non-adventure supplement a year, I would be happy. Though if we continue to get a new, and free, player pdf every six months with each new story arc, that includes new material not just copied from the adventure book, that would be cool too. 
I have removed content from this thread because Baiting and Harassment are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
ModusPonens wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Shackled by video games... >_> Making content for video games takes more work than writing books and by much larger teams (we're talking MMO content here). I have a feeling D&D and the MMO's have content in the pipeline being worked on years in advance. They time it so the RPG books and the MMO updates simultaneously pop twice a year. That's pretty clever logistics there, especially for big story content such as the APs. But you're only as fast as your slowest member. I would love to see some 5e books not tied to video games in some way. Irregular content, like small adventures, campaign settings, crunch, something to wet out appetites while we wait for the "main dish".
Agreed. A slightly stronger trickle of content would be nice, in between big releases.
Do you guys actually manage to play through the campaigns faster than they are released or do you simply want a wide array of different campaigns to have a choice to select from?
Rya.Reisender wrote:
My own experiences with 5E are unusual mainly because I was responsible for converting the Book of Lost Spells by Necromancer Games into 5E (in addition to all the games I've been running). So, speaking as a developer...
It's hard writing good 5E rules material. The core game is really, really good, thanks largely to the extensive playtest it received. Adding new class material that doesn't distort the game is difficult. It's not impossible, but it really needs the designers to be familiar with the system - and (hopefully) go through a good run of playtesting first. I'm sure the "missing" supplement book that we expected to come out with Princes of the Apocalypse fell prey to that: the material really wasn't ready for prime time.
Another thing that the managers have been grappling with is the effect of a front-loaded release schedule. There's a *lot* of options in the core books. If we had a full set of Complete books at this point, would players have explored them all? Individual groups have likely not explored all of the PHB! My opinion is that we didn't need a lot of extra options in the first year. However, as we move into the second and third year, these option books will become more important.
If the books all come out in the first year, then what of Year 2? Year 3? Mike specifically says in his tweets that "in terms of a business model. the biggest challenge of 5e will be years 3 - 5." In 3E, the game got the 3.5E revamp in year 3! It was too soon (originally the plan was for Year 5), but it displays the trouble that RPG lines have. By reducing the rate at which we get new material, there seems to be the hope that it will prolong the lifespan of the edition. If you only get one or two books of new options a year, that makes those books a big event.
Of course, this probably also explains some of the hold-ups with the Open Gaming License that the WotC people have occasionally hinted at; if an 5E-specific OGL were currently available, then we'd probably see a flood of 3rd-party supplements. As it stands, there are very few. (There are probably two other major hold-ups: the first is that Wizards as a corporation is still unsure of whether the OGL is a benefit for them specifically, and the second is due to the disruption caused by jury duty).
My expectation for the future is that we will see option books, and at a greater rate than we're seeing at present. (Not hard, since the current rate is practically zero!) However, the current time sees Mike and the other people at Wizards paying attention to fan reaction and trying to work out the best plan going forward... and then adjusting that further given our reaction to that!
Slowly but surely? That's my impression of it at any rate.
Cheers!
MerricB wrote:
You are brave posting here from ENworld, hell I think you used to post a maxminis years ago
MerricB wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
I see, so you don't actually complain about the lack of campaigns, but rather want "lore" releases.
Imagination doesn't need official releases, though.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
I have said it before and I will say it again "I want more content, I feel no need to justify this or be apologetic for it."
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Everyone has an opinion. Everyone has a thought of how to do it best. I just want a MM 2. I am creating my own campaign and my own modules. Give them time to create balanced content. I hated the 3.0/3.5 bloat. I think they are going in the perfect direction. I have the power to adjust or change anything I want about the game. I can create monsters as I need to or convert until the next book comes out. I did not jump back into D&D until the 3 core books were back. Now I have all I need to start a great campaign. I do not want 1000 feats and 100 prestige classes. I want a great player making a great character who is a fighter. Not a player who has found a way to make a Barbarian Paladin Cleric that had a AC of 86 and an AB of 90 due to his layering of spells, weapons and epic feats. Just think D&D needed to clean out the bloat, power creep, and books on every little thing.
I do not want to think WotC is making money by pushing out lots of content with no planning. I see great planning in this set and hope they continue to do it the right way. If I do not get a MM2 or FF until next year, so be it. Just my opinion.
Orethalion wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Unless the release schedule includes a palatable OGL equivalent, then I have no worries about how much time they take. My biggest problem with the game is how they treat martial characters, versus casters and/or hybrids. And only a third party would be willing to take a risk to implement an alternate 5E system that was closer to the originall play test material that had maneuvers.
MerricB wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
So far with the 2 adventure paths thus far, the first came with no extra content and the second aside from races had zero non caster content and no feats excuse me if I was not impressed.
Smart. All I can say is that its working. I dont need to know what Wizards is working on for the next release, I want to buy the next release. More importantly, I want to play what is currently released.
ModusPonens wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
tdaelin wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I'm just surprised that anyone who discounts the material that has been released expects to ever like anything that will be released. What makes them think that, if they just released more, that the more might be better than what they've seen so far?
What if the plan is to only print adventures for sale and keep crunch for free PDFs (small and frequent)? Would that be unsatisfactory, just because they can't buy the crunch in physical media?
Oh wait...that's right, physical media only is just as big a problem.
MerricB wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
I get the feeling that those who are arguing against those of us who want more content sound like they think we want content flooding in till we are up to our necks. This is not so, we want more than the current next to nothing trickle but we dont want to drown in crap. What we want is several quality releases a year and also keep in mind we are for the most part seperating adventures from rules material. It seems that there are many who seem to be misrepresenting what we want either by misunderstanding or on purpose. To sme it up we want more content but not so much that we lose quality and damage the game, many unortunately only see a binary answer near nothing or bloat.
Lady_Auralla wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Keep in mind many players dont access this site so Unearthed Arcana may as well not exist for them, also keep in mind that material is in Alpha phase. The elemental Evil Players Companion was lets face it like the earlier editions this game seeks to emulate a casters love fest with absolutely zero for non casters only spells and a race. Also when we talk about wanting content we are talking beyond the core 3.
Mistwell wrote:
tdaelin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I'm just looking forward to GenCon.
Cheers,
Merric
Lady_Auralla wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
4th Edition is an interesting model in how non-adventure releases happened each year. I'm going to talk what we got, then I'm going to discuss what that tells us below. If you know or want to skip to my discussion, jump down below the break.
In year 1, besides a starter set and the 3 core rule books (notably lacking playable gnomes, half-orcs, barbarians, bards, druids, monks, and sorcerers, as well as fightable metallic dragons), they released 2 Forgotten Realms campaign books (1 for players, 1 for DMs), a book of equipment and magic items for players (because of item design in that edition), a book of additional options for what would be called Fighters and Rogues in this edition, a book detailing more evil Chromatic dragons, and a comprehensive, if spread thin, Manual of the Planes.
In year 2, they released a second Player's Handbook featuring new races and classes (including all the missing core 5e ones save the Monk), 2 Eberron campaign books (1 for players, 1 for DMs), another book of equipment and magic items for players, a second volume of the Monster Manual (including metallic dragons), a book of additional options for arcane casters, minus Eberron's Artificer since the book came out before it, a book of additional options for what would be called clerics and paladins in 5th edition, a second volume of the Dungeon Master's Guide, featuring more advice and more sample traps, environmental features, etc, a volume of additional options for what would be called barbarians, druids, and rangers in this edition (plus Oath of the Ancients Paladins), a book of unrelated mini-dungeon adventures, a book detailing undead monsters, a book detailing more metallic dragons, including many that are notably more villainous than usual, a compilation of the best articles in Dragon magazine since the start of the edition the year before, and an expansion to the Manual of the Planes, with a focus on the Elemental Chaos – what we call the Inner Planes plus the Abyss in 5e.
In the first half of year 3, they released a third Player's Handbook featuring new races and classes (including the missing Monk, Psionics, and various other experimental rules like a more standard form of multiclassing), a third Monster Manual featuring even more monsters and variant monsters in a new and better design and style (including Catastrophic Dragons – elemental forces, essentially), a book that expands options for Dragonborn characters and a book that expands options for Tiefling characters, a book that details the area around the town of Hammerfast in the assumed setting of the Nentir Vale, a book that details the ruins of Vor Rukoth to the southeast of the Nentir Vale, a book expanding on the Manual of the Planes in a way by looking at the Underdark between the shallows, the deeps, and then its echoes in the Feydark and the Shadowdark, a book detailing the Abyss (in expansion to the Elemental Chaos one the year before) and demonic enemies from it, a proper expansion on the Manual of the Planes focusing on the Astral Sea and the various dominions of the Gods (what we'd call most of the Outer Planes plus the Astral Plane in 5th Edition), a compilation of the best Dungeon magazine articles since the start of the edition, a book of additional options for psionic characters and monks, and 2 setting books for Dark Sun (change in model though – 1 campaign setting for everyone, the other just a catalog of monsters for the setting).
At this point, they then rebooted 4th Edition with the Essentials line, and the number of releases per year dropped precipitously.
In the second half of year 3, they released an Essentials starter set (red box) that was more similar to the difference between D&D Next and 5th edition, in that the design wasn't the final Essentials design; two volumes of Players Essentials books featuring race and class options that were revamped heavily from their iterations in the core rulebooks of the first two years, a Dungeon Master's Kit that combined and compressed elements of the first two DM's Guides, a Rules Compendium for the rules lawyers on either side of the table, and a Monster Vault with revamped monsters from the first two monster manuals, written in the style of the third.
In year 4, we got a couple of Player's Option books: one for players using Shadow magic or coming from the Shadowfell; one for players using Fey magic or coming from the Feywhild; both featuring new classes, class options, and races. We also got a second Monster Vault with a heavy focus on threats in the Nentir Vale assumed setting (mostly due to a cancelled Gazetteer on the setting), a campaign setting book for adventures in the Neverwinter region of the Forgotten Realms, including new subclasses and character themes (similar to backgrounds), another book of equipment and magic items, exclusive to FLGS – no distribution via Amazon or Barnes & Nobles, and the edition's version of the Book of Vile Darkness, to tie in with an incredibly poor SciFi Channel movie (the book was pretty good, though!).
In year 5, we got another couple of Player's Options: one for players using Elemental magic or coming from the Elemental Chaos; one for players who Dungeoneer or come from the Underdark; both featuring new classes, class options, and races. We also got two more Forgotten Realms-centered setting books, one on exploring Undermountain, another on playing a Drow campaign or being a visitor within the underdark city of Menzoberranzan.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So now for a discussion. Clearly, the first half of the edition was heavily frontloaded. The only reason why year 1 is shorter than years 2 and 3 is because the release of the edition came in June – so that it would be playable at GenCon. One interesting choice was to make each year themed around a different set of class options and a different campaign setting. First year gave us the Martial classes (what is Fighter and Rogue in this edition), plus a few arcane and divine casters. The Realms were the focus. Second year brought us the Primal characters – the Druidic side of the divine – plus Barbarians, who always had a primal bent, and more arcane and Clerical-divine casters. With this many new classes in the mix, Eberron was all set for go. The third year finally brought us the monk and psionics, along with an additional divine and an additional primal character (both of which can be modeled relatively well with the Ranger and the Paladin in 5th edition). It also brought us the psionic setting of Dark Sun. This choice allowed them to keep people coming back each year for more Player's Handbooks, but it did frustrate players who couldn't play their relatively basic concept because it's "theme" hadn't arrived yet.
Besides my ignoring of the published adventures, I also ignored above the digital magazines, which were constantly spewing out content from June 2008 onwards, and only started to slow down in 2011 (year 4). Between the magazines and the books released nearly every month, you could honestly say 3 things: one, collectors probably had their wallets pinched tightly; two, there was far more content out there by the end of year 2 than was playable; and 3, besides Monks, all core content of past editions had been thoroughly presented by the end of the second year. This is an interesting contrast to the strategy in 5th edition: core content has not been locked behind later releases, but rather, front-loaded, despite being or perhaps because it is a hodgepodge of different possibilities. At the same time, they are moving incredibly slow with their releases, at least compared to 4th edition. This is also, of course, by design, and what would be a release in 4th edition doesn't necessarily have a place here in 5th.
For example, in the 4th edition Player's Handbook, there was very little mention of the planes. In the 4th edition Dungeon Master's Guide, there was talk of the planes but it was short and barely touched on each, saving the content for the Manual of the Planes. The 5th edition Dungeon Master's Guide has an extensive chapter on the Planes, far more than what the 4th edition DMG had, though still less than the 4th edition MotP. In 4th edition, there was a NEED for detailing the Planes, and fast, since they were hardly detailed in the core rulebooks. In 5th edition, there isn't really that need – they're detailed to the extent needed in the DMG.
In addition, the relative availability and affordability of past edition products on D&D Classics as PDFs makes acquiring gap information and adapting it to your needs quite easy. This was not the case in past editions; while 4e fans of Eberron and Dark Sun WERE directed to acquire old edition books for various regions of those settings if they wanted more details, there was no easy, in-house system for distributing that old system content. You had to find it on Amazon, eBay, or in your FLGS/Barnes & Nobles, all of which could have been a hit or miss depending on the availability of the content. The same goes for people who want to know more about the Astral Sea and the Outer Planes in 5th edition – you can pick up a PDF of The Plane Above from 5th edition, or any of the Planescape handbooks from 2e. This edition is agnostic to flavour content.
Mike Mearls said that Year 3 is the clincher. Year 3 of 3rd edition saw 3.5e. Year 3 of 4th edition saw Essentials. In Years 4 and 5 of 3rd Edition, we still saw huge waves of content. In Years 4 and 5 of 4th Edition, we saw a huge drop in content, because the edition rewrite was less of a "don't use what came before" as much as a "here's maybe a more agreeable way of presenting what we did before, if you want to use it." The math didn't change incredibly, so they still could build upon what came before. The relationship of 4Essentials and 4E was more like that of early Pathfinder and 3.5e than of 3.5e and 3.0e. But both editions came to this problem where they frontloaded concepts. 4e tried to pace themselves, but found their churning out of content, which quite interesting for the picker and chooser, led to demand that the concepts being held back were unjustly held back while they were getting all these not and essential books. For 5th Edition, the essential stuff is first, and they're slowly working their way through the less essential stuff. I was very upset that Goliath wasn't even considered for the 5th Edition Player's Handbook; it's one of my favourite races, and has a core role in my setting. I asked Mike Mearls about this on twitter near the end of the D&D Next playtests, and he actually responded saying that it's one of his favourite races too, they just couldn't justify it amongst the other, more broad-based concepts that really needed to be released first, and that he hoped that it would come to the new edition sooner rather than later. As we all saw, this spring saw the Goliath return in Elemental Evil Player's Companion, and for the most part, I'm satisfied (I'd still like to see Shadar-kai and Thri-Kreen, but can wait on those – I had to design a homebrew Goliath for my earlier campaign last fall).
By year 3, 5th edition should have made it through the core and secondary concepts. I expect to see Psionics by year 3 – honestly, I expect to see them a lot sooner; Mearls may have hinted that the next Unearthed Arcana may be Psionics. I expect to see some kind of support for the Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, and Greyhawk by year 3, and probably also for Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and Mystara/Hollow World as well. Not books or adventure paths, necessarily, possibly even just Unearthed Arcana. Obviously, we've got UA for Eberron and Dragonlance already, as well as adventure settings in the Realms, so my expectation for Dark Sun and Greyhawk within the next year and a half really shouldn't be that hard. The other settings shouldn't be much of a stretch. They want 5th Edition to not be one of these 6-year editions, where content is produced for 5 years and then they work on the next edition for a year while the last of the content comes out before it all starts over again. To do that, they need a radically different model from 3rd and 4th editions. This is that radical model. Slow down, smell the flowers, create the homebrew you need to fill the gaps – it's not that hard in 5th edition, and there are aids in the DMG and UA for doing so – and have fun. They want to hang around for a while, but that means not front-loading.
That all said, books like Open Grave, Draconomicon, Underdark, these were some of my favourite books of 4th edition, and they came out amidst the bloat, and were often called bloat, since they spent an awful long time talking about pigeon-issues. But for an Underdark campaign, the Underdark book is your friend. For an undead campaign, Open Grave is your friend, etc. My 4th edition library is actually rearranged not by release or by Player vs DM content, but by subject matter (so Underdark, Dungeon Delve, Halls of Undermountain, The Dungeon Survivor's Guide, Menzoberranzan: City of Intrigue are all next to each other; while Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow, The Shadowfell: Gloomwrought and Beyond, and Open Grave: Secrets of the Undead are all next to each other, etc). While I'm definitely in the 5e player base now, having these resources to draw upon is nice. And that's what 5th edition somewhat lacks: comprehensive delves into core genres of the game. If I were to add one extra supplement book a year, I would add a GENRE book as discussed on page 38 of the 5e DMG: Heroic Fantasy, Sword and Sorcery, Epic Fantasy, Mythic Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Intrigue, Mystery, Swashbuckling, War, or Wuxia. These books would cross-reference various D&D settings without republishing the settings, add those settings' options for 5th edition, and help DMs develop those types of games in more detail than just the toolbox in the DMG's Chapter 9 (Dungeon Master's Workshop).
Marandahir wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
I want a book of archetypes. I want a book of spells, I love spells that teleport allies around the grid. After that I just want new clever settings. And I don't care if the settings are just one shots. I don't feel they need to support a setting to death.
Mirtek wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Its funny Mistwell how you consider the monthly UA articles count as releases when in 3E era we had weekly articles, monthly magazibes and the 30 odd page Elemental Evil guide is roughly a 1/3rd the size of a 3.0 soft cover splat book.
It all adds up to squat basically and its not like the quality is actually there either. except maybe the waterbourne artile which I thought was decent enough. The Elemental Evil thing was alright but nothign special really but it was free so bonus points for that.
Not that I want a schedule like 3Es either but more than what they are doing would be nice. Not a single splatbook as such or a single campaign setting and 2 APs at least one of which is plagued with problems.
I would like to see the Expeditions for each season be released as a compilation when they get near retirement from AL use. The AL stuff adds some extra content that I think would sate the appetites of quite a few people. Having sets of one-shots would probably sell more among the DIY DMs than the current adventures do.
Mistwell wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Maybe the change of plans can be to better. Maybe Hasbro has seen D&D can be a new mine of gold like the franchise of transfomers, and now there are plans to create a cartoon show, or videogames from different settings, even Birthright could be used for a Real-Strategy-Game... or to create a D&D softer version of "Games of Thrones"... we could see future D&D actions figures.
If D&D 5th corebooks has been sold very well then don't worry too much.
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Perhaps my thoughts have been expressed by someone else above, if so my appologies.
I was thinking about the release schedual as I really (like many of you) want some new stuff as well. Will I use this stuff....probably not but I still enjoy reading it. With WotC only announcing 1 item at a time it successfully gets me excited for each product. I have never been interested in the Underdark before. In 28 years I don't think I have once bought an Underdark anything, but with Out of the Abyss being the only release for the rest of the year Im definently going to by it, maybe ill even learn why so many people love Drow and the Underdark. With nothing else to buy or read for 5e its kind of a no brainer for me. Now to illistrait my thought. If Mike were to announce tomorrow that a new product was being released near the end of the year like a FR campaign setting book or a Spelljammer book, both of which I am more interested in than OotA, I would probably just skip OotA. By only announcing 1 thing at a time I feel like it creates a funnel of sorts. Most, certainly not all, 5e fans will probably buy OotA. I would imagine that this solves a few business issues. If you know that 50% of all 5e fans are going to by the only book you release in the last six months of the year, you don't have to worry about their budget as most gamers will be able to budget and spend $50 over the course of a 6 month time span. Thats .28 cents per day.
WotC doesnt have to worry about excess stock collecting dust in a warehouse somewhare. This strategy costs the company money. I loved WFRP 3e but FFG had this exact problem. WFRP 3e RIP. FFG stopped supporting this game almost 2 years before its official cancellation. Each year they would put the game on there xmas sale at like 60% - 75% off just to get rid of the stock because they were bleeding money just because the productrs existed.
I think Mike and company would love to create more products but I think they are attempting to be efficient and avoide the above example. Yes 2 print products per year seam light to me as well and this will likely be unsatisfactory to some, perhaps many 5e fans but a minimalist approach is probably a safe strategy instead of the alternative.
WotC "lets print 12 books a year" Mike. "great thats (typing on a calculator)..... 6 millinon dollars" WotC "Awesome! Make it happen!"..........(Time Passes....exactly 1 year LOL) WotC "Mike how many did we sell, whats our bottom line look like"? Mike. "hmm, Turns out most of our fans only wanted the content in 6 of the products and other fans couldnt justify the expense.....so we ran out of stock of the 6 popular products. The 6 unpopular products are collecting dust in our warehouse which costs us money. We spent our budget on creating the 6 products that werent popular so we cant even move resources to reprint the popular products. All togeather (typing on calculator).........12...products......6 sold........(more typing)........yah!....Yah....we lost money." WotC. "Idiot".
Obviously this is a dramatization and ment to be a silly joke but you get the idea.
Happy 4th of july weekend to everybody!
Zardnaar wrote:
gmanjkd wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Nicely
gmanjkd wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Maybe Hasbro should make a D&D version of Skylanders or Disney Infinity?
I heard Nintendo recently hit a goldmine with their follow-the-leader Amiibo. ;)
It could be like Dungeon Command / Miniatures Game, only the miniatures carry digital data for the video game version as well.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I agree when considering content, that you should not include the core rule books. Content in my eyes is what is contributed after the rules are released to show case the product, or expand options.
Uchawi wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I was under the impression that the Unearthed Arcana, Sage Advice and other such Articles would be filling some of the void.
That said, I've been pretty disappointed by the Articles in general, and Unearthed Arcana specifically. I was expecting them to broach a subject, such as say Mass Combat or Eberron content, and then stick with it as it was explored/refined/playtested over a few articles (3-5 per subject would be nice). Instead we've had very sparse examples of early concepts and ideas thrown to us, and then they move onto something else and do the same.
It would, admittedly in my own opinion, be awesome if instead they had a new Unearthed Arcana subject each month, which was explored over the course of that month in an article each week. I think that would be much more satifying to the community as a whole, and beneficial as it provides interesting concepts which can be explored and discussed over the month. They could even get Player feedback from short survey's or comment sections like they had during the Playtest. It'd be Win Win for everyone, IMO.
Orethalion wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Going back to the Mearl's statement, it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't want to announce the next AP until the current one was released. 3e and 4e had a weird announcement cycle for products where they would hype and hype until a month before the product was out and then begin hyping the next new thing, never giving a product time to breathe or conclude. Just when Encounter seasons were climaxing it was "here's the next new story!!"
It also makes sense that they wouldn't want to announce the next product until it was almost done. Because the second they announce something everyone moves onto speculating on the product after that. If they announced the next six books in the schedule, everyone would be going on about the potential seventh book.
Plus, staffing. WotC seems completely uninterested in letting the D&D have staff. No one has replaced Rodney Thompson and there's still no editors on staff. If not for the art assests needed to be designed and shared with licencees, I'm sure the art team would also be slashed. There's just not enough staff to really release a lot of product.
Farming things out to freelancers is an option, but someone still needs to edit that content and compile the freelanced work. Releasing one book a year seems like a challenge. It's hard to get mad at the D&D team when they likely want more people and would love some help.
Orethalion wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Seems obvious that PitA being an adventure doesn't really count as a major release if you are after a crunch book. If you are not after adventures theres basically nothign for you with 5E after the core rules.
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Major release is very subjective based on precedent. Otherwise, we each have our own definition.
Zardnaar wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
So being in hardcover makes it a makor release? Can anyone explain he difference between 3.5s hard covers which must all be major releases and the 5E major releases? 3.5 at least had the option of getting stuff that was not adventures and unless PotA is one of the best adventures ever made you can't exactly claim 5E has been releasing quality over quantity either. If you are not after adventures there ihas been nothing released for you beyond some needs playtesting materials online and that is nothing really and 3E had that as well with several articles per week not one per month along with free online adventures and game material and previews.
THey may not have the staff to release more stuff even if they wanted to but we should all know by now what caused that.
Zardnaar wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Who cares if the AP meet the criteria of a major release or not? I swear these forums loves to derail threads going into semantics arguments. >_>
We have only AP's being released. And only 2 a year. Whether you find that adequate, slim pickings or useless, is up to the individual. Period!
ModusPonens wrote:
Scruffy68 wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
ssvegeta555 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
When i consider buying a new release i only use one metric. Is there content that i believe i can use . It does not matter to me if it is a a magizine like dragon/dungeon/threshhold, a boxed set, an atlas, a 32 page module, 300 page hardcover or 96 page splat book. If I find something A Race,Class.Archtype,Background, Monster, Item or Spells that i think would make a good addition to my game thats all that matters not whether it is major or minor because those are just labels nothing more and subjective labels at that
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Jayden wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Jayden wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Jayden wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Jayden wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
The content in the adventures can be used in a general campaign. If I need a quick and dirty encounter or a room design, I can lift it directly out of the Adventures. Not every encounter, but many of them I can. Thus, your definition of General content is only skewed by your lack of invention.
Yes. I'm creating rules. D&D gives me the freedom to do so. Im not creating a DMG by inventing rules. I'm just doing the task that is set forth by the DM... which is set out in the first few pages of the PHB, which basically states that the DM narrates the adventure and the results of the characters actions. Additionally - right in the experience point section it states that by overcoming challenges you earn experience points.
Im not moving the goal posts. All the rules I need are in the PHB. There are even monsters in the back. Any rules that I want are not necessarily rules that I need to play the game.
Edit: Also - Even if I am playing the game, and not getting experience points out... I'm playing the game. Now Arent I?
Orethalion wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ssvegeta555 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
I would rather slower but safe.... but I miss news about future "demicore" books, with new classes and races.
I want to think really they have got great plans..
Orethalion wrote:
ssvegeta555 wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ssvegeta555 wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
ssvegeta555 wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ssvegeta555 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
If they can't put out products and adventures for Birthright, Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, Jakandor, Red Steele, Gothic Earth, and Dragonlance right now with an AP and a sourcebook, then the edition is a failure and might as well be scrapped. Insert sarcasm somewhere.
Lady_Auralla wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
Rundell wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
After the core rules there has been only one crunchy release in the first year of 5e(i.e. Elemental Evil Player's Companion) and it was relatively small. We have no idea when to expect new crunchy releases. The closest thing we have is a monthly(?) column that puts out some playtest materials every now and then. I am a customer that wants a fair bit of crunch for her games and has been accustomed to having at least a large diversity of crunch since I started playing back in 2nd edition. I am disappointed in the low amount of post-core official crunch that has been released so far.
Why do we need more crunch so soon? We haven't even had time to utilize all the crunch we were given to start.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MusicOfCreation wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MusicOfCreation wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
But, Orethalion, what happens when the content you want is considered negative content by others?
ModusPonens wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Regale us, once more kind Orethalion, your definitions and distinctions between "bloat" and "content".
ChrisCarlson wrote:
To take a page from your book, "You can't prove I ever said that."
So, "strawman!"
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Orethalion wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Disregarding the useless waste of a semantics argument of the last five pages, I think it best to look at this "problem" through the lens of the developer. What is their motivation for the current release schedule? Why is adventure content the priority over new player crunch options?
Mike makes a good point about RPGs on twitter when, discussing how board games do releases, he mentioned that "players have a script that turns out badly for publishers." (Link here.) I made a thread over at enworld talking about hypothetical release schedules taking this into account.
They're being very fluid with this release schedule because they do not want to make the same mistakes they made in the past. If they simply release what they've released every edition, how can they hope to sustain longevity in the brand?
Having a linear set of focused releases, one at a time, is a much safer bet than producing multiple books at once. Using surveys, they can tweak what kind of releases we get. I believe when they spoke about the last survey's results, they found that people wanted more sand-box style adventures rather than APs, so we'll probably begin to see those soon.
Player and character options is a difficult thing to produce, as Merric said upthread. You have to take into account the entire breadth of player options already in the game before even attempting to fit new ones in. 3.X is an optimization bloat fest. They do not want that again. They've been very open from the beginning that they do not want to introduce a lot of new character content, but rather produce a strong enough core to be able to get what most people would want right in the core books.
This is why I believe they are focusing on adventure content at this time. New player options are optional content, it isn't something needed. I would venture to say that the core books currently support character builds that took a year or more to support in earlier editions. There's a rather large set of options to begin with. Adding new stuff is simply a more dangerous venture than it would have been in 4e, when they decided to split core content assumptions in multiple books.
I do think we'll see additional player content, however. I just think it will be few and far between. They'll want to make sure it has the same amount of R&D as anything in the core books. However, right now, only a year after release, I don't believe that not having it will affect sales of the game. Especially if they want to focus on new players.
Having adventure content is ALWAYS important. Most of us hobbyists that post to forums may have less use for it, preferring to create our own stuff, but the average joe just learning to play? Or the average player who simply has no time to create a good adventure? It's easy to see why adventure content is their main focus at the moment. They want to keep people playing. People are more likely to keep playing if they have adventures to play.
Personally I dislike AP style adventures. I want more module-inspired adventure design, three or less levels in size. More one shots, what have you.
As an aside, I don't give two rat farts about what you consider supplemental, a major release, whether what is in core "doesn't count" or what have you. I'm not arguing semantics. I will only discuss what WotC has released and whether it is good for the game.
CelticPaladin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ive removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Rundell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Rasufemagger wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Well part of the D&D thing also involves collecting books and often that means new books to get. I have around 200 myself and keep adding to the collection if I see them floating around for cheap.
Well part of the D&D thing also involves collecting books and often that means new books to get. I have around 200 myself and keep adding to the collection if I see them floating around for cheap.
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Well, one of the good things about D&D was the wealth of options to use in your campaigns.
“But what about the super duper bad evil bloat of 3rd Edition?”
That is quite easy to explain: the core books of 3rd Edition weren’t balanced in the first place. With no solid foundation they tend to be worse. However, it’s noteworthy that splat book casters were usually inferior to the PHB Wizard, Cleric and Druid.
Proof of that? 4th Edition’s splat books were way more balanced. In fact, I remember people always saying “Yes, you can allow splat books here”. Again, the core game had many problems, and the own Monster Manual was thrown in the trash can, so to speak, because of these inner problems existent in the core books. But, until they actually changed the edition with Essentials, things were pretty good, with lots of splat books. And Essentials wasn’t bad, it just was too much change in supposedly one edition.
Basically the core books are launched with way too many problems and then the splat books get all the guilt. It’s like blaming the chocolate sprinkle while the base ice cream is spoiled.
“But that’s too many option! I want few options!”
That is easy: don’t buy the splat books. I too think that there should be adventures in D&D business but for me, most of it is useless. However, denying extra options to people who want them just because you don’t want them… Need I say more?
“But they are doing it my way! We are winning!”
Yes, apparently they are not confident about them because of the short staff and them trying to marketing other venues instead of… I don’t know the RPG table Top system? This is one of the reasons why I won’t be buying anything – rule books and adventures – anymore from 5th Edition. I probably will not change the direction of the game, but I’ll be one less idiot. Which is what I would be if I keep buying things from a game that no longer satisfies me.
Until someone actually rebuts my arguments, I still think that “splat books are evil” is a terrible non-sense.
Orethalion wrote:
Rasufemagger wrote:
Ive removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Rasufemagger wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rasufemagger wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rasufemagger wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Looks like more job losses in the D&D division. Don't expect much of anything any time soon.
Rasufemagger wrote:
Darkwood Stalker, Kensai, Master of the Unseen Hand, Dwarven Defender, Halfling Bounder, Inner Dragon, Ravager, Samurai, Peasant Hero, Myrmidon, and Amazon.
Simple plug and play. No problems, just ignore fluff if you like the crunch.
Red Larch, Yartar, Womford, Gar Shatterkeel, Ghald, Vanifer, Lord's Alliance, and Order of the Gauntlet.
Way, way too complicated. Many problems. Changing name too difficult, it not fluff that easy ignore.
Whatevs.
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Rasufemagger wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
My opinion is the future plans for D&D are really bigger we can imagine now. Maybe Hasbro has been a great potential for the franchise, better than Transformers. And then we will see more different lines for D&D, like toys, cartoons, movies...
The_Jester wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
LuisCarlos17f wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide is pretty fresh news to me. Seems like it was just announced today (7/22). It sounds like pretty much what the fans are howling for even though it's for the Forgotten Realms: New subclasses, new subraces, and added setting fluff to tie your character to. Let's hope it doesn't end up scrapped or stripped down like the Elemental Evil's Player's Companion.
The_Jester wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Does Sword coast adventurers guide count as a major release? hopefully the discussion prolongs the thread another few pages. I jest but I am looking forward to it in November.
The_Jester wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell has also been counting indirect staff such as admin as D&D staff. Using the same criteria Paizos ROPPG division goes form aorund 20-25 staff up to around 50.
A collaboration is still an outsourcing everything that the company isn't doing itself. With far fewer employees, more and more has to be outsourced.
Scruffy68 wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
There's certainly some overlap with the situation, but in this instance everything was freelanced. Almost nothing was done in house. Which is very different. The involvement from WotC was largely managerial. I'm not going to credit the management of WotC (such as its CEO) with the succes or failure of an edition of D&D or the quality of a particular book. Neither am I going to do the same for one of these adventures. I don't hold the WotC responsible for the flaws of products done under licence, be it Hoard of the Dragon Queen or Neverwinter or the Attacking Wing game.
I'm more inclined to listen to the people who actually wrote the material:
http://www.thetomeshow.com/e/when-kobolds-meet-tiamat-kobold-press-tyranny-of-dragons-panel-gencon-2014/
http://www.thetomeshow.com/e/princes-of-the-apocalypse-review-tome-250/
http://www.thetomeshow.com/e/gamer-to-gamer-rich-baker/
Just because Princes of the Apocalypse just happens to be part of the RPG line is NOT a reason to treat it any differently than any other licenced product or consider WotC's inviolvement with more weight. Period. They were involved in the art and the story and the direction of the project, yes. They were in constant contact and providing feedback. They provided concept art. All true. But they do the exact same thing with all their other licenced products.
It's a D&D product. It's an RPG product. But it's not a WotC product. Not really.
I would say that it is a WotC product. WotC did work on the product and obviously they own the rights so it has to be a WotC product.
Owen K.C. Stevens is also an employee of Paizo and the publisher of Rogue Genius Games. And his role at Green Ronin is largely related to Pathfinder products. He's likely too busy to work on an AP, even if it was his wheelhouse.
It's highly unlikely they would have shared information on the project with him, NDA and all, since he was not working on it (as he said). Unless he is a playtester, he probably found out about the AP with the rest of us. So he has no great insider knowledge.
So you would say that Sword Coast Legends is a WotC product?
Just like the adventures, it's being handled through a licence and not contracted labour. Just like the adventures it's an outside company hiring and paying their own people to make the product. Apart from the fact one is a video game and one is an RPG they're otherwise the same as far as WotC is concerned: a product they're paying someone else to make under their supervision and management.
The_Jester wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
My god! What difference does it make if WotC writes it, contracts out the writing, co-writes it???? As long as it turns out to be an interesting and enjoyable adventure, what difference does it make! I am not even sure why you guys are arguing about this.
NOTE: I contracted out the writing of this post...
what scruffy said
I kind of look at it like when you have a famous author and some new author who writes a book togather, THe famous author likely writes a plotline or something like that but the less famous author usually does most of the actual writing. Temple of Elemental Evil is like that, Gary Gygax is the "lead" author, Frank Mentzer wrote most of it. WoTC likley wirtes the adventure arch ie what it is about and the Kobolds.Sasquatch etc do most of the work.
Zardnaar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Scruffy68 wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Crikey, this thread is enough to put you off purchasing any future D&D product, way to go!
Orethalion wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
From ENWorld:
oakthorne;6669957 wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
The devil is in the details and using previous adventure paths, is there really a pattern for development? Or just a loose string of guidelines, especially since 5E is the DM edition where anything goes.
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Every official source that's commented on this topic so far (four of them) has said in one way or another that WOTC's involvement with the APs so far has been greater than thir involvement with typical 3e APs that WOTC produced, AND greater than Paizo's typical involvement with theirs. That apparently both companies use other companies routinely for these things, but have done it with less supervision than the 5e APs have had so far. The other companies are typically groups of sole proprietorships rather than LLCs or Incs previously.
Mistwell wrote:
Almost all books done by publishers are done via freelance work. How is this any different?
Wuzzard wrote:
And what's the problem with outsourced work anyway?
When WotC does Outsource its work, it tends to be done better and of a higher quality. So no problem there.
I think the problem is that they are also taking the credit for the work, despite the fact that they are acting as no more than Revisionist's.
Especially when Crawford's statements claim "Our reviews are deep. We create the story & the concept art. We write portions of the books. We design mechanics. Etc"
Yet the actual Companies employees doing the work say another, such as Baur's which claims they "do the heavy lifting in design, development, and editing" with WotC having "crucial input and set the direction for what they wanted"
Satyrn wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Owen Stephens commented on this issue again:
Mistwell wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Ramius613 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Something I just realized. This forum needs a thumbs up or +1 button. Its terribly unfortunate that it doesn't. Whats up with that?
LordCorwin wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Today the money isn´t in the rpg books, but in the IP or the franchise, the bakcground for cinema, comcis, novels, toys, videogames..and D&D may be a true gold mine for Hasbro in the right hands. Do remember how transfomers came back.
Since 3.5 I haven´t bought a D&D book for years, nothing about 4th Ed. I am a collector, not a player, and I don´t mind to wait more years without new D&D books. I love my collection of books (bought in the book stores, not scanned pdf from internet).
My opinion is WotC is working in the 5.5 Ed, with the return of most popular from previous editions (classes, races, monsters...) and the new modules, a great project to create the ultimate edition for the digital age. They are still investigatint, playtesting and learning. They need time, and some money.