How are 4th Edition sales going?

[Lago PARANOIA]

The WotC boards have slowed to a crawl of the activity they had during 3rd Edition.

Now all I need to know is where I can find sales of the book and how such sales compare to previous editions.

[RandomCasualty2]

I think 4E is pretty popular, it's just that there's significantly less to say about it. There aren't really as many complex builds or much to really say about 4E.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I'd really like to know how well the new FRCS and the supplements like AV are selling. That'll tell you more about how popular 4e is, since everybody and their mother picked up a copy of the core books, out of curiosity if nothing else.

[smug]

Firms are always cagey about those sales figures, though, as they are commercially sensitive. I personally have no fucking idea how it's selling (or how other games are selling, for that matter).

[Maxus]

I think 4E is pretty popular, it's just that there's significantly less to say about it. There aren't really as many complex builds or much to really say about 4E.

I was thinking the same thing.

From the history I've gathered, for a while after 3e and 3.5 came out, you had people like Frank coming out with funny/unusual/superpowered builds.

Of course, I doubt the WotC writers and board operators would actually *want* a system as complex as 3e, because then they'd have a repeat of the "Skip Smokes Crack" incidents where they, people involved in making the game, are getting shown up by people

[Absentminded_Wizard]

You mean like all the people posting proof that skill challenges didn't work when 4e came out?

[RandomCasualty2]

I'd really like to know how well the new FRCS and the supplements like AV are selling. That'll tell you more about how popular 4e is, since everybody and their mother picked up a copy of the core books, out of curiosity if nothing else.

AV I'm sure sold pretty well, 4E was notoriously low on magic items, and AV was the first real splatbook. So like any edition I figure the splatbooks are going to suffer from diminishing sales as time goes on, but for now they're probably pretty popular.

FRCS would be a curious one, since a lot of players I think would be reluctant to really learn the FR, which is pretty much an entirely new setting. Most people I bet just said "fuck that." Nobody I know really likes the new FR and I figure it'll go over about as well as nWoD where they tossed the old storyline in favor of something completely different and made everyone relearn everything. The real advantage of old FR was that players felt like they new the regions,the factions, the gods and everything else. That's no longer true with the new one after they raped it though.

[Voss]

And not only did they break its kneecaps and rape it into a coma, the books also read like they're missing roughly half the material. Flipping through them, I have no idea whats going on. Geography, gods, random shit, all different for no reason thats even vaguely apparent, and only outlined in thumbnail sketches.

Supposedly, there was too much material for new players, but there is a ridiculous amount of material for both new and old players, so... whatever.

The players guide probably sold more, just because there is crunchy shit that people just can't live with out (feats and classes and races- drow particularly, fucking fanboys). But they're some of the worst RPG sourcebooks I've ever seen, even disregarding how little I like 4e. Poorly written, poorly organized, and they fail at their primary purpose: campaign guides that make it possible to run a campaign in that setting.

One thing on the other source books though. Crappy game system aside, AV and martial power did impress me in one regard: they are literally 95% crunch. None of the crap they did in 3e with reprinting PrCs in a shitty example characters that take up a page and a half for each PrC, or worthless intros to character design a la Complete Mage.

Martial power is worth a look just for the pathetic failure that is animal companions. the ranger has to spend an action to have its animal make an action. Standard for standard, move for move, etc. So you could attack as pairs (and there are powers that give both the ranger and beast an attack), but most of the time, you don't have enough actions to be effective with your pet. You either act or your pet does.

Or you could just be a base PH ranger and get your two attacks all by yourself and not have to waste cash on keeping the beast's items level appropriate as well as your own. And the beast only has 2 healing surges, which makes it, well, dead, about a quarter of the way through the adventuring day. Its a complete failure of resource management on about every level, and it isn't even as effective as just being two sword guy

[Absentminded_Wizard]

So they didn't port that nice action-sharing system they had for bag of tricks over to animal companions? Did they change that system in the AV beta, or this just another example of exception-based design at its worst?

[Username17]

Hasbro is Doing Fine

The growth in revenue is attributable to STAR WARS, PLAYSKOOL, NERF, FURREAL FRIENDS, BABY ALIVE, trading card and board games, including TRIVIAL PURSUIT and SCRABBLE. Additionally, TRANSFORMERS and LITTLEST PET SHOP continued to contribute significantly to the segment in the quarter.

Do you see D&D on that list? I don't. Baby Alive dolls are pushing Hasbro's market share forward, Transformers continue to do well. Role playing games aren't mentioned. That either means that they are tanking or remain steady at a low dollar value.

I mean, trading card games get a shout out, although Guess Who? gets named in the article and Magic does not. But still, TCGs seem to be doing well. The same can not be said from that article about D&D.

-Username17

[SphereOfFeetMan]

For what it is worth, this was on Enworld in July:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rp ... rview.html

to respond to my own post, i thought it was interesting that they only mentioned wotc in passing. this is 2 months after 4e released. this was a huge meeting with all the big wall street firms. this is where you toot your own horn loudly. if 4e really did well they would have been talking about it here.
...
even more interesting, i have access to about 20 of these quarterly meeting transcripts going back to 2002. there is not a single mention of dungeons and dragons or anything related to dnd in any of them. i guess that shows us how dnd is viewed. 3.5 didnt even get a mention in the year it came out, according to the transcripts i have access to.

again, these meetings are where you toot your horn and make small achievements seem bigger than they are to impress financial analysts at the big wall street firms.

i guess in the eyes of hasbro DnD (to quote an old high school teacher) is just a pee hole in the snow.

[virgil]

From my awareness, that's always been the case. Even the giants in the RPG industry, D&D, cannot compare to essentially anything vaguely mainstream. RPGs are niche at the best of times, and the demographic seems to be particularly small compared to similar material.

Little known board games without supplements have bigger profit margins, from the looks of it. Hell, I wonder how Settlers of Catan compared to 3rd edition.

[Voss]

Absent- no idea. All I know is that the decided that 'balancing' an animal companion means that you have to split one set of actions between two characters and occasionally use powers to make the equivalent of two sword attacks against a target... if you can get both your ranger and your beast into position to actually do that, with only one move action between the two of you.
On the up side, the beast can act independently... if the ranger is unconscious or dead.


On the financial side... I don't know anyone who ever suggested RPGs were good moneymakers. When Hasbro bought WotC, it definitely seemed they wanted the CCGs, and the RPGS were just along for the ride.

[Bigode]

On the up side, the beast can act independently... if the ranger is unconscious or dead.

Maybe (haven't read) it has to do with it sorta being a pile of extra hp?

[Psychic Robot]

Couldn't the animal companion have half the healing surges of the ranger and then the ranger could share his remaining surges with the animal companion?

God, it's like fucking Guild Wars, except Guild Wars only had you use an action for a special attack.

[Voss]

On the up side, the beast can act independently... if the ranger is unconscious or dead.

Maybe (haven't read) it has to do with it sorta being a pile of extra hp?

They may have thought that on some level. But really, the animals extra HP is more of a detriment to the party rather than a bonus. With only two healing surges, it can't go for very long, despite a fairly large pile of hit points, and it doesn't look like it can do a second wind. So the limited use cleric and warlord powers have yet another target to try to heal. Thats a big fuck you to the rest of the party. Ah. Nevermind, Found the healing rules: it can second wind when you do, and when you're adjacent, you can spend your own surges to heal the beast instead. Still shitty. You aren't fucking the party over quite as much, except your setting more resources on fire.

Plus damage doesn't scale well. Its base damage never increases (beyond strength increase through leveling at the normal rate). A level 23 power gives its 3*[beast basic damage] + str, as a secondary attack to a 1[w] attack from the ranger... and that just sucks.

At level 29 the dailies look like this
Beast daily: Huntmaster's Mauling
Str vs AC,
Hit 2[w] +str, Miss: half
effect: secondary attack: beast attack vs AC
5[B(east)]+ beast str, miss: half
add your wis modifier in damage (secondary only) if the beast is a bear, snake or wolf

other new ranger daily:
Suffering's end
bloodied target
before attack shift Wis mod.
str vs AC
Hit: 8[W] + str
Miss 5[W] + str

Shit. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather have the second.
Not having to set actions on fire to get both minis into position and doing more damage besides is strictly better.

I just can't get over the complete destruction of the economy of actions. There is no way that splitting actions between two characters is in any way workable.
Maybe if you hand to spend an action to give it an ongoing order:
std action to order the beast to attack enemy A until its dead wouldn't be stellar, but it would be functional. Micromanaging every single action is not even vaguely acceptable.

Funny point: despite saying that scaling monsters up more than 5 levels is a bad idea, thats exactly what they do. Everything is set at first level, and you add 1 to attack bonus, defenses and a set # to hp at every level. Stats improve like a PC. Thats... it. They get one or two skills, and maybe a special bonus,

[RandomCasualty2]

On the up side, the beast can act independently... if the ranger is unconscious or dead.

The beast is actually pretty awesome. Mainly because all you give up to have the beast is either archery path which is just a single feat, or two weapon path which is a minor damage boost on your offhand and a single feat. Feats really aren't in short supply yet in 4E, so seriously, who cares about giving them up in exchange for a full blown class feature.

As for the beast companion, it's not exactly that great as a damage dealer, but at the very least it's more hp you can use. In fact, it may be a really useful defender replacement and for flanking. As an archery ranger, if your frontliners are doing their job you should have your move actions free. So basically just have your animal companion get behind people and help the rogue flank, or try to draw AoOs to trigger a divine or fighter's challenge. Even if they don't take the AoOs you're still having the beast flank.

If anyone attacks the beast, it's basically a wasted action, since the beast doesn't do anything anyway besides make AoOs. And best yet, if you do get dropped, your beast can keep fighting, which is damn awesome (by 4E standards anyway). Even if you fight by tag team instead of simultaneous, you've still got 2 characters and you haven't lost much of anything in the trade.

[RandomCasualty2]

Do you see D&D on that list? I don't.

I don't think that D&D has ever been a big money maker, regardless of edition.

Nobody ever got rich publishing RPGs.

[Voss]

On the up side, the beast can act independently... if the ranger is unconscious or dead.

The beast is actually pretty awesome. Mainly because all you give up to have the beast is either archery path which is just a single feat, or two weapon path which is a minor damage boost on your offhand and a single feat. Feats really aren't in short supply yet in 4E, so seriously, who cares about giving them up in exchange for a full blown class feature.

As for the beast companion, it's not exactly that great as a damage dealer, but at the very least it's more hp you can use. In fact, it may be a really useful defender replacement and for flanking. As an archery ranger, if your frontliners are doing their job you should have your move actions free. So basically just have your animal companion get behind people and help the rogue flank, or try to draw AoOs to trigger a divine or fighter's challenge. Even if they don't take the AoOs you're still having the beast flank.

If anyone attacks the beast, it's basically a wasted action, since the beast doesn't do anything anyway besides make AoOs. And best yet, if you do get dropped, your beast can keep fighting, which is damn awesome (by 4E standards anyway). Even if you fight by tag team instead of simultaneous, you've still got 2 characters and you haven't lost much of anything in the trade.

Seriously? You want to trade in real resources for a flanking buddy? Shit, clerics and other classes have spells for that kind of crap. Or just the ability to knock people down- combat advantage, done.

As an archery ranger... you don't have a beast. If you do have a beast, you won't be shooting a bow, because all the beast related powers require you to either give up your attack entirely, or require you to attack in tandem with the beast with a melee weapon.

Honestly any intelligent enemy is going to look at this non-effective creature at just not attack it. Taking its AoOs is a danger for minions only- after about 5th level its damage simply isn't relevant.

You're really giving up the feat, ability with bows or two weapons, and a significant portion of your actions for the ability to be less effective and hope that the dm will take pity on you and play stupid. Nothing ever makes up for the fact that you have to give up real actions or effective powers to get both minis into position, and set healing surges on fire if the DM is actually nice to you and attacks your meat puppet.

To reiterate- your final statement is completely and utterly wrong. You have to spend the most important currency in the game to make this stupid thing effective: actions. Having an extra pool of hit points to heal isn't compensation, its an extra hinderance.

The keep fighting part, by the way? Lame, even by 4e standards. It won't stand out as particularly shitty at low levels (except it doesn't have the force multipliers that encounter or daily powers have). It attacks at d8 (or d12 for bears) + str... forever. and since starting strength tops out at 16, this is definitely 'so the fuck what?' damage. The damn bear is going to have to melee the 5th level hobgoblin whatever-the-fuck for roughly 6-8 rounds to kill it. Go team ranger.

You realize the only way to heal it in combat is to either blow an action for a second wind, or get adjacent to it, and spend a minor action + 1 of your own healing surges? Which again makes the idea that you are going to be standing in the back with a bow completely laughable. Or somehow magically force the party warlord/cleric to waste real healing resources on a critter that might manage to contribute a whopping +2 to hit for a round, which anyone else in the party can do in one of several different ways, without making their own character a complete waste of space in the party roster?

[RandomCasualty2]

As an archery ranger... you don't have a beast. If you do have a beast, you won't be shooting a bow, because all the beast related powers require you to either give up your attack entirely, or require you to attack in tandem with the beast with a melee weapon.

All being an "Archery ranger" gives you is one feat. You can go ahead and take archery powers instead of beast powers and nobody cares.

You can be a beast ranger and use a bow. I mean, why the hell not?

Honestly any intelligent enemy is going to look at this non-effective creature at just not attack it. Taking its AoOs is a danger for minions only- after about 5th level its damage simply isn't relevant.

Ok, so it's giving you free attacks as an immediate interrupt.

You realize the only way to heal it in combat is to either blow an action for a second wind, or get adjacent to it, and spend a minor action + 1 of your own healing surges? Which again makes the idea that you are going to be standing in the back with a bow completely laughable.

Who gives a shit, honestly. Let it take the hits. If the enemy attack it, then you're a defender and a striker at the same time.

I mean you said above tjhat the enemies would ignore the animal companion, which is a pretty good assumption because its contribution is minor. If they target it, then really, do you even care. In any case, it's doing a way better job for you than defensive mobility feat does for a bow path ranger.

There's really no reason that you wouldn't want the beast over just a single bonus feat. And that's all being an archer ranger really does for you.

[Koumei]

What happens to you if it dies? Do you just get another one the next day?

[Maxus]

What happens to you if it dies? Do you just get another one the next day?

Of course not!

If a Ranger's animal companion dies, he is expected to go through a mourning ritual.

First, he buries the animal companion, planting a tree over the grave. When the tree is six inches across, the Ranger must nail his left testicle to the tree with a four-inch nail, and then cut it off and leave the testicle behind on the grave-tree as a physical symbol of his spiritual and emotional maiming.

Then he may perform a Highly Difficult skill challenge with no help at all to try to attract another animal companion.

[RandomCasualty2]

What happens to you if it dies? Do you just get another one the next day?

It's a 50 gp ritual to raise your beast companion. And it's free (no market price to buy it). It costs 500 gp at Paragon and 5000 at epic. You don't need ritual casting to use it either. Any beastmaster ranger gets it for free.

Also when you level you get to swap out your beast companion if you want and could presumably replace a fallen one.

Not really a big deal, same cost as a healing potion and the beast takes way more hits than the potion is going to heal. So all in all it's a nice trade.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I have to agree with Voss. If they'd used the AV's bag of tricks system, where each of the companion's actions only costs you a minor action, the whole archery/flanking thing could be useful. As it is, anybody else can flank and still attack every round, making them tons more useful in a padded sumo setup. And that's even before you get into how to heal the beast.

[Voss]

As an archery ranger... you don't have a beast. If you do have a beast, you won't be shooting a bow, because all the beast related powers require you to either give up your attack entirely, or require you to attack in tandem with the beast with a melee weapon.

All being an "Archery ranger" gives you is one feat. You can go ahead and take archery powers instead of beast powers and nobody cares.

You can be a beast ranger and use a bow. I mean, why the hell not?

Because all you get in return is a flanking buddy that won't be in position much of the time and exists solely to suck away YOUR resources. On the absurdly rare occasion that it attacks, its damage is utterly trivial.

All you've done is saddled yourself with a permanent version of the cleric's knight's summons that burns real resources off your character. Or as Absent points out, just toss some cash at a bag of tricks.