D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[Shasarak]

As someone who is completely unfamiliar with actual business finance. Isn't the basic assumption of success that it turns a profit?

Except that corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder value, so is just making a profit enough?

As for 3.whatever, are we starting to hit bottom of the barrel for arguments. This is begining to sound like a return to old battlelines, if we've fought this war to a standstill before, we'll probably do it again. Better to save the energy and just agree to disagree isn't it?

I dont mind disagreeing. It is when you see someone not applying their definitions consistently that gets a real from me. So if your definition of a new edition is reprinting the core books then logically every time the core books get reprinted then that is a new edition by your own definition.

 

[Maxperson]

Changing rules to bring them in line with a new edition isn't prep... it's converting stuff to the new editions rules. I can "prep"/convert 1e stuff to 5e as well, does that mean they are the same edition?

Nah. Converting 3e to 3.5 involved almost no rules, and when it did, it took less effort than programming a universal remote. Not at all like 1e to 5e, but nice try.

 

[Maxperson]

New edition or not...we can argue the semantics of it all day...I think the impact of 3.5 displays two important factors.

More books ultimately hurt.

It doesn't show that at all. It shows that poor quality books hurt. Until the end of the edition when those poor quality books were put out, it did very well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It doesn't show that at all. It shows that poor quality books hurt. Until the end of the edition when those poor quality books were put out, it did very well.

One of the last 3.x books was Bo9S, it wasn't exactly 'poor.' Similarly, HotFw and HotEC were significantly better than HoS, and arguably better than HotFK/FL. Maybe it's just a dead-cat-bounce kinda thing, but the last gasps of D&D editions can have some good stuff in 'em.

 

[Maxperson]

One of the last 3.x books was Bo9S, it wasn't exactly 'poor.' Similarly, HotFw and HotEC were significantly better than HoS, and arguably better than HotFK/FL. Maybe it's just a dead-cat-bounce kinda thing, but the last gasps of D&D editions can have some good stuff in 'em.

I felt like the last few books were test runs for 4e. A lot of the mechanics from the last releases ended up in that edition.

 

[Shasarak]

I felt like the last few books were test runs for 4e. A lot of the mechanics from the last releases ended up in that edition.

See also Saga Edition as well.

Its not really a surprise when you get designers working on both.

 

[Corpsetaker]

That isn't quite true. While yes 5E does put errata online it also puts it in new printings without calling it 5.5. So your logic doesn't really hold water.

My logic holds plenty of water. They just decided after 3rd edition to handle their books and errata different.

 

[Corpsetaker]

So you admit the changes made 3.0 material unusable but because you didn't like the unusable material or want to use it... it worked fine. Ok, got it. Also there were spells in 3.0 that no longer existed in 3.5 how did you reference those with your 3.5 handbook?

????

 

[Maxperson]

My logic holds plenty of water. They just decided after 3rd edition to handle their books and errata different.

Exactly.

 

[Maxperson]

So you admit the changes made 3.0 material unusable but because you didn't like the unusable material or want to use it... it worked fine. Ok, got it. Also there were spells in 3.0 that no longer existed in 3.5 how did you reference those with your 3.5 handbook?

Er, I still have the 3.0 PHB that my 3.5 uses 3.5 rules to memorize and then cast. Fully compatible.