Search results

it never was a concern at all for me, but then all car engines are nearly identical enough that the minor differences do not really matter. These days you can roughly distinguish between gas powered, EV, and a hybrid and that is all the detail you really need to care about. The same is not true...

ToV was kickstarted in May 2023 with delivery in April 2024, so a little ahead of the 2024 PHB (the ToV DMG was a separate KS) Whatever happened to the Cubicle 7 5e, did they officially drop it? I know they made some 5e supplements instead, not sure if there will officially never be a PHB though

A5e came earlier, ToV was a reaction to the OGL move by WotC (and overlapped with 5.5 development)

agreed, that is what my last sentence you quoted said

pretty sure they used the OGL and just declared everything IP

no, that means one option was taken from you, not that you only have one option you actually can take

if using that power to force the players into a direction, sure, there is nothing that says it needs to be used in that way or be used at all however

Hussar’s sandbox is mostly ad-libbed and I do not see you calling it a railroad. Also, I doubt a railroad is ‘a considered’ amount of it

nvm

no, quite the opposite even the post you referred to does not support your claim of relevant differences, but does the opposite

without 2e that would have happened much sooner, you statement for 2e -> 3e applies here as well I agree with this part 3e to 3.5 was not a success, 3.5 followed the same trajectory as 3e and the editions before it. If 3.5 was a success then so was 2e and 3e you are ignoring 4e Essentials...

that was basically guaranteed given the continued growth of 5e. If they had not managed that, it would have been a disaster, so I do not take that as an indication of anything. It will take 2-3 years at least before we can say anything, the only thing that is clear so far is that it was not a...

it contributed, I don't think it was the only criteria agreed, guess 4e drove that lesson home, finally

I agree that needing a new version is not where you want to be as a publisher, I am not sure we can call creating these new editions at the time a mistake however. The sales were unsustainably low, so they had to do something and a new edition was the surest way to rekindle interest. It clearly...

they certainly were not the main drivers for new editions. I see it the reverse way, needing a new edition was the reason why they could be / had to be more creative, without that need we get something a lot more like 2024

all good, just clarifying it since there are different threads going on in parallel

not sure I agree with this, that is the problem with sandbox being vaguely defined. It is designed to utilize more player input / is more narrative, that I would agree on I have no idea where you keep getting this ‘universally better’ from. You keep bringing it up when no one is saying it. I...

true that would be more akin to being upset about a feat or spell, not a whole class

I am not saying it is widely criticized, just that it got more mixed results none of which have anything to do with the playtest. I agree that it mostly gets praise for the stuff WotC never asked for feedback on…

maybe, but the amount of system people want is different, so a system that goes beyond that for the sake of ‘more sandboxiness’ will not be better for everyone, not even a better sandbox