Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 7478680" data-attributes="member: 22424">While I agree it's a false equivalence, I don't agree with your characterization of the 3e -> 3.5e move. The thing is, that move had always been in the plan, but had been intended to occur 2 years later than it actually did.But there's a lot in 3.5e that hadn't been published in errata - to the extent that I'd characterize it as closer to being the pet house rules of one of the then-designers, rather than any accumulation of errata. (And, in fact, it was 4e where the errata really got out of hand.)No, but I think the problem was the same as sank 3.5e, 4e and Essentials - it was saddled with unrealistic expectations. Frankly, we're lucky we got any of those editions at all - we could very easily have seen the line cancelled instead.Maybe. As I've noted in other threads, a rough estimate suggests that only 10% of players buy the PHB and only 10% of those go on to buy anything else. So you're talking about, at best, a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. That may amount to thousands of us, but if WotC want every book to shift 100k units, thousands probably isn't going to cut it.As for it biting them on the rear... it may, but again I doubt it. Right now, my bet is on seeing 6e in 2024, but only because that's the 50th anniversary and they'll probably want to celebrate that big-time. If it wasn't for that, my guess would be a good bit further away than that.(Though I do have to apply the same caveat I used earlier in the thread: at some point, D&D's current surge will inevitably end, and there's no way to know when that will be. So it is, of course, dangerous to assume things will stay the same for any length of time. But even in that scenario I'm not sure I'd predict an early new edition... or indeed a new edition, ever.)</blockquote>

Verification