Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5663650" data-attributes="member: 82106">What does it have to do with anything I 'consider' anything at all. PF is a slightly hacked 3.5, so anything WotC produces for 3.5 DOES BY DEFINITION support PF. My opinions are irrelevant. I'm sure they could make 3.5 material that was cunningly designed to inflict maximum PF incompatibility, but I somehow doubt that would be worthwhile. And philosophically? Yes, I think Paizo in effect 'owns' 3.5 at this point. Assuming WotC insanely decided to 'go back' how would they even do that? Start reprinting old 3.5 books? You can buy most of them brand new right now at retail prices. I'm doubting there is a vast pent up demand for 3.5 core books. If they were to say publish adventures etc what game would those be used with? PF is the only active version of 3.5 out there (OK, there's Trailblazer too). The point is WotC has nothing to sell to that market that is not helping their competition more than them since they've pretty much said they consider adventures loss leaders anyway. It just wouldn't make the slightest business sense. That ship has sailed. Presumably it was well on its way out the harbor before 4e was even written since if 3.5 had been selling like hotcakes still they'd never have floated 4e past the bosses in the first place.Part of what whole thing? They could put out adventures, settings, and maybe ancillary products. All of those were all loss leaders for core books for TSR and WotC. Unless there's a large pent up demand for reprinted 1e/2e books etc that isn't met by OSR games it is pointless to make support products when the product they support isn't being sold or has such little demand in the community that it can't ever hope to turn any profit. This is a ship that has also sailed IMHO, a decade or more ago. Well, I think certain things might well work better in various versions of the game, though TBH pre-3e versions of D&D were pretty darn limited in what they really supported well OOTB. I don't want to get into a long drawn out digression on that here, but I think compared to AD&D 4e simply does almost everything better. I loved playing AD&D, but when I've gone back and dropped into a game or really looked at it since seeing 4e it just brings back to me all the memories of the reasons I stopped playing eventually. I know that makes me NOT the audience, but for basically any concept I think you'd implemented more easily and better in 4e. 3.5 is sort of a different question, but see above, 3.5 is a closed door.So, yes, if your concept is basically 'nostalgia' or 'pure dungeoncrawl' perhaps, then you might do it nicely in Basic, but is there really all that much left to do there? I mean I played the game for 20 years and have a lot of AD&D stuff, yet there are still decades worth of play value of stuff we never even touched. If I wanted to play AD&D I'm hard pressed to imagine why I would desperately need WotC to support me or even notice much if they were.Oh, I'm sure there are people that played nothing but Basic and hated AD&D with a passion and never ever touched any AD&D stuff. My play experience OTOH matches yours. We played Basic because it was what we had, and the day the PHB was released was the last time we even cracked our Basic books, though we certainly ran our AD&D characters through B2 a few dozen times...I agree, because something hasn't been done before doesn't make it a bad idea per se. The question is, is it the best option out there?</blockquote>

Verification