Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="d4" data-source="post: 1599965" data-attributes="member: 12699">ugghh, no not yet! it's too soon to put out a new edition, even if you think you've got a better rules set.and good riddance, as far as i'm concerned.i think it'd be more likely to make Eberron the new default setting. it seems to fit the new-fangled 3.x D&amp;D &quot;feel&quot; better than FR.if you're going to be releasing campaign setting books anyways, remove all setting material from the rulesy books and have them be tool-kits. there's no sense splitting what should be a generic book between generic and campaign specific rules, and then releasing a second campaign specific book on top of that. it's annoying to us homebrewers. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />(for what it's worth, i think the core 3 D&amp;D books should be setting-less as well. no default gods or named spells.)they already did that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="d4, post: 1599965, member: 12699"] ugghh, no not yet! it's too soon to put out a new edition, even if you think you've got a better rules set. and good riddance, as far as i'm concerned. i think it'd be more likely to make Eberron the new default setting. it seems to fit the new-fangled 3.x D&D "feel" better than FR. if you're going to be releasing campaign setting books anyways, remove [i]all[/i] setting material from the rulesy books and have them be tool-kits. there's no sense splitting what should be a generic book between generic and campaign specific rules, and then releasing a second campaign specific book on top of that. it's annoying to us homebrewers. ;) (for what it's worth, i think the core 3 D&D books should be setting-less as well. no default gods or named spells.) they already did that. [/QUOTE]

Verification