Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 6270747" data-attributes="member: 78752">Again, Bedrock, it was not my intention to single you out in any way.&nbsp; I just didn't want to quote everyone who was saying the same thing.All I'm saying is I don't know why, because it's the same price the books have been since 2000, adjusted for inflation.&nbsp;Is that... not what I did?&nbsp; *checks*&nbsp; I'm pretty sure that's what I did.&nbsp;Fair enough.&nbsp; For me, $130 and $150 fall into the same mental brackets, it's true.&nbsp; $160 would be another story.The greater point of my post was not, however, that anyone willing to pay $130 for Pathfinder should be willing to pay $150 for D&amp;D5.&nbsp; Rather, it was to note that it is entirely possible that, despite using the established PHB-DMG-MM naming conventions, Wizards could pursue a more modern organization of the information within that division, resulting in a $50 &quot;core rulebook&quot; and two $40 &quot;supplements&quot; that are as optional as any major supplement really is for any modern RPG.&nbsp; Which would lower the entry cost to $50 -- where it arguably is for Pathfinder and other recent titles.I just didn't feel like anyone was addressing that possibility.&nbsp; People seem to be assuming that the existence of a PHB mandates a $150 &quot;core set,&quot; and I think that's a stretch.Only the same source you do.&nbsp; Two products for D&amp;D5 on BN.com, neither of which is a DMG.&nbsp; Staggered launch.&nbsp; It's an assumption, yes, but I find it more plausible than &quot;PHB = $150 edition.&quot;Sigh.I didn't say it was.&nbsp; In fact, I directly alluded to an instance of it occurring in the past, with D&amp;D3.0.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DMZ2112, post: 6270747, member: 78752"] Again, Bedrock, it was not my intention to single you out in any way. I just didn't want to quote everyone who was saying the same thing. All I'm saying is I don't know why, because it's the same price the books have been since 2000, adjusted for inflation. Is that... not what I did? *checks* I'm pretty sure that's what I did. Fair enough. For me, $130 and $150 fall into the same mental brackets, it's true. $160 would be another story. The greater point of my post was not, however, that anyone willing to pay $130 for Pathfinder should be willing to pay $150 for D&D5. Rather, it was to note that it is entirely possible that, despite using the established PHB-DMG-MM naming conventions, Wizards could pursue a more modern organization of the information within that division, resulting in a $50 "core rulebook" and two $40 "supplements" that are as optional as any major supplement really is for any modern RPG. Which would lower the entry cost to $50 -- where it arguably is for Pathfinder and other recent titles. I just didn't feel like anyone was addressing that possibility. People seem to be assuming that the existence of a PHB mandates a $150 "core set," and I think that's a stretch. [FONT=Verdana][/FONT] Only the same source you do. Two products for D&D5 on BN.com, neither of which is a DMG. Staggered launch. It's an assumption, yes, but I find it more plausible than "PHB = $150 edition." Sigh. I didn't say it was. In fact, I directly alluded to an instance of it occurring in the past, with D&D3.0. [/QUOTE]

Verification