Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Whizbang Dustyboots" data-source="post: 5723526" data-attributes="member: 11760"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" />And yet we have a host of non-WotC products that do that very thing, like Trailblazer, Pathfinder (which could have changed much less, legally, and been fine) and many other products.Just because one dislikes what WotC did with 4E doesn't mean that 3E didn't have its own problems. The later supplements like Book of 9 Swords and Complete Mage were full of attempts to patch very real issues with the core game. Many of those solutions have been adopted by many of the people making improvement products or add-ons.I think Pathfinder is in kind of a weird spot. They changed enough things (many of which needed to be changed) that you can't not read through the massive rulebook at least once before running it, but it leaves intact many 3E issues that are far from sacred cows.I understand, and to an extent, appreciate, why they're not going to do a Pathfinder 2.0 any time soon, but I don't think it'd be the worst thing in the world if they did.</blockquote>