Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7674212" data-attributes="member: 996">Oh, you don't mean had double the run, you mean had a run of a similar length.  I get it. It's a tenuous one.  Initial release tends to be the strongest in-store sales.  Essentials, at release, was beaten by Pathfinder (not at release), but Pathfinder, at release, had been beaten by 4e, in it's second year.  Ergo, Essentials didn't do /nearly/ as well as 4e.  As has come out in this thread, the same seems to have been true of 3.5 vs 3.0, FWIW. No way of knowing that.  It might have lasted the four years it survived in spite of Essentials, or it might have lasted 10.  It's really up to WotC's design decisions (and Hasbro's financial ones) how long an ed goes. More than one was quite enough to qualify as 'broken,' and even the base power, without any 'abuse' was questionable.   Nerfing it meant DMs who didn't care if it was broken could just keep it working as-was, while DMs who did care didn't have to argue with players about nerfing it, themselves (there was still lingering 3.x-RAW-style attitude out there at the time).</blockquote>