Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 4938884" data-attributes="member: 5889">This mentions pathfinder, but it really deals with DND as a whole so I thought it was better for the general forum.Whether you like it or not, Pathfinder has had a good run out of the box with solid sales. Not the kind of sales WOTC gets, aka sorry diehards its not taking over dnd anytime soon, but its had a solid start.When 4e came out, it was a radical departure from 3rd edition. Many people, including myself, thought that radical changes would be necessary in order to launch a new edition. The wisdom was that people simply wouldn't pay new money for a line that was similar to the game they were already playing.Some of this thought was as a result of 3.5. On the boards at least, there was a long list of threads bemoaning the idea of paying new money for only "small changes" to the system. Many said they would never buy a 3.5 when they already had a perfectly good 3.0.Fast forward ahead, and we found that people may have been complaining with their mouths, but they were agreeing with WOTC with their wallets. 3.5 was a huge success, not just in dollars, but in revamping the edition and correcting some of the key issues with 3.0.Now we have Pathfinder, which as far I can tell, is a much smaller change than 3.5 was (though much better artwork!). And the thing I've noticed this time is there isn't a lot of complaint about how little was changed. People that like the changes are buying the books.I figure its one of two reasons. Pathfinder may have been spared the same retioric as 3.5 simply because its not core, its not WOTC, so its not held to the same standard. Or perhaps its a sign that large changes aren't necessary to launch a new line.Which brings me back to 4e. Do you think Pathfinder is a sign WOTC could have been less radical in a new edition and still done extrememly well?</blockquote>

Verification