Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6236654" data-attributes="member: 2525">Like I said, I think some people have some odd perceptions concerning hardcover books versus soft cover.There is no meaningful difference for the content.&nbsp; Your idea that there is, to me, is strange.&nbsp; The hardcover likely reduces damage to the book over time.&nbsp; It certainly costs more to print.&nbsp; But content-wise, it has nothing at all to do with must-haves or rules versus fluff or anything like that.&nbsp; It's just binding.&nbsp; And it's not like WOTC sold this message to you with 4e.&nbsp; They never implied the various planes books detailing the elemental planes or astral planes or undead lands were &quot;must-have rules-heavy&quot; books, though they were all hardback.&nbsp; They just went with the hardback format, that's it.&nbsp; Those were excellent books by the way - not full of filler.&nbsp; It's just they were not rules-heavy.But bottom line, in a comparison of &quot;glut&quot;, I think you are objectively wrong to claim 4e was glut compared to Pathfinder for the past two years.&nbsp; I think, for whatever reason, you have not been noticing just how much content Pathfinder's had for the past two years.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 6236654, member: 2525"] Like I said, I think some people have some odd perceptions concerning hardcover books versus soft cover. There is no meaningful difference for the content. Your idea that there is, to me, is strange. The hardcover likely reduces damage to the book over time. It certainly costs more to print. But content-wise, it has nothing at all to do with must-haves or rules versus fluff or anything like that. It's just binding. And it's not like WOTC sold this message to you with 4e. They never implied the various planes books detailing the elemental planes or astral planes or undead lands were "must-have rules-heavy" books, though they were all hardback. They just went with the hardback format, that's it. Those were excellent books by the way - not full of filler. It's just they were not rules-heavy. But bottom line, in a comparison of "glut", I think you are objectively wrong to claim 4e was glut compared to Pathfinder for the past two years. I think, for whatever reason, you have not been noticing just how much content Pathfinder's had for the past two years. [/QUOTE]

Verification