Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7463378" data-attributes="member: 82106">YupWell, I wasn't one who thought 13A did any scratching of my 4e itches. I honestly think it is much closer in nature to 5e than to 4e.Sure would be nice if we could get it!What 'legal mess' would that be? There's no legal mess, WotC owns 4e just as free and clear as they own 1e and 2e (neither of which BTW is covered by the OGL). They can reprint, issue PDFs, create new material, anything they like. Any lack of support for 4e, or lack of interest in it, is purely a choice made by WotC. Now, I expect that it is mostly just ignored as being a fairly recently replaced version of the game. They didn't provide any 2e 'stuff' until recently either, so its not actually any big mystery. I don't think it is that. It is just there is this weird, and apparently quite prevalent in this day and age, strain of thought which goes around that the contents of the books are to be taken literally, so that if it says "short sword" in the weapons table you cannot, should not, and are to be condemned for, being a player who pretends the short sword mechanics apply to a 'tomahawk' or something. I mean, like I got drummed clean out of a bunch of threads on that one back in the day. By people whom I believe are still actively posting.</blockquote>