Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5989299" data-attributes="member: 17106">FWIW, I think you're both kind of right. Late 3.5 tackled a variety of fringe-y concepts (including, oddly enough, a lot of proto-4e). Sales dropped because the products were mixed in quality and small-niche (why they decided to base a new edition off of some of the failed books I'll never understand).That being said, there was a lot of ground that they could have covered but didn't. We never got a forest environment book or a fey/giant monster book, and it took until Pathfinder for there to be a witch class. Classic fantasy. After the success of the first one, I think Unearthed Arcana II would absolutely have worked. There were still setting elements to explore and still new rules ground to be broken. If they had held out a little longer, they could have rerevised a 3.75 core (or done a more substantial rewrite and releasing a "forth edition of D&D" if you will).I hesitate to say why all of this is, myself.One way or another, I think we can all agree that late 3.5 was not a good era for D&D.</blockquote>