... There is a phrase which comes to mind here: the best darned buggy whip in the automobile industry . Look, PCGen *3.0* is completely adequate for D&D 3.0.Message 1 of 62 , Jan 30, 2004View SourceSteve Gilroy <sgilroy2@w...> wrote:
> I would actually think that they should have higherThere is a phrase which comes to mind here: "the best darned buggy
> priority because of the fact that they have been in
> PCGen for so long and still have just as many problems
> as 3.5 or more.
whip in the automobile industry".
Look, PCGen *3.0* is completely adequate for D&D 3.0. That's what I
was using myself until quite recently. If people like my quite-recent
self don't want to upgrade, they make their choice and they get what
For the *present*, I think it's a tremendous waste to divert limited
development resources to an obsolete system. They aren't *my*
resources, so obviously I don't get to choose, but I do protest the
misguided objections from some quarters that it's the right and proper
thing to do... for all that my protest may matter, which isn't much on
the best of days. :)
That being said, the people who actually volunteer their time to *do*
the work will volunteer it where they like, which is as it should be.
Enough grumbling. If you have a complaint about the LST files you paid
for, you should take it up with the people you gave your money.
It basically depends on how they were written by the publisher. I would imagine any new sources publishers produce will be geared towards 3.5 and that s howMessage 62 of 62 , Feb 2, 2004View SourceIt basically depends on how they were written by the publisher.
I would imagine any new sources publishers produce will be geared towards
3.5 and that's how they'll be coded for PCGen.
Older stuff was obviously created for 3.0 rules and so will be coded that
I would presume if OGL publishers put out conversion documents, we'd have a
set for each ruleset. :p
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay - Firesbane [mailto:firesbane2@...]
> Thank you for chiming in.
> I have a related question regarding outside sources. Are the
> bulk of them
> written to work with 3.0 or 3.5, or does it not matter.
> > Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:25:53 -0500
> > From: "Barak" <barak@...>
> >Subject: RE: Re: move on, nothing to see here
> >The upshot is that *both* are going to be supported to the
> best of our
> >ability. We will *not* forsake one for the other.
> >~ PCGen BoD
> >~ OS Silverback