MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
And that's an understandable attitude to want to take, because anything from 4e is tainted, presumably, doubly so for PF fans who were repelled from the D&D IP by 4e, and supported by Paizo.
But, the omission just makes the idea 'look guilty,' so we really need to acknowledge when 4e did something, and just make a case for how PF2 could accomplish the same thing, without suffering from the association - something 5e got away with a few times, with the handling of monster stat blocks, and of NPCs using the same style of bloc, for instance.
Well, the playtest was extremely 4eish. Everybody on the same schedule with feats to account for difference, lots of hp at first level, round by round tracking of effects that could end without even getting a benefit, overly punishing math that demands feat taxes, feat based multiclassing with hard limits, class dictating gear and combat style, pushing paladins into tank role, poor utility for casters -specially sorcerer-, removing abilities from PCs that NPCs keep -like someone complaining that necromancers could no longer create undead on their own, as the ritual requires three casters-, moving what used to be basic skill competence into "powers" (skill feats), repetition of the same basic ability/power over and over because classes don't get shared feats anymore... Oh and feats, the siloing of feats mirrors the siloing of powers.
According to the devs, they went overboard with ideas, so I still ignore how much of that has changed.
Last edited: