Search results

There has to be a line somewhere. Obviously a player chooses a characters race, for instance. There's no way the character made that decision. So it can't be absolute. To me, the obvious line is something the character does. You do rest for an hour when you spend HD. It's not realistic...

You should definitely look at Pathfinder if you're not already playing it. Pathfinder 2 has a lot of promise, but I'm not sure exactly what is triggering you from your examples. For instance you might not like legendary skill feats.

Maybe you should rethink your question. Do you want answer or are you just trying to make Pathfinder 2 look bad by associating it with the controversy surrounding 4e.

The at-will magic was the warlock. The martial magic was the sword sage. The warblade was interesting but not magical. And no late 3e experiment nerfed casting into the ground.

I have, twice. The essence of 4e is that it is a Pencil and Paper Class Based Fantasy RPG. It is derivative of D&D, just like many other games including Warcraft. A game inspired by a derivative of D&D will appear derivative of D&D. The only point of saying Pathfinder 2 is like 4e or like...

He can choose not to, because his spells are his resource. He can be a team player or not. When one party member gets hurt more the others can step up or they can not care about him until he is out of HD, then complain he's forcing them to rest.

If they had started with Pathfinder or Dundeon World or even 1e reprints under exactly the same circumstances they could feel exactly the same way.

You're saying 4e was far ahead of its time. I'm saying it was an aberration. If some future edition is just like 4e, we'll know you're right.

So there's a massive freeloader problem.

Spells are the resource of the caster, he can use them as a team member or not, but they are his decision. The same is true of hit points, HD or healing surges, you can manage them as a personal or a team resource. The glass cannon who is too aggressive runs out of HD and depletes the healers...

We can objectively eliminate transient features, like AEDU or math that was fixed or subjective reactions. We are left with a Class based Paper and Pencil Fantasy RPG. If you loved or hated 4e over and above any other edition, it had nothing to do with its Essence. We can't conclude...

Hit Dice and spells are still individual resources. Everyone going in on some wands of lesser vigour would be a team healing resource.

The average of 2 bucks and change revenue per player per year seems awfully low.

Truer to the direction established by 3.0 and 3.5. 4e was a radical change. The article did make sense though. That established direction would not have brought in the desired subscription revenue in the short term. It might have by now that the technology has arrived be doing better than 5e...

15 million people play D&D but the whole RPG industry is 35 million. That doesn't add up.

Pathfinder 2 is still taking shape. It seems truer to the direction D&D was going than 4e was. It would have been less controversial and done better. 5e would not have been needed.

4e was a matter of direction. It tried to make 3.5 beter by fixing problems instead of building on strengths. That change of direction alienated their base. Pathfinder made 3.5 better by building on its strengths. Hopefully Pathfinder 2 will continue in that direction. 5e just backed up...

Essence is uncertain until death. 4e is dead we can be certain of its essence. A problem it solved or a virtue it abandoned cannot be part of that.

4e was simplified easy mode D&D for players and DM. Compared to 3e or Pathfinder. As opposed to 5e which is simplified easy mode for players and God Mode for the DM.

It does put those problems in perspective. Another perspective, you are harping on problems 4e had in its first year and had fixed before its second ended. Depending on the fix for proof of a problem. 4e is a dead system, no amount of criticism, even if it were valid will help it improve...