Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 9227843" data-attributes="member: 6778210">People don't really question people saying those things about 4E because we've seen them for 15 years. I've been on websites that had to regulate certain stuff to stop people from starting edition wars. It may seem unfair, but that's kind of the situation we're in. Though it was less about not believing they existed as much as the two I wanted to see the comments on were vague enough that I think more context was warranted. Speaking of...This works great! But I think your quotation of the person misses the context before it: the very long and thorough going over of the argument. It's not being said as a response to the initial comment, but the response that goes into detail as to why they feel it's wrong. It's more of a communal affirmation than anything, which I get.And this is why I wanted context for those ones in particular: the Pathfinder 2E one was believable enough, but it also stood on its own as a direct response and I could see the path it followed. The other two... a bit less so, which is why it felt like context would add something to it.I understand that, but I think the point is that the system is trying to leverage the limitations you see to make the classes more distinct. They have options to make up for those (as they mentioned), but part of the point is that this was a design decision so that casters could be much more distinct. Most immediately, it makes for a huge distinction between Wizards and Sorcerers that 5E can struggle with from time to time.But I take umbrage with the idea that they are saying you're "bad", because I don't think that's the implication. Again, I think with PF2 specifically there's a lot of fighting biases from 5E that no longer apply. Like, I remember being turned off by the idea of using an action to gain the benefits of a Shield. That sounded terrible and that it would only make a Martial character's life more difficult because now they have to spend an action to get a defensive benefit they used to get for free. Combined with what felt like a new reaction that would just bust up your shield (Shield Block) and I just was not thrilled.It took me actually seeing it in action to really get it, and see how its effectiveness was different compared to 5E. Those sorts of moments, when you realize what you can do and how things move together were really big in figuring out the system. That person isn't telling you that you're bad at the game or anything as much as trying to inform you of parts of the system that make up for the limitations that you might not be aware of because they aren't there in the other system. These are things that get missed.Really, again, I think if there is anything that the PF2 board is a bit too quick-triggered on, it's people houseruling things. Sometimes justified, sometimes just them being a bit too dogmatic.Again, I think people are plenty prepared to talk about negatives. I think, however, such things need to be maybe phrased properly. In the thread you linked, there is a discussion about how the two most similar classes in 4E base are the Paladin and Fighter, which makes the argument a bit harder but it doesn't fall into just name-calling at all and I think it's actually a really good conversation.The argument being made when I came in was a classic one that people don't like: calling the powers of 4E to be "nonsensical", while ignoring that they aren't meant to be specific actions with ultra-specific requirements. That's going to be a big argument because we are missing a key design point of 4E being more about effect than cause: you can create the cause however you like, but the point is to give you combat options that aren't easily taken away. That's a lot of where the arguments come from: trying to pass off a personal preference ("I prefer something more simulationist") as a system flaw ("This system is gives the fighter mind-control powers"). That's going to start an argument.And I'm not going to say there aren't obnoxious superfans of 4E, but I just don't see them nearly as often. Certainly not on these boards, at least. I generally find 5E discussions to be worse, but I think that is in part because 5E brings in a lot of different people and there are a lot fewer expectations of play when it comes to 5E, so you get all sorts of playstyles and opinions; some people really want a more high-powered game, while others want less power, simpler systems, and even less.Honestly I think there are fewer 5E superfans as much as WotC superfans nowadays, but that's a complete different discussion for a different day.lol</blockquote>

Verification