Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9295916" data-attributes="member: 6801845">Yeah, we can speculate all day about what could have been.&nbsp; There are many, many stories based on that concept <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; We never got the Book of 9 Swords, so I can't comment on that.&nbsp; [SPOILER=&quot;Couple of my thoughts on 4E, please don't read if you think critique is edition warring.&quot;]I think if 4E had been more along the lines of 5E it would have been seen as an evolutionary change and been better accepted.&nbsp; After all a lot of people that jumped ship still bought new books - they just bought PF books.&nbsp; The people I knew that didn't switch (and admittedly one of the things I grew to dislike) was the entire AEDU structure.&nbsp; I understand what they were attempting to do, it's just a very different approach.&nbsp; Add in, for example, powers that fighters had like come and get it where I could taunt literally any monster whether we shared a common language or not and automatically pull them in or the auras of weapon damage.&nbsp; The narrative justification just wasn't there; for me it was a supernatural ability with a &quot;martial&quot; label.&nbsp; I just don't see that ever being something some people wanted for what was supposed to be a minimally supernatural martial character. While 3.5 had some silly things like the cleave feat the let you continue to cleave and shift, at least it had a narrative description that had a basis in the archetype.&nbsp; [/SPOILER]In any case, every edition has things I don't care for.&nbsp; After playing 4E for a couple of years it just wasn't for me and I don't know how they could have changed it without making it more or less 5E to change that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 9295916, member: 6801845"] Yeah, we can speculate all day about what could have been. There are many, many stories based on that concept :) We never got the Book of 9 Swords, so I can't comment on that. [SPOILER="Couple of my thoughts on 4E, please don't read if you think critique is edition warring."] I think if 4E had been more along the lines of 5E it would have been seen as an evolutionary change and been better accepted. After all a lot of people that jumped ship still bought new books - they just bought PF books. The people I knew that didn't switch (and admittedly one of the things I grew to dislike) was the entire AEDU structure. I understand what they were attempting to do, it's just a very different approach. Add in, for example, powers that fighters had like come and get it where I could taunt literally any monster whether we shared a common language or not and [I]automatically [/I]pull them in or the auras of weapon damage. The narrative justification just wasn't there; for me it was a supernatural ability with a "martial" label. I just don't see that ever being something some people wanted for what was supposed to be a minimally supernatural martial character. While 3.5 had some silly things like the cleave feat the let you continue to cleave and shift, at least it had a narrative description that had a basis in the archetype. [/SPOILER] In any case, every edition has things I don't care for. After playing 4E for a couple of years it just wasn't for me and I don't know how they could have changed it without making it more or less 5E to change that. [/QUOTE]

Verification