Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="teitan" data-source="post: 8558512" data-attributes="member: 3457">I'd argue that 3e itself wasn't all that different to us back then. It made sense as a natural growth of 2e and the revised 2e Player's Option series. It didn't seem out of place at all. The disconnect seemed to be 4e was so different, even with some late 3.5 era books supposedly being stealth previews of 4e, like Tome of Battle, it was still an extremely different game. I had a similar reaction to Pathfinder 2e that I did to 3e but initially I did not, my initial reaction was similar to my reaction to 4e.I hadn't seen much of PF outside of the core book and the Bestiary when it originally released and had no interest in PF1 because of my 3.5 burnout. It's success certainly continues to show 3.5 had a lot of legs even now but I just didn't have an interest in that type of game anymore and honestly I was so burnt out by 3.5 I didn't play an RPG until 5e came out. I bought 4e, I liked what I saw as a game design concept, I even had essentials but it sure seemed like a lot to learn and I didn't have the inclination. I got 5e and was enamored of the simplicity of the system. It is a pretty ingenious system. I grabbed PF2 when it came out and I saw... 4e and I liked it. It was interesting but I thought it had moved away from D&D in interesting ways that gave PF it's own identity. Solid system and I didn't think it had a lot of that PF3.x DNA in it. So I wound up selling it, I loved it but I sold it all.A few months later, we had a friend who wanted to run a PF game for us and so we bought the pocket core book and I was initially very reticent to play. Then we got the other pocket guides and I saw exactly what Paizo did to 3.x and then I saw what they did with PF2 and now I see it exactly like I did 2e to 3e, especially after reading Pathfinder Unchained. I also see it in Starfinder and how that worked with the development of PF2 as well. I actually really enjoyed playing PF1 for the short time we played in that game. It was a lot of fun.Now 5e, I see it as having revived classic D&D while also embracing new D&D and the things that have changed in how people play which is exactly what Mearls and Thompson were aiming for. Newer players currently dwarf "classic" players with their Dragonborn Tielfing zombie bardbarians and that's ok.</blockquote>

Verification