Is it just me or.....?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Summer-Knight925

First Post
Reading through the classes when they first came out, I saw the cleric had channel divinity.


This made me mad.

Pathfinder had channel energy. They pretty much stole the idea from them (although there are differences, point is, it's extra healing at a distance with a similar name)

I would have been okay with it, the idea seemed good, I enjoy playing Clerics in Pathfinder because of channel energy.


But with the new release of classes, and the sorcerer. I'm done.
I didn't like the way Next felt before, but with the sorcerer, well it's evident WoTC is just done trying to make new and unique concepts.

The draconic heritage is the same in pathfinder as it is in Next.

maybe not exact, but close enough for me to see this.


I then realized the fighter's combat styles and the rogue's stuff and all of that are like the archetypes of Pathfinder.

It seems Next is a bastardized (not to be vulgar or offend anyone) game, with the parents being 4e and Pathfinder (hard to point out genders but it doesn't really matter)

point is Next is nothing new, at least...this is in my eyes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The interesting trick about all of these d20 spinoffs.

At a certain level, they all look the same. Cause they're on the same chassis, using the same ideas. At one time, it was probably considered a feature too.

Anyhow, you can see the differences if you look more closely. But, sure, you can argue about which stuff PF stole from 4e and which stuff Next stole from PF, and which stuff really is just alternate ideas they all had for 3e til you're blue in the face.
 

Well PF is open. And even if it wasn't, why wouldn't they take inspiration from the current standard bearer in tabletop rpgs? If we saw nothing PF-ish in 5e, that would be really unfortunate.
 




Distribution of OGC without properly using the OGL would be problematic even if that material isn't being traditionally published. Passing something around in-house is one thing but if distribution goes beyond that, free or otherwise, then attaching an OGL with proper section 15 citations is necessary. This would include any works derivative of original SRD materials.

Though channeling energy is seemingly something that reaches outside of OGC to any number of classic fantasy sources. Likely this doesn't fall under that need.

However, one of the problems of NOT going forward with 5E as an OGL project, from the outset, limits the amount of sources they might use and limits the number of solutions playtesters can suggest to handle the problems the designers and playtesters are collectively trying to iron out. It will also give rise to situations like this where all possible sources aren't apparent to some playtesters and they might jump to the conclusion that some of the designers are influenced by the OGL works of others outside of the company rather than an actual source that might well predate the advent of the OGL all together.
 

I saw the cleric had channel divinity. This made me mad. Pathfinder had channel energy.
And 4e had channel divinity.

4e came out in 2008.
PF came out in 2009.

You should have been mad at Pathfinder for stealing that from D&D. Along with, you know, everything else.
 

I can't believe someone is actually complaining about DnD ripping off Pathfinder. Even if it was an accurate complaint, it's still a pretty crazy one to make, considering.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top