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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 5473145" data-attributes="member: 65637">Regarding the whole "Evolution" metaphor:One thing that rarely gets pointed out are the similarities between 4e and Pathfinder in respect towards 3.5 - and there's far, far more similarities then people who focus on only one game tend to notice, especially between the APG and Essentials.  In both games, SoDs were cut down and altered albeit in different ways.  HP was raised in both games along with the desire to make combat longer and more fulfilling and to extend the "Sweet spot" across better.  In Pathfinder, Druids and clerics and their buffs were significantly brought down to help fighters regain niche control.  Enemy saves are higher in both and, in Pathfinder, SR is a much bigger deal.Let's go farther.  Classes (other then PF fighter) that have distinctly more options that the player chooses from - often which are either "every five minutes" (per encounter) or are Daily; hell, a number of them are near identical to some 4e options (compare Rogue powers and Rogue talents).  A paired down skill list.  Drastically increased emphasis on single classing.  Both of them saw full attack supremacy as a problem and worked to fix it, though I'm admittingly less pleased with PF's result of the Vital Strike chain.  Fighters can impose conditions, with the caveat that it's through the critical strike chain.APG only makes the comparisons more clear.  Drag and Reposition make for tactical positioning.  And Dirty Trick makes for condition imposing.  The APG also brings in the class variants that read like 2e kits...or like 4e sub-builds.  Even the Cavalier has a daily marking ability.Certainly both games are different, but they grew from the same shared problems.</blockquote>

Verification