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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5696684" data-attributes="member: 58197">I would be surprised if they weren't working on 5E. Reading between the lines of Mearls's Legends & Lore posts, I think 4E has not been the success WotC hoped for. The 4E/Pathfinder split has to have been a nasty surprise. Essentials was an attempt to heal that rift without abandoning 4E; it has pretty clearly failed*.The only possible hope of reuniting the community is 5E. So Mike Mearls and Monte Cook are reaching out to the community in hopes of figuring out what would be required to thread the needle--appeal to both sides. I think their task is less hopeless than it seems. Pathfinder players don't seem to have much objection to the goals of 4E, only to the means chosen to get there. 4E players care about achieving 4E's goals, but would be open to other means that achieved them equally well.For example: 4E introduced healing surges to reduce dependence on clerics and magical healing. From what I've seen, Pathfinder players are fine with reducing cleric-dependence but don't like healing surges. 4E players would be okay with getting rid of healing surges as long as they didn't go back to cleric-dependence.Of course, there is a contingent of Pathfinder/3.5E players who are simply content with the system they have and don't want their library of 3.5E material invalidated. Those folks really are beyond the reach of a new system. But others might be open to moving on, if they had something more to their liking to move on to.[size=-2]*I thought Essentials was brilliant, I love it to death, but I seem to be about the only one. Other 4E players are lukewarm to negative, and Pathfinder players see it as just more of the 4E they didn't want in the first place.[/size]</blockquote>

Verification