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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7736509" data-attributes="member: 5142">I don't think "cash grab" means what you think it means. The primary issue is that early PF was beholden to follow 3.5 closely enough as to be "backwards compatible." It modified and built upon 3.5 to the point of being commonly regarded as "3.75 edition," but there were a number of byzantine rules, mechanics, and character options it was required conceptually to adhere to. This is not a criticism of 3.X and PF per se, but the gaming environment had changed. New mechanics established. New innovations made. And there is only so many papercuts that Paizo could bear or band-aids that Paizo could apply to 3.X as part of its original Pathfinder chassis. A lot of 3.X does have its own sort of elegance, beauty, and appeal. Not denying that. But I think that with all that Paizo has published. The alternative would have been to essentially reprint a "new core" set of books that cleaned up and adopted the new set of assumptions that have become part of the Pathfinder RPG experience. Being too close to the original, however, would likely have resulted in greater upset, as that would have been seen in a similar vein as the switch from 3.0 to 3.5. That would have been a cash-grab. But the intent of this set of revisions appears to be modernizing the Pathfinder d20 chassis for (1) Paizo's core fanbase and (2) newcomers to the hobby while still keeping to the spirit of Pathfinder. I don't think that modernizing Pathfinder equates to 5e either, particularly given some of the cross-pollination between Paizo writers and other game systems. PF was originally billed in its marketing as being backwards compatible; however, it became increasingly less so as its rules complexity, layers, and innovations were brought more into the standardized forefront of the game system.</blockquote>

Verification