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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 7934582" data-attributes="member: 53980">3.5 came first, but after a decade of working with it the WotC team realized that it had some issues, such as LFQW.With 4e, they set out to fix those issues (and they did) but (for some people) the game was too restrictive and/or didn't have the right feel.So then they took what they had learned from each edition and created 5e, which landed them in the Goldilocks Zone. (Obviously not perfect for EVERYONE, but a good enough compromise between the various editions' strengths and weaknesses that it ended up appealing to many.)While some of the designers of PF2 were from WotC, Jason Bulmahn (the lead designer) was not. He was well steeped in the flaws of PF (which were largely the same as those of 3.x), having worked on that game for at least a decade. However, I see no evidence that he was more than passingly familiar with 4e. Ten or so years ago, Paizo made a decision to not work on 4e and to go their own direction instead (which was Pathfinder). As a result, the Paizo team did not learn the lessons the WotC team did from 4e. It is my belief that this is why PF2 has a closer superficial resemblance to 4e than to 5e. Yes, games cannot evolve in the literal sense (at least not in the sense that involves DNA). However, the ideas of designers can evolve (figuratively speaking) as they learn what worked and what didn't from their prior creations, which in turn informs and influences the games they later create. The 5e team learned from 4e (as well as earlier editions). I believe that the PF2 team did not, as their lead designer had no significant experience working with 4e. Rather, his design philosophy was influenced by working on PF, much like the 4e team was influenced by working on 3.x. Which explains the similar underlying design philosophy of 4e and PF2, despite that the implementations of those games are quite different.</blockquote>

Verification