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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7935479" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Making things up that are easy to shoot down? Like "You are assuming they did not discuss taking design inspiration from 5e?" The only way you could "shoot that down" is by having their internal design discussions, which if you have that this entire thread would go in a far different direction. And, looking at what you "actually said"(1) You directly say you think there are similarities between 4e and PF2 that directly impact popularity. Since you have claimed 4e was a disaster, you believe this to be a purely negative comparison. (2) You draw a line putting 3.x, PF and 5e on one side and 4e and PF2 on the other, strengthening the claim that these two games are similiar and related, and add to that a direct statement that players aren't allowed to influence the power of their characters to a substantial degree. This claim seems to be false, as shown by the discussion about 4e characters who are able to trade skill abilities for combat abilities instead. This seems to allow "substantial" influence of their character's power. Also, since the claim is again a negative (players can't do this) you again are saying that taking influence from 4e is a bad thing for PF2. (3) You claim that 4e and PF2 repress options, feats, and magic items. Once more, saying there are similarities between the two games, and since those feats, options and magic items that "really make a difference" are all positive things (fun, cool, evocative) then clearly this is again a negative trait that PF2 is taing from 4e. (4) You talk about the downfall of 4e, and tie what you see as the source of that downfall to decisions you see in PF2. PF2 ia copying 4e and taking the exact same design that led to 4e's downfall in your opinion. And you see this as a deep design decision. Not directly quoting, but you have also asked repeatedly why PF2 is not copying the massive success of 5e. You have said this many times. So, like I said. Your argument seems to be that Paizo made a mistake and is desiging PF2 based off of 4e, and that they should instead have based it off of 5e. But, you have completely ignored many, many, many examples and discussions showing that (A) 3.X was just as bad about some of these things as you claim 4e was (B) 4e was not designed in the way you seem to have claimed, with some of your examples being proven false by fans of the edition and (C) talking about why Paizo copying the industry leader too closely might be a poor financial decision. I am not arguing in bad faith. I'm just not accepting your premise.</blockquote>

Verification