Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 7948629" data-attributes="member: 87792">About the only thing this thread has raised to discuss regarding Pathfinder 2 that I recall is that Pathfinder 2's presentation reminds some people who don't like 4e of 4e - and bears no resemblance to it for almost anyone who does like 4e.This is ... not good. And is the opposite of what 5e managed - which is to include at least some of the parts people liked from every edition even if all of them are watered down. I'm not exaggerating when I say I (a) see far more of 4e than 3.X in 5e and (b) the parts I dislike of and associate with 3.X such as the pointless feats (as opposed to 4e's much more pointful ones), absurdly fiddly skill system, fiddly rules everywhere and ridiculous multiclassing, absurd degree of caster supremacy, and even Vancian casting aren't present. But reasonably flavourful characters, meaningful feats with a lack of prerequisite chains, some measure of balance, a sensible and non-fiddly skill system, short rests, and more are. It's hideously watered down 4e - but it's closer to 4e than 3.X.You're welcome to disagree - and that's the point. You see what puts you off about 4e (even if based on your OP it just about all came from 3.5) when you look at PF2. I see nothing about the parts of 4e I like.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 7948629, member: 87792"] About the only thing this thread has raised to discuss regarding Pathfinder 2 that I recall is that Pathfinder 2's presentation reminds some people who don't like 4e of 4e - and bears no resemblance to it for almost anyone who does like 4e. This is ... not good. And is the opposite of what 5e managed - which is to include at least [I]some [/I]of the parts people liked from every edition even if all of them are watered down. I'm not exaggerating when I say I (a) see far more of 4e than 3.X in 5e and (b) the parts I dislike of and associate with 3.X such as the pointless feats (as opposed to 4e's much more pointful ones), absurdly fiddly skill system, fiddly rules everywhere and ridiculous multiclassing, absurd degree of caster supremacy, and even Vancian casting aren't present. But reasonably flavourful characters, meaningful feats with a lack of prerequisite chains, some measure of balance, a sensible and non-fiddly skill system, short rests, and more are. It's hideously watered down 4e - but it's closer to 4e than 3.X. You're welcome to disagree - and that's the point. You see what puts you off about 4e (even if based on your OP it just about all came from 3.5) when you look at PF2. I see nothing about the parts of 4e I like. [/QUOTE]

Verification