Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Boots" data-source="post: 7742654" data-attributes="member: 92239">The game was successful because of the 3.x crowd, but it came into existence because Paizo saw a good business opportunity and jumped all over it.&nbsp; AD&amp;D is to BECMI as Pathfinder is to 3.52nd edition was a serious change from AD&amp;D if you were actually following the RAW of AD&amp;D Combat.3rd edition was a serious change from 2nd edition if again, you looked at combat.4th edition was a near rewrite of 3rd edition, again looking at combat.5th edition pretty much told everyone that liked 4th edition that they were wrong to like it as it rolled back some things to a mix of all editions prior and streamlined things.I liked first edition, read all the books for 2nd but didn't run it.&nbsp; Liked third edition, didn't see the point of Pathfinder.&nbsp; Loved 4th edition, and my opinion of 5th is neutral.&nbsp; I see the point of Pathfinder 2 and I'll probably choose that over 5e but jury is out.&nbsp; Generally, I don't like rules lite.&nbsp; On one hand it's good because it simplifies things, but on the other it can lead to sloppy abstraction.&nbsp; What I'm seeing of PF2 looks like it could provide a good framework for a GM to build off of and not have to detail every abstraction for the rules set to feel right at his or her table for his or her reasons.As far as other folks are concerned, I've yet to have a good chat with a 3.X loyalist that had a good argument for why they don't want PF2 other than spending money.&nbsp; This is fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the game itself or merits compared to other versions.Be wellKB</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kobold Boots, post: 7742654, member: 92239"] The game was successful because of the 3.x crowd, but it came into existence because Paizo saw a good business opportunity and jumped all over it. AD&D is to BECMI as Pathfinder is to 3.5 2nd edition was a serious change from AD&D if you were actually following the RAW of AD&D Combat. 3rd edition was a serious change from 2nd edition if again, you looked at combat. 4th edition was a near rewrite of 3rd edition, again looking at combat. 5th edition pretty much told everyone that liked 4th edition that they were wrong to like it as it rolled back some things to a mix of all editions prior and streamlined things. I liked first edition, read all the books for 2nd but didn't run it. Liked third edition, didn't see the point of Pathfinder. Loved 4th edition, and my opinion of 5th is neutral. I see the point of Pathfinder 2 and I'll probably choose that over 5e but jury is out. Generally, I don't like rules lite. On one hand it's good because it simplifies things, but on the other it can lead to sloppy abstraction. What I'm seeing of PF2 looks like it could provide a good framework for a GM to build off of and not have to detail every abstraction for the rules set to feel right at his or her table for his or her reasons. As far as other folks are concerned, I've yet to have a good chat with a 3.X loyalist that had a good argument for why they don't want PF2 other than spending money. This is fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the game itself or merits compared to other versions. Be well KB [/QUOTE]

Verification