Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7454254" data-attributes="member: 5142">Not quite. I'm saying that the D&D 3e engine (i.e., the d20 System) essentially remains the core of many systems, such as D&D 4-5e, Pathfinder, 13th Age, Shadow of the Demon Lord, etc. But that core 3e skeleton has its flaws, shortcomings, and pitfalls. But how do you address those flaws? 4e was one such response, and one underrated in its influence. Pathfinder (aka "3.75e") kept closer to 3e, but that did not make many of the problems of 3e go away. However, Paizo increasingly found the weight of those constant maintenance patches a burden, hence Pathfinder 2. And previews of Pathfinder 2 do appear to show similar solutions for similar problems within the 3e system. 5e became another response, but it also incorporated some of the "solutions" and approaches that have their roots in 4e. Same is true for these other games that I listed, though with 13th Age as something of an intentional blend of 3e and 4e between their respective lead designers. I don't think this necessarily means that 4e was ahead of its time, but simply that there are common trends, patterns, and approaches for the question of "how do we fix/evolve/patch 3e?" and that 4e was simply the first, but its own idiomatic set of reactions to its strengths/shortcomings set the tone for what followed.</blockquote>