Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
It matters because we are communicating dude and calling something what it isnt doesnt add to the conversion just obfuscates
Zardnaar
Legend
People like it. If they want strawberry don't try and sell them peppermint.
Pathfinder tagline 3.5 lives. People chose that over 4E seems clear what they wanted. A fixed 3.5 I suppose not that PF was a massive improvement there. Early Pathfinder was good before the bloat.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Vague you mean that martial types got enumerated abilities.,... or really that they made that stupid presentational error of them being "powers" instead of encounter abilities being feats which are tricks with cannot be repeated during this combat once revealed.
one at a time some of those are way not 4e specific.... 3e had way more conditions way way more from what I can tell so does pathfinder.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
dont sell them 2 4, 6 8 10 12 14... if they want 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 even if it provides more information at a glance because the specific example is that huge difference? AND as i said they were trying to create new Intellectual Property to sell because their old stuff was given away.
Zardnaar
Legend
In splat maybe, core books not so much.
How can you claim 4Es better because it's so different and then claim it's not that different when people don't like it?
3E not that different from 5E when casuals play it. We played 3.0 like 2E initially.
That wasn't even an option for 4E it was so rigid.
Zardnaar
Legend
I would argue people in 2008 wanted a fixed 3E or some evolution of it (core books not late 3E splat).
Note I don't think 3E is very good either, I liked it at the time very little nostalgia though.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Some parts were changed to make things better some really really were changed to make it new IP a blanket statement doesn't cut it (they even tried to make those parts work better like the spell level meaning the level you get the ability.
I am distinguishing parts that are different vs what could be presented as the same but werent possibly due to the aforementioned ip difference. Encounter based tricks that could have been feats which acted as tricks once per combat... were put in the power system and that helped consistency but that isnt really hugely different.
- Consistency in class structure people have identified that as samey it helped create balance and that was different... but it might not be the balance that is the issue but rather the presentation.
- 4e martial types get to induce conditions and sometimes by pass enemy armor not just kill it with their swords... occasionally even just do some damage wearing down the enemy because they chose to do it. (could 3e martial types get some of that in feats maybe? so maybe i am wrong and its not martial being more versatile but how it was presented)
- Level 1 was starting of as a beginner of heroic caliber not an apprentice that was different.
Last edited:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Oh definitely looks that way... but the lawyers and red tape business guys didnt want to sell that they felt that would leave them without any new IP they could call their own.
Zardnaar
Legend
Art and Arcana covered it, there was an MNO influence they wanted subscribers a'la WoW. It wasn't really designed for tabletop play.
And before you jump up and down claiming edition warring that book was released by WotC last year iirc.
They didn't want to sell you D&D they wanted to sell you a subscription.
Mistake number 1.
