It’s hard to say based on this article because it’s a little vague, but the sense I get is that it’s more like Pathfinder with feat trees, except that every ability comes from a feat (no class abilities) and you get a class feat every level. It sounds noticeably different from D&D, while still very much being a class-based system unlike games like M&M or CoC which use a point-based or skill-based system.
Saying it’s not like D&D because it’s more like Pathfinder is not a great argument, considering Pathfinder is essentially a split branch of D&D. And since the headline lists both D&D AND Pathfinder, it’s still wrong.
Sure, but I’m not just saying it’s “like Pathfinder”, I’m saying (again, based solely on the vague limited wording in this article) it sounds like a very specific variation of Pathfinder that is not how Pathfinder itself works; it’s just easier to describe in terms of Pathfinder lingo.
The fact that it says it “handles classes” instantly tells us it’s a classy system, so on that basis alone it’s going to have a lot of resemblance to classy systems like D&D and Pathfinder. Saying that it doesn’t handle classes very differently is a bit like saying xiangqi doesn’t handle its pieces very different from chess because they both uses pieces that move around a board capturing other pieces. It might be technically accurate in some sense, but it’s not a very helpful comment.
It’s hard to say based on this article because it’s a little vague, but the sense I get is that it’s more like Pathfinder with feat trees, except that every ability comes from a feat (no class abilities) and you get a class feat every level. It sounds noticeably different from D&D, while still very much being a class-based system unlike games like M&M or CoC which use a point-based or skill-based system.
Saying it’s not like D&D because it’s more like Pathfinder is not a great argument, considering Pathfinder is essentially a split branch of D&D. And since the headline lists both D&D AND Pathfinder, it’s still wrong.
Sure, but I’m not just saying it’s “like Pathfinder”, I’m saying (again, based solely on the vague limited wording in this article) it sounds like a very specific variation of Pathfinder that is not how Pathfinder itself works; it’s just easier to describe in terms of Pathfinder lingo.
The fact that it says it “handles classes” instantly tells us it’s a classy system, so on that basis alone it’s going to have a lot of resemblance to classy systems like D&D and Pathfinder. Saying that it doesn’t handle classes very differently is a bit like saying xiangqi doesn’t handle its pieces very different from chess because they both uses pieces that move around a board capturing other pieces. It might be technically accurate in some sense, but it’s not a very helpful comment.
Why are you coming across as “trying to be right on the Internet” rather than “engaging with what was said”?
I am engaging with what was said, I just don’t agree with what was said.