| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I criticized this on the WOTC boards after 4e was released and the next day the "What do you want with 5e threads" popped up. It just seemed ridiculous that the new shiny was given and already the ADD internet culture needed the NEXT shiny.Matt Smith had barely been announced as the Eleventh Doctor and had not even begun filming in the role before people were already speculating who the Twelfth Doctor should be.
The people who are chanting "No 2nd edition...EVER!!" amuse me. Pathfinder is a slight improvement over 3.5, but does anyone out there really believe that it simply can NOT be improved upon?
Not remotely. I'd just prefer a system that continues for a long time without needing to be replaced. I don't like having to re-buy books.
Here are some helpful suggestions from Boomer and friends. If only 4e had listened!
No spells that oneshot the enemy. This could be a problem for assassin, but who's playing, however? And is also more sitation dependant.
Spell level influence the effect, not the DC. We should have one DC: 10+ 1/2 level + key bonus.
No rage cycle.
More freedom in combat: disarm without feat should not provoke but give you a -4.
AC increase in level.
Far less magic items, le gear dependant.
Skills should be more important. Someone are already important, but some others are not so useful.
Use of magic points. It should be nice to have a system to recover with actions instead of a daily pool.
More fighting styles, but not strange as unarmed style feats, or broken like crane style feats.
Rules for armor as damage resistance on core rules (and armor class increase in level).
Rules for active defense.
Spells more balanced.
The people who are chanting "No 2nd edition...EVER!!" amuse me. Pathfinder is a slight improvement over 3.5, but does anyone out there really believe that it simply can NOT be improved upon?
1. It's too early. Waaaaay too early.
2. There's a big difference between "improve upon" and "replace".
3. Change isn't always for the better.
4. What you consider a slight improvement, I consider a signficant improvement.
5. Most of us aren't saying "never". We're saying "not yet", "not anytime soon", and "not a total reboot/redesign".
6. Pretty much everything on planet Earth can be improved upon. However, plenty of things work really well. Sometimes you can get diminishing returns on the effort expended to improve something vs. the quality of the improvement. Are there things I'd like to tweak in PF? Sure. However, nothing on my list merits a new edition or a ground-up redesign that will kill compatability with the current edition.
7. RPGs aren't TV show reboots/recasts. Some of us like RPG editions to be measured in 8-10 year increments for the earliest "reboot" cycle. The last post I recall James Jacobs commenting on the matter, apparently Paizo feels this way, too.
YMMV.
Way too early. Cleanup maybe, perhaps slight tweaks to classes previously having problems, but no major changes yet.
...
No rage cycle.
...
Use of magic points. It should be nice to have a system to recover with actions instead of a daily pool.
...
Rules for active defense.
...
Can you expand on these three a little?
|
The people who are chanting "No 2nd edition...EVER!!" amuse me. Pathfinder is a slight improvement over 3.5, but does anyone out there really believe that it simply can NOT be improved upon?1. It's too early. Waaaaay too early.
2. There's a big difference between "improve upon" and "replace".
3. Change isn't always for the better.
4. What you consider a slight improvement, I consider a signficant improvement.
5. Most of us aren't saying "never". We're saying "not yet", "not anytime soon", and "not a total reboot/redesign".
6. Pretty much everything on planet Earth can be improved upon. However, plenty of things work really well. Sometimes you can get diminishing returns on the effort expended to improve something vs. the quality of the improvement. Are there things I'd like to tweak in PF? Sure. However, nothing on my list merits a new edition or a ground-up redesign that will kill compatability with the current edition.
7. RPGs aren't TV show reboots/recasts. Some of us like RPG editions to be measured in 8-10 year increments for the earliest "reboot" cycle. The last post I recall James Jacobs commenting on the matter, apparently Paizo feels this way, too.
YMMV.
If you'll take a look at what I have posted earlier in the thread, I've already said that I want at least 5-6 more years before a Pathfinder 2E. Largely because many of the things that Paizo employees have said here would seem to indicate that their preferences will likely take 2E even further away from my personal tastes in RPGs, while hanging on to many of the sacred cows that I wish they would turn into steak...or at least hamburger.
And it's a bit ironic that you would try to tell me that "Change isn't always for the better", as my current favorite D&D-type game is actually Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules. I actually think that 3.X is quite a bit inferior to the previous editions of the game.
Can you expand on these three a little?...
No rage cycle.
...
Use of magic points. It should be nice to have a system to recover with actions instead of a daily pool.
...
Rules for active defense.
...
Rage cycle is something that I call a "bug". Now a barbarian that is immune to fatigue can restart a new rage every round, so the "once a rage" powers became "1 / round". In my game I changed powers' text from "one time during a rage" in "one time in the fight".
Magic points instead of spell slot. More or less like psionic. What I mean for recover: particular action during a fight or a day to recover some points: praying, sacrifice a minion, drain life from the enemy, sacrifice hit points... I have not a rule for this, but you can have different way from class to class, domain, spell school, bloodlines, etc. It would be nice, but not easy.
Rule for active defense, like the swashbuckler class features. Maybe sacrifice an attack to roll against enemy hit throw, if you win (higher result) he don't hit you. This would create a different style for shield, not just a off hand weapons with AC bonus...
I was pretty much out of the RPG scene from 2nd Ed until about 2 years ago when I discovered Pathfinder. Life had gotten in the way that RPGing wasn't an option, and all the rules changes (and also, I hated the 3-3.5 art which shouldn't be a reason, but...) seemed weird.
But then 2 years ago, I got back into it and found Pathfinder. A comprehensive rule set in one box with adventure paths that supported it which were so much better than any adventure I'd played, or could create.
I loved 2nd Ed, but after enough exposure to PF, I couldn't imagine going back.
Pathfinder BROUGHT ME BACK to roleplaying. Please, please no 2e. Streamline rules, collate rule sets into boxes/collections/compendiums - make tweaks, but please no major rule changes. Can't there be another business model that works than the 5 year new edition rule set?
I f#($* love, LOVE Pathfinder's rule set. I hope it's supported forever - and I wish the business model could be based on bringing new people to the game instead of bringing the same people new games over and over.
And I look forward to playing PF 1e's APs forever.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
22 favorites, gathering people such as TOZ, Kelsey, Zaister and Gbonehead. Paizo's greatest strength, for many of us, is that they STICK TO THEIR BLOODY GUNS, instead of issuing 50 pages of stealth updates every month.
Like you know, some other company.
Microsoft?
Microsoft?22 favorites, gathering people such as TOZ, Kelsey, Zaister and Gbonehead. Paizo's greatest strength, for many of us, is that they STICK TO THEIR BLOODY GUNS, instead of issuing 50 pages of stealth updates every month.
Like you know, some other company.
Those monsters!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Microsoft?22 favorites, gathering people such as TOZ, Kelsey, Zaister and Gbonehead. Paizo's greatest strength, for many of us, is that they STICK TO THEIR BLOODY GUNS, instead of issuing 50 pages of stealth updates every month.
Like you know, some other company.
We really need to go out and drink someday.
No.
There isn't any need.
What should be done is an extensive errata and FAQ of existing material.
My guess is that pathfinder is going to scoop up all the disenfranchised 4E players who now have to buy all new books. Why bother with 5E when I can go ahead and buy a system that seems relatively stable.
Microsoft?22 favorites, gathering people such as TOZ, Kelsey, Zaister and Gbonehead. Paizo's greatest strength, for many of us, is that they STICK TO THEIR BLOODY GUNS, instead of issuing 50 pages of stealth updates every month.
Like you know, some other company.
Touché. :-)
Can you expand on these three a little?
Rage cycle is something that I call a "bug". Now a barbarian that is immune to fatigue can restart a new rage every round, so the "once a rage" powers became "1 / round". In my game I changed powers' text from "one time during a rage" in "one time in the fight".
Magic points instead of spell slot. More or less like psionic. What I mean for recover: particular action during a fight or a day to recover some points: praying, sacrifice a minion, drain life from the enemy, sacrifice hit points... I have not a rule for this, but you can have different way from class to class, domain, spell school, bloodlines, etc. It would be nice, but not easy.
Rule for active defense, like the swashbuckler class features. Maybe sacrifice an attack to roll against enemy hit throw, if you win (higher result) he don't hit you. This would create a different style for shield, not just a off hand weapons with AC bonus...
Well, rage cycle could be ammended in the rules without new revision, but I don't find it particularly unbalancing. I'm more concerned with the fact that you need to go through such loops to accopomplish, but it's a matter of personal preferrences.
Magic points only if thy are optional. I'd really hate to have them by default.
Swashbuckling is the only thing that I'd agree with actually :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it is a 2nd edition, in the way that Websters puts out new editions every few years that would be fine.
A largely compatible evolution, much like they did from 3.5 itself to Pathfinder would be something I would be fine with.
If it is a new edition like 4E, where the implication is burn your old books, we are starting over...nope.
Personally, I kind of view the beginner box as another edition. I'd like to see something similar for options to simplify high level play.
Variations on the theme, not reinventing the wheel. That would work for me.
|
|
We really need to go out and drink someday.Microsoft?22 favorites, gathering people such as TOZ, Kelsey, Zaister and Gbonehead. Paizo's greatest strength, for many of us, is that they STICK TO THEIR BLOODY GUNS, instead of issuing 50 pages of stealth updates every month.
Like you know, some other company.
In Soviet Poland, drink goes out for you!
I dont think there's much call for a new edition until the sale of rulebooks begins to slow. At that point, Paizo will have a choice to make, in my view - shift back to focussing more on flavor material or develop a new edition (plus several other options I can't think of, no doubt).
If they ever do decide on a new edition, they will face the same dilemma WoTC faced with 4E of balancing backwards compatibility and stability with innovation and revolution.
If you'll take a look at what I have posted earlier in the thread, I've already said that I want at least 5-6 more years before a Pathfinder 2E. Largely because many of the things that Paizo employees have said here would seem to indicate that their preferences will likely take 2E even further away from my personal tastes in RPGs, while hanging on to many of the sacred cows that I wish they would turn into steak...or at least hamburger.
And it's a bit ironic that you would try to tell me that "Change isn't always for the better", as my current favorite D&D-type game is actually Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules. I actually think that 3.X is quite a bit inferior to the previous editions of the game.
That's cool. It's also cool that you've got an in-print game that scratches your RPG itch.
I'm just a bit tired of "change" and the possibility of change resulting in an improvement being offered up as a good reason to perpetuate the Edition Treadmill.
Looking at D&D - 4e brought about all kinds of change, almost all of which my players and I rejected. 5e promises to bring substantive change again after only 3 years. It remains to be seen how much of that change will be positive.
Maybe the rest of the RPG universe has more disposable income, more free time, and gets to play a lot more than I do, but at 2 years in - I'm just scratching the surface of the Pathfinder RPG options already in my hands. Paizo hasn't given me any reason to think that I won't have many additional RPG treats to look forward to with the current edition, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I vote NO! to PF 2.0 that is markedly different. Tweaks, clean-ups, errata, or changes to layout style, or ART -all fine. If the system works now, why should it ever change from the same basic model. I can still play the original Basic D and D I started with(or Tunnels and Trolls for that matter) three decades later. Homebrew away!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think pathfinder 2.0 should have fighters who can only swing a sword a certain way once per day and who cannot be made into top notch archers.
and lets dump craft skills, and profession skills and a social interaction skills.
In fact why don't we make PF 2.0 all about tactical combat and narrowly define the half dozen types of action you can make and claim it opens up new vistas.
and lets not forget to use a bunch of ads that shame people who stick with pathfinder 1.0
Is 5ed already that close? I thought its just a rumor until now.
It became official last week.
A second edition of Pathfinder right now, would alienate me. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Lets wait another 5 years or so, and then talk about it.
I am the 99%!
And then take community feedback as to what is broken, and what absolutely needs to be fixed, and what can be bandaged.
Community feedback with examples for instance.
I don't think Paizo will make 2nd edition any sooner then they HAVE to.
4e came about because a couple of guys made a pitch to Hasbro. Their idea was to release a new RPG closely tied with a subscription model and VTT. It was pure business and nothing else.
The bolded portion is absolutely false. Of course there were business reasons as well, just like with Pathfinder. That doesn't change the fact that they were responding to years of complaints on the WoTC boards. Many of the changes made were intended to directly address those complaints. They flowed directly from things such as Reserve Feats and the Book of Nine Swords which were both well received by large portions of the community.
Just because you're bitter doesn't change the facts.
The core books (PHB1, DMG1, MM1) doesn't even feel like a complete game, and it was probably designed that way. They really pumped out new rules at a blinding speed. RPGs don't really come into their own until you've had the books for a couple of months at least.
There was no way for regular people to jump on board and feel like they got the 4e experience. Contrast this with Pathfinder which feels complete with its two core books. In fact, I could play it with one book if I don't use summon spells.
In your opinion.
In my opinion, all you need to get the 4E experience is to jump in with the the Red Box or the core books. To me, Pathfinder with just the 2 core books feels like a outdated re-tread of someone else's product. It didn't become it's own game until the APG hit.
5e is looking to do the same thing as 4e, except this time around they've given up hope. They just want us to make a game for them. Can you think of any successful creative work that was created by mashing everyone's wishes and expectations together and calling it a day?
Like Paizo gave up hope by doing their own open playtest? Or how they just changed a couple things and called it their own?
See- both sides can do it, and we just both seem like a#!*%+~s. Or you know, we could actually treat the people who make our games like people rather than cogs in the machine of the enemy.
Also, to answer your question- Snakes on a Plane? (jk)
Real answer- don't judge it based just on your bitterness. You don't know what they have planned yet, neither do I. But you're assumption is way off base, and frankly quite insulting to some great designers including one of the men who made Pathfinder possible in the 1st place.
I think pathfinder 2.0 should have fighters who can only swing a sword a certain way once per day and who cannot be made into top notch archers.
and lets dump craft skills, and profession skills and a social interaction skills.
In fact why don't we make PF 2.0 all about tactical combat and narrowly define the half dozen types of action you can make and claim it opens up new vistas.
and lets not forget to use a bunch of ads that shame people who stick with pathfinder 1.0
Actually half of those things isn't true for 4E either.
Narrow fighter build was IMO a conscious design decision. They wanted to milk the players as much as possible, so the classes were all made to allow the same pull as 3E wizard. They were all given spells that'd attract buyers and I firmly believe that Martial Power 4 would have had an archer build and powers for fighter provided that the game was allowed to run it's course.
Social interaction was not dumped, just made into fewer skills that Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate are still there. Crafting on the other hand was not deemed major part of the game and so it was led ton the p. 42 table to adjudicate as needed, so 4E can have even realistic crafting time as that's assigned vs the DM along with DC from the table. They just didn't think of crafting as frequent enough to need it's own rules and the same goes for professions. 4E are rules for heroes, commoners are not even statted unless needed in a fight. That edition didn't even bother to try simulating everything, but that doesn't mean that it's incapable of somehow running the task.
Actions are indeed narrowly defined in the rules, as the players are expected to state what they want and DM uses p. 42 table again to transform the action into the game. My endless hate goes to powers for creating the feeling that they are the only thing worth doing and stifflig the players.
I think pathfinder 2.0 should have fighters who can only swing a sword a certain way once per day and who cannot be made into top notch archers.
and lets dump craft skills, and profession skills and a social interaction skills.
In fact why don't we make PF 2.0 all about tactical combat and narrowly define the half dozen types of action you can make and claim it opens up new vistas.
and lets not forget to use a bunch of ads that shame people who stick with pathfinder 1.0
Actually half of those things isn't true for 4E either.
Narrow fighter build was IMO a conscious design decision. They wanted to milk the players as much as possible, so the classes were all made to allow the same pull as 3E wizard. They were all given spells that'd attract buyers and I firmly believe that Martial Power 4 would have had an archer build and powers for fighter provided that the game was allowed to run it's course.
Social interaction was not dumped, just made into fewer skills that Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate are still there. Crafting on the other hand was not deemed major part of the game and so it was led ton the p. 42 table to adjudicate as needed, so 4E can have even realistic crafting time as that's assigned vs the DM along with DC from the table. They just didn't think of crafting as frequent enough to need it's own rules and the same goes for professions. 4E are rules for heroes, commoners are not even statted unless needed in a fight. That edition didn't even bother to try simulating everything, but that doesn't mean that it's incapable of somehow running the task.
Actions are indeed narrowly defined in the rules, as the players are expected to state what they want and DM uses p. 42 table again to transform the action into the game. My endless hate goes to powers for creating the feeling that they are the only thing worth doing and stifflig the players.
I don't hate powers, but I think you're right to a degree. It seems to be a common perception that the powers are all you can do. They dropped the ball when it came to formatting there- page 42 probably should've been page 1 or something.
One of my favorite things about Essentials is that every skill lists an 'Improvising with X' section that really shows off the flexibility of the 4E skill system. It's too bad they hadn't done that right off the bat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Social interaction was not dumped, just made into fewer skills that Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate are still there.
Perhaps they intended that social interaction require some social interaction / actual roleplaying; as opposed to "I rolled a 20, the NPC has to do what I want him to!" I'm amused by people who think that the roleplaying aspects of the game need mechanics to fall back upon.
Editioning means a lot of different things. People whose tabletop RPG exposure is limited to D&D and clones are probably used to thinking of "new edition" as "complete and utter overhaul", because that's what "new edition" means in D&D. Other game systems, however, release new editions that patch or rework significant issues, but aren't total reworkings. This was especially true when the internet was less pervasive, and people couldn't rely on online errata and FAQs to the same extent that they now can.
I don't really think that Pathfinder needs a new edition at this point, not because it's beautiful and perfect in every facet - it's absolutely not - but because I don't feel as though the litany of issues is nearly long enough to warrant it at this point.
If I had one wish for a new version, it would be - and I have no idea how to make this happen, and it might be impossible - to make it so that explaining combat options to a new player didn't take a year. I've tried a number of different strategies regarding this, but have trouble hitting a sweet spot. Pathfinder does do a good job in that it makes combat maneuvers typically poor-ish strategic options unless you've invested to them in some degree, so it's not like a character is exactly missing out, but "these things take these kinds of action, these things take this kind of action, these things happen as part of this kind of action, this one can be used in place of this thing, and so on" can be a bit opaque.
One thing I go back and forth on is whether, in a new edition, pathfinder should just cut loose from the idea that players and non-players need to be built using the same rules. (I'm still baffled when I see threads in Advice that are like, "I need a big bad's henchman for my campaign! I want it to be able to do this and this and this; what's the best way?" It's a enemy character. If you want it to be able to do certain things, you can just decide that it can. I get that there are some advantages to having a grand unified system, but as a DM who's run 3.5, PF and 4e, I have to say that I really like 4e's focus on monsters doing what monsters do and making each monster feel unique, instead of monsters having a big pile of irrelevant garbage clogging up their stat block while at their core, for the purpose they're going to be used for in nearly every circumstance, they're all just another small humanoid with some vanilla attacks and stuff.
22 favorites, gathering people such as TOZ, Kelsey, Zaister and Gbonehead.
Huh. How did I become noteworthy? :)
By the way, I certainly don't want a Pathfinder Second Edition. But what I wouldn't mind would be a revised Core Rulebook. Not revised rules, mind you, just a revised presentation, moving away from the organization originally introduced by the SRD. Too many rules are spread out over too many different places in the book and could well benefit from consolidation. Also there still are a lot of rules that could be better worded or clarified. A Revised Core Rulebook in that fashion, I think, could be a good idea.
That table is poorly placed and explained in spite of the fact that it's one of the best things 4E has to offer. Essentials did much better job presenting the mechsnics overall.
I think we have a consensus of "not now" for a new edition of Pathfinder. Most of the arguing seems to be between the folks who say "never" and those who say "maybe later". While a reformatting and rearrangement of the core rulebook might be nice, would it really be worthwhile to Paizo to do this editing without changing the content?
|
|
I like many others here am completly against a 2.0 I would simply stop buying pathfinder if that happened.
I am growing very tired of my favorite games being abandoned after a few years for a new shiney model that makes me shell out a hideous amount of money all over again.
I am personally in favor of reprinting the core books and such with the errata and rules update/fixes so that you can either buy the updated model and possibly fix what has been bugging you or leave it alone and continue with what you have and just keep buying the minis, modules, and suplements.
Social interaction was not dumped, just made into fewer skills that Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate are still there.Perhaps they intended that social interaction require some social interaction / actual roleplaying; as opposed to "I rolled a 20, the NPC has to do what I want him to!" I'm amused by people who think that the roleplaying aspects of the game need mechanics to fall back upon.
I get what you are saying and I strongly encourage RP. However stats and mechanics have to have a place for social skills. Otherwise you have fighters and barbaians that are stronger than elephants ripping the doors off the hinge at whim through mechanics but the player who has a high charisma has to actually charm/argue/convince the GM. Mechanics make it fair. Even the social reject who plays a bard can be awesome.
I get what you are saying and I strongly encourage RP. However stats and mechanics have to have a place for social skills. Otherwise you have fighters and barbaians that are stronger than elephants ripping the doors off the hinge at whim through mechanics but the player who has a high charisma has to actually charm/argue/convince the GM. Mechanics make it fair. Even the social reject who plays a bard can be awesome.Social interaction was not dumped, just made into fewer skills that Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate are still there.Perhaps they intended that social interaction require some social interaction / actual roleplaying; as opposed to "I rolled a 20, the NPC has to do what I want him to!" I'm amused by people who think that the roleplaying aspects of the game need mechanics to fall back upon.
Hey, I resemble that last remark. But yes, I am awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be a bad idea to have Pathfinder 2 now. And I think doing it just because WotC is putting out 5E is a VERY bad idea.
5-10 years from now, sure.
When that time does come, I'd like to see feats that scale with level and a markedly smaller reliance on magic gear (the Big Six should become a thing of the past)--magic gear should be cool and exciting when found, but not create a situation of, "but my barbarian can't survive with out a Thingy of X!" Amongst various smaller tweaks to skills, feats, and class abilities.
|
|
As for pure rulebooks, I don't really see much need to have anything past the currently planned Ultimate Equipment, except a few more Bestiaries, any maybe the Paizo takes on Psionics and post-20th level games.
What would be cool would be if they took the resources they're currently using on the RPG line and put them into one-off, non-Golarion, non-RPG line books. Something like (for example) a book that would have information about running a campaign based on Norse Mythology...with the understanding that it was a one-off book, not the start of a new campaign setting.
And then, in 5-6 years we can look into Pathfinder 2E.
Take into account 4e essitally was already updated and "fixed" with the essentials line. The fact that they are discussing a relaunch really is proof that 4e failed in that it lost a huge section of their market.
We really need to go out and drink someday.Microsoft?22 favorites, gathering people such as TOZ, Kelsey, Zaister and Gbonehead. Paizo's greatest strength, for many of us, is that they STICK TO THEIR BLOODY GUNS, instead of issuing 50 pages of stealth updates every month.
Like you know, some other company.
Hey, I better not get left outta that!
|
|
In economic terms, it's inevitable the PF 2E will come out. As mentioned a bit earlier, the 2E should come out once Paizo runs out of all ideas. The problem is there aren't masses of new players constantly coming, so eventually Paizo, with the exception of APs, will stop making money off the content books. At that moment, Paizo will need to make a new edition. But, with the great content they're putting out, I don't expect that to be any time soon, so don't fret about it so much.
I think atleast another 7 to 10 years before we even start talking about Pathfinder 2nd ed.
Since I don't have a crystal ball I really can't predict what 'I want in my RPG' at the time.
Except for fixing those crafting(mundane items) rules.
Actually 4E is in it's core very good and sound. Some things that were built upon the basics weren't as good, but it's not all bad at all. I think the first attempt to win back the fractured fan base was already the Essentials, that made the classes more different - casters having things more similar to spells, while martials getting rid of dailies and getting stances instead. It hoever alienated 4E people and I don't think it attracted many people already gone. Now they try it with more oomph, open arms and "Next" label. Let's hope it's good, but not make PFRPG make the same mistake and change the game early... or worse make changes that are not wanted...
The rapid release of 5th edition suggests how badly Hasbro dropped the ball (or pass the ball to Pathfinder). They made a new game simply to make a new game to sell more books - it was not a better game. It was a game to productize more mats, cards, figures and of course, books.I'm pretty sure that the release of 4E was due to the fact that a lot of us felt there were serious problems with 3.5E, the 'money grab' claim is pure BS.
Hmmm. A large corporation buys out a smaller one with a rich IP portfolio, and putting out a new version of interlinked products that should appeal to a much larger customer segment (young MMO players) to generate new revenue is BS?
I don't think a corporation like Hasbro has an innate love of the game and somehow places that love above profitability.
3.x was getting long in the tooth, and core book sales are the big money makers. Trying to appeal to the MMO crowd did make a lot of sense because its a much larger group that old school RPGers, however either the product didn't appeal to them, or the crowd just isn't interested in the table-top experience.
What is clear is that 4th edition did alienate a segment of buyers.
The announcements so far about 5th edition suggest an obvious course correction.