>Muh damage
because damage is what solves encounters.
Meanwhile wizards solve encounters throuhg spells, meanwhile spells that you cant miss, that enemies need to save.
Meanwhile Mages will do all the utility that other classes do but better. Open locks? wizard, detect traps? Wizard. Social encounter? wizard, Dungoen exploration? Wizard, transport? Wizard. Stopping time? Wizard.
What does the humble fighter do? he fights, but not very well compared to other classes.

none of that white room damage stacking bullshit applies. thats just theorycrafting for obsessed people.

>other casters than wizards
yeah so that changes my point in what? Casters.
>Giving martials magical powers
or give them martial powers that let them compete.
like tome of battle did, or 4e did.
But oh no! then every class is the same.

>sales
third edition had no competitors, then paizo split off from the team and became one.
its not exactly rocket science.
That doesnt mean that the sales of 4e tanked, it means that Paizo started selling stuff.

>pathfinder 2 is 4e
yeah, only it does things in the exact opposit way.
What pathfinder 2 is doing simmilar to 4e is doing a lets say "mathematical sound" system.
but it still has class imbalance and it still plays like third edition.
It does some work to balance it, but it doesnt change the underlyign structure, its still about stacking boni on top of one another.

SO yes, pathfinder 2 tries the same as 4e, but in a different way, so its not compareable.
Also, im not even saying Pathfinder 2 is failing because it sucks.
Im saying that its failing for the same reason 4e failed.
because Grognards refuse to change their way and want to live in 3.pf land forever.
Paizo made that bed, now theyll have to lie in it.
And i personally find that amusing.

If you want something compareable to 4e, look no further than 13th age, which gets huge praise in the niche RPG space.

>DnD Needed to move into the MMO space
By that they didnt mean the DESIGN of 4e, they meant the DnD online subscription service that they planned to roll out, it wa sbasically roll 20 with Heroforge incorporated.
but the head designer comitted murder suicide so it was shut down before it came out.
Dont misrepresent the facts.

>Dont make Casters less interresting
ITs not about making them less interresting, but giving them more utility.

Riddle me this:
Why is
>Ranger - a guy who has an animal companion and shoots a bow
>Fighter - a guy who fights things with weapons
>Thief - a guy who can open locks and do sneak attacks
>Barbarian - a guy who gets angry and hits things and is good in nature
a class?
But then why is
Wizard - a guy who turns invisible, fights people with fireballs, flies, stops time, creates food, creates water, creates shelter, shoots magic missles, puts people to sleep, pits enemies against one another, teleports instantlyl, summons meteors, casts shields, casts lighning, talks to demons, talks to animals, summons ancient spirits, summons demons, summons celestials, summons monsters, creates magic items, creates magic scrolls, opens locks, disarms traps, finds hidden doors... and a lot more
a class?

Do you not see the difference in scope? a wizard is not a very thematic character.
>but muh sorceror
does very much the same but casts it in a different way.
Warlock is the only full caster class that is grounded in its theme.

Instead of "Wizard" and "sorcerer" there should be things like

>Pyromancer - who conjures fire and shoots fireballs
>Summoner - who summons creatures
>Illusionist - who turns invisible and bewitches people

Those should be classes.
because they have the same utility as Fighter, Ranger and thief do.
They have niches and roles.
Which is good for a ROLE PLAYING game