NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Muh" data-source="post: 9223562" data-attributes="member: 7042567">Not sure if my 4E experience was unusual or not. I hated it without having played it, because everything was off about it.The setting was wrong, they screwed over alignments (LE is THE evil alignment why was it removed? And why did they remove CG?), they changed the planes, skill challenges felt very rough, everything was called "powers", the book had a "weird" presentation if you were used to 3.0 and 3.5. Funnily enough the only opinion I had on classes was that I wanted casters to use a spell system instead of the AE-whatever-it's-called system (a system which I liked on martials).Our group switched over from 3.5 to PF and when that campaign was over a player took over from me as a GM and he ran a short 4E adventure. The system was a lot better than I expected. I played a fighter and another player who had previously burned out on playing a rogue in PF tried bard and was pretty happy about it.However, that GM wanted to run adventure paths so we switched to Pathfinder again for a long time. Later on another GM wanted to run 5E with us so we jumped on that, running two campaigns in parallel. I was initially very positive to 5E, having game mastered a short adventure in it earlier, but now that we switched to a longer campaign I began to sour on it. As I played a fighter I realised that you barely have any options, and you suck, relatively speaking. The longer we played, the more this was obvious. Things like how bounded accuracy seems like a good idea, but it doesn't work if some classes get to ignore it (cough casters cough).Then we tried PF2 and it's funny how much that feels like it is inspired by 4E without actually having anything from the presentation of 4E in it.</blockquote>

Verification