Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 5740442" data-attributes="member: 2804">My group plays both 4e and PF regularly.4e does combat really well, and the codification of the action types works very smoothly. I have no interest in going to a 5e that gives you one action per turn. I like the interplay of Standard, Move, Minor along with Immediate Interrupts and Reactions.And for the love of God, keep the save every round system. Playing PF with its failed save and you are hit with some nasty condition for X rounds that you often have no way of mitigating brings gripes and complaints from us every PF session. And we LIKE Pathfinder. There are no edition wars in our group.Combat in 4e takes about as long as it does for us in Pathfinder, but the individual turns in 4e go faster so people get to go more often which is good and a positive of 4e combat for us.Really our primary issues with 4e combat are the reliance on movement based powers which all but necessitates minis (We prefer a mix of narrative and mini based combat depending on the scenario), and the sometimes overly gamist nature of the 4e powers system.We like the PF class structure better than 4e's cookie cutter classes, but for mini based combats, 4e is a lot of fun and we like how it plays out a little bit more. Its just a tad too gamist overall in a big picture sense, whereas PF feels more organic and free.</blockquote>