Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 6175852" data-attributes="member: 221">Well that's one point in its favor. For some reason, and its probably slightly irrational, but the whole "eladrin" thing was obnoxious and off-putting. Its one of the reasons I think I never actually even tried 4e.I'm not sure, on the other hand, how I actually feel about having "fewer buttons to press," or what that actually means, game-wise, especially at low-levels. I kinda like a lot of options. I think I'll have to see 5e in action to get a feel for how it is different though, because often,the complaints made are foreign to me and so I am not sure of improvements or the validity thereof. 4e is the only edition I have not played in, and from my recollection, story-wise and game wise, there's not much difference between how we played basic D&D and how we now play Pathfinder except I would like to think I've got better at running games. (I will grant that their is a higher level of tactical choices and less abastraction but I think that's because when I was 9 I couldn't afford minis.) I am also admittedly just a little skeptical because I remember almost identical comments to the nature of 4e (faster combat, more player immersion, etc.) and have to wonder if some of it is not just "new shiny" syndrome.</blockquote>