I am presently a PFRPG player with a shit-ton of experience going

>>43892427
It's got dragonborn?

>>43892427

I'm just waiting for this book to get scanned

As someone who switched, here's what I like about it.

>lacks the bloat that Pathfinder currently has
>backgrounds make it easier to fluff your character out and gives them access to some nice background skills
>skills reworked so that a fighter with 8 int isn't a retard who can only do one skill
>full attacking doesn't require you to stand still anymore
>casters can only maintain one concentration based spell at a time, and getting hit can cause them to lose it
>less focus on magic items, and PCs can't craft them nearly as easily

I think I still prefer 4e to both of them, but 5e was a pretty easy sell to my Pathfinder groups.

>>43892496
it got scanned like last month

its in the 5e general

>>43892427

my group and I aren't constantly looking up rules every 7 mins.

fewer trap options.

the beginners in our group are taking to it quickly (their only prior experience being PF)
the grognard loves it

its just feels much faster and streamlined than PF.

the only advantage I feel one could argue for PF is that PF has more splats for customization but I feel that often gets negated by trap options.

>>43892427
>I play Pathfinder
>Sell me on 5e
>No edition wars

Pick two

>>43892427
What is it you want to try exactly?

SCAG is a sourcebook, mostly. You can use the fluffy bits under any system.

Also, to your original inquiry: fuck off. You already know whether or not you're gonna try it. A good thread was bumped to make room for this one.

>>43892427
If you have a FLGS you like maybe go ask them about it. Or look up one of the many, many reviews--I recommend looking up some for and some against to give you a more complete picture. You don't really need us to sell you on it.

Reduced-content versions of the core rules are free, or you can borrow from someone who owns the books, or you can pirate the books to get an idea if you like the game and then buy them if you do (or just never buy them).

SCAG is mostly a setting book with a small handful of expanded character options that tie into the fluff. What were you wanting to try from it, specifically?

>>43892427
Why would you want to try a setting-specific supplement before you've even read the core books?

>>43892427
It depends on what you like in PF.

What is good about 5e is sort of what it lacks in comparison to PF/3e. PF has a rule for basically everything, and it is a solid rule. Characters can be super detailed, really requiring you to plan out character construction.

Those are some of the things that 5e lacks. If those are things you really like, then 5e might not be for you. The rules are a bit more loose. You have a few skills that cover a broader range rather than a specific skill for everything single action.

Character construction is much simpler. In part, because there are no really wrong choices. Even doing something really stupid often just means that you have say a +4 vs someone else +8 (this on a d20). Yeah, we all want to be optimized, but errors are not nearly as huge as they are in PF/3e. Heck, while people argue that some classes are better than others (and there really isn't a solid consensus) the difference between 'tiers' is going to be much much narrower than in PF/3e (except for the poor Beastmaster, poor bastard).

Mostly want I like about the game is that your character feels pretty competent right of the bat. He will get better, and a high level character is awesome. But right from the beginning he feels like he can do something.

I miss some of the detail stuff from PF. But 5e is just an easy system that gets the job done.

And if you really have 30 years of experience (I started in the 80's myself), I think that after you play 5e for awhile it is going to put you in mind of the earlier editions of the game in a good way. I'd say that 5e is what the third edition should have been - it just has a better flow from 2e to me.

But if you like the rules and super detailed characters that require design and planning...5e is probably not for you.

>>43892427
Have you played games which arn't D&D?