Hello guys, after a lot of years playing pathfinder me avd my

>>52220355
Combat is faster and feats are optional.

>>52220355

It's not bad. It is a lot simpler, it focuses more on consistency, and it's got a little bit more "the story guides the numbers, not the numbers guiding the story" than recent versions.

It's going to be a bit of a shock going from a game where complicated builds and sorting lots of options was the important thing to a game where the numbers aren't as important, but give it a chance: it might scratch an itch you don't know you have.

What about magic items and upgrade? They are the same of the olds versions?

>>52220714
>magic items
They exist, but aren't required for balance. You're fine if no one has a magic weapon at higher levels, for example. Magic items are often boons and plot related.

>upgrades
What?

>>52220771
Forget the "upgrade" i use wrong terms lol thx a lot guys

>>52220355

Pathfinder a shit, the kind of shit people like because they haven't played anything else.

You'll like 5e, it's much smoother and better balanced.

>>52220885
There's like a 50% that he won't.

I tried 5e with a group of PF players and they just couldn't deal with it. They WANT to spend their skill points every level. They WANT to have 10 zillion magic items. They WANT to play tripper fighter.

>>52220913
The fact that anyone would want to focus on the combat maneuvers is so baffling to me. It scales so bad, and it's not like you can trip big things.

>>52220771

Mind you, if you DO have magic items the monk is going to go cry in the corner due to a lack of +X fists and nakedness.

>>52220930
Yes, but it's free attacks!

The player was incredibly butthurt when he realized that standing up from prone only provoked in 3rd edition spinoffs.

Oh, also, almost forgot: they WANT SoL spells. When Hold person didn't win the encounter by itself (it totally fucking did, turned off the target for 2 turns), the butthurt was palpable.

>>52220945
>belts
>capes
>rings
>amulets
>robes
>monk weapons

>>52220964
So fucking weird. I used to mainly play 3.pf, 5e is so much better, let alone easier to run as a GM.

File: [Help] 3.PF compared to 5e.pdf (40KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1x1px

>no one has posted this
C'mon guys. In short, it's better at almost everything and while it's far from perfect there aren't a lot of arguments to stick to an even less perfect system like 3.PF.

>>52220355
5e basically tones down casters by removing some troubling spells like Celerity and seriously reducing the number of spells a caster can have active at once. It means that clerics can't stack a lot of self-buffs to be better than fighters.

Otherwise the system is generally simplified, with binary skills which use a "proficiency bonus" that scales with levels, and also acts as BAB (though multiattacking is different). The skill list is also much shorter.

Many modifiers have been replaced with a (dis)advantage system, where advantage is rolling 2d20 and using the higher roll, and disadvantage using the lower. It's saves a huge amount of time because you don't have to look a lot of fiddly bonuses, but also homogenizes a lot of modifiers, which some people may dislike.

It's basically distilled D&D, stripping away a lot of less important parts of the system to focus on the core parts of the game.

It's my favorite edition for whatever that's worth.

>>52220964
Not to get too r9k, but that literally sounds like mild autism. Like, the kind of guy who can hold a normal conversation, but gets irrationally upset about small changes in things that he had gotten used to.

>>52221052
5E is pretty fucking terrible at running a game with ToB/PoW-esque martials, and I'm being very generous in that assessment.

>>52221323
Possibly. Honestly, I don't care, it was a terrible group.

>>52221366
I meant more in general as a game. But I can't think of a type of game that 3.pf does better than other games, if ToB/PoW is high power martials there are entire systems dedicated to that for example.

>>52221510
You've got 4E, Legend, and Strike!. One of them has vaguely similar mechanics to ToB that don't really function the same.

>>52221586
I would think Exalted, Tenra, Anima and some more weeb games would qualify as well? But yeah, ToB might have had a very particular system that, if that's exactly what you want, you'd have to use that, but if "high power martials" is the desire then at least 4e is much better just as a game.

>>52221631
Sure, but keep in mind that this was originally about 5E vs 3.PF.

>>52221631
>Exalted
>Anima
I salute whatever hardass GM manages to run those convoluted messes that call themselves 'systems'