5e + PF

I'm getting into game design, and this is my first project. I need some advice, comments, critiques, etc.

My friends and I all started with 4e, went to 5e, and we are now getting interested in some PathFinder just for comparison. We found that PF has better rules and systems for skills and combat. However, we generally like the "feel" of 5e and their classes. We long for the more intricate rulings of PF in 5e.

And so, I'm going to do just that: combine them.

Combat, concentration, skills, crafting, checks, etc.
All of these things seem to be better than the 5e equivalent, but 5e has the "feel" that my group is looking for. We would rather have 5e than PF, but I want to integrate these things into 5e to make a balanced mix.

What do you guys like about 5e vs PF, or hate about 5e vs PF.

The pdf is WIP of the core rulebook.

TL;DR
I'm trying to put PF rules into 5e. Halp? Ideas, former experience, what you like/dislike about 5e/PF

This has got to be some elaborate, determined bait

Seriously. How anyone could like PF after playing even a little bit of 5e is beyond me, but this is coming from a guy who almost got burned out on tabletop entirely by running a PF game (with a good group!) for two years.

Yeah, no. Pathfinder has huge holes in it, but it's skill system and combat is overall better imo.

Just play FC you goose

FC?

n-no I'm not...

Compared to D&D 3.5, Pathfinder's skill system is wonderful. Doing away with the x4 skill points and making cross-class skills easier to buy was a great idea, but I'm of the opinion that 5e did skills even better. Rather than fiddling and fussing with points, you just designate a skill as trained and you add your proficiency bonus. Your skill increases when your proficiency bonus increases. Nice and streamlined, and one less thing you have to fuss with when you level up or make a new character. Unless you like that sort of fussing, that is.

As for combat
>3.PF combat
>better than literally any other system
>laughingwhores.gif

Having delved into the furthest depths of 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder's combat, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that PF's combat is fucking garbage. It's a death roulette at low levels and rocket tag at high levels. Martials get to full attack because CMB and CMD don't scale well, making non-full-attack maneuvers useless unless the GM puts special effort into terrain hazards. Casters get to save-or-die everything while martials are stuck doing cleanup, because why should martials ever get anything fun?

Not that 5e is perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than fucking Pathfinder. If you do decide to make some kind of homebrew monstrosity using rules from both, then go ahead, but you should be using PF as an example of how NOT to design a game, rather than as inspiration.

Imagine Pathfinder with good combat and skills system, and Martians and casters are on equal footing.

you don't think 5e makes combat far too easy? dual-wield fighter runs up and hits 5 times first turn? PF seems to make it a bit harder with the full-attack restriction, and that seems better for making the game tactical.
5e has become really boring "roll 4 times, hit 3, roll dmg, turn's over" repeat. Not to mention the bs they did with Ranger and Warlock.

Yeah... you sound like a Pathfinder fan.

I actually don't like PF, but some of it's mechanics are a better alternative than the "not hard since lv 5" mechanics of 5e

>intricate rulings
>more detailed combat rules
>Takes from PF rather than 4e
Are you insane? Applying either to 5e will be a disaster and undermine 90% of what the game is, but why the fuck would you use PF's shit instead of the almost perfect tactical combat of 4e?

>And so, I'm going to do just that: combine them.
That should not be too hard. They are very similar.
>. How anyone could like PF after playing even a little bit of 5e is beyond me
5e is just 3e/3.5/PF with some streamlining and class balancing. I've found that, in my experience, fans of one are largely fans of the other: usually it's fans of PF getting into 5e (because 5e is like a streamlined and improved PF) but I could see it going the other way (because PF is a lot like 5e, but more crunchy and more rewarding to hours spent mastering the rules and loopholes.)

They aren't identical, but discounting games that ARE identical (3e, 3.5, and every other [insert-genre]d20 game of the early 2000's) PF's closest cousin IS 5e. This makes perfect sense.

>5 times first turn*
*Once per short rest, only after hitting level 5 (when casters get 3rd level spells).
Also TWF is shit, why would you use that as an argument for imbalance. I really have no fucking clue what you mean with 5e being too easy in combat, PF may have been a balanced 3e but a polished shit is still a shit. It is still not balanced. Also how the fuck do you play 3 games, then decide that you will need to mix those games into a perfect mix, instead of just, you know, check out another game that claims to do something similar? Fantasy Craft and 13th Age are examples, and I think the even better idea is to branch out and not be so set on playing D&D/D&D clones but that's up to the group I guess.

MARTIANS?!

I was talking about a lv 20 fighter dual wielding.
Besides, why not? We want parts of one in another, why not do it?
But sure, it makes sense that if we want one with parts from a second one, we should just give up on both and go for a different one.

>Martians
>Balanced

>lv20

Nobody gives a shit what you can do at level 20.

Hell, even level 13 may as well be purely theoretical.

Long-term players do. IE: us.
If you don't count the entirety of the game when considering things, it gets out of hand.
Playing high level campaigns are also a thing, just sayin.

please do not respond to these trolls, they are just here to edition war

10-4

What are the best mechanics when it comes to combat?
As a dual wield enthusiast, I think the penalties (until feats) are a nice way to make dual wielding something that you should commit to.

And the restrictions for ranged into melee combat is good.

The dex / str split for weapons is wonderful. Dex is OP in 5e imo