What does a 3.P DM need to know in switching to 5E?

[Roxxy]

Pathfinder has historically been my game of choice, but in my current community, it just isn't well liked at all. It's all 5E, all the time, so that's what I've got to run. Pathfinder and grad school don't necessarily mix, anyway, and I will admit 5E looks easier on a DM. So, what does somebody who started D&D with 3.5, then moved on to Pathfinder, need to know about running 5E? All of my inborn assumptions about how D&D works come from the 3E era, and even non D&D games I own are very often still based on 3E, like Deadlands D20 or Weird Wars D20. From playing a bit of 5E, I've noticed that some of my default assumptions aren't true, like how to grapple, or charging, or the lack of BAB.

So far, I've got the Player's Handbook, DM's Guide, and Monster Manual, as well as the Eberron Wayfarer's Guide, and I'm backing EN5ider on Patreon. I'm planning on starting out with a module campaign set in Eberron (I'm too busy to work on my own worldbuilding projects and DM at the same time, and Eberron is my favorite published setting), though I'm debating whether to get the 5E module or try converting and old 3E module. How hard is converting 3.P to 5E, anyway? I still have my 3E Eberron books.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Pathfinder has historically been my game of choice, but in my current community, it just isn't well liked at all. It's all 5E, all the time, so that's what I've got to run. Pathfinder and grad school don't necessarily mix, anyway, and I will admit 5E looks easier on a DM. So, what does somebody who started D&D with 3.5, then moved on to Pathfinder, need to know about running 5E? All of my inborn assumptions about how D&D works come from the 3E era, and even non D&D games I own are very often still based on 3E, like Deadlands D20 or Weird Wars D20. From playing a bit of 5E, I've noticed that some of my default assumptions aren't true, like how to grapple, or charging, or the lack of BAB.

So far, I've got the Player's Handbook, DM's Guide, and Monster Manual, as well as the Eberron Wayfarer's Guide, and I'm backing EN5ider on Patreon. I'm planning on starting out with a module campaign set in Eberron (I'm too busy to work on my own worldbuilding projects and DM at the same time, and Eberron is my favorite published setting), though I'm debating whether to get the 5E module or try converting and old 3E module. How hard is converting 3.P to 5E, anyway? I still have my 3E Eberron books.

Two major things:

-- discard any mechanical knowledge you have from 3.P. Even if things use the same words, they're different. The underlying philosophy is very different as well. Make sure to read the section on ability checks in the DMG. Come at the mechanics with a fresh eye.
-- conversions are best done thematically, not mechanically. Find monsters that fit the scenario and use the new versions instead of trying to match things exactly. Be wary of giving class levels to monsters--that's not the default process of 5e. Instead, 5e monsters/NPCs are built ad hoc, giving them whatever abilities, scores, etc, they need to play their part in the fiction.

Other things:
-- 5e is not simulationist at all. It's fiction-first. The rules are there to give you tools to resolve common tasks, not to constrain you. The phrase is "rulings over rules." Do what makes sense first, don't worry about whether it's RAW. The rules are for the game, not for the underlying world
-- There's an Eberron "setting guide" on the DM's Guild (Wayfarer's Guide to Eberron). It's still a work in progress, but it might help. I saw you already mentioned this.

[Kane0]

- Proficiency bonus is used for skill/ability checks, attacks and saving throws instead of BAB, save progressions and skill points. It's all based off Stat + Proficiency, and the numbers are lower and scale slower. HP and abilities/options are the primary differentiation between low and high levels.
- Due to reduced scaling of basic numbers (skills, attacks, damage, AC) it is expected that low CR creatures remain a threat to higher level parties in significant numbers. This is intended.

- You have a saving throw type for each attribute.
- You can't have a stat higher than 20 by normal means, nor a stat higher than 30 by any means.
- Movement is not an action, and actions can happen between movement. Bonus actions are like swifts, reactions are like immediates. No action can be traded for another type. You can also make one interaction (grab a weapon, open a door, etc) per turn for free.
- You cannot delay, only ready an action.
- Only one thing provokes an AoO: Moving out of a creatures reach.
- Learn the advantage / disadvantage mechanic, it replaces 90% of fiddly +1s and +2s.
- Dying works differently. You only die outright when you take damage equal to your max HP in one hit after reaching 0. When reduced to 0 you make saving throws, three successes stabilizes you and 3 failures you die. Taking damage while making death saves counts as one failure.
- Damage resistance, reduction and vulnerability is simplified. It's half damage, doesn't exist (as such) and double damage respectively.

- There are two kinds of rest: short and long. There is expected to be two short rests for every long on average, which is important to maintain balance short rest classes (monk, warlock) against long rest classes (paladin, sorcerer).
- Everybody can heal via hit die, which are spent during short rests.

- Concentration is a thing you need to know well. Most buff, debuff and control spells need concentration, and you can concentrate on one thing at a time. You have a chance to lose concentration each time you take damage.
- All casting is 'spontaneous', though the list of spells available for you to choose from may change based on how your class handles it.

- Levels 1-3 are supposed to go by very quickly, and 4-5 fairly quickly. The majority of PC time is angled to be spent in the level 6-11 range.
- Encounter design and challenge rating is also different. A CR 6 enemy is an easy (little resource expenditure & low chance of falling) challenge for a level 6 party of 4, not an easy challenge for a single level 6 character. You are expected to deal with half a dozen or so medium encounters on an adventuring day, not one or two hard ones.
- Don't use any optional rules to start with. This includes multiclassing and feats.
- The core math of the game does not expect you to get magic items by default. You can play through levels 1 to 20 without seeing a magic item at all, anything you get/give is a bonus.

Golden Rule: Thou shalt not assume to know that which shares a name
Sneak attack works differently. Protection from Evil works differently. Critical hits work differently. Do not skim over things that look familiar because they are almost all different in subtle ways that become very apparent in play.

[Knaight]

Generally the easiest way to approach it is to assume 5e is a totally unfamiliar game with no points of comparison, try to learn it from scratch, and ignore any perceptual similarities while learning it. They're extremely similar games, yes, but there are enough differences to make trying to learn it as a set of rule differences inadvisable.

You've noticed issues in your default assumptions, which is good. However it's better to straight up destroy those default assumptions. This is counter intuitive, but there's a case to be made for learning a game with fundamentally different core mechanics first to shake the D&D 3.x assumptions off of you. Learn d6 Space or something, then go back to 5e.

[Eragon123]

http://annahrose.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/e7accf4a634d77baaa166c418e376a24.jpg

[Trask]

Its ok to rely on your own judgement and common sense instead of scanning the rulebook. Making your own judgements is expressly pointed out as a virtue.

[guachi]

Like others have said, don't try to run a 5e game like a 3.5e or PF game. Read the Basic Rules (the free pdf). The text is lifted directly from the PHB, DMG, and MM but it's stripped of lots of extraneous text so you can get just the, well, basics.

You'll get a good overview of the rules that way.

[ad_hoc]

Forget everything.

Start fresh. New game. Old terms but new meanings.

5e has an entirely different philosophy.

[Malifice]

Managing the adventuring day gives you a lot of dials and levers you can pull to reinforce or play with class and encounter balance.

Adding more short rests per long rest buffs Fighters, Monks and Warlocks. And just like in 3.P, 5 minute adventuring days favor full casters and other long rest dependent classes (Paladin, Barbarian).

The game is roughly balanced around an expectation of around 2-3 short rests per long rest, and long rest resources are expected to last for around 6-8 encounters.

That doesnt mean that you have to enforce 6+ encounter adventuring days, each of which has 2-3 short rests. But you should try and have that in as your general median, with a healthy scattering of shorter adventuring days, days with fewer short rests, days with more short rests, and even the odd day with more than 6 encounters.

Doom clocks work well. Using the gritty realism rest variant works well also (and takes some pressure of the DM to manage the adventuring day).

[strangebloke]

Really, other than the nuance and meaning of roles, biggest two switches are the departure from simulation, and bounded accuracy.

A lot has already been said about bounded accuracy. A DC 20 task will remain somewhat difficult at all levels for most characters, even ones who are 'good' at that thing. If you push the system to it's limits, DC's as high as 40 can be hit, but only at high levels. So don't go crazy scaling things up. You can have an entire campaign where the party only fights increasingly large groups of goblins.

Secondly, simulation. There are example DC's, but they're suggestions, not rules. Ability checks (which encompass initiative, skills, and contested checks) may or may not even be required. Climbing, for example, is automatic unless there's something that makes the wall hard to climb. Be aware that you can simple say 'it's actually impossible' when s player describes some action. You must do this because bounded accuracy means that a moron can still beat a DC 23 a couple times a week.

Don't let your players roll for everything! They describe their actions, you describe wanna check they need.

[Teaguethebean]

Just an important note opportunity attacks only happen when someone walks away from somebody without using the disengage action no other things activate opportunity attacks unless it's a special ability

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Do what my DM do.

I am in charge of the rulles in my table as I have a very good memory and notes on most of the rules(I am new to 5e and still making notes but I have note for almost every 3.5e and remember 60+ books).

[Pelle]

You should know when to call for Ability (Skill) checks, and maybe more importantly when not to call for them.

[Arkhios]

Here's some of my personal thoughts that struck me the most when I was learning the ropes as a 3rd edition veteran:

One of the biggest issues many seem to have trouble in realizing is the ability scores and how high they can get.

In 3.P (and to same extent in 4e) ability scores are easy to increase above 20, and reach as high as 30 or more.

Not in 5e. Every ability score has a hard cap of 20. Only a specific exception can increase them beyond 20, and those are rare. Most of them require 20th class level (barbarian) or are very rare or even legendary magic items (item rarity is a definitive trait for magic items, where legendary is second only to artifacts, so they are pretty much the rarest items that can be found).

Also, Ability Scores increase by class level, not by character level. If feats are in use, each opportunity to increase an ability score is interchangeable to gaining a feat instead (Feats are an optional rule, which is also important to realise, and each of them are bigger, whole concepts unlike they were in previous editions -- feat chains are gone).

From feats being optional we get to another similar "oddity" compared to previous editions. Multiclassing is also an optional rule. Effectively this means that the "core" game includes only races, classes, subclasses, ability scores, and backgrounds. Mundane items and spells included of course.

Similarly, magic items are not a mandatory part of the game; that is, a whole campaign can be run without gaining a single magic item. All classes are still going to be relevant at each level. Note, magic item stores are, by default, intended to be practically nonexistent, and as a result (or maybe it's the reason?) magic item pricing is vague at best. Meaning that magic items can't be bought or sold, by default. So players should be reminded not to assume their characters will get specific items. In general I'd say it's inadvisable to build a character around the assumption of getting a magic item.
Many magic items require attunement, and you can have attunement only on 3 items at a time. So the "christmas tree effect" is a lot less common than before.

[MoiMagnus]

Don't give (too much) magical items !
That was my main mistake in my first 5e campaign.

If give to your PCs access to +1 weapons and +1 armors, then you should either scale up the difficulty of encounter, either give +1 weapons/+1 armors to your monsters too. Monster are balanced against PCs without magical weapons.

Magic items are optional, and it is suggested by the rule that "finding someone that can sell this item I want" could be a quest by itself. (With an enemy trying to get the weapon before the PCs, with the weapon being a fake or a trap, ...).

(Same for finding someone interested in buying the magical items founds when looting.)

[DanyBallon]

Like mostly everyone already said: forget every rules you know from 3.P and get in 5e as if you were completely new to the game. While both are definitely D&D, their design philosophy is completely different.

Ask for an ability check only when there is a significant chance of failure. (i.e if climbing a wall is only to slow down the party, then no check is needed. On the other hand, if climbing the same wall is what will make the difference between an escape or getting caught by the guards, then a check is required)

Advantage and disadvantage are used to replace all the condition modifiers that were common in 3.P. Also any single instance of Advantage or Disadvantage cancel out the other.

Remember that the game flow goes as follow:
1- DM describe the situation/area/room/etc.
2- Player's tell the DM what their character want to do
3- DM determine if a roll is needed, and describe the outcome of the character actions
4- repeat from step 1

Lastly, welcome to D&D 5e and I hope you'll enjoy the game as much as we do :smallsmile:

[rmnimoc]

I figure I might as well share some things I wish I was told when I made the switch, first it's really important to remember that high level pathfinder heroes are Cu Chulainn, Merlin, or Hercules where high level 5E characters are Galdalf or Aragorn. If you try to put 5E characters in pathfinder fights, the 5E characters are going to die every time.

Second, the ceiling and floor are a whole lot closer. Regardless of optimization level most characters will be in the same ballpark.

Third, magic items are expected to be somewhere between rare and nonexistent when it comes to things like challenge rating. Keep this in mind if you let your players craft magic items or if you give them nice things.

Finally, things don't easily port between 3.P and 5e. It'd be easier to create them from scratch in 5e than to port.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One note about magic items--

The ones that significantly change the balance environment are those that give +X to AC, save DCs, or Attack rolls. You can have a magic sword that does cool things without giving any numerical bonuses to those factors and it doesn't change much.

* A +1 weapon is "safe" beyond about level 5-6, a +2 at ~9-10, and a +3 at around level 14-16.
* Armor is more an issue since it's hard for monsters to pump their attack bonuses. Giving a +3 armor should only happen very rarely.
* Save DC items are even more dangerous, since there's no crit rule for save DCs. Having disabling effects that just can't be saved against by lower CR monsters distorts the balance assumptions considerably.

Monster CRs (ACs and ATK bonus especially) are balanced around no +X items. A rough rule of thumb is that every +1 item counts as if the character is one higher level. So a +3 sword and +3 armor counts like 6 levels higher (and thus only works well for epic-scale enemies with CR > 20).

Giving more damage isn't that distorting.

[Millface]

In the simplest terms, as a guy who begrudgingly (at first) switched from 3.5 to 5e...

It's super easy to break the balance of 5e, and 5e is an entirely different game than 3.X. I started out with the same stat arrays, the same magic item dispersal, the same tendency to say yes to weird character concepts that included bonuses or pets or gimmes of any kind as long as I liked the backstory... I broke the ever living crap out of the game and the first campaign was honestly a huge mess because of it.

So, tl;dr, just don't try to turn 5e into 3.P and you'll be fine. It might seem unfun or like it's killing you creatively at first, and it is removing some of your options, but I eventually found the ruleset to be really efficient. At the end of the day, I like 5e better because my games run smoother and new players are easier to teach and engage.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The biggest difference to be aware of is the way skills work, I think. Or don't work, depending on your personal preference. 3.PF was very much a game of specialists, at least when it came to skills. Even leaving aside the rules about trained-only checks, you could be confident that the Fighter would never out-roll the Wizard on a Knowledge (Arcana) check, and that the Cleric would never out-lockpick the Rogue*. You could expect even level 1 characters to reliably hit DC 20+ checks in the skills they invested in. 5e, by contrast, makes itself a game of generalist. The Wizard is still better at Arcana than the Fighter...but only statistically. Especially at low levels, skill check bonuses in the 2-5 range mean that no one is reliably hitting anything-- the flat RNG curve of the d20 has a tendency to overpower whatever's actually written on your character sheet.

Because of that, you need to treat 5e skill proficiency more like guidelines. Be aware that a single check will have essentially random results-- statistically, the Wizard will succeed on more Arcana rolls than the Fighter, but you can't really tell that on the ground. Do everything you can to avoid calling for checks-- allow auto-successes to characters who have an appropriate proficiency, use passive scores, use group checks, encourage the Help action instead of "I roll too," and so on. Just... whatever you do, don't have the gnome roll to see if they can sit on a human-sized chair.

That, and be aware that there are major power spikes at levels 5 and 11, and that monsters reflect this-- a CR 5 monster is way scarier compared to a CR 4 than the CR 4 is to a CR 3.


In the simplest terms, as a guy who begrudgingly (at first) switched from 3.5 to 5e...

It's super easy to break the balance of 5e, and 5e is an entirely different game than 3.X. I started out with the same stat arrays, the same magic item dispersal, the same tendency to say yes to weird character concepts that included bonuses or pets or gimmes of any kind as long as I liked the backstory... I broke the ever living crap out of the game and the first campaign was honestly a huge mess because of it.
This is literally the exact opposite of my experience.

[strangebloke]

In the simplest terms, as a guy who begrudgingly (at first) switched from 3.5 to 5e...

It's super easy to break the balance of 5e, and 5e is an entirely different game than 3.X. I started out with the same stat arrays, the same magic item dispersal, the same tendency to say yes to weird character concepts that included bonuses or pets or gimmes of any kind as long as I liked the backstory... I broke the ever living crap out of the game and the first campaign was honestly a huge mess because of it.

So, tl;dr, just don't try to turn 5e into 3.P and you'll be fine. It might seem unfun or like it's killing you creatively at first, and it is removing some of your options, but I eventually found the ruleset to be really efficient. At the end of the day, I like 5e better because my games run smoother and new players are easier to teach and engage.

On the contrary, I think the game is really really balanced. IF you specialize, you can get really dominant in one area, like DPR or skill usage, but there's an opportunity cost there. Even the warlock who picked crappy spells and invocations will still have a couple huge nukes to drop and will be dealing solid damage every turn.

What I DO think is that its easier in 5e to mess up the encounter balance. In 3.5 it all came down to numbers. If the monster had the right AC, DPR, saves, and immunities, the party would have a tough time killing it if they didn't have the right preparation, or an easy time if they had the exact right weapon for the job. So I felt a little more free to make up things as I went.

5e encourages you to have fun with your encounter. There's fewer things to keep track of and so you can do more with environment, mobs, etc. The danger here is that due to bounded accuracy a large number of creatures with a terrain advantage can slaughter your PCs. Consider a mob of 15 wood elf scouts fighting against a party in the rain.

Yes, this could happen in 3.x too, but the idea there was more of preparation. You get the spell that makes you immune to necrotic energy before you face the lich. Duh. That combat-as-war mentality is a little weaker in 5e; preparation doens't yield nearly the same dividends.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That, and be aware that there are major power spikes at levels 5 and 11, and that monsters reflect this-- a CR 5 monster is way scarier compared to a CR 4 than the CR 4 is to a CR 3.


This is true. There's another, smaller spike at level 17 as well.



This is literally the exact opposite of my experience.

I very much agree. 5e is quite robust to changes unless you start throwing in lots of stacking modifiers to AC, attack bonuses, or save dcs. Incidentally, that's what bounded accuracy in its strong form covers.

Players should hit ~65-70% of the time (hitting on an 8 or so), monsters should hit high AC characters about 40-50% of the time and low AC characters about 60-70% of the time. Roughly.

[awa]

On the contrary, I think the game is really really balanced.

"...the same magic item dispersal, the same tendency to say yes to weird character concepts that included bonuses or pets or gimmes of any kind.."

I think hes saying he broke the game because he handed out items like it was 3.5 which is not what the game was intended for.

Not that the game is inherently unbalanced

[Pex]

A major difference in 5E is there's no such thing as a 5 ft step. Anyone can move up to their speed and do whatever it is they want to do. They can move before or after they do their thing. They can move part of their speed, do their thing, then move the rest of their speed.

At 5th level warrior classes can make 2 attacks. Their Action for their turn is to take the Attack Action. The Attack Action allows them two attacks. The above paragraph applies. A 5th level warrior with 30 ft speed can move 30 ft and attack twice. He can attack twice then move 30 ft. He can move 10 ft, attack twice, then move 20 ft. He may also split his attacks. He may attack once, move 20 ft, take his second attack against another opponent, then move 10 ft more, or any combination of movement and attacking.

For ability checks (skills) for the most part you need to make up your own DCs. You need to decide for yourself whether something is easy or hard. Since players cannot initiate saying they Take 10/20 you also need to decide when it's appropriate a PC can do something just because he wants to do it. Players don't have to roll for everything. If you need assistance you can use the 3E skill DC tables as a guide. Subtract 5 from all the listed DC to reflect the game math of 5E. When something gives a +# to a player's roll, give Advantage. When it's a-# give Disadvantage. This isn't perfect, but it's a place to start until you get the hang of doing this on your own.

Proficiency in 5E is not a gateway. A PC does not need proficiency in a skill to use that skill. A DC does not become lower or higher depending on if a PC is proficient or not. Being proficient only means he may add his proficiency modifier to his ability check for that skill.

[MilkmanDanimal]

5e is incredibly well-balanced, and, while there are certain subclasses or multiclass combinations that are more or less optimal than others, you can build a pretty lousy character and still be reasonably successful. A big part of the 3.5 experience for lots of people was optimizing character builds and carefully planning out feats and upgrades so you could make a super-character, and that's very much gone, as the game is really focused on finding a decent balance for everyone.

[Millface]

On the contrary, I think the game is really really balanced. IF you specialize, you can get really dominant in one area, like DPR or skill usage, but there's an opportunity cost there. Even the warlock who picked crappy spells and invocations will still have a couple huge nukes to drop and will be dealing solid damage every turn.

What I DO think is that its easier in 5e to mess up the encounter balance. In 3.5 it all came down to numbers. If the monster had the right AC, DPR, saves, and immunities, the party would have a tough time killing it if they didn't have the right preparation, or an easy time if they had the exact right weapon for the job. So I felt a little more free to make up things as I went.

5e encourages you to have fun with your encounter. There's fewer things to keep track of and so you can do more with environment, mobs, etc. The danger here is that due to bounded accuracy a large number of creatures with a terrain advantage can slaughter your PCs. Consider a mob of 15 wood elf scouts fighting against a party in the rain.

Yes, this could happen in 3.x too, but the idea there was more of preparation. You get the spell that makes you immune to necrotic energy before you face the lich. Duh. That combat-as-war mentality is a little weaker in 5e; preparation doens't yield nearly the same dividends.

Sorry, I didn't explain that part very well. The RAW of 5e is quite balanced, impressively so, if you go against it, though, the game breaks fast. My example of that is letting characters start with the same stats as I always used to in 3.5 (18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14) and handing out +3 Longswords at level 9 because that's when I'd do it in 3.5 (before I understood the tight balance of 5e I thought alot of the changes were arbitrarily stupid, so I didn't follow them). By level 11 I'd blown them so out of the system's power balance that the entire MM was basically trash unless I buffed monster HP by 2-4x the original value.

The point of saying it was easy to break was just to warn a new DM to stick to the RAW for the most part at first, until you have a solid understanding of how the new system works and why the rules are the way they are. It wasn't 5E's fault that my first campaign was insanity to run (players loved it, incidentally), it was mine for holding too tight to how things were in 3.5.

[GlenSmash!]

Too get the most basic grasp on running the game I recommend reading the basic rules: http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PlayerBasicRulesV03.pdf
http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/DMBasicRulesV05.pdf

You can quite literally run the game with just those. However if I wanted to run it really well I'd read Chapter 8 of the DMG too.

[Unoriginal]

Sorry, I didn't explain that part very well. The RAW of 5e is quite balanced, impressively so, if you go against it, though, the game breaks fast.

This is quite true. I love 5e and it is well-done and well-thought almost always, but if you go against its flow it breaks fast.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is quite true. I love 5e and it is well-done and well-thought almost always, but if you go against its flow it breaks fast.

I can agree with that. I'd say that most "failures" of 5e come from trying to play 3e using the 5e ruleset. The basic assumptions of the system are very different even if the language is similar.

[Unoriginal]

I can agree with that. I'd say that most "failures" of 5e come from trying to play 3e using the 5e ruleset. The basic assumptions of the system are very different even if the language is similar.

Indeed, indeed.

[Ignimortis]

If you ever ran a game of E6 in 3.PF, then 5e should turn out to be more familiar in the general tone. It's very much a grounded system - not gritty by any means, but 3.PF is "peasant to demigod" in 20 levels, whereas 5e is more "somewhat competent mortal to very competent mortal". There are no Horsemen of the Apocalypse playable in 5e, but it does something around Lord of the Rings level well enough - Boromir did fight half a hundred orcs for some time before falling, and took out a significant chunk of them.

Also, if you have players coming over from 3.PF too, they should keep in mind that the only unique subsystem in play is magic. There are variations on it with Pact Magic of Warlocks and Ki-based casting of some Monks. Otherwise, player characters can't produce explicit effects by "pressing a button" without magic. As someone who tried to play 5e after 3.PF, this turned out to be the main reason I didn't take to the system - martial classes get too few unique tricks if they don't go for magic (Paladin/Eldritch Knight/Ranger). Expect the core-only designs of early 3e to usually work (better than they did in 3e) - Fighters and Barbarians are there to smash stuff, not do special things. I wouldn't recommend 5e to any fan of the Tome of Battle/Path of War subsystems. There isn't a good replacement for Magus or Gunslinger, either.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you ever ran a game of E6 in 3.PF, then 5e should turn out to be more familiar in the general tone. It's very much a grounded system - not gritty by any means, but 3.PF is "peasant to demigod" in 20 levels, whereas 5e is more "somewhat competent mortal to very competent mortal". There are no Horsemen of the Apocalypse playable in 5e, but it does something around Lord of the Rings level well enough - Boromir did fight half a hundred orcs for some time before falling, and took out a significant chunk of them.

Also, if you have players coming over from 3.PF too, they should keep in mind that the only unique subsystem in play is magic. There are variations on it with Pact Magic of Warlocks and Ki-based casting of some Monks. Otherwise, player characters can't produce explicit effects by "pressing a button" without magic. As someone who tried to play 5e after 3.PF, this turned out to be the main reason I didn't take to the system - martial classes get too few unique tricks if they don't go for magic (Paladin/Eldritch Knight/Ranger). Expect the core-only designs of early 3e to usually work (better than they did in 3e) - Fighters and Barbarians are there to smash stuff, not do special things. I wouldn't recommend 5e to any fan of the Tome of Battle/Path of War subsystems. There isn't a good replacement for Magus or Gunslinger, either.

Ki is not magic (in the spells sense). And even non-4E monks can create effects that otherwise would require spells.

One ki (pun intended) distinction between 3e and 5e (and 4e especially) is that 5e does not expect you to have "buttons to press" to do most things. Class abilities and spells give you guaranteed abilities, but the baseline is competent. You don't need an explicit ability to TWF, only to do it better. Everyone can shove and grapple, some can do it better. You don't have to have training to do tasks--proficiency and class abilities help you do it better or more reliably.

That said, you're right in that currently the main "subsystem" is spell-casting. Other, lesser subsystems are
* Battlemaster's maneuvers
* Ki-fueled abilities
* sorcery points/meta-magic
* alternate uses of bardic inspiration (very limited, however)

[Ignimortis]

Ki is not magic (in the spells sense). And even non-4E monks can create effects that otherwise would require spells.

One ki (pun intended) distinction between 3e and 5e (and 4e especially) is that 5e does not expect you to have "buttons to press" to do most things. Class abilities and spells give you guaranteed abilities, but the baseline is competent. You don't need an explicit ability to TWF, only to do it better. Everyone can shove and grapple, some can do it better. You don't have to have training to do tasks--proficiency and class abilities help you do it better or more reliably.

That said, you're right in that currently the main "subsystem" is spell-casting. Other, lesser subsystems are
* Battlemaster's maneuvers
* Ki-fueled abilities
* sorcery points/meta-magic
* alternate uses of bardic inspiration (very limited, however)

To be honest, you can TWF in 3.PF without an ability, too. It's just bad. The baseline for combat maneuvers and proficiency in them in 3.PF core is "barely competent, don't try anything impractical" and it's supposed to be improved through feats and stuff. Same with grappling and shoving, etc.

Battlemaster's maneuvers are...very limited in scope. Bardic Inspiration even more so. There are some nice unique effects, but. well. Ki abilities are the same - there are very few uses for them that aren't subclass dependent, and subclasses mostly add either spell effect duplication or 1-2 unique ones. Sorcery points aren't a subsystem - those are modifications for spells, they don't give abilities by themselves, they allow you to use spells in different ways.

There's no comparison or analogue in 5e to a Veiled Moon practitioner telefragging three people in two seconds or sending someone to the Shadow Plane, a Desert Fire specialist dancing across the battlefield to make whoever they touch explode into flames, etc. I assume that was an informed decision by the designers to exclude this type of thing, but, well, some people miss that in 5e.

[Demonslayer666]

I am not in the "forget everything" boat. The similarities between 5e and 3.P are so numerous that if you ran 3e without troubles, you will not have any trouble running 5e. It's still D&D. The game is not broken by playing with feats and magic items.

Lots of stuff has major changes (fatigue, feats, Opportunity Attacks). Some stuff is gone (BAB, 5' step, negative HP, partial rounds and actions, miss chance), and some stuff is new (inspiration, advantage/disadvantage, resting, death).

My table can't get past the notion that there is no 5' step any more. After two years of playing 5e, they still do it as players and DMs.

My advice to you is try and become familiar with the new stuff before running your game. When casting a spell, read the spell description - don't go off prior knowledge. The basics are the same, a fireball is still a big ball of fire, you roll initiative to determine order, and you have to roll to hit an AC until the HP run out to defeat a monster.

Use a 5e module if you can. After running The Curse of the Crimson Throne and converting it to 5e, it's quite a chore to convert custom Pathfinder creatures to 5e. It can be done, but it required a lot of prep work each week for my game.