Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?

[Arkhios]

I'm not sure what your point is, are you saying that low-level spells are useless to a high-level caster? If so, why? And why would that be true in one edition and not in another?

No no, not low level spells themselves. Assuming that one prefers to use hightened spells at higher level spell slots because they provide a better saving throw DC, the low level spell slots go to waste most of the time. In 5th edition, even those lower level spell slots remain relevant because spell saving throw DC is same for all of your spells, regardless of the spells' individual levels or the spell slots used.

In 3.5/Pathfinder, you prepare your spells into fixed-level slots, meaning that those spells you have prepared are fixed to certain save DC's as well. Not in 5th edition. Unlike before, you just prepare your spells, and can use any spell slots that are relevant for those spells, and the Save DC depends on your total level. I find this is a lot better than before.

NOTE: SPELLS ≠ SPELL SLOTS

[Jormengand]

In 3.5/Pathfinder, you prepare your spells into fixed-level slots, meaning that those spells you have prepared are fixed to certain save DC's as well. Not in 5th edition. Unlike before, you just prepare your spells, and can use any spell slots that are relevant for those spells, and the Save DC depends on your total level. I find this is a lot better than before.

But surely, that just means that you're wasting your low-level spell slots in both editions? Unless of course you prepare low-level spells that never really go out of fashion and don't have saves, like create water and mending.

[Arkhios]

But surely, that just means that you're wasting your low-level spell slots in both editions? Unless of course you prepare low-level spells that never really go out of fashion and don't have saves, like create water and mending.

No it doesn't. Actually, the latter part of your post applies only to 3.5/PF.

The spells from every level are designed so that they remain relevant at any level. Most of the low level spells (meaning 1st to 5th level spells, primarily) scale depending on the level of slot used to cast them. For example a burning hands (1st level spell) deals 3d6 fire damage when cast from 1st level slot, while from a 9th level slot, it deals 11d6 damage. Regardless of the spell slot's level, the save DC for that same spell remains the same, which depends on your character level, not on your class level nor your spell level.

[Pugwampy]

Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?

Because we are very intelligent people .

[Jormengand]

No it doesn't. The spells from every level are designed so that they remain relevant at any level. Most of the low level spells (meaning 1st to 5th level spells, primarily) scale depending on the level of slot used to cast them. For example a burning hands (1st level spell) deals 3d6 fire damage when cast from 1st level slot, while from a 9th level slot, it deals 11d6 damage. Regardless of the spell slot's level, the save DC for that same spell remains the same, which depends on your character level, not on your class level nor your spell level.

Yeah, except that the amount of damage that your low-level 5e spells does makes them pointless out of low-level slots anyway, because if you're spending your action casting them then you have bigger problems to worry about. 3.5 low-level spells not only scale semi-respectably (to the point at which there's no shame casting fireball - out of a third-level slot - at double the level you get it) but the save DCs are decent enough that you still have a chance that they'll fail anyway, especially since slow saves basically never kept up with your spellcasting in the first place.

Plus, I regard "Eventually growing out of burning hands" as a good thing, honestly. There's no point in advancing if you're just going to fire a cone of fire that does more damage at stuff that has more hit points while it tries to sword you for more damage but you have more hit points.

[Kurald Galain]

In 3.5/Pathfinder, you prepare your spells into fixed-level slots, meaning that those spells you have prepared are fixed to certain save DC's as well. Not in 5th edition. Unlike before, you just prepare your spells, and can use any spell slots that are relevant for those spells, and the Save DC depends on your total level. I find this is a lot better than before.

While it's true that 3E's wizard does not have this feature, several other 3E/PF classes do.

[Troacctid]

No it doesn't. Actually, the latter part of your post applies only to 3.5/PF.

The spells from every level are designed so that they remain relevant at any level. Most of the low level spells (meaning 1st to 5th level spells, primarily) scale depending on the level of slot used to cast them. For example a burning hands (1st level spell) deals 3d6 fire damage when cast from 1st level slot, while from a 9th level slot, it deals 11d6 damage. Regardless of the spell slot's level, the save DC for that same spell remains the same, which depends on your character level, not on your class level nor your spell level.

While there are a fair share of lower-level spells that remain relevant later on, and even a few that are worth upcasting...if you're casting a 1st level spell in a 9th level slot, something has gone horribly wrong. The main spells you're looking to upcast are the ones like Hold Person and Command, where you get additional targets instead of just doing an extra d6 of damage. And even then, you're still going to reserve your 9th level slots for actual 9th level spells.

Flattened save DCs are definitely a big deal for low-level spells, though.

[Pugwampy]

Here is an interesting but demoralizing tidbit regarding our fave system .

I read up some old interviews of Gary Gygax on the net . He was not impressed with 3rd edition .....

Our father of DnD did not give us his blessings

[Arkhios]

Yeah, except that the amount of damage that your low-level 5e spells does makes them pointless out of low-level slots anyway, because if you're spending your action casting them then you have bigger problems to worry about. 3.5 low-level spells not only scale semi-respectably (to the point at which there's no shame casting fireball - out of a third-level slot - at double the level you get it) but the save DCs are decent enough that you still have a chance that they'll fail anyway, especially since slow saves basically never kept up with your spellcasting in the first place.

Plus, I regard "Eventually growing out of burning hands" as a good thing, honestly. There's no point in advancing if you're just going to fire a cone of fire that does more damage at stuff that has more hit points while it tries to sword you for more damage but you have more hit points.

While what you say is essentially true, there's more to it than that. Everything scales differently compared to 3.5/PF. Not just how spells work. Even a low CR mook is a recognisable threat to a higher level character. A 20th level wizard is still not immortal when facing a horde of goblins. The more the merrier as they say. There's nothing wrong about preparing a close range (lower level) cone spells because they provide more tactical options. Positioning is the key. While a Fireball might deal more damage than Burning Hands, it has a much larger potential for collateral damage than Burning Hands. It's a tactical choice you have to make.

Like everything when comparing editions, one should try and see the big picture from both. Parts here or there are less likely to change your opinion about anything, but then your opinion is based only on a very narrow point of view. I can't and I won't try to explain what else is different from 3.5/Pathfinder. I strongly encourage everyone to try for themselves. Leave aside your prejudices and take it in as a different whole. Forget how things are in an earlier edition, because it's not relevant knowledge. 4th edition, as well as 5th edition, are not meant to be direct advancement from 3.5. There are more changes than just "superficial" ones.

Plus, for what it's worth, I used to be a strong 3.5 advocate (mostly because it was the edition I started with and knew best at the time) when 4th edition came, but I gave it a chance and tried it. I ended up noticing that it's actually pretty fun, in its own way. When Pathfinder was released I knew I would be playing Pathfinder a lot (as I did for about 7 years - actively). Not because it was "better" than 4th edition, but because it reminded me of 3.5 with intriguing changes. At the time 5th edition came, I'd grown to dislike the waves after waves of new content with questionable balance concerns so 5th edition was a welcome change. I've found that 5th edition is by far the best edition I've played, and I've played all them except 1st and 2nd.

[Kurald Galain]

I read up some old interviews of Gary Gygax on the net . He was not impressed with 3rd edition .....

Our father of DnD did not give us his blessings

There was a lot of bad blood and ill will between Gygax and TSR (long story involving Lorraine Williams). This did not magically go away when WOTC bought the rights to D&D, although it was eventually resolved for fourth edition. I think the result is that Gygax is uncredited in 3E, and credited for 4E and 5E.

While what you say is essentially true, there's more to it than that. Everything scales differently compared to 3.5/PF. Not just how spells work. Even a low CR mook is a recognisable threat to a higher level character.

Yes, we're aware of that. This is one of the foremost objections that people have against switching to 5E. Numerous players want high level characters to wipe the floor with low level mooks, as shown in films like Lord of the Rings or the House of Flying Daggers.

This point of view is nowhere near universal, of course; but the question of whether people like 5E largely comes down to whether or not they like bounded acc.

[Arkhios]

Yes, we're aware of that. This is one of the foremost objections that people have against switching to 5E. Numerous players want high level characters to wipe the floor with low level mooks, as shown in films like Lord of the Rings or the House of Flying Daggers.

This point of view is nowhere near universal, of course; but the question of whether people like 5E largely comes down to whether or not they like bounded acc.

But there's the fun part actually. A 20th level wizard will still wipe the floor with low level mooks, as long as they don't murder him or her first. It's a winwin, actually.

[Troacctid]

I'm pretty sure I would die of shame if my 20th level wizard ever died to a horde of CR 1/4 goblins outside of a dead magic zone.

[Jormengand]

Even a low CR mook is a recognisable threat to a higher level character. A 20th level wizard is still not immortal when facing a horde of goblins.

This is part of the reason that 5e is often considered not to have meaningful advancement. If what was once a challenge to you never becomes trivial, you've not really risen above it.

Like everything when comparing editions, one should try and see the big picture from both. Parts here or there are less likely to change your opinion about anything, but then your opinion is based only on a very narrow point of view. I can't and I won't try to explain what else is different from 3.5/Pathfinder. I strongly encourage everyone to try for themselves. Leave aside your prejudices and take it in as a different whole. Forget how things are in an earlier edition, because it's not relevant knowledge. 4th edition, as well as 5th edition, are not meant to be direct advancement from 3.5. There are more changes than just "superficial" ones.

It's not that I'm prejudiced against 5th edition, and it's not that I don't understand it. It's just that - in my opinion, which has never been humble - almost every design decision that I'm aware of that represents a change from the 3.5 design was an awful one. But if you're going to look at every disagreement with your point of view as prejudicial or narrow-minded, then you're going to, ironically, come off as prejudicial and narrow-minded.

[Kurald Galain]

But there's the fun part actually. A 20th level wizard will still wipe the floor with low level mooks, as long as they don't murder him or her first. It's a winwin, actually.

When people say that they want high-level characters to wipe the floor with mooks, they probably want a liiiiitle bit more than that the absolute best and strongest character in the game can beat the very weakest and easiest monster in the manual

[Eldariel]

If you want to avoid arguing from an agenda, you probably shouldn't be talking about a level 20 encounter, when the vast majority of campaigns never get anywhere near that level.

Campaigns not making it to level 20 is irrelevant to how a level 20 Barb without magic items fares on that level. It's just where the problem is the most polarised, but ultimately that's irrelevant. The point is to show the issues that non-casters crop up without magic items since magic items are calculated in the math of those characters (casters obviously get their immunities and buffs just fine from their spells, magic items are completely unnecessary). Of course, they're still playable but again, they have mediocre offense and absolutely no defenses that the level expects, which is mostly due to defenses not scaling properly in the system (AC, miss chances, immunities, saves are basically all more or less item-based for non-casters) while offense does.

[Arkhios]

I have a feeling that you're just looking at my point of view as devil's advocates, and a bit too much in black-and-white spirit. It's not as extreme as you seem to think it is.

But ...enough of this. Because "My edition/opinion is unquestionably superior to yours" mentality seems to be Strong in You, I give up. Have it your way.

[Kurald Galain]

Campaigns not making it to level 20 is irrelevant to how a level 20 Barb without magic items fares on that level.

Of course it does. Only a very narrow minority of players is even remotely interested in theoretical optimization, as opposed to actual gameplay. An issue that only comes up in a hypothetical situation is just not relevant.

Because "My edition/opinion is unquestionably superior to yours" mentality seems to be Strong in You, I give up. Have it your way.

Right, that's why I just wrote that liking bounded acc is an opinion that not everybody shares, and you wrote that no, it's not an opinion, it's unquestionably a "winwin"

[Jormengand]

I have a feeling that you're just looking at my point of view as devil's advocates, and a bit too much in black-and-white spirit. It's not as extreme as you seem to think it is.

But ...enough of this. Because "My edition/opinion is unquestionably superior to yours" mentality seems to be Strong in You, I give up. Have it your way.

I mean, you can take any objection to your principles as extreme and black and white. I mean, to an extent, my objections to 5e are extreme, but that's because 5e isn't even a complete game. It's barely even the idea of a complete game yet, having as it does half a skill system and not being sure whether it's rules-light or rules-heavy. But just because they're extreme doesn't mean they're not valid. My objections to FATAL are even more extreme! But that doesn't mean I can't find things I like about games I don't (yes, even FATAL) just that the things that I do like about 5e aren't really relevant in a discussion of why I don't like 5e.

[Eldariel]

Of course it does. Only a very narrow minority of players is even remotely interested in theoretical optimization, as opposed to actual gameplay. An issue that only comes up in a hypothetical situation is just not relevant.

It's not about a particular level, it's about the mathematical issues in the system. You guys were discussing level 20 for whatever reason and indeed, it is the one where they are taken to the logical extreme so I did a quick showcase there. You might notice you are also moving your objections. Initially you said "Her initial point was that a level 20 barbarian without magical items couldn't possibly hit a "typical" CR 20 monster, and now that the math shows that it can easily do so, she's instead asking for that character to solo one of the strongest encounters meant for the whole party at that level", but now you moved on to "level 20 doesn't matter" instead of arguing the point that a level 20 barb is poor at contributing against a CR 20 encounter that a party should be able to handle.

The same issues exist at various levels of severity across the level range, but the higher the level, the more blatantly obvious they become and the more black'n'white it is on a showcase, as every level equals to more scaling and thus the places where the system has issues such as lack of natural immunity acquisition or defense scaling becomes ever more obvious. You can do the same comparison on level 10 just the same; it's not as extreme but the raw numeric differences exist just the same. A level 10 Barb probably already has AB to the excess of their AC and little hope of making saves other than their Fort save.

Ultimately, it's quite irrelevant what you say. The system says everything needed. Bad saves advance at glacial pace naturally, AC doesn't advance at all and immunities are only gained by few classes none of which are martial. Meanwhile, attack bonus scales by level and by extension damage. Casters get all those things from spells so they don't need magic items, but martials do. Thus, removing magic items makes martials horribly one-dimensional and lacking in terms of defense simply because magic items are expected due to WotC/Paizo being kinda pigheaded.

[Zombimode]

No no, not low level spells themselves. Assuming that one prefers to use hightened spells at higher level spell slots because they provide a better saving throw DC, the low level spell slots go to waste most of the time. In 5th edition, even those lower level spell slots remain relevant because spell saving throw DC is same for all of your spells, regardless of the spells' individual levels or the spell slots used.

In 3.5/Pathfinder, you prepare your spells into fixed-level slots, meaning that those spells you have prepared are fixed to certain save DC's as well. Not in 5th edition. Unlike before, you just prepare your spells, and can use any spell slots that are relevant for those spells, and the Save DC depends on your total level. I find this is a lot better than before.

NOTE: SPELLS ≠ SPELL SLOTS

Just to make clear that I understand your Position: you are saying that for high-Level casters in 3.5 low Level spell Slot loose their usefulness?


If that is you Point then you are just factually wrong.
Spells are Tools. Like always you have to pick the right tool for the Job. Picking a save-dependent spell against a high-Level target is probably not a wise choice of your Action. Thankfully 3.5 spells are a diverse lot and work in various ways. Buffs don't care about save DC and retain their usefulness. Damage spells often scale (pretty much every damage spell you actually care about scales). 5d8 no save no sr is a good 1st Level spell and retains its usefulness in high Levels. Not as your main attack, but not every attacks Needs full power.
10d8 touch no save is worth to use as a main attack even in high Levels, and its juts a 2nd Level spell.
See Invisibility does not care about save DCs and retains it's usefulness throughout all Levels.
Do I Need to go on?

Edit:
Oh, just to make this clear: this is not theorycrafting or making White-room assumptions from my side. All of this Comes from actual game experience.

[Kurald Galain]

Oh, just to make this clear: this is not theorycrafting or making White-room assumptions from my side. All of this Comes from actual game experience.

No, but, see, a 20th level barbarian cannot cast invisibility!!! This is clearly relevant!!!

[death390]

But there's the fun part actually. A 20th level wizard will still wipe the floor with low level mooks, as long as they don't murder him or her first. It's a winwin, actually.

this is not a benefit of the system. there is a reason the "killer" critical tables basically disappeared from a lot of the early RPG's (excepting the ones designed for high death rate like rolemaster). people tend to not like to lose their characters to something that should not have been able to truly be a challenge in the first place.

the idea that a 1/8th cr bat could theoretically instant kill a paladin wearing full-plate an AC of 40, 50% miss chance, +15 to all saves because of a critical hit taking out his jugular was and is a stupid idea. (i had a DM that used those critical tables, think he said it was elfquest or something like that?, paladin died 4 times in 1 session and the cleric rezzed him 3 times before out of juice)

EDIT:

No, but, see, a 20th level barbarian cannot cast invisibility!!! This is clearly relevant!!!

thats just it, IT IS relevant. all mundane classes in 3.5 are balanced around the thought that they WILL have magic items they need to function in a high level environment. wizards toolbox (as it were) is still useful for many things even if save dependent things no longer are at higher levels.

with Tro's statement i did read that how they seem to be putting it. a lvl 20 barbarian without that nifty equipment does NOT contribute meaningfully in a CR 20 encounter other than MAYBE as a roadblock. the DR negates to much of his damage without PA and he can't PA or he will miss to often. he doesn't have to solo the encounter just be relevant. this is why people harp on how bad mundanes are and ToB is so good for them (even though its the most banned book i have ever had)

[Mordaedil]

Arguing that spell slots lose their importance over levels makes sense if you only think of the game as a series of highlights where the difficulty scaling is constant and persistant and all that matters is pounding the big bag of HP down until it is empty.

In older versions of D&D though, those lower level slots are excellent for utility or circumstance. True that it isn't useful for blasting, but magic missile, fireball are still often kept because they have properties higher level spells often lack (albeit fireball often creeps up as people apply metamagics to them).

[Arkhios]

Just to make clear that I understand your Position: you are saying that for high-Level casters in 3.5 low Level spell Slot loose their usefulness?

I'm not saying all of them. But quite a bit of them do. You could prepare spells as you demonstrate below, but still, considering how many low level spell slots you have compared to higher level spell slots, a majority of them might never be used during the adventuring day on a regular basis - thus becoming "wasted" resource. Now, I admit I forgot that with some classes you can choose to not prepare all slots immediately, and fill in as they are needed, which is a good thing. But that doesn't make 5th edition system any less useful than 3.5.

If that is you Point then you are just factually wrong.
Spells are Tools. Like always you have to pick the right tool for the Job. Picking a save-dependent spell against a high-Level target is probably not a wise choice of your Action. Thankfully 3.5 spells are a diverse lot and work in various ways. Buffs don't care about save DC and retain their usefulness. Damage spells often scale (pretty much every damage spell you actually care about scales). 5d8 no save no sr is a good 1st Level spell and retains its usefulness in high Levels. Not as your main attack, but not every attacks Needs full power.
10d8 touch no save is worth to use as a main attack even in high Levels, and its juts a 2nd Level spell.
See Invisibility does not care about save DCs and retains it's usefulness throughout all Levels.
Do I Need to go on?

No need. I know this from actual game experience as well. Still, I find it makes many low level spells redundant at higher levels. You could just as well wipe your ass with those pages in your spellbook after a certain point. Having quite likely spent a decent amount of gold and time (and previously, even your XP) to learn and scribe them. Not very efficient use of resources in my opinion, if you buy something and then basically toss it away as soon as a new model is in the market.

Edit:
Oh, just to make this clear: this is not theorycrafting or making White-room assumptions from my side. All of this Comes from actual game experience.

No, but, see, a 20th level barbarian cannot cast invisibility!!! This is clearly relevant!!!

That was a bit uncalled for, if it was aimed at my direction.

this is not a benefit of the system. there is a reason the "killer" critical tables basically disappeared from a lot of the early RPG's (excepting the ones designed for high death rate like rolemaster). people tend to not like to lose their characters to something that should not have been able to truly be a challenge in the first place.

the idea that a 1/8th cr bat could theoretically instant kill a paladin wearing full-plate an AC of 40, 50% miss chance, +15 to all saves because of a critical hit taking out his jugular was and is a stupid idea. (i had a DM that used those critical tables, think he said it was elfquest or something like that?, paladin died 4 times in 1 session and the cleric rezzed him 3 times before out of juice)

Luckily 5th edition doesn't have that table then. Nor does it have a paladin wearing full plate with an AC 40 with a 50% miss chance and +15 to all saves, to be frank. That's old news.

That being said, I disagree. It is a benefit of the system. 3.5/PF fundamental problem is that as soon as you can buy magic items, it becomes an arms race with no end, and when you finally get to those insanely high AC/Fort/Ref/Will values, the internal balance breaks apart because basically nothing can touch you, and you and a handful of friends could destroy the world if you wanted to. It makes you wonder, if you can reach to such power levels, why haven't someone else reached there already and why does the world still exist. (That was partially sarcasm, by the way).

Edit. To be clear, the irony regarding my sig isn't lost in me, but I wasn't trying to argue that the internal balance breaks apart because of optimization, because it doesn't even take much effort to achieve those numbers. It just happens if you gain power and magic items on a regular pace.

[Kurald Galain]

thats just it, IT IS relevant. all mundane classes in 3.5 are balanced around the thought that they WILL have magic items they need to function in a high level environment. wizards toolbox (as it were) is still useful for many things even if save dependent things no longer are at higher levels.

The level-20 comparison is still not relevant as almost no campaign ever plays at level 20. Come back with numbers for level 10 and we'll talk. Likewise, the solo numbers are still not relevant considering this is a team game. "No magic items" doesn't mean "no teammates". Add in a couple of common buffs and account for flanking, and we'll talk.

As it stands, people are just trying to reframe the practical "you can play without magical items" into the purely theoretical "a level-20 barbarian cannot solo the toughest monster at that level", which is completely unrelated (and note that this thread is about practical gameplay differences and not about theory op).

[death390]

the "killer" critical table is not in 5e is not what i was saying in the least. my point was that a low level goblin mook being able to seriously harm a 20th level character is stupid design decision.

all it does is get more millage out of a crappy monster as printed. there is a reason that there are ways to advance monsters above their base CR in 3.5. taking that goblin mook as you put it and giving him HD or class levels is a good way to increase the power of mooks so they are still mooks yet powerful, then at the same time the super powered mook, is probably well trained and equipped for a reason; part of the command structure of a horde, employed by devils/wizards/worse, or even just a veteran that has lived though some sh*t.

as others have said i would be pissed if i died to a low CR mook, yet i wouldn't be as pissed if i died to the super powered mook from hell. still be pissed that i died but that's the game, i'll wait to get rezzed or make a new char and i'm fine with that.


there is a difference between painting with the 7 colors of the rainbow + black and white vs painting with the colors you see a a home depot's paint department. 5e might have the color red but 3.5 has the basic red as well as light red, dark red, maroon, ect ect ect.

[Mordaedil]

Well, in Forgotten Realms, a lot of people have reached that level of power. And usually the ones that are that powerful run the world.

Also it's hinted at that people who exceed level 10 are legendary people in the setting, if only defined by the legend lore spell.

Oh and the world still exists because nobody has an outright goal of destroying the world among these people. They are self-interested, but they all realize they don't live in a vacuum.

That's kinda the point of fantasy.

[Florian]

That being said, I disagree. It is a benefit of the system. 3.5/PF fundamental problem is that as soon as you can buy magic items, it becomes an arms race with no end, and when you finally get to those insanely high AC/Fort/Ref/Will values, the internal balance breaks apart because basically nothing can touch you, and you and a handful of friends could destroy the world if you wanted to. It makes you wonder, if you can reach to such power levels, why haven't someone else reached there already and why does the world still exist. (That was partially sarcasm, by the way).

Come on, the simulation argument is meaningless. A game world is only there to give context to a group game and doesn't exist on its own. Not even the most hard-core sandbox gm would do that.

The problem with d20 is not items per se. It was not the worst move to anticipate items and just accept that a class should be 2/3 and items 1/3 of performance, ie. having 20 BAB and needing 10 more from items and accepting that. It just broke down when the system started to have "x2" instead of the intended "+2" items....

[PersonMan]

When 4e came out, I had a bunch of 3.5 books and was still buying more. What I saw of 4e was neat but not interesting enough to get me to abandon the system I already knew (I was also a kid who didn't have the means to go out and buy a bunch of new hardcovers).

5e was actually pretty similar, except for the last bit. I've played some of it, I've read part of the PHB, and to me it seems fine, but not different + better enough than 3.5 to justify a switch. Similarly, Pathfinder didn't really grow on me as an option for a while because it seemed like losing the "I know the rules" confidence wasn't worth it. What ended up winning me over were the Adventure Paths and setting, and even then I've spent very little because of the PFSRD.

Plus, I think my mindset is just such that I prefer to try and fix what I have before finding something else. I'd rather fiddle with 3.5/PF to resolve issues with magic items, for example, than pick up an entire new system because it's resolved the issue - it just isn't worth the effort, to me, of learning all the differences for marginal benefit.

[gooddragon1]

Similarly, Pathfinder didn't really grow on me as an option for a while because it seemed like losing the "I know the rules" confidence wasn't worth it.

It just isn't worth the effort, to me, of learning all the differences for marginal benefit.

I'm of this opinion with PF.

I'm just not seeing the benefit enough. Played 3.5 for years. People could break it if they wanted to theoretically, but in practice we didn't.

Looks fine though.

Of course, I am posting this from a 32 bit OS windows pc running windows 7...