So I never liked the SR4.5 term used by Cain (sorry dude, just always thought SR4A was fine) but after reading SR5 I find myself saying its sorta like Pathfinder. Ironic, I'm using a similar comparison.

For those have been around as long as I have, I like the direction SR5 is going. I'm withholding judgement on actual rules until there is some errata but there are many elements I think I will like based off the current version of the pdf.

I like the throw back to the old inititive system. Also the fact that you need hardware and skill to hack again. no more script kiddies from SR4.

SR4A had Optional Rules that enforced the Hardware and Skills requirement to be a good Hacker. If you used them.

Pathfinder is shit, however. The changes they made included a few bits of surface varnish, breaking the RNG, and still somehow trying to claim that melee was viable once the wizard got 'Fly.' SR5 looks, so far, to be a bit less shit.

DnD and pathfinder have always been wizzards win.

Sort of the point he was making there, Slide.

fwiw, in pathfinder wizards win by a smaller margin than they did in 3.5 D&D. (that is to say, they buffed fighters and barbarians etc... they just didn't buff them nearly enough to get them up to where wizards are at).

If you think Fly is unbeatable, learn to magic items.

As for SR, the story went like "I got into tech development and the devs got scared / And said "You're moving with your auntie and uncle in 3e"

Magic items mean hoping your GM is nice enough to allow you to get them. (Many are not, or for some inexplicable reason run 'low-magic' games and yet allow people to still play wiz/sorc.)

And in fact, the cool tricks wizards get in PF is /better/ than 3.5. Bonded items? Fuck yeah. No more restricted schools? Double-fuck yeah. An extra dose of special abilities for your chosen school? God, you must hate melee.

The point is, stop comparing 5E to Pathfinder, please. It's a shitty comparison.