Please help me

Gun to my head, I'd definitely pick 5e. But I'm not happy about it OK.

Strike! or Dungeonworld.

What is the difference between Pathdinder and D&D 3.5? They both seem pretty identical from what I can see.

3.5 at least has some good books for martials. Pathfinder is pure wizard Edition

pathfinder is worse. basically just a mish mash of uncoordinated house rules, some additional "classes" (half of which are unusable) and feat trees that sometimes lack feats that are neccesary to get later feats.

Pathfinder is a testiment to the backlash from D&D fans 4e got and the poor management by WotC did with 4e's roll out, that pathfinder has been as successful as it has been given it's utterly terribleness as a system.

Hopefully as more people move onto 5e pathfinder will wither and die in the stinking swamp of dead systems alongside FATAL and 3.0, as it deserves to.

You forgot the furries and faggots. Go look at the OP pic of the Pathfinder general right now if you don't believe me.

GURPS

Row Row Fight the Powa'!

3.5 is best edition fgts

Seriously though, both suck. I like 3e cause I have all the book and knw all the rules. 5e is bland and gay but if you're a casual like OP it's the better choice.

If you absolutely have no other choice, then 5e.

If you and/or your players don't know either of them, you could try a better fantasy game, such as RuneQuest 6e or Adventurer Conquerer King.

5e runs smoother and has more danger while still allowing for ridiculously fantastical power levels and high magic settings. It encourages role playing, is easier to learn, and the pre-published material is at least as good as the best Paizo has produced.

Pathfinder had a better SRD which is required because the game is impossible to run using books alone. It's miserable to GM, and is broken in more ways than it isn't. Paizo has also taken to changing rules dramatically through errata and have a raging hate boner for martial characters.

I'll second RQ6 (soon to be rerelease D as Mythras because of licensing issues). Free rules attached.

FantasyCraft

>my pathfinder group only has one furry
>he usually plays a human

If they're first-time players or haven't played D&D before, get them into D&D 5e. It's quick and easy to learn and great for new players, and it's the sort of game where the DM is encouraged to improvise and let players try unusual things -- if a player asks if they can do something, pick an ability score or a skill, set a difficulty number, and tell them to roll it.

If they've played a lot of tabletop or they were into D&D 3.5 back in the day, then they'll probably be more comfortable with Pathfinder, since it's just 3.5 with some sparkles and christmas lights thrown over it.

This. Pathfinder's setting is a heaping pile of hot garbage, and they add more stupid shit to it with each new book.

This too. Paizo doesn't give a single shit about non-casters, and there's an enormous power and utility disparity between casters and non-casters that they refuse to address or even acknowledge, and the fanbase drank deep of the kool-aid. Caster supremacy still exists in 5e but they're at least trying to bring it under control. Not trying very hard, but still trying.

How is it exactly Paizo shits on martials so much? I'm genuinely curious to know.

>new group
I'd go 5e, then. All other opinions aside it's agreed that there's simply less that can go wrong.

If they're not NEW new, I'm throwing my hat in with .

>inb4 it's realistic and intentional for martials to suck

Going by D&D 3.5 core material, casters got all the cool toys while martials were stuck standing in one place and full attacking. Whereas casters could buff themselves to become better fighters than the fighter, create demiplanes, call down cosmic flames, mind control their enemies, rewrite reality at a whim, fly, reshape the terrain, render mundane skills useless by casting any number of utility spells to bypass any checks, and all kinds of other incredible abilities, non-casters got to stand there and swing weapons using sub-par combat rules because "it's realistic."

Pathfinder perpetuates this and made only a feeble, weak attempt to buff non-casters by giving them a few nice token abilities that let them fight better -- you know, the thing they were already good at. Then the casters got all kinds of great new features and new spells as well, with a new host of spells in every book giving them even more extensive versatility. They steadfastly refuse to fix anything that's broken and think releasing new feats (contributing to the already-bloated feat list) counts as balancing martials. Any dev who gets a good idea for something martial gets it nerfed to hell (see: gunslinger drama during Advanced Player's Guide development).

Paizo also perpetuated the ivory tower / player trap design that 3.5 had, where some options are deliberately (rather than accidentally) sub-optimal as a way to reward savvy players. In 3.5 and Pathfinder it's very easy to accidentally make a bad or even useless character by picking options that look good on paper but turn out to be bad in play -- or even just picking something that seems appropriate for your character, but also turns out to be bad.

In D&D 5e it's actually difficult to accidentally make a bad character -- sure, there are fewer choices to make, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Rather than juggling dozens of skillpoints and having to dig through 100+ feats, you choose which skills you want to be good at and feats are completely optional -- instead, you pick your class's archetype and that defines most of your class abilities.

This is this shittiest bait thread I've seen in a while.

So why are people still falling for it?

In 3.5/Pathfinder:

At level 5, the Fighter can attack twice... If he does NOTHING else, and the second attack is at a -5 penalty.

At level 5, the Wizard can fly, turn invisible, or throw lightning bolts (which do about 4-5 attacks worth of damage in an area), or so many other things, and can still move and take other (swift) actions.

Which player is likely to have more fun with their abilities?

It's only successful bait if there's butthurt.

Not everything is bait, friend.

Most things are, so you're right to be paranoid, but still. He's getting some genuine answers rather than asspained rants.

Yea. I'm pleasantly surprised. Anyway, 5e all the way. Far better balanced, more streamlined. Casters are still better but martials aren't far behind, and outside of the more infamous 'martial killers', can handle anything a caster can, just with a little more trouble.

There are other games I'd rather play, but I really like 5e.

I'm in both a 5e game and a PF game.

The PF game is kept fun only by banning 75%+ of the game's content and restricting it to tiers 3-4. That's not to say it's not fun, it's a great campaign, but the system isn't helping much.

5e is missing a lot, but goddamn is it so much easier, especially on the DM's side of things.

OP it depends entirely on what sort of fantasy gaming you're looking for. 5e is really good at capturing that 'plucky adventurers against dangerous odds' feel with semi-smooth rules (think Black Company, Prince of Thorns, Lies of Locke Lamora, The Blade Itself), 4e is really good at 'high fantasy hero' feel (Malazan Books of the Fallen, Sanderson's Stormlight Archive series, anything by Brent Weeks, unfortunately, the Rierya Chronicles), while Pathfinder is really good at capturing 3.5 DnD (Most Forgotten Realms novels, Dragonlance to a much lesser extent).

It's all about what you're looking for when you say fantasy gaming, and some non-DnD games do a much better job of capturing the specific type of fantasy you're after.

Dont shitpost with the original fantasy waifu

>It's all about what you're looking for when you say fantasy gaming, and some non-DnD games do a much better job of capturing the specific type of fantasy you're after.

This is an excellent point, too. Because of how D&D 5e is balanced and how the numbers don't spiral wildly out of control compared to 3.5 and Pathfinder, low-level monsters stay threatening for a hell of a lot longer than they do in other systems. In 5e, a dozen orcs at level 3 is a deadly fight, but a dozen orcs at level 13 can still be challenging.

Oh, there's totally stuff I'd love to see for 5e. More magic items, slightly more feats (JUST SLIGHTLY WotC! I FUCKING MEAN IT), and maybe one or two more classes. But other than that? Shit, I think 5e is doing great. It doesn't need the splatbook bloat that made 3.pf's issues even worse.

>I like 3e cause I have all the book and knw all the rules.
Sunken cost fallacy, the post

Ye if forced to choose I'd have to go with 5e, but seriously I'd suggest learning a good system like GURPS or Fantasy Craft

What I want is more options for existing classes, especially for ranger, sorcerer, and warlock.

>op asks a question
>replies are all but unanimous

That's not what bait means

If I had to pick, 5e.

But I'd rather play Fate.

WAIT! Hear me out! Okay, look, I know everyone hates Fate here. Or some of you do, and are very vocal. Or some of you pretend to and don't really care. You can never tell with Veeky Forums. But it's not really a rules lite game, yet simple enough to be easily accessed by new players. With a system that encourages creativity and character building in creation instead of just stat-blocks. Wouldn't that be a good first exposure instead of DnD/PF? Look, I like 5e, but it's just as much "STATBLOCK: THE GAME" as 3.5 or PF are. It has no real encouragement to make a character over a living block of stats. Fate does, and players new to the TTRPG scene in general should be encouraged to make something they can role-play, right? So start with Fate, or some other similar system that uses a lot of abstractions in it. Then, when they go into games like DnD, Shadowrun, etc, they're already in the "characters are more than just stats" mindset.

Considering the Ranger options sum up to "Hunter archtype or suck" I agree.

Shit dude, even the hunter needs work.

>slightly more feats
You see the feat test materials/design guide they released? It's not bad, though a lot of people are iffy about the attack bonuses.

I actually really like those feats, and I like the idea of feats that let you enter "stances." I'd like to see more like that, but not necessarily focused on one weapon or weapon group.

Jumping in a bit late.

I was a primarily Pathfinder player, i'ts the only system I played for a little while. Just recently I picked up 5E with a new group and its actually amazing. It fixes all the little things I don't like about Pathfinder and is a great experience. I'd recommend 5E but at the end of the day, it's the group's choice.

>One
>Not gassed

You failed your people.

Pathfondler detected.

>Black Company

I'm excited and so is my boner.

I just assumed this was a thread trying to get a flame war going over PF and 5e. Or trying to summon Virt. It didn't, but I wasn't wrong. Threads like this are ALWAYS bait.

Also, I hate PF, so your detector needs checking.

If you hadn't said casual I would have fallen for your cheap bait.

TL:DR skipped your whole fatefag evangelising spiel. Some of us like math more than women's studies, faggot.

Pathfinder will never die for the same reason Magic will never die. There's too large of a gap between system mastery and system novices that lets the elite feel elite.

I have a friend at my 5e table who loves 5e, but still spends a majority of his gaming time in Pathfinder groups. Despite what I tell him, he always holds on strongly to pathfinder. One reason is he likes how "wacky and exploitable" it gets at high levels (should note, he's also a hardcore MtG enthusiast). He also loves how "customizable" Pathfinder is, or really he loves how many options there are.

Also refuses to believe in the tier list as well. Anytime I mention that monks generally get fucked over in Pathfinder, he responds with "Nah. Are you kidding me? Monks are great. We have a Monk in our current team and he's constantly kicking ass"

He's always telling stories that frankly disgust me on a game-balance scale, where when he's DMing, he let his party of level 5s/6s become so powerful that they're taking down CR 25+ creatures with relative ease. Dude just loves his Monty Haul games.

The fact that there are people who intentionally go for that kind of game and also enjoy mathematical crunch assures me that pathfinder popularity won't die down for a long, LOOOONG while.

Who? On any other board, maybe, but this is Veeky Forums, a placid little Shire in Veeky Forums's Middle Earth where questions receive serious answers and everyone is friendly.

When all of the novices and funplayers switch to 5e, there will be no system masters left, just angry grognards with an evaporating niche.

>5e is missing a lot, but goddamn is it so much easier, especially on the DM's side of things.

5e, to me, seems like a Stone Soup kind of thing.

PHP
>"Here's the BASE rules which just barely run a game"
MM
>"Here's a bunch of monster stats"
DMG
>"Here's a shit ton of DMing advice, optional shit rules that service all manner of flavor from previous D&D editions, alternate ways to use the 5e specific rules to create a better flow, and, oh, in case you want to, extensive advice on how to create new content that's balanced with the other content, and how to even reduce your work load by taking something else that already works and tweaking that slightly to give it a whole new feeling"

>Here's your stone
>Here's your cauldron
>Spice YOUR D&D the way you want YOUR D&D to taste.

I love it. Just recently, I changed up the game completely by adding a rule that just says "If you stand up from prone while next to an opponent, it triggers an OA." Suddenly, my players started coming up with really creative uses for scene objects on their turns to induce a more dynamic battleground. I ate that shit up.

Thanks for putting into words exactly why I love 5e.

I plan on including a lot of terrain hazards in my games and letting people use Shove as an attack -- meaning if you have Extra Attack, you can do both in one action. Or shove two dudes.

shove is already an attack

is right, it actually works that way already.
Grappling is also an attack action.

Oh, well good then.

See Unless you were being facetious. In which case, power to you.

>Some of us like math more than women's studies, faggot.