If I want to run a fantasy game, should I use D&D 4e, D&D 5e, or Pathfinder?

well, their general is basically kitsunes and butthurt, so this checks out

(You)

Seriously, though, use 5e

Does your group want to have deep combat and class builds that matter beyond getting the best spells?

If yes, 4e.
If no, 3.PF.
If maybe, 5e.

Do you like crunchy tactical grid based combat? If yes, 4e.
Do you like the ability to easily homebrew content? If yes, 5e.
Do you like "queering up" things? If yes, Pathfinder.

Go 5e. The core rules are the most solid and simple, and homebrewing or converting from other editions is super easy.

Is this bait?

Yes, how dare people play non-casters or not want omnipresent homosexuality shoved in their face.

Isn't Pathfinder just 3.5 with more token gays for virtue signalling?

Pathfinder needs a lot of specific types of understanding by both players and GMs to work properly. It can shine under the right circumstances, but at this point you should avoid the game if you aren't already comfortable with it.

If you have to ask "should I play Pathfinder" then you probably want to avoid Pathfinder.
If you're playing with people who want a complex mechanically-focused combat game, 4e is your best bet.
If you're playing with people who aren't experienced at RPGs in general or who wouldn't want to deal with a lot of baggage, go with 5e.

Rolled 2 (1d3)

1) pf
2) 4e
3) 5e
You have your answer, and now you can leave. There's nothing of value in this thread, just anons complaining why RPG X is great and why RPG Y is an evil spawn of satan.

You had 1 in 3 chance to arrive at the correct answer and you _did_

I want to read a fantasy novel, should I read LotR or Go t?
I want to watch sci-fi should I watch Star Wars or Star Trek?

If you want to play sword and sorcery/sword and sandal type games, there's always Runequest 6.

Play Fantasycraft. It's what pathfinder should have been, and is far superior to 4e and 5e. Has lots of good DM tools also.

There are some other changes to rules and style. It was originally kind of marketed as "3.75" or a "fixed" 3.5, but honestly for everything that was "fixed", at least one other thing was made worse, and nothing was really "fixed" anyway.

A lot of stuff is adaptable or portable between 3.5 and PF, and I incorporate some PF (mostly 3rd party) material into my 3.X games, but it does seem to largely attract a more "progressive" scene than 3.5.

Bah.

LotR is fantasy, GoT is fantasy opera.

Star Trek is sci-fi, Star Wars is space opera.

No value judgements here, only categorization.

>complex
>4e

pick one

Your take on 5e is excellent, though.

D, none of the above.

If you want something more crunchy, play the forever superior 3.5.

If you want something more relaxed, forget all the rest and go with Donjon.

Say it with me, "Donjon".

You will never regret it.

But that's fun.

>Superior 3.5

Your tastes are so shit I can't take your advice seriously.

D6 Fantasy if you want a light system for something low-powered. Good for dungeon crawls and tales about travelling adventures.

Mutants & Masterminds for high fantasy with heroes cutting dragons to bits, wizards lighting cities with fireballs and thieves stealing pants from whole armies on the march.

GURPS or the Riddle of Steel if you want hardcore merc stories with blood and guts everywhere.

And how is 3.5 NOT crunchy, and Donjon NOT relaxed?

Let me guess, you started with 4e, fresh out of WoW, and are in love with PF. Got it.

Having played since OD&D, tell me how 3.5 is NOT crunchy and Donjon NOT relaxed, or gfto newfag.

GURPS

I secound this.
GURPS is the best for what you want.

Every character has arrays of different active powers, passives, power/item tags, feats, that all interact in ways you have to be cognizant of, alongside an interconnected status effect system. It's sensibly presented (for the most part) so it's not overwhelming, but that doesn't make it less complex overall. Just easier to interact with.

I mean, the same is true in 5e, except to a more variable degree, and less well presented.

It's still more complex because you have to take into account a lot more fiddly modifiers, though, so I agree with that, just not your reasoning for it.

This describes nearly every RPG I have ever played that had any kind of concrete rule system (sure, "feat" may be called "power" or "skill" or "ability", but it's all the same).

Certain systems are definitely more simple than others (see 5e compared to 3e), but I wouldn't call 4e particularly complex. That doesn't mean it's a game for idiots or anything, just thinking in terms of relativity I guess.

Edit to above:
But given the list, I should say you're absolutely correct, since 4e is certainly more complex than 5e, and there's no point in playing Pathfinder.

But if it's accesible, then it won't give a false sense of superiority to grognards!

Yeah, let's mock people for not wanting support for their favorite games discontinued in favor of a failed attempt to unnecessarily revive a thriving system by redesigning it to try to pander to MMO players!

OR

3e was fine, but if you like 4e, that's ok. 4e was fine, but if you like 5e, that's fine also. 2e was great too, and if you prefer another system, that's also ok.

Those most commonly labeled "grognards" don't hate accessibility - many, including myself, even appreciate say, the change in AC mechanics from 2e to 3e. Even though I like 3e's better, that doesn't mean THAC0 was impossible to understand. That being said, if someone at my table playing an adult game literally can't grasp kindergarten level arithmetic, they probably should stick to Candyland.

Use Legend, it's better but still a d20 system.

Runequest

You don't even know how to quote or read a post, made a gratuitously stupid extrapolation from it, and failed to address the argument presented, and you're calling others newfags? Topkek newfag.

I'd argue that both 4e and 5e are good, but 4e is more granular.

3e wasn't fine though you walking neckbeard stereotype.

Is that better for you? Can you keep up now? You see I thought you could follow well enough before, given that this was a slow-moving thread, but perhaps this quoting will help.

Show me where I made gratuitously stupid extrapolations without addressing arguments presented.

The only "extrapolation" I made at all was calling you a newfag for your response to my claim that 3.5 is crunchy and Donjon is relaxed. Arguments you still have yet to address... sound familiar?

Also, I've been gaming for a couple decades and visiting Veeky Forums since roughly '05. But if you played Chainmail with Gygax and hung out here with moot in 2003, then I apologize for my newfaggotry, and do please share some of your stories! Seriously, no sarcasm, I'm interested.

Just because YOU couldn't play it right, doesn't mean it failed to even meet the objective requirements of "playable".

How many millions of people played a total of how many hundreds of millions of hours, having a blast? How much material was published and adored over how man varied campaign settings? How much additional 3rd party content, homebrew, or even variant systems were created for or as a result of it? And how many people still play it today? Or Pathfinder, which is not nearly far enough related to be considered an opposite success or failure compared to 3e? And how many thriving gaming groups or -especially- online communities are there loving 3e?

Like what you want without judgement, but 3e is plenty fine. Like literally everything, that doesn't mean that every combination of players or rules results in maximum enjoyment, but the system works well enough for many to love it.

>walking neckbeard stereotype
My mistake, I honestly thought neckbeards are more into 4e and 5e, if not abandoning it altogether in favor of GURPS or some furry game. At least that's the case with every neckbeard where I live. But I'm no expert on the neckbeard ways, myself being a happily married man, successful career (not rich, but well enough), decent (not amazing, but alright) fashion choices, and happily non-atheist and non-bronie.

5e
simple, easy to learn, and covers most basic actions
and easy to find players

Your entire 'point' relies on an abstract and undefined definition of 'fine' and obscuring the question at hand to the point of meaninglessness.

Do 3.x's mechanics work well RAW? No. That is what is meant by 'they are not fine'. That doesn't mean it's unplayable, it doesn't mean groups aren't going to be unable to do anything with them, but it does mean that learning how to work with and around the rules is an extra necessary step in getting into the game, with is something a significant majority of groups who played them have experienced, even if in some cases it was so long ago they've forgotten they ever had to, and thus dismiss any claims of it as false.

4e is the best version of D&D ever made.

I somewhat agree, but with caveats.

I think 4e is the best version of D&D ever made for what D&D was intended to do- Action focused fantasy adventuring and dungeon crawling.

However, a lot of people (without arguing as to its validity) use D&D to do a lot of different things, and 4e's mechanical strength also makes it less flexible than the more loosely designed entries in the series. I wouldn't say other versions of D&D are particularly good at going outside their comfort zone, but it is easier to do so with them than it is with 4e.

It also relies on an enjoyment of tactical combat and being okay with mechanics that aren't a pure simulation of the in setting events, although how big a barrier this is is often significantly overstated.

None. You should use a system thats more attuned to the setting you want to play in.

You need to be way more specific than genre before knowing the answer to that question. If anything, the genre/setting is tertiary next to the following questions
>Do you want the PC's to be the heroes of their story or to be parts of a living world that goes on turning with or without them?
>How much focus do you want to be on combat vs not-combat?
>Do you think balance should take a backseat to verisimilitude, or do you think verisimilitude should take a backseat to balance?
>How fluffy and/or crunchy do you like your games, and do you want the same amount of crunch for all parts of the game?
>How MECHANICALLY customized do you want your PC's to be?
>How FLUFF customized do you want your PC's to be?
>Do you want PC-death be commonplace, uncommon, or a downright rarity?

Mechanics inform TONE much more than they inform SETTING. You can run "fantasy" with almost any system under the sun, what you need is a system that provides you with the TONE you want your fantasy to have. Star Wars and Star Trek are both SCI-FI, but they have wildly different tones. Westeros and Hyborea are both FANTASY, but again, they have wildly different tones.

Pick the right system for the TONE of your game, and figure out setting as you go.

>Nobody hates 5e
Thats because people gave up after 4e.

For dungeon crawls? Sure. 100%

Whichever you think is more fun, clearly.

If you're asking for opinions; this user's vote would be Pathfinder. There's a bit(a lot) of bloat and some imbalances in the classes but ultimately there are a ton of options and therefore freedom in creating and playing characters.

I also find 5e to be too simple for its own good, a sort of "baby's first" RPG.

What you are not mentioning is something the 3.PF fans tend to forget or ignore: 4e is about the group, the team, not lone mary sues who can do everything by themselves.
I have yet to see a game that so implicitly demanded the players work with each other, communicate with each other, or rewarded them for teamwork as 4e. Especially in current game meta where everything is about the individual, it's rare to see a game hammer home that it is about the group, all the players putting in their piece for a greater whole.

A fair point. That is a design strength of 4e as a system.

If you want playerbase, 5th or PF.

If you want solid system and playerbase, 5th.

If you want a really good comic, 4th.