Community

I really dislike 4E. I find that there's little real variation between different classes in the same "role," the system is less interesting to tweak, skills were almost overcondensed, and the few with combat roles were removed entirely, skill challenges don't work (though I believe a "fixed" mechanic was introduced later in its run,) and every class was made too similar in the means by which it functioned.
It does have some good mechanics and ideas, but they're easy to pilfer for 3.5 or Pathfinder, so I don't find it worth slogging through the gameplay itself for them. Essentials looked slightly better, but I never tried it and have no interest in it.
However, combat can be described as tactics based, and somewhat interesting due to the options possessed by the player characters, though I find that the PCs are less at risk than they should be and that 3.5 requires more tactical and (unlike 4E) strategic thought, while offering classes with even more options.

I have a strong preference for 3.5. Martial adepts, psionics, Incarnum users, and spellcasters all use different, interesting systems, and can each be built to the same tier of optimization without much difficulty. The multiclass system is far superior, and allows you to create a greater variety of character concepts. Yes, the edition is "broken." (Technically, it's not truly broken, as that implies unplayable. Unbalanced is a better term.) But it's enjoyable to mess with the mechanics and try to fix it, and easy to avoid the truly overpowered or underpowered options. Players also benefit from more versatile characters. I'm playing a melee sorcerer right now, for example, who still has ranged firepower to some extent, mobility, and options to help in social situations.
Pathfinder is sufficiently similar to 3.5 that I'm not really going to comment on it.
However, if you don't know what you're doing, it's very easy to make a rather weak character (though inexperienced GMs and players work pretty well with that.)

EDIT: Oh, and technically, we're not supposed to talk about D&D here. Off-topic for the forum, or something.

Pretty much, yeah. I freely admit to bias. The best way to decide is to play both main editions still talked about long enough to decide whether you like them or not. If neither, Fantasy Flight Games has some very solid systems too.

I started with an love 3.5 but have done a bit of 4e and played a bit of Pathfinder.

3.5 has option. Metric pig-tons of options. But, even in core only, there is tons of difference in balance between classes. 1-3 fighters, clerics, barbarians, and paladins are supreme. 4-8 is pretty evenly balanced. 9+ prepared spellcasters beat everyone and don't even have to try. Wizards, Clerics, DRUIDS, and Archivists are rediculous late game and noncaster classes are useless. Look up the tier lists and reasoning behind placement to see why. Also, it is the easist to pirate. It might be harder to pick up physical books. Furthermore, there's a spell or mechanic for everything.

4e is very tactics based and focuses less on the mechanics for roleplay. "How does the necromancer raise dead?" "'Cause he can." This is both a pro and con. Also, the classes are more balanced, but individual roles all play the same in the end: defender, melee striker, tanky striker, ranged striker, aoe controller, debuff controller, and leader. Combat is very tactical, if abit safe using core (I increase monster HP and damage. Monsters don't hit hard enough.). Books are rather easy to come by physically but I haven't seen pirate copies yet. Oh and the monsters are cool.

Pathfinder is a more "patched" 3.5. More options for classes, less "dead levels" and simplified mechanics. Wizards, Clerics, and DRUIDS (just remove druids from 3.5 and Pf they're rediculous) are gods at high level as per usual. It s easiest to find the core book and beastiary at any bookstore and you can find all the information from every Pathfinder book online (legally) at their own SRD wiki thingy.

D&D Next can be downloaded from WotC and looks legit. Haven't played it yet but I've heard it said to be a more streamline, balanced 3.5. with 3.5 characters and4e monsters

Overall, I like 3.5 as it has the most stuff and it's easy enough to go "Yeah, that's degenerate let's remove that." 4e is pretty balanced, but has fewer options and makes a close second in my book.

Also on a tangent, the 4e Empire won the first and second Edition Wars and wiped out the 3.5 survivors during the last war  (although I think only one person on the 4e side actually liked 4e).

Jan 4, 2013 -- 12:26AM, Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote:

Well, this isn't the D&D Next playtest forum, so I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree.

Jan 5, 2013 -- 2:48PM, The_Silversword wrote:

Id say start off with 1e and work your way up from there. Just skip over the BECMI crap.

Don't listen to him, BECMI was better than 1e.