What do you prefer playing?

Personally, I like the more diverse options in classes and character making in Pathfinder. It feels more personalized and your only options aren't just the usual archetypes. I made a Rogue with high Dex and Strenght so I can take large creatures down. You thought I was weak? Now you're on your ass, Giant.

looks at your account Oh okay, you're not a bot.

Pathfinder is that expanded/modified rule set of 3.5E right?

I think it largely depends on preference. With pathfinder (or even 3.5E) you're getting a lot more freedom to really get in there and make a character exactly the way you want to. Wanna make a sword fighter who doesn't wear armor? That's fine. Want to dual wield two-handed weapons and not suffer huge penalties? why not. in 5E, you'd be better off just playing a monk/barbarian if you wanted to go nude sword man route, and the rules don't really allow for holding more than one two-handed weapon.

5E takes the cake when it comes to the gameplay itself. 3.5E has an autistic amount of dice rolling and different types of information to keep track of. I mean, look at the skills list on this Pathfinder character sheet and then look at the ability checks on this 5E character sheet. That's without looking at how feats and special rules function.

I think at my table, I prefer 5E for that very reason. It's just easier to keep track of everything, and you can bypass the limitations of an archetype easily with a little imagination. Like I can just pretend my wizard's spells are potions if I want to make an alchemist. Having said that, I think Pathfinder would work great as a video game because the computer could find all of those formulas and dice rolls faster than a human ever could.

Did I sound like a bot? :(

Yep, it's a modified version of 3.5E.

That's the first edition CS I believe, the second edition CS is the one we use. They took out a lot of unnecessary skills so there is much less rolling, and checks like searching and investigation are done by the DM, not by the entire group which saves time imo.

I played 5E for 3 years and even if I really enjoyed it, I still get bored of characters quickly because you can't really personalize them the way you want. With a good DM, I honestly prefer Pathfinder over 5E and ours also says he prefers Pathfinder. It shows 'cause he's really experienced with it, so it's been a smooth and really fun experience so far.

If you haven't given the 2nd edition a go you should def try it!

@SgtSlayer There was a point where we had bots that created topics that mirrored those from a DnD site. Probably the least harmful bots in existence, since they weren't selling anything and kept the sections filled with discussions. But they would essentially copy a topic title and the first post and then put it here, and then nope away for a few days before doing so again.

You bring up a good point, which is that it really comes down to the GM. Ours is pretty good at making up house rules and even has a few homebrew archtypes for us to use, and since he doesn't like 3.5E I'm not sure how well he'd fair with it. I have not played the second edition of pathfinder though, so maybe I'll have to try it. Though I'm unsure I'll be able to convert the rest of the gang.

That is hilarious. I’m a mod in a gaming forum and we get weird bots wanting to sell you fat burners lmao. Some of them just write posts upon posts of weird characters and sometimes it’s our own members trying to sway others into Ponzi schemes. It’s so annoying.

Definitely do enjoy home brew content in 5E more, especially if we’re not following a book. Our group played The Horde of the Dragon Queen for a while but our DM really hates not being able to wing stuff and be creative.

There’s only one way to get them to try it, lots and lots of rope. :P
But seriously, if y’all are having fun then it’s all that really matters.

Personally, I'd have to throw my lot in with DnD simply because I don't have any experience in playing Pathfinder even though I have a huge stash of PDFs for it laying around somewhere. But, to honest, if I had the choice, I'd say neither. There's other systems I prefer much, much more than DnD (and, well, Pathfinder), and the mental burnout just by looking at places like RPG's tabletop section or Roll20 and mainly seeing DnD/Pathfinder games only adds to my preference. Yeah, they're popular, but not every game has to be one of those two.

@Kuro What are some of the games you've played, and what makes you like them more than DnD/PF aside from not being dirty, dirty, mainstream games that normies play?

The primary reason I steer clear of Pathfinder is that so much of it is piddling content and trap options. Third Edition Dungeons and Dragons had no shortage of this either but Pathfinder took it to a new level, particularly with all the endless once per day abilities, single modifiers to highly specific circumstances, and then of course the fact that in many ways monsters were made stronger against martial classes than those magical. As a result, I most often just permit players to convert Pathfinder content back into the original edition it was born from as there are some creative mechanics, concepts, classes, and themes, but overall nothing that really moves me much.

Comparatively, Fifth Edition for Dungeons and Dragons I find vastly superior in most capacities except the one which I care about most, options. The sole flaw is that Fifth Edition is so narrow in its choices with so few supplements that I cannot begin to really enjoy it. It is trying to make mechanically distinct, novel, unique characters when there are so few classes, so few archetypes, so few spells. This has improved with time but as a Dungeon Master and player who only ever is permitted to use officially published material? It feels relatively empty still and that is my issue with it. Balance and play wise it is leagues better than prior editions, likely the best ever written through and through. "Homebrew" content, however, will likely never see any existence for myself or others. It is too unreliable and often poorly written by people who do not have a strong grasp on the system and I am one of those who spent no shortage of time mastering Third Edition and its mechanics; I "min-max", as people call it, to make my roleplay and character concepts viable.

As for other games outside the two listed, the old World of Darkness setting put out by White Wolf Publishing is perhaps the only one I have ever cared about at all. Werewolf: The Apocalypse and Vampire: The Masquerade are more or less what comes to mind when one talks about modern horror and the supernatural in roleplaying for myself, particularly since I have a love-hate relationship with the mechanics and core concepts of the material versus its themes and narratives. It drives me mad, for example, that it becomes statistically more likely for a severe failure the better a character is at a skill due to how critical failures work, yet at the same time the mythos is dark, savage, and extremely morally ambiguous.

@Kuro What are some of the games you've played, and what makes you like them more than DnD/PF aside from not being dirty, dirty, mainstream games that normies play?

Exalted's one. You get to be a literal demigod that can topple empires, toss around mountains, etc. I once obliterated a giant, flying living fortress with a not!Excalibur moment trying to save my fledgling empire. Blew a giant hole in its side, and the creature's groaning + light was enough to rally my men on the ground as they were getting their asses kicked by the dead and their champions and pushed deeper into the city ruins.

As for the system itself, I prefer it over DnD because your rolls are point based, rather than the flat d20+ mod. Rolls you can buff by expending motes, but spending too many might draw the Wyld Hunt your way (basically elemental witch hunters powered by dragon blood wanting to kill you and your kind). It also has a narrative gimmick called stunts, which depending on how well you describe something (or if its generally badass or cool) according to the GM, you might win free dice to roll, extra successes, a willpower (something you can spend to add one free success to your roll) or all three/a combination of them. Depends on where on the 1/2/3 stunt point scale your GM says your "stunt" lands.

Song of Swords is another one. I like to say this one is a lot more punishing than typical RPG systems, considering its more medieval combat flair with a fantasy flair (or whatever setting you want to RP it in). Every part of your body has hitboxes, which could mean death if you get unlucky. For instance, a level five cutting wound to the shoulder is insta dead. Thankfully armor has values and qualities, which depending on where that piece of armor is (e.g. pauldrons, which have a high AVC, on the above instance) can either help or hamper you.

Should also add that the system is success-based, too, and whether or no a die is a success is determined by the TN (target number) at the time, which can also be modified depending on the modifiers such as weapon/maneuver/talents.

As for other games outside the two listed, the old World of Darkness setting put out by White Wolf Publishing is perhaps the only one I have ever cared about at all. Werewolf: The Apocalypse and Vampire: The Masquerade are more or less what comes to mind when one talks about modern horror and the supernatural in roleplaying for myself, particularly since I have a love-hate relationship with the mechanics and core concepts of the material versus its themes and narratives. It drives me mad, for example, that it becomes statistically more likely for a severe failure the better a character is at a skill due to how critical failures work, yet at the same time the mythos is dark, savage, and extremely morally ambiguous.

I was really interested in trying Vampire: The Masquerade, but how does crit failures work if you're most likely to get them the better you are at something? That is rather strange.

In the original incarnation of the edition, each die rolled that displayed a value of "1" was treated as a critical failure and canceled out a success, @SgtSlayer. Say the difficulty class was "6" and the character had four dice to roll, and they had rolled a "1", "5", "6" and a "3", their only successful roll was not only cancelled out, the entire roll went extremely bad due to a critical failure. It was further found by the optimization community that as the game scaled and the difficulty classes became harder, the more ranks a character had in their sum of skills meant it became disproportionately more likely to cancel out rolls. However, critical failures also had the added negative that if one failed because of them, they became increasingly catastrophic for each failure and even more so with each critical failure. Failing to succeed is bad enough, failing spectacularly because of cancelled rolls combined with critical failures is exceptionally bad.

I am not certain if this was corrected in the revised edition versus the original printings. I almost wish to say it was not, although other corrections were made. Admittedly I have not spent much time checking the two printings against one another; the most I did with it was read optimization strategies and formulate my character around excelling at their role the best that they could and that was some of the material I came across. Supposedly, the general consensus was that White Wolf Publishing wrote excellent stories, not so much mechanics.