Café de Nuit

Since Ryan has his Pathfinder conversion and now Jester is working on a 5e version what are your preferences on running a campaign? I've been wanting to run a new one for a while and I'm torn between the two. What is everyone's thoughts?

D&D next for me, hands down.
It's very compatible with AD&D if you have the monster list and simpler than PF.

I could tell with things like proficiencies that Next might be a good choice for being able to use 2nd ed products with. That said, I hate that it feels like it's not quite as customizable as pathfinder.

Take this opinion with a huge grain of salt, because I really haven't looked at 5e very much at all. Pathfinder is just about perfect for me and my group. I like what I hear about 5e, but not enough to look into switching.

I moved to 5e and didn't regret it, it's much more streamlined.

I really like Pathfinder but that's only because I really liked 3e. 3e was amazeballs. And, IMHO, better than 4e even with all the improvements that edition made.
However, 3e/PF is still a 15 year old game and there are a LOT of problems with the rules. Small things that begin to irk, and huge flaws where the math just stops working, and bits of design philosophy abandoned long ago.

5e is a very different game, so comparing doesn't feel right. They do very different things. But it's a very balanced game with far, far fewer flaws and problem areas.
5e also feels a lot like 1e/2e, which is how Ravenloft started, and so it works really well. While doing my Ravenloft monster conversions I'm barely even looking at the 3e book and going right to the 2e source.
Plus, PCs are squishy and it's easy to take them down, which really works in a horror/Ravenloft game.

Jester of the FoS wrote: 5e also feels a lot like 1e/2e, which is how Ravenloft started, and so it works really well. While doing my Ravenloft monster conversions I'm barely even looking at the 3e book and going right to the 2e source.
Plus, PCs are squishy and it's easy to take them down, which really works in a horror/Ravenloft game.

This helps quite a bit. I've always been worried about the sheer power levels of PF, so the combined fact I can take my old MM that I still have along with powered down PCs makes me want to give it a shot.

Jester of the FoS wrote:Plus, PCs are squishy and it's easy to take them down, which really works in a horror/Ravenloft game.

There we disagree... I can throw anything at my PCs and they manage. Of course, they have way above average stats and rare weapons and armor. They count as 2 levels more than their level in most cases.

I agree with all the rest you said. Except that 4e brought improvements.
In my opinion, the best thing added with 4e was the skill challenges.

Anyway, I want to say that while 5e feels like AD&D it doesn't have the flaws of those eras. Extremely few "save or die" stuff, extremely few stuff that permanently take something from you (level, abilities etc) and other things that are considered "unfun" by modern standards.

And those things? You can simply add them with a wave of your hand if you're so inclined. Change the poison of the giant scorpion from "deals 4d10 on failed save" to "drops target at 0 hp on failed save" or even "death on failed save". Those energy drains that return after a long rest? Deactivate that and say that the only way to bring those lost hp back is a restoration spell.
For diseases... go to the source. If AD&D said "loses 2 con every day" play it that way.

alhoon wrote:

Jester of the FoS wrote:Plus, PCs are squishy and it's easy to take them down, which really works in a horror/Ravenloft game.

There we disagree... I can throw anything at my PCs and they manage. Of course, they have way above average stats and rare weapons and armor. They count as 2 levels more than their level in most cases.

At low levels PCs are super squishy and at high they're much tougher, but still more fragile than 3e/PF or 4e.

If I have a small gripe with D&D next is that the "monsters stay relevant for longer" gives a downward spiral to the what the PCs can accomplish.

Think of this: mage (9th lvl caster, CR6), in control of a group of minotaurs (CR3) along with a couple of Ettins in a labyrinth.
Assume the following encounters: Ettin+3 minotaurs x 2 encounters, 4 minotaurs x2 encounters and Boss encounter: The mage + 3 minotaurs
That's an adventure for four 9th lvl characters, that has a challenging finale that may see character death.

Both are good games for their respective purposes, but different beasts.

If you have liked 3.x, and want more of it with even more options, nuts, bolts and customization options, PF is the game for you. The less happy you were with 3.x compared to earlier editions, the less likely PF will be your thing.

5e is essentially "everyone's second-favourite D&D". It crams the good ideas of each old edition into a single unified game, does away with a lot of small-minded limitations (like the Weapon Finesse feat tax, or the absolute uselessness of Two-Weapon Fighting unless you overspecialize into it) and makes it easy for players to twist the traditional classes thanks to sub-classes and backgrounds.
Of course, trying to be everything to everyone comes at a price. The more you see a particular edition as _the_ iteration of D&D, the more likely is it that 5e will seem like a good version of D&D, but not better than your preferred one. Therefore, "everyone's second-favourite".
Still, being able to please a lot of different tastes at the same time, and especially being able to cater to both mechanically invested hardcore gamers and casual gamers without the latter falling brutally behind (as I've seen it often happen in 3.x) is a big plus in my book given my player pool.

Not everyone's second favorite. D&D Next is my favorite D&D edition. Playing 3.5 would seem a chore these days.

I always thought that Magic: the Gathering's Ravenloft was a better fit, but that's just me.

alhoon wrote:Not everyone's second favorite. D&D Next is my favorite D&D edition. Playing 3.5 would seem a chore these days.

5e is currently my first favourite as well
As an iconoclast who admires both the OSR and 3.x (and especially Microlite20, which with its modular nature and its roots in both the OSR and 3.x has always been very similar to what 5e has been heading to), that should be little surprise.

Still, I think the bon-mot of Rob "Bat in the Attic" Conley of 5e being everyone's second-favourite D&D to be very apt. I've seen plenty of fanboys of 4e, 3.x and the OSR grudgingly admitting that 5e got a lot of things right that previous editions didn't, while not being as focused about what they like about their particular favourite edition.

My cousin was quite clear what he liked about his favorite edition that other editions lacked:
It worked for him and he had the books. Hence he said, he wouldn't invest money and time to learn a new edition just because it did things better for a game.
Having bought books from tons of editions, I can't say I agree with him, but his argument was solid.