>>5886>what's exactly wrong with 5e?
<Bounded accuracy (small bonuses to skills and attacks) makes it hard to feel really good at anything
<d20s are too swingy, and combined with the above problem it's way too common for characters to fail at what they're good at and succeed at what they're bad at
<Not many options; still only a dozen classes, and most classes have one subclass which is clearly the best
<Totally built around combat, can't really handle running a game based on exploration, intrigue, etc.
<Massive HP bloat makes fights take forever at higher levels
<Regaining all health, spells, and class features on a long rest means you can go from dying and useless to fully healed by sleeping for eight hours, incentivizing players to blow all their resources on one fight and then retreat and rest
<Caster supremacy; wizards have a million ways around every situation and lots of ways to fight, while fighters can only hit stuff
<Lots of the game's elements, like multiclassing, feats, and magic items, are officially "optional", meaning the game isn't balanced around them even though 99% of DMs include them
<Supplements released at a glacial pace compared to past editions>Should I start with 3.5 instead?
3.5 has its own problems. It's insanely unbalanced (caster supremacy is a much bigger problem than in 5e), and while it has a lot of options (unlike 5e), 90% of those options are shit.
But here, I'll give you the advantages of 5e:
<By far the most popular game; probably over 90% of all games are 5e, so you'll never have trouble finding a group
<Very beginner friendly
<Competent (not amazing but good) at what it's meant to do, i.e. if you just want to go into a dungeon and kill stuff you'll probably have fun
<Fairly well-balanced; even though casters can do a lot more than martials, casters aren't really "stronger," just more versatile