D&D 5e or Next!

I'll do just about anything for the masses.

Also curious about 5e. Tried 4e and was not a fan. Agree 100% about it feeling like an MMO. 3.5 is complicated but I like complicated - used to play Rolemaster. 3.5 is nothing compared to Rolemaster when it comes to complexity. I disagree that 3.5 is "needlessly" complicated. Running a Pathfinder campaign now and liking it very much. Also like the fact that 3.5/Pathfinder is OGL which opens up sourcebooks a LOT as far as competition from other companies. I'd be hesitant to get into 5e solely based on that, but wouldn't be to the point that I wouldn't give it a shot.

I've not seen that sourcebook. Overall I would agree with the sentiment that fighter types often times are "less cool" than their spell casting counterparts. But I do think feats, class abilities and prestige classes help to alleviate this problem. And in Pathfinder, they removed the silly multi-classing experience point penalty issue that was present in core 3.5. So there's always that option now too. I have a player in my current campaign that's playing a monk/sorcerer to great effect, despite having only a level or two in sorcerer.

But that book looks pretty awesome and I'm sure could make it a lot more fun for the straight up fighter types.

Its pretty cool looking. I started with a simple 1e game about 3 years back, moved to Pathfinder as quickly as I could. The power scale seems much lower in 5e, but theres some cool concepts. Every class picks one of 2-3 archetypes, and your abilities are influenced by this choice to allow a degree of customization. Race is more important than in 3.x, and the math is made so you don't NEED magic items to keep up. This makes a +1 weapon actually incredible at high levels, should you choose to play like that. Instead of skill ranks, every class has a static 'proficiency' bonus that is added to rolls. You only get to add these bonuses to things you are proficient in, which is dictated by your class, race and background. So, say, a wizard is actually pretty decent at all levels with a simple weapon, but he's not proficient in a longsword like a fighter. If he gained proficiency, say by being an elf, he'd be theoretically just as good with that sword as the fighter, but likely with much less hp, and less damage from a lower strength score. One limiting factor is that only certain classes gain proficiencies as they level, so a base human monk is only likely to be proficient in 4 skills, and maybe a couple of tools. (Thief's lock picks, if he's lucky) Attributes are also capped at 20, outside a barbarian whose capstone level 20 ability lets him reach 24 strength and con. Overall, it does some good thing, ad proposes some cool, if not unique, concepts. A Way of Shadow monk (basically a Shadowdancer/ninja) can jump into and out of any shadow in his sight at will at level 6, and is still a badass martial artist in a head to head fight. In general, without playing it, it feels more optimized at the expense of customization, but isn't nearly as terrible as 4e.