Help my gaming group choose the system for our next game

[tentfox]

In the past I have DMed for D&D 3, 3.5 and 4 editions. The current gaming group has been playing with 4th edition. However only about half of them really know the rules to any large degree, the others just cruise along more than anything.
For our next game I am looking to run mostly pre-made adventures, except mainly use them for their pre-made npcs/monsters and plots and let the characters drive the story. Basically I want to run a successful game with very little prep time.
Now for the next game I am considering either 4th edition or Pathfinder. Somewhat based on adventure quality (I love the look of adventure paths, but I see some are available for 4th edition from this website).
So what I am looking for now is like an easy comparison between the two that I could take to the table so the players can make a decision.
Personally I do not like how long combat in 4th edition can drag on for, is this shorter in pathfinder? It has been too long since I DMed a 3ed based system to remember. I also do not want to have to house-rule anything to make it playable, I just wanna run it as is, out of the book.
Anyway, thanks for your help in advance. Also I do not want any edition wars to spark from this, I like all D&D's and I find that there was a myriad between these two and I just want the party to play what will work best for them this time round. I guess I sort of want a change of pace, but I do not want change for no reason either.

 

[Yora]

I never played 4th Edition, but 3.5e and Pathfinder are the slowest and most drawn out systems I've ever seen. And it becomes worse and worse as you get up in level.

However, Pathfinder probably has the best adventures, and a lot of them.

 

[SLOTHmaster]

I'd go with Pathfinder for the adventures, but if you do then be prepared to houserule away slog.

 

[tentfox]

So basically pathfinder has one thing and lacks another. How about from a character perspective?

Also, how do the enworld adventure paths hold up against the paizo ones?

 

[Quickleaf]

So basically pathfinder has one thing and lacks another. How about from a character perspective?

Pathfinder, like 3e, has much more versatile character creation - you can make exactly the concept you want (assuming the DM let's you use the splats). And it is also a spellcaster's paradise, though Pathfinder has tempered that somewhat.
4e has more rigidly defined classes and much less versatility, but spellcasters and non-casters are on pretty much even footing.

Also, how do the enworld adventure paths hold up against the paizo ones?

Ryan really is a great adventure writer; while I haven't run Zeitgeist or WotBS I've been very impressed by the writing and production quality.

 

[Evenglare]

I disagree that 3e has more of a versatile character creation. With hybrid classing, and multiclassing along with themes, 4th edition lets me create any sort of character I want and it is far more balanced within the game than any 3rd edition game allowed me to do with out being under powered or over powered. Of course unless you use gestalt characters.

I enjoy playing a race I like to call a silver ranger which is sort of like a ranger paladin. I can say that pathfinder had an archetype that worked though, which is alright. Rules bloat is awful in both systems at higher levels. My call? I say go with GURPS or castles and crusades. Depending if you want to try something new, or familiar with a new twist.

 

[tentfox]

I guess more what I was looking for was to be able to go up to my players and say "if we decide to play Pathfinder instead of 4th the noticeable changes would be ...", so they can say "aaaaah that sounds awful" or "if the adventures are better then I could get down with that" or even "sod off! I like my wizards to have at will's and my fighters to have dailies!".

As a DM I do not want to have to learn something totally new, so GURPS is out. C&C looks interesting, is it just 2nd ed with 3rd ed math? I do require the good adventures however, so if it hasn't got that then I am out!

 

[Lwaxy]

In my view, character creation is quicker in PF than in 3.5. Don't know about 4e. PF is more versatile than anything before because it can be made mostly backwards compatible. Battle in PF can be a bit faster than it is in 3.5, but it really depends on the group and their options.

The newer Paizo adventure paths and other adventures are strongly tied to the world of Golarion, and you'd need at least some of the fluff books to make them really work IMO. You can adapt them to other settings but it takes a bit of work, although Rise of the Runelords was easy to transport to another world. That's one AP still using the 3.5 rules, too.

In PF, all cantrips and orisons are are at will powers. There are some new or different classes, but they are easy to get into. Skill points are a bit different (some skills united, like spot and listen is now perception) and there are some other minor changes which usually just serve to make things a bit easier.

Then there is always Savage Worlds as a game system. Anything can be played with SW

 

[Evenglare]

As a DM I do not want to have to learn something totally new, so GURPS is out. C&C looks interesting, is it just 2nd ed with 3rd ed math? I do require the good adventures however, so if it hasn't got that then I am out!

C&C does take the old school feeling and convert it to 3rd/4th edition. It also uses a new base mechanic called the seige engine which is really cool. As far as adventures, I personaly do not know, i normally dont run premade stuff.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=58988]tentfox[/MENTION] You do know about pfsrd.com? I'd take a bit of time to look over the rules; that way you can reach your own conclusions.

IMO the biggest differences are on the DM's side, not the players.