>>43259966OP, it depends how much work both you and your group want to put into learning the system.
After that, the enjoy-ability factor depends on how evenly balanced you want everything to be. Whenever non combat happens, most DM's do their job and make rules as they see fit, even if they are doing 3.5E or 4E or 5E.
So the real question is, how much combat do you want? and how streamlined do you want it to be? Because 3.5 is a mess combat wise, 4E is pretty damn nice, and I cant speak for 5e since I havent touched it.
3.5 / Pathfinder are a pain in the ass to learn, Im not saying its impossible, but its still more trouble than its worth. (This isnt due to its actual mechanical learning curve, but due to the ivory tower design, where you play a caster class or you play a no neck chump, IE A level 20 Mage and a level 20 fighter are worlds apart, even though Level X is supposed to be a measurement of a characters strengths)
4E is less complex to learn mechanics wise, but it got the classes right, and by right I mean a level 20 wizard and a level 20 fighter are now comparable, yeah it sucks how it happened, but the game is balanced combat wise.
As for non combat things, some 3.5 people hate how fishing isnt a skill anymore, but at the same time DO we REALLY need a Spot check AND a Perception check to be 2 different things? 4E cut a lot of chaff from 3.5 for non combat, and people who cant make shit up as they go got kind of butt-hurt by it.
And again, as for Combat, in 5E, cant speak on it, no experience with it.
Me and my group moved on to Shadowrun and our own Homebrew systems. (Infact in one of our homebrew system there are no skill sets, but we get way more social interactions without them than we did in 3.5e or 4e.)
So TLDR:
Depends how much work you and your group want to go with and work through.
3.5 / Pathfinder = the most work
4E = less work more imagination shit
5E I cant speak on.
