Pathfinder sales recently surpassed D&D sales, though that was also because everybody was waiting for the release of 5th edition.

Paizo (makers of Pathfinder) are doing very well, and many groups play nothing else. I'm currently playing in three different Pathfinder campaigns. But I'm afraid I'm getting a bit tired of it, and I'm looking for something else. I'm currently looking more at Star Wars: Edge of the Empire, Dungeon World, and Shadowrun 5, but D&D5 definitely looks interesting.

But it's still an extra translation step, and it doesn't really add anything to the system.

Yeah, if you want a skirmish system that focuses entirely on interesting yet balanced combat, then 4e is definitely the game for you. But if you want time for something other than combat, then 5e is probably the better choice.

Traveller's careers don't really count as classes. I don't think they're anything more than a skill and gear distribution system, are they?

Skills have been toned down a lot. They don't go through the roof like the used to. Instead, you have a few skills, which means you get a moderate bonus to those rolls. And that bonus goes up slowly (no extra +1 every level), and DCs are much more moderate, which means you can still fail even if you have the skill, and even without it, you can still succeed. It's just less likely than if you have the skill.

That's referring to the OSGATA vs Monsanto case. It basically went like this:

Plaintiff: We want to sue Monsanto before they sue us over cross pollination.
Judge: Can you prove they do that?
Plaintiff: Well, no, but what does that matter?
Judge: Case dismissed.

Then you should look around a bit; there are plenty. Cortex+ systems (like Marvel Heroic Roleplay, or Firefly) have an interesting way to make flaws relevant without going overboard. FATE based systems do something similar with aspects that can be positive, negative, or even both.

No GMO crop is modified to produce neonicotinoids, although some anti-GMO people have tried to conflate these separate issues because GMO crops, like non-GMO crops, may be sprayed with them.

I do not believe this is Monsanto's fault. The mainstream opposition to genetic engineering started with the Flavr Savr tomato, which was released before Monsanto released any GE crops. The blame lies with activist/interest groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Navdanya, Organic Consumer's Association, ect. and other groups that saw genetic engineering as an opportunity to further their own social, political, or financial interests. Those 'psychopathic' GMOs you mention are insect resistant crops (reduced insecticide use), herbicide tolerant (sounds bad, actually results in lower environmental impact via the substitution of harsher herbicides and the promotion of no-till agriculture) and virus resistant crops, with drought tolerant corn recently approved (no independent data on its impact yet though).

Consider this; do you really think the same people who lie about university, NGO, and publicly developed GE crops are going to be honest about Monsanto? These anti-GMO groups aren't just opposing Monsanto's crops, they're opposing, vandalizing, and slandering all GE crops. Golden Rice, BioCassava, Bangladeshi Bt eggplant, Rainbow papaya, HoneySweet plum, CSIRO's low GI wheat (destroyed by anti-science thugs), INRA's disease resistant grape rootstock (also destroyed), Rothamsted's insect repelling wheat, VIB's cisgenic potatoes (also destroyed), ect. All publicly developed, all opposed (or destroyed) by anti-GMO groups. Put Monsanto's blame where it is due, but this one is not on them.

Aren't those optional? I believe there's loads of optional stuff in 5th edition, so players can easily tweak it to be more old-school, story-based or skirmishy, depending on their taste.

Opinions vary of course, but I don't think "I wack it really hard with my sword, but only once per day" makes all that much sense, really. Mind you, I've never been much of a fan of the "Vancian" magic system of D&D (that allows you to cast each spell only once). Pathfinder let go of that principle a bit by allowing cantrips (0 level spells) to be recast as often as you like. 5th edition continues along that path, both with more powerful cantrips, but also spells don't scale as hard with your level anymore: if you want your Magic Missile to become more powerful as you reach higher levels, you'll have to use a higher level spell slot to cast it. Meanwhile, fighters get more fancy stuff to do on top of wacking stuff with their sword. Hopefully this will balance classes a bit more without making them all feel the same.

5th edition is not a step backward; it does take elements from 4th edition, but only the best parts, and it also takes the best parts of previous editions, molding it all into a surprisingly coherent whole.

Yes, but that might make the initial comment valid for the previous edition, not this one. This one is as old-school as D&D has been in a long time. It combines the simple character creation of early editions with more streamlined customization options than the 3rd edition and Pathfinder have. It doesn't try to cover every possible case with an overdose of mechanics anymore. It's less MMO-like than 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

It produces a poison in the same sense that chocolate and grapes are poisonous (don't feed those to your dog). The Bt protein has a very specific mode of action in certain insect pests, and does not impact humans. It is not a health concern, and has been used in organic food production for decades before suddenly becoming controversial once genetic engineering got involved.

Also, that a plant produces a poison is not an alarming thing. In fact, it is ubiquitous. Chemical defenses are found throughout the plant kingdom, including in crop plants. Things like solanine in potatoes, or glucosinolates in broccoli, or even caffeine in coffee and tea (note that they are produced respectively in the seeds and leaves, two things a plant might want to defend...that humans like them for it is kind of an evolutionary plot twist) all have insecticidal properties. Anti-GMO groups love to be alarmist over the fact that some GMOs produce an additional insecticide (yes, one more, even non-GMO corn is going to have things like maysin in it) but in and of itself is not alarming. It's just preying on the ignorance of those who do now know just how many natural pesticides we consume daily.

And that really is annoying, because people assume that it is a case of herbicide tolerant GMOs vs some ideal hypothetical where weeds are never a problem, when in reality it is herbicide tolerant GMOs vs. other weed control methods, including harsher herbicides and soil damaging tillage. Giving the choice between the realistic options, I'll take the herbicide tolerant crops any day.

Then you see people point to herbicide resistant weeds as evidence that they are a bad thing, but that's trying to have your cake and eat it too. The resistant weeds are a big problem, you bet they certainty are a problem, because they threaten to diminish the benefits of the herbicide tolerant GE, but then people say there are no benefits, while also saying that the benefits are eroding. Then when you point that out you're apparently on Monsanto's payroll.

I get that facilitating the use of an agrochemical is not the sexiest possible application of biotechnology, but until someone comes up with something better it does not deserve bashing it always gets.

You mean like wheat, a hybrid of three species, and strawberries, another hybrid?

Or corn, bred to be so radically different from its ancestral teosinte that most people wouldn't even recognize it?

Or carrots, which were not orange until humans bred them to be that way?

Or cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale, and Brussel's sprouts, which are all the same species with various genetic mutations dramatically altering their form?

Or apples, which are selected from somatic mutations and grafted onto root stocks?

Or citrus, which is altered through selecting radiation induced mutations?

Or pluots, which had to have their embryos cut out of the parent plant and cultured in vitro because they would have never developed naturally?

Or seedless watermelons, which are bred from chemically induced chromosome doubled watermelons?

Or tomatoes, which have genes introgessed from other wild species?

Oh, you're just referring to the thing you knew was unnatural, not all the things you were utterly clueless about. Well, since it would be such a bother to admit your initial premise and driving belief are completely inane, I'll wait while you move the goalpost to attempt to justify your irrationality.

It produces Bt, which is toxic to certain orders of insects, not to humans. And before someone comes along and says that it is still toxic, remember that gapes and chocolate are toxic to dogs, and dogs are a lot more closely related to humans than lepidopterans.

Oh, and every plant produces insecticides anyway. It's only alarming if you don't know much about plant biochemistry. Give something that can't swat back at the trillions of things out there trying to eat them a few hundred million years to come up with defenses and they develop things chemical defenses, like caffeine (yep, it has insecticidal properties, ever wonder why coffee evolved to have it right in it's seeds?), piperine (a yummy insecticide, turns out black pepper's original plan was to not have things eat its offspring), maysin (found even in your non-GMO corn) solanine (tomatoes and potatoes, don't eat this) and falcarinol (found in carrot a neurotoxin in high enough quantities).