DnD 5E OGL vs. Shaped vs. Community

Could someone point me to a pros/cons of the three different character sheets for 5th Ed.? I should like to know why I should picked one over the others?

Personally, it comes down mostly to style of sheet. With that said, the further disclaimer is that the 5e game I play in uses the OGL sheet, so my comparisons are from that perspective. The OGL is pretty slick and streamlined looking, but it probably doesn't have the built-in capability for crazy stuff that the shaped sheet may have. Both the OGL and the shaped have companion scripts to take care of things like ammo tracking, spell tracking, and so much more than I am aware of. The one big difference that I'm aware of is that the OGL and shaped sheets support drag-n-drop import from the 5e compendium, while the community does not (as far as I know). Also, any of the official WotC modules (Lost mines of Phandelver, Stormking's Thunder, etc) are and will probably continue to be built with characters statted using the OGL sheet. I believe that there is some work being done to allow translating that to the shaped sheet, but I don't know the status of it. That probably wasn't that informative, but hopefully it helps you along the way. Scott

My suggestion is to create test games and test each of the sheets. Create some NPCs, create some PCs. Try leveling. Try attacking or casting spells. Try adding equipment or consider buffs/debuffs in battle. Do the things you would normally do. This will really help you realize which one you like.   H

Thanks Scott and HLazar. I have never actually played 5th or 4th, being a Pathfinder GM/player. I find the Pathfinder character sheet unusably complex, so much so, I am considering switching systems. (I used Ken L.'s CreatureGen, and loved it, but I can't code JavaScript to pick it up. This allowed importing Stat Blocks via cut and paste. I believe Shaped has similar functionality. OGL seems to import from the Compendium only, vs an arbitrary block.) So for me, "try em both" doesn't really work as I lack the foundation.

I personally find the OGL sheet to be preferred. Its super simple and stream lined, so it has a more paper and pen feel.

+1 to Franky's opinion. This is also my feeling.

@Mike S. - I switched from Pathfinder to 5e over a year ago.  As a GM I am much happier and my players also seem to enjoy it.  I have played games with all of the sheets. There is a sense of nostalgia for the Community Created sheet, Actoba really laid the groundwork for great sheets.  All in all it is a simple, generally intuitive sheet, however as no one is maintaining this sheet it has fallen behind in feature/functionality. The OGL sheet is simple.  It allows you to drag and drop from the compendium.  It has a pretty a nice companion script that provides some functionality.  It is what all Wizards of the Coast Roll20 Modules support natively.  The challenge that I have with the sheet: The SRD is not complete, so if it's not there... you're manually inputting monsters.  If they add more and more compendium support, maybe this becomes a non-issue. It isn't as flexible as the either the Community Created or Shaped Sheets, meaning if you like to change things up, it can be harder to accomplish that with the OGL sheet.  If you plan to run RAW (rules as written) then maybe this isn't terribly important to you. The Shaped Sheet is the largest and most robust sheet, but absolutely no where near the complexity of the Pathfinder sheet, so it still performs well.  You can use Drag and Drop from the compendium with the Shaped Sheet.  It includes many useful macros built into the sheet that create clickable chat output for npc statblocks, attacks, spells... pretty much everything you would need. The Shaped Companion is amazing, it has statblock import, spell import, monster import, ammo tracking, rest tracking, trait and feature tracking, can quickly and easily create token actions for you... this thing has cut my preparation time by a ridiculous amount of time.  Previously I would spend more time in Monster/NPC prep... now I spend time polishing maps up, creating nice handouts, and doing things that improve the quality of the game, rather than data entry, token setup, etc...

Some nice things about the Community Contributed sheet: As Kevin mentioned, many other sheets use or used the code of this one as a framework (including the original Shaped sheet !) There are tons of macros written for this sheet scattered throughout the Community Forums. Such macros are eternally functional; they likely have not ever (nor will not ever) become broken or deprecated by sheet updates. Likewise, tons of forum users are very familiar with this sheet, and many are more than happy to help with macros, troubleshooting, etc.

OGL. Shaped is too laggy and does a lot of auto formatting of stuff instead of letting the players decide what they want to put in there.

I used to use the Community sheet when there was nothing else... the hours I spent entering monsters/spells I'll never get back. As a GM, I wouldn't use this sheet again for the comforts the others offer,  and I would recommend you don't use it either.  Between the OGL and Shaped, the latter is certainly more of a power user's sheet; if you make use of its features,  especially as a pro user with the companion script, you can import spells and monsters (from statblock or database) lightning-fast, all set up with token actions. When my players ask to polymorph themselves into an animal, the longest part of setting up the monster is finding the token image.  Plus, even though the sheet might become laggy in larger campaigns, thanks to token actions and neatly set up chat menus by the script, I hardly ever have to even open a monster sheet to access all the data, so that's not really an issue for me. The OGL sheet is also decent and has some automation via compendium import, but it's the Shaped for me. On the other hand,  if you don't plan on using these features, the OGL sheet may be better for you, as it is somewhat more lightweight and perhaps intuitive.