Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NullForceOmega]

I never indicated that 3.x is the best.  I said everything that follows it IS NOT D&D.

[Flying Dice]

I have played every edition of D&D starting with the original hardcover AD&D originally released by effing TSR.  I know D&D, it is one of the very few things that gives my life any joy whatsoever in this miserable, 'take your assfucking like a good little slave' world, and NOTHING WIZARDS HAS PRODUCED IS D&D.

Everything following 3.5 is not D&D.  It is mass-marketed garbage that attempts to replicate WotC's success with Magic in RPG form.  4 and 5 are soulless cash ins with no respect to the original material and a strong bias towards MMORPG children who have no concept of what the term 'Role-playing' even means.

Jesus, do you even bother to factcheck yourself, or do you just spout off kneejerk reactions? WotC was responsible for every edition since they bought up TSR in '97, including 3.0e and 3.5e.

I don't understand how "there's no splatbooks" is a major factor.  The edition isn't old enough to gather any splats yet.

Except it totally is old enough, considering the god-awful release schedule on the core three books (lol delays), and considering that every other edition had those things.

D&D 5e has a major problem with it called "bounded accuracy" which means that you will always be threatened by hordes of low-level mooks with ranged weapons, no matter how high your level is. So the best strategy is to go necromancer and summon a shitload of skeleton archers (since necromancy spells are not concentration-based, you can keep many, many skeletons around you). Or, barring that, just hiring a lot of Commoner armed with shitty bows. There's no flat DR in D&D 5e (it's 50% now), so the individual arrow's power doesn't matter, as long as you bring in enough of them.

That's one of the bigger issues, true. However, the limits on spells/day and the upkeep nature of undead animation means that your necromancer is doing nothing with his spells except supporting his undead archers -- he's going to be standing there plinking with cantrips all day every day. Or you're bleeding gold to hire shitty Commoner archers. And I can think of a bunch of different ways off the top of my head that any low-level party could deal with a pack of trash-tier archers; even some shit spell like Flaming Sphere can AoE a bunch of archers, and most classes have stuff by 2nd-4th level that makes it easy to clear hordes.

It's the sort of problem that can be avoided by a half-competent DM, where a lot of the core issues with earlier eds were almost omnipresent.

[Sergarr]

2e is what 3e wants to be.

2e is worse than 3e in terms of splatbooks.

In 3e there's the whole system for how to combine bonuses from different things, in 2e? lol.

In 2e, you have the retarded THAC0 system.

In 2e, you have stuff like "reduce your opponent to 1d4 hp, no save".

Also top kek at "3e is in transitionary period between 2e and 4e".

[NullForceOmega]

From the spine of 'Dungeons&Dragons, Player's Handbook, 3rd edition'  and I quote "TSR11550".

[chaoticag]

Just so we're clear here, Wizards was publishing the TSR logo on DnD gamebooks as far as 2000, while TSR was bought out by Wizards in 1997, so TSR really didn't exist for three years before 3rd edition was released.

Also, can we cool the edition warring? It's fine to compare things and all, but just saying "edition x is bad" isn't really helpful or anything. It's best to elaborate on the design decisions that you agreed with or disagreed with, or even mention things feel out of place or something. Just contribute to the ongoing conversation.

[Flying Dice]

From the spine of 'Dungeons&Dragons, Player's Handbook, 3rd edition'  and I quote "TSR11550".

You might want to open the cover. Publisher: Wizards of the Coast, Third Edition (August 1, 2000). Curiously enough, the names of the major contributors were all employed by WotC when the book was published. Gee, I wonder why that is.

[Sinistar]

Man, this topic is going places and fast. As if we are all in a DnD session where everyone wants to play with their own house rules while DM is permanently missing.

Roll d20 to dodge banhammer, folks. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Tawa]

5e sounds fun. I should download some of the free stuff sometime.

[sambojin]

I don't understand how "there's no splatbooks" is a major factor.  The edition isn't old enough to gather any splats yet.

Yes it does. The Elemental Evil Players Companion. And like all good things Wizard'y, there's some stuff in there that's horribly unbalanced compared to the initial material (yes, Aarakroca). But it's free, which is nice of them.

Support + MOAR Stuff is surprisingly good for the edition so far. Unearthed Arcana articles for gap fillers (again, free), all the playtest material (where everything is a little bit weaker than its final form) and the basic core books provides plenty of material for a fairly well-rounded idea of the system, as well as a bit of room for munchkinning if you want it.
----------

Overall, 5th is a fine place to start Dnd. Plenty of freebies to get you going, a "not completely stupid" system of play, all built up more-or-less on most of the basic DnD concepts. Backgrounds, outlooks and flaws being an integral part of character creation is the best part of the system. Not a bolted-on or munchkinable part, but a core part, where to exist your characters need these things. Open enough to allow anything, but it makes sure all characters fit in the world somehow and aren't just a bunch of character levels ands a stat block running around causing havoc.

5th is nice, it's lean, but it still gives plenty of options for customization and different play experiences. Great for beginners, not too bad for vets either. I won't say it's balanced, or the perfect DnD edition, but I would say it's the best edition to get into DnD with. For you or your entire playgroup.

A nice combo of set rules, DM fiat/houserules being a core thing (just so that players understand from the word go), some hand wavyness, some solid explanations. It's good.  Grab as much of the free starter set stuff as you can if you're worried about the price. Then one DMG (even split the cost between your group members) and you're good to go.

[Spehss _]

Just a note, I don't mind if you guys want to compare DnD versions or compare other systems, just try to keep it civil and chill. I don't want of the the few threads I make to devolve into a flame war over who's pen and paper system has the biggest peen-er, biggest pen. If it gets too out of hand and shit hits the fan I can lock the thread and let you guys squabble over pms, steam messages, cod 1v1s, virtual bad dragon dildo sparring, or whatever your preferred method of internet arguing is.

-------

I've heard good things about Pathfinder too, but I haven't really looked into it as much. And for a newb to tabletop rpg gaming, DnD is the big go-to name. Seems reasonable to start with.

5th is nice, it's lean, but it still gives plenty of options for customization and different play experiences. Great for beginners, not too bad for vets either. I won't say it's balanced, or the perfect DnD edition, but I would say it's the best edition to get into DnD with. For you or your entire playgroup.

I'm not too worried about game balance. Obviously I don't want it to be a broken unfun mess *cough*fatal*cough* or be full of munchkins, but munchkinning depends on who's playing the game, not the game itself. I'm mostly looking at DnD for the actual roleplaying and stuff. Class balance or class abilities or cross-classes or whatever are a means to an end. After reading all these cool stories like Sir Bearington or Los Tiburon, pen and paper games sound like a fun way to kill time with friends and get some great stories.

[NullForceOmega]

PnP RPGs are that, no matter how bad the ruleset (Fatal excepted, that thing does not need to exist, except as an example of what not to do) you can have those deeply enjoyable experiences as long as the group is into it and the DM/GM is up to the task.  So you can probably get what you want from 5th edition, or just about any of the rest, you might even like fourth, but IMO that particular rendition of the game is flatly offensive.

[Rince Wind]

As someone else suggested, I would try to find a group first and worry about the system later. See what they are playing, try it with them to see if PnP RPGs are your thing and only then put down some money.

[Flying Dice]

PnP RPGs are that, no matter how bad the ruleset (Fatal excepted, that thing does not need to exist, except as an example of what not to do) you can have those deeply enjoyable experiences as long as the group is into it and the DM/GM is up to the task.  So you can probably get what you want from 5th edition, or just about any of the rest, you might even like fourth, but IMO that particular rendition of the game is flatly offensive.

This, pretty much. It's less about the system and more about the group, so long as you avoid things that are just blatantly shit. About the only thing I'd suggest would be going with simpler systems for new players; starting with Paranoia is easy, for example. If you play many campaigns with the same people you'll get to know each other and your preferences, build a rapport, and figure out which system or systems are the best fit for you.

That's actually one of the reasons I recommend 5e over earlier editions of DnD: fewer books to buy, the rules are for the most part stated much more clearly, and there are fewer worries about someone figuring out four levels in that they're completely useless in most situations without having been prepared for that beforehand.

[sjm9876]

I'm a strong advocate of 5e. It's nice and lean on the rules, but has plenty of options even within one book. It's relatively well balanced as DnD (non 4e, as that was very much different on a mechanical level) goes, and the bounded accuracy means that things make much more sense on many occasions.

It has nowhere near the minmaxing capacity of 3.5e, or the tactical combat of 4e, but strikes something of balance I feel - and the lack of overall focus on either I feel allows for a much better roleplaying game experience, that couldn't be achieved through, for example, a game based off of the ruleset.

But yeah, DM matters. For a new player, I'd again go 5e, as it's much simpler and more condensed, and harder to cock up. I've run both a 3.5e and a 5e campaign, both with mostly new players, and 5e has gone a hell of a lot smoother. Due to things like bounded accuracy, even if one of the more general rules doesn't cover something I can make a general ruling that covers it better. DMing feels much less of a chore, and more a storycrafting experience.

[Flying Dice]

God, the experience of giving out free LA or ability score increases based on class tier and seeing some of the monstrosities that get turned in... It's hilarious, and I was part of the problem, but ho-lee shit. Hehe, I still have the sheet for that one armykiller/utility Petal Warlock I made for Tawa's aborted no-tier-1 20th level campaign. And that's nothing compared to the 1st-level template monstrosities that came out of that idea. xD