I was just wondering which version of D&D do you play and why?


Edit:Had to fix some stuff, added pathfinder, and multiple choice

The one in the RPG forum directly above us.

oh sorry, is there a way a mod could move this to that category, I thought it was for warhammer RPGs not just RPGs in general

Hmm.... I actually play version 2.5, so none of the above.

Me and my gaming group found that the materials and rule set for 2.5 were the best of all the rule sets and have stuck to it for quite some time. Given, we get fairly involved in our play and rather enjoy all the small things that make for a very detailed game when it comes to 2.5 ed.

I will be the first to admit that 2.5 isn't the easiest to learn, but it by far allows for the most customizable platform that a DM / player could wish for. Its not fast or easy, but it gives you that real sense of epicness when it comes to building a character, as well as teaching you to really love and cherish those characters you actually manage to get above level 13 (no easy task).

Manstein wrote:Hmm.... I actually play version 2.5, so none of the above.

Me and my gaming group found that the materials and rule set for 2.5 were the best of all the rule sets and have stuck to it for quite some time. Given, we get fairly involved in our play and rather enjoy all the small things that make for a very detailed game when it comes to 2.5 ed.

I will be the first to admit that 2.5 isn't the easiest to learn, but it by far allows for the most customizable platform that a DM / player could wish for. Its not fast or easy, but it gives you that real sense of epicness when it comes to building a character, as well as teaching you to really love and cherish those characters you actually manage to get above level 13 (no easy task).

I never knew there was such a thing as version 2.5 XD

I play 4th. I have played 3.0 and 3.5 but being a DM mpost of the time I actually enjoy running 4th more. Also it does look like good fun to play too.

Wardragoon wrote:

Manstein wrote:Hmm.... I actually play version 2.5, so none of the above.

Me and my gaming group found that the materials and rule set for 2.5 were the best of all the rule sets and have stuck to it for quite some time. Given, we get fairly involved in our play and rather enjoy all the small things that make for a very detailed game when it comes to 2.5 ed.

I will be the first to admit that 2.5 isn't the easiest to learn, but it by far allows for the most customizable platform that a DM / player could wish for. Its not fast or easy, but it gives you that real sense of epicness when it comes to building a character, as well as teaching you to really love and cherish those characters you actually manage to get above level 13 (no easy task).

I never knew there was such a thing as version 2.5 XD

Thou art a youngling.

Depending on what kind of a campaign I'm running, it'd be 4th or Pathfinder. Both good games.

Wardragoon wrote:I never knew there was such a thing as version 2.5 XD

That's its 'nickname.' You might have recognized it if he called it by its official name: Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Second Edition. Although the product line only ran for 2 years, it was fairly prolific and involved some significant changes to the D&D rules (like the THAC0 mechanic) and may even be what you're already thinking of when you say AD&D.

Just so you know (it doesn't seem to be reflected in your poll and it's the 'big issue' of D&D these days) a lot of people decided they didn't want to play 4E but instead of sticking with 3.5 started to play with a 'tweaked' (by most accounts, improved) edition of 3.5 produced by a company called Paizo. That tweaked edition is called the Pathfinder RPG.

Pathfinder. It needs to be on there as a selection.

Manchu wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:I never knew there was such a thing as version 2.5 XD

That's its 'nickname.' You might have recognized it if he called it by its official name: Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Second Edition. Although the product line only ran for 2 years, it was fairly prolific and involved some significant changes to the D&D rules (like the THAC0 mechanic) and may even be what you're already thinking of when you say AD&D.

I had to look this up in Wikipedia, as I'm pretty sure my awkward teenage D&D years lasted longer than two years. Apparently there were two AD&D 2nd Editions: The first from '89 to '95, then the 2nd from '95 until 3.0 was released (which still looks to be longer than 2 years by any measurement, but that's minor). 2nd edition had a lot of support (possibly too much!) as it was from an era where TSR could and would release a new box set setting every six months or so, it seemed. This was the era where Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and other interesting settings really got started (Ravenloft had been released previously as a single module... Making it a full setting was new).

Still, I have to say for quick & dirty D&D I do like 4th these days, followed by some selection of 3.0/3.5 and probably Pathfinder. 3.0 (and variants) was great in my opinion because it standardized a lot of stuff that was bolted-on in 2nd. Skills had some variation and utility.Feats were a neat new idea (although other games had been doing full perk/flaw systems for a long time before 3.0 added Feats). Gone were things like thief skills which were percentiles for arbitrary reasons or the weird psionics rules that suddenly encouraged low-rolling. The game mechanics had been revised to have a set of simple, unified mechanics.

3.0 did acquire a lot of 'baggage' that made it less fun for me, but it's still a big choice because of the alternate stuff that made it more fun and interesting. The baggage was primarily in the form of power creep. Prestige classes int he core books seemed like something exotic and interesting, maybe an alternative reward ("You saved the princess, so now you have access to the Royal Guard Prestige Class!") but they became very overpowering. 3.0 beyond 10th level became not-fun to me because characters had tons of relatively minor powers, often just low-level spells tacked on.

Still, some great 3rd party stuff was well done and would bring me back to 3.0 without hesitation: I was just recently thinking about a sequel to a Weird Wars II game I ran years ago, and would happily deal with the 'warts' of 3.0 to play in another Darwin's World campaign if a friend wanted to run it.

4.0 is our current game. It's a neat system. It does have flaws of course, and at first I didn't like that characters 'feel' a lot more 'magical' by the default descriptions, but that's mostly the default descriptions. As written, I imagined characters constantly surrounded by particle effects, floaty light sources, auras, etc. as they go through a fight, but these can be toned down with no game changes.

The major complaint about 4.0 seems to be that it's "WoW" on a tabletop. I don't find this, but I don't play WoW. My major issue with MMORPGs is that they are an unsatisfying use of time as it's a prepared, manufactured experience. This can be true in D&D, but only if a GM runs from scripted modules with no tweaking or improvisation and the players. I guess some people find the combat and power system to be MMO like, but I lfind it to be more like a tactics game int hat you actually need to think about positioning, placement of allies, etc.

4.0 is a surprisingly 'rules light' system in some ways. You can use it as either a quick base for dungeon crawls, or as a combat system to handle fights between story stuff... Your choice.

Balance wrote:Apparently there were two AD&D 2nd Editions: The first from '89 to '95, then the 2nd from '95 until 3.0 was released (which still looks to be longer than 2 years by any measurement, but that's minor).

Ah yes, I was trying to clear up the "2.5" comment. AD&D 2E did run from '89 - '97. I thought Mansetin was referring to the re-release in '95 when he said "2.5" but I guess "2.5" could refer to all of AD&D 2E vs. AD&D from '77.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manstein wrote:Hmm.... I actually play version 2.5, so none of the above.

To wit: I think "AD&D" means something different to OP than it does to Manstein. I would guess that OP meant the '89 AD&D 2E (not the '77 AD&D) including (if he knew about it) the '95 re-release whereas Manstein might be thinking of the '95 re-release specifically.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Pathfinder. It needs to be on there as a selection.

Considering it is a tweaked 3.5 with it's own campaign setting, why don't we keep it simple and just pick 3/3.5 if that is your preference and to avoid this from becoming an edition wars thread.

I prefer 4th Edition, As I put it when it firest came out "They Simplafied it without Bumbing it Down".
I know alot will disagree with that statement, but that they did was make the Basic Rules Sreemelined and then made the Classes give you all of the Tactical Stuff.
When you get to Combat this were the game realy exells, It's Stremlined and Quick if you know what your Character [and the Fellow Adventures] are capable of.
I could work with an older editions if the GM was a Nazi about the Characters and what they could do. if not you end up with 12th level character that can do 120 point of damage to Dragon unless you roll a 1 on the d20 to hit with.

ya, I did not know about a rerelease of AD&D(then again I was 5 or 6 at the time of its rerelease) so just throw any form of 2nd edition under AD&D

Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manstein wrote:Hmm.... I actually play version 2.5, so none of the above.

To wit: I think "AD&D" means something different to OP than it does to Manstein. I would guess that OP meant the '89 AD&D 2E (not the '77 AD&D) including (if he knew about it) the '95 re-release whereas Manstein might be thinking of the '95 re-release specifically.

Correct.

IMHO the AD&D re-release was just fantastic and I doubt I will ever change from it, at least if WotC keeps producing editions like they have.

Then again, I take my D&D fairly seriously, with over 100+ pages of Lore and text for a D&D world I made from scratch, a wall sized map of that world, and my own personal "spellbook," (essentially I bought one of those nice leather books from B&N and pasted in copied texts of various spells my main character, a wizard, learned throughout his adventures) I think its fair to say I get a bit involved with it all.

I am certainly no basement dweller, in fact, I am quite the athlete and most of my friends are often shocked to learn that I play the game, despite the fact that I am also an avid 40k player. Nevertheless, I have always found it (D&D) to be an excellent venue in which to vent my creative urges and, as such, I have worked a great deal with the edition that I found had the most in-depth and lore supportive text / rules.

The point of all this? I like AD&D 2.5 because of the amazing amount of material / lore the edition has to offer, as well as the general flexibility / editibility the edition's rule set allowes. I would only recommend the edition to people who really enjoy D&D on a game and lore based level who are perhaps seeking a little bit more than a spur of the moment blood spewing game in which almost anyone can jump in. If you choose 2.5 expect to spend an hour making a character, watching him die because of something stupid you did the hour after, and generally praising God when you finally get a character past level 10 (an accomplishment that, for many, takes many months if not a year of casual play), if your character is a wizard, praise God AND offer a lamb for sacrifice.

Chances are that you arn't like me though, and that you are going to want to go with Pathfinder, which is a really excellent rule set.

Manstein wrote:IMHO the AD&D re-release was just fantastic and I doubt I will ever change from it

RAWR! Manstein fear change, change bad! RAWR!

That is what I pictured when I read that.

Manstein wrote:Pathfinder, which is a really excellent rule set.

Indeed, both Pathfinder and 4E have excellent rules sets.


I would love to see that wizards tome, it sounds amazing.

Ahtman wrote:

Manstein wrote:IMHO the AD&D re-release was just fantastic and I doubt I will ever change from it

RAWR! Manstein fear change, change bad! RAWR!

That is what I pictured when I read that.

Haha, I get that a lot, and I can't say with all honesty that change in this venue doesn't scare me a little... at least when it comes to my primary campaign world. Let it be known though, that I have played 3.0,3.5 and 4.0! I just never found the "jump into the action" and quick leveling style of those editions to be all that enticing. I have nothing against them, and totally understand why players would want that style of game, its just I like to really invest a lot in a character.

Nothing says investment like a Drow (and playing a drow was seriously, really fething tough business since virtually everyone wants you dead and you get very little of your bonuses outside of the Underdark) Mage who takes... hmmm... 8 years? of steady play to get to level 18 and then go through the long haul hate fest that ended up being him slaying all four of his companion party members (of whom he had also adventured with for "8 years") in order to ascend to lichdom. Needless to say, my gaming buddies were not happy with me for a month or two.

Ahtman wrote:

Manstein wrote:Pathfinder, which is a really excellent rule set.

Indeed, both Pathfinder and 4E have excellent rules sets.


I would love to see that wizards tome, it sounds amazing.

Yup, I recommend Pathfinder to all incoming players who are looking to get into some good and steady D&D, 4th edition to those who just want quick + easy hack and slash, and AD&D 2.5 to those who are fanatics like myself.

As to the tome, I got the idea, totally at random, one day when I was searching the web for some interesting German type print fonts. I ended up stumbling across some really neat and old style looking fonts that look a great deal like elegant, but wizardly, handwriting. Having recently purchased one of the nice leather books from B&N as a result of "after paycheck money insanity syndrome" (something which I no longer suffer form, thanks to direct deposit), I put two and two together and started putting together my spell book. I just typed up the spells with the new, yet still very easy to read, font, printed the pages out.... here is the part where you are gonna think I am crazy.... then I think took my old boy scout open flame traveling stove and lightly guided the paper above the flames, lingering a bit longer on the edges. The end result is yellowish paper with hardly singed corners that really makes the whole thing old. After that I just used a glue stick to plop um into the book.

In the end, its a really nifty piece that gives me a cool feeling when I search for spells for my mage. I always know exactly what spells I have and they are easy to access. I doubt I will ever make another, seeing as to how its a lot of effort to make the book. It was only worth making for my above mentioned Drow and I have yet to get another spell caster any near the point where I would feel comfortable making one for him.

Upon reflection... I hardly use it nowadays though, since my Drow (I named him Magus cus I am cool like that, Chrono Trigger FTW) slew all the party members, he has no one to travel with and my mates arn't all that interested in leveling up characters to 15+ in order to party up with a Drow Lich who killed off their last set of characters.

Ahh... but such is life.

I just got into a 4e game, and have DM'd a couple of sessions.

I also got a chance to pick up the Pathfinder core book, so I'm trying to recruit a few friends to try out the 'Hallow's Last Hope' adventure.

4th ed at the moment, though I am curious to try pathfinder/3.5.

Pathfinder good! Two-legs bad! There's a new starter box coming out soon, so that'd be a good way to get into it.

htj wrote:Pathfinder good! Two-legs bad! There's a new starter box coming out soon, so that'd be a good way to get into it.

There are also pre-painted minis coming out for it soon as well. Unless really bizarrely sized they could be used for either game. Link

I actually only just got into RPGs, had a go at both 4th ed and Pathfinder and much preferred Pathfinder.

Me and my group are still using the books from 1978, thinking about updating to 4th edition sometime. The old books, although poorly written (the turn undead rule was on page 38 I think but the table showing what dice roll you needed was about 100 pages ahead without any sort of reference) are still awesome and i'll never forget playing such outdated but awesome rules.

Pathfinder. WotC lost all my business after the 4th Edition non-sense.

4e, Pathfinder lost me when it stuck to the 3/3.5E nonsense.

I have been playing pathfinder, though dabbled in 4th for a time. Stuck with pathfinder, enjoying it greatly, so much for so little and wonderful materials, support and pathfinder societies just sweetens the deal.

Gotta recommend pathfinder for anyone looking to do anything DnD related, but each has their own preferences.

However, I realized it was possible to run a DnD style game with a feudal world in Dark Heresy, something to keep in mind for anyone looking for a change of pace.

This is the second time we have had a calm discusion on this subject. Usualy by now there is a lot of 4th Sucks or 3.5 Suck, but every one here has been calm about this

Anpu42 wrote:This is the second time we have had a calm discusion on this subject. Usualy by now there is a lot of 4th Sucks or 3.5 Suck, but every one here has been calm about this

3.5 SUCKS!!!!!!!!!! jk I DM it, admittedly its alot more work for gm's compared to 4th, but then again I am a huge fan of the inherent openness of d20 system licensed games.

Personaly I am a 4E Fan, I am not sure about the Essentuals though

Currently I play nothing, since there is no group the plays anything besides AD&D unless I go to Dallas or San Antonio. I used to DM a lot of 3e/3.5 and I'm actively looking for a group that plays it. Preferably a group that runs 3.5 and the Eberron campaign setting, though I'm not going t hold my breath for it. A couple of buddies of mine showed me Pathfinder, I liked what I saw (updated 3.5, more or less) and I'd love to give it a go as a player (something I've done for all of 3 sessions since 2002) as I'm utterly burned out on DMing. The monthly adventure paths you can subscribe to are also a definite plus, and the current horror one has peaked my interest. But again, anything being lose to local is all AD&D.

4e, I tried once and I really didn't care for it. To explain, it came out while I was in tech school and having nothing else better to do (other than study and PT) I grabbed it from the FLGS down the road to see what the fuss was about. Since my AFSC's school is ~6 months long, me and 3 others had time to get a nice little campaign in based off of the adventure path WotC came out with for 4e. The general consensus was underwhelming. The 2 veteran players still preferred 3.5 and the new convert didn't much care for it either. I personally didn't care for the new rule set up, though if you want specifics I'd point out this was almost three years ago and only remember not liking it. Maybe we were to entrenched in 3.5 or something, I dunno. Or maybe the fact the party got TPK'd on the 6th session....


Edit: shouldn't type while sleepy.

I played 3 and 3.5 for about 10 years, and made the switch to Pathfinder when it came out.

Having said that, I have switched to GURPS for my latest campaign and its probably now my favorite system, i suggest you try it!

Oh and yes, I am a 4th edition D&D hater I'm afraid, thank the dice lords for Paizo and Pathfinder

What I enjoy is that I've been around long enough that I've heard these exact same arguments made every time a new edition was released.

I played 2nd and 2.5 for about 10 years.

Having said that, I have switched to GURPS for my latest campaign and its probably now my favorite system, i suggest you try it!

Oh and yes, I am a 3/3.5 edition D&D hater I'm afraid

And of course the future:

I played 4 and 4.5 for about 10 years, and made the switch to Pathfinder 2.0 when it came out.

Having said that, I have switched to GURPS (yes, GURPS will always exist) for my latest campaign and its probably now my favorite system, i suggest you try it!

Oh and yes, I am a 5th edition D&D hater I'm afraid, thank the dice lords for Paizo and Pathfinder 2.0

lol. Very true, Ahtman!

I'm running a AD&D 2E game.

Ahtman wrote: Link

Wow, I'm having trouble believing that's the production paintjob. It does say "master," I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have loved the visual design of that character since I first got my mits on Beta and long to play a cleric of Sarenrae again some day. The pantheon is one of my favorite aspects of the Pathfinder setting. I find it suitably elemental. It necessarily lacks, however, the fantasy deities who most fascinate me.

The 'iconic' class art is one my favorite things about Pathfinder. It gets a little to busy on occasion but overall great designs and art.

@Ahtman,

While I agree people like that are out there that hate for the sake of hating and can't cope with change, I stand by my 4th edition D&D "hate". I say "hate" but as far as I'm concerned, all power to Wizards for going with it, I'm just not interested in it. I played it for a few months and it is not, to me, a pen & paper role-playing game that I enjoy.

Sorry, I felt I had to reply there, as you seemed to be viewing me as an idiot/troll.

No hate towards you by the way, just throwing in my 2 cents, and I'll always try and get people to try out the GURPS system, a very versatile system if you take a bit of time to get to grips with it.

I understand and pretty well agree with your position, TYwinLannister -- except to say that I recognize that 4E is a great set of rules (especially for the DM). But without a group that's interested in playing it, I've had no interest in reading the books. It's not one of those games that I can get into even though I'm not playing and may never play it.

The encounter building rules in 4th edition D&D are really good, i remember how quick it was to build encounters using the XP system.

The system as a whole is incredibly balanced and I have great respect for the authors and games designers, and would never put anyone down for playing it lol.

4th is a fantastic rules system, no doubt about it, but for me there's something it doesn't deliver, it just never felt right for me is all.

Its a pain that you can't get your group interested in playing, do you still role-play with other systems, or is the group a non-roleplay group?

So long as its policed well 3.5 is an excellent system. The trouble is too many add ons, and too many peiople think they have a 'right' to them, but above that its pointless carpet baning 'splatbook' feats spells and character classes when some of the most broken stuff is straight out of Players Handbook, often because of a direct reinteration of something in 1st edition AD&D.

The only D&D books I have are the 1st edition ones.

I like ridiculously detailed tables in the DMG - what are the chances that you contracted a disease from the prostitute you had to eat when rations ran low? See, I bet 4th ed can't tell you that...

TYwinLannister wrote:@Ahtman,

While I agree people like that are out there that hate for the sake of hating and can't cope with change, I stand by my 4th edition D&D "hate". I say "hate" but as far as I'm concerned, all power to Wizards for going with it, I'm just not interested in it. I played it for a few months and it is not, to me, a pen & paper role-playing game that I enjoy.

Sorry, I felt I had to reply there, as you seemed to be viewing me as an idiot/troll.

Not at all, just saying that much like the events of Battlestar Galactica, this is happened before and will happen again. There are a lot of systems out there and not everyone will like all of them but variety is a good thing.

Redbeard wrote:The only D&D books I have are the 1st edition ones.

I like ridiculously detailed tables in the DMG - what are the chances that you contracted a disease from the prostitute you had to eat when rations ran low? See, I bet 4th ed can't tell you that...

The book can't but your DM can. Which is a better option. As much as I loved the random tables in the original books, sometimes you want your campaign to make a little sense and have a good flow.

Orlanth wrote:So long as its policed well 3.5 is an excellent system. The trouble is too many add ons, and too many peiople think they have a 'right' to them, but above that its pointless carpet baning 'splatbook' feats spells and character classes when some of the most broken stuff is straight out of Players Handbook, often because of a direct reinteration of something in 1st edition AD&D.

Starting to see this in 4E as well. Right now having an issue with one of the other players who insists that if it was written under the D&D title it should be legal. In the Red Box there is a Wizard At-Will that is better than most Encounter powers but it is only 'legal' in the Red Box as it is just pre-gen characters and a choose your own adventure style story to introduce new players to the rules; it wasn't meant to creep outside that little story. I just know he is going to take that character (it is LFR) to a con and someone will tell him he can't use it and fits will be thrown.

For those familiar with 4E it is an At-Will Ranged 10 Burst 1 that does 1d6 + INT and slows. The Slow might be an effect actually so you may not even need to hit with it and since it is an arcane wizard power you can enlarge it. So you can do a Ranged 10 Burst 2 pwer that slows and does some damage At-Will.

Ahtman wrote:Starting to see this in 4E as well. Right now having an issue with one of the other players who insists that if it was written under the D&D title it should be legal.

This is actually the approach that Wizards takes. Do you use their online product? It incorporates both errata, faqs and updates from all of their material into the online character builder and compendium. It balances out a lot of the power creep by updating things that are broken and fixing them.

In the Red Box there is a Wizard At-Will that is better than most Encounter powers but it is only 'legal' in the Red Box as it is just pre-gen characters and a choose your own adventure style story to introduce new players to the rules; it wasn't meant to creep outside that little story.

Essentials is meant to be used with the rest of D&D.

For those familiar with 4E it is an At-Will Ranged 10 Burst 1 that does 1d6 + INT and slows. The Slow might be an effect actually so you may not even need to hit with it and since it is an arcane wizard power you can enlarge it. So you can do a Ranged 10 Burst 2 pwer that slows and does some damage At-Will.

Are you talking about Freezing Burst in HoFL? It's 1d6+int and slide 1. Not as awesome as slow. Enlarging wizard spells is a bit down the line. Anyways, it is low damage and allows slide shenanigans for an at-will. That's what Controllers are for.

It is good, but there are better at-wills for Wizards. Heck, base Thunderwave is enlargeable twice and has a big push, so does Beguiling Strands and it is ally friendly. Those are both base spells from PHB.

I have access to the official Character Builder and this power is not listed there. It is called Stone Blood and it is in the Red Box. You can probably google it. Apparently there were two other Wizard powers that didn't make the transition from Red Box to HotFL as well. Still, it was in the Red Box so to him that means he should be allowed to take it, it doesn't matter if LFR rules do not allow the Red Box stuff.

Essentials is meant to be used with the rest of D&D.

I didn't claim it wasn't. The Red Box has is Essentials beta and had some things that don't appear in Essentials; it wasn't designed to be an expanded project. It is a quick way to introduce new players to D&D, not the main Rulebook or Players guide for 4E or Essentials.

My bad, I misinterpreted your statements.

I accept my flogging.

Red box isn't 4e, it's basically 2e but slightly different, (I know ihave it)

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:Red box isn't 4e, it's basically 2e but slightly different, (I know ihave it)

They remade it iirc

Pathfinder, all the way.

Mordoskul wrote:Pathfinder, all the way.

This thread is about D&D, not other games.

Ahtman wrote:

Mordoskul wrote:Pathfinder, all the way.

This thread is about D&D, not other games.

What is Pathfinder but a better version of 3.5 Edition D'n'D?

I have never played pathfinder and alot of people were saying theres a difference so I decided to add it as an option

Wardragoon wrote:I have never played pathfinder and alot of people were saying theres a difference so I decided to add it as an option

I was just joking with you. Should I have used the winking emoticon instead?

....heh missed the smiley XD

I have played D&D since 81, and there is still a Rule from 1st ED
Rule 0: The GM can do anything he wants in his game.
Most players forget this.

The other thing is also what most "Old School" forget about 4th is attitude
DM's
1st Edition: DM=CE, and the players are Fodder
2nd Edition: DM=LE and still like to terrify his players.
3.0/3.5 Edition: DM=N and is just the storyteller
4th Edition: DM=The 6th Player, Everyone is supposed to work together to make the Game Better

The problem I have seen in the old attitudes. I have allays been a Team Player, 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder make it possible, but does not Encourage it other than saying you should. In 4th it is supported by Game Mechanics.
4th: I [The Rouge] will move up the Ork Warboss, hit him with Combat Advantage, Granted by my by the Cleric's Spell and Slide him next to the Fighter so he can beat on him while the Wizard prevents his minions from helping him.

I have one Player/DM [has played since 78] who cannot get this, He can't play a Warlord at all because he still thinks of #1: Himself. He is amazed when I play one. He also plays his Paladin like a Striker, He barrels into the Boss Monster bypassing the Minions to let the others deal with. As a DM he has trouble with the Party if they form a Line and Fight using a Shield Wall with everyone Supporting Each other.

Also when it comes to organizing a campaign and I utter the Phrase “What do you want out of the Game?” he grimaces and says “What this once more”!

This goes back to an old saying I came up with.
-The System Is All Important!
-The System is Unimportant!

What this means is that for some groups play style 4th edition was a gift from the Gaming Gods and for others it came from the Devil.

I am VERY Pro 4E, but I do not ever tell anyone there gaming systems “Sucks”. I say I don’t care for it and I don’t like it and all I ever ask is to do the same to me.

I know I have rambled a lot here, but you should see the stuff I deleted

Thank you for you time
Anpu42
=0o0=

Nicely said, Anpu42.

It cannot be emphasized enough that 3E was the players' Bill of Rights.

Ahtman wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:I have never played pathfinder and alot of people were saying theres a difference so I decided to add it as an option

I was just joking with you. Should I have used the winking emoticon instead?

I remember a few months ago I took these same comments wrong as well Wardragoon. I kept calling pathfinder D&D and Ahtman tried to learn me!

At least we have all moved on to making jokes about the dislike of one system or another.

Anyways you all should switch to Gurps. It is a way better system for D&D.

Has gurps changed over the years. I had that back when it was 1st edition, and I remember it for having an insanely detailed character generation system, and an interminably long (and lethal) combat system. I think you needed to roll five dice to resolve one strike.

pretre wrote:Nicely said, Anpu42.

I agree completely. In fact I think he actually worded what I dislike about 4E the most...team work. Personally I like teamwork, but a lot of the people I play with do not play the game like it should be played. They still play it like it is 1E-3.5E. I remember playing a wizard and the DM pretty much make striker encounters. I couldn't damage the creatures at all because he refused to build encounters that were fair to all classes. I got to the point that I didn't want to play the game anymore. The DM said you get a cut of the XP if you do at least 1 point of damage, but the huge ass creatures that he made us fight were impossible for my wizard to damage most of the time.

So for the time being I am playing Pathfinder because it can be used as a D&D ruleset and it more in line with my group's playing style. If everyone actually played 4E like it is supposed to, I would switch back to it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:Has gurps changed over the years. I had that back when it was 1st edition, and I remember it for having an insanely detailed character generation system, and an interminably long (and lethal) combat system. I think you needed to roll five dice to resolve one strike.

Yeah it has changed some of the years. I am currently using the 4E book. I don't like its construction, (hardback and colour) because it seems to fall apart at a sneeze. The combat system in fourth edition is much like third. In terms of maneuvers, the Move and attack maneuver is new, allowing for a full move followed by a poorly aimed attack. A major change from the third edition rules is the removal of Passive Defense scores for Armor. In third edition, armor had a Damage Resistance stat and a Passive Defense stat. The PD added to your active defense chances, this has been eliminated in fourth edition. Your active defenses are now equal to 3 plus half of your relevant skill for parry and block, or speed for dodge,(with a modifier to dodge for encumbrance). Shields now provide a defense bonus that adds to your active defense, they are the only item providing such a defense bonus now. Quite a bit different from the old 1E book...

Although character gen still takes ages, unless you set some pretty harsh restrictions on what folks can take.

Lord Scythican wrote:I remember playing a wizard and the DM pretty much make striker encounters. I couldn't damage the creatures at all because he refused to build encounters that were fair to all classes. I got to the point that I didn't want to play the game anymore. The DM said you get a cut of the XP if you do at least 1 point of damage, but the huge ass creatures that he made us fight were impossible for my wizard to damage most of the time.

Ouch, there's your problem. Bad DM.

No game is capable of withstanding a bad GM. 1st immutable law of RP.

For the Wizard at-will thing, it's the an area-of-effect, right? That weakens it right there the way my group approves powers. It'd be great if it would be useful, but depending on the targeting/positioning requirements, most area effects are very limited use as you end up toasting your team mates if the GM is at all aggressive. We find that so many characters need to set up flanking and such to up damage and to-hit rates that area effect spells that don't discriminate between allies and enemies get limited use.

Redbeard wrote:Has gurps changed over the years. I had that back when it was 1st edition, and I remember it for having an insanely detailed character generation system, and an interminably long (and lethal) combat system. I think you needed to roll five dice to resolve one strike.

The current edition is still, by default, a bit overly complex in my opinion. One major complaint is it's still very possible to make a fundamentally useless or illogical character unless the GM does a lot of work. For example, making a reasonable modern day character you end up with tons of skills just to 'make sense' like basic computer skills, driving, etc. Combat can require multiple rolls, but generally only if you're using automatic weapons and such.

Still, the books, mostly for the previous edition, for historical settings and such are very cool resources. I'd just ignore the rules and use something like Savage Worlds, d20, or similar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:I remember playing a wizard and the DM pretty much make striker encounters. I couldn't damage the creatures at all because he refused to build encounters that were fair to all classes. I got to the point that I didn't want to play the game anymore. The DM said you get a cut of the XP if you do at least 1 point of damage, but the huge ass creatures that he made us fight were impossible for my wizard to damage most of the time.

Ouch, there's your problem. Bad DM.

Yup. Bad GM can ruin the game. I think the rules-as-written for 4th pretty much say to make sure everyone gets XP, and generally thr group should stay at the same level. In fact, a lot of GMs seem to be moving to just handing out a level every 2-3 sessions as it's the same effective thing and easier to deal with. 4th edition got rid of some of the weird ideas of 'XP as a resource' for things like creating magic items anyway...

Balance wrote:For the Wizard at-will thing, it's the an area-of-effect, right? That weakens it right there the way my group approves powers. It'd be great if it would be useful, but depending on the targeting/positioning requirements, most area effects are very limited use as you end up toasting your team mates if the GM is at all aggressive. We find that so many characters need to set up flanking and such to up damage and to-hit rates that area effect spells that don't discriminate between allies and enemies get limited use.

In fact, I'm fairly certain that Ally-Friendly vs non-Ally-Friendly is a balancing factor by WOTC for spells. You'll find that non-ally-friendly generally does more damage. Also the reason that my current character is an Invoker. I love ally friendly AOE.

4th edition got rid of some of the weird ideas of 'XP as a resource' for things like creating magic items anyway...

Oh man, I hated that. There was that weird minigame that you could play where you used item creation to stay even with the party based on the differences in XP rewards depending on your level. (If you were one level behind, you could often get 'free' xp for item creation because of the increased rewards you got from what the party got.) It was silly.

I'd say "universal" rather than "immutable."

Also, don't forget the Second Universal Law: no RPG is capable of withstanding bad players.

Manchu wrote:I'd say "universal" rather than "immutable."

Also, don't forget the Second Universal Law: no RPG is capable of withstanding bad players.

Agreed. I just like the way the word 'immutable' sounds.

Anpu42 wrote:I have played D&D since 81, and there is still a Rule from 1st ED
Rule 0: The GM can do anything he wants in his game.
Most players forget this.

Use the Bloodied DMG, grants +5 to intimidation checks against unruly players.

I would argue that all those DM stereotypes are prevalent in any edition of the game, just the rule set may support a certain type better than others. I know of one DM back in New York that runs his games like your 2nd edition DM example and he currently is running a 4e game.

Manchu wrote:It cannot be emphasized enough that 3E was the players' Bill of Rights.

Really, how so? Not disagreeing with you, just curious how you came to that conclusion.

Balance wrote:For the Wizard at-will thing, it's the an area-of-effect, right? That weakens it right there the way my group approves powers. It'd be great if it would be useful, but depending on the targeting/positioning requirements, most area effects are very limited use as you end up toasting your team mates if the GM is at all aggressive. We find that so many characters need to set up flanking and such to up damage and to-hit rates that area effect spells that don't discriminate between allies and enemies get limited use.

Almost everything a Wizard does is AoE or multi-target so it is inherent in the class to do such things. To compare it to another spell, Freezing Ray, might illustrate why it is two powerful for an at will. They both do damage and slow targets, but Freezing Rays is limited to 2 targets, does a d8, cannot be expanded, and is once per encounter. Stone Blood can effect between 9 to 21 (expanded) targets, does a d6 (not that Wizards are sought out for their damage anyway), and can be used anytime you want. There are lots of way to ignore, or minimize hitting allies in a burst so it really isn't a huge problem. I have the War Wizard feat which gives a penalty to the roll for hitting allies and even if it does they only then take half damage if they are hit. Toss in the Fortune Cards that allow you to ignore one ally in a burst and it isn't that big a concern.

I looked it up and found the other daily that didn't make the transition was a level 1 daily spell that turned the target into a toad. It is a save ends daze in which the target can only make a move or shift action, which at level one is really quite good.

A GM can do anything he wants, but the players are under no obligation to stick around.

Running a game for zero players gets boring quick.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the wizard at-will thing, it sounds like the best recourse may be to resort to social engineering.

I'm playing a druid and the AoE spell thing has bit me a couple times. Some of the druid spells avoid friendly fire, some aren't. And I'm multitasking between AoEs and turning into a weird melee combatant anyway...

BTW, is the group using the original or 'fixed' version of Magic Missile? It the original 4.0 books it required a hit roll but did better damage, but was errataed to auto-hit for nearly no damage.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Wardragoon wrote:I have never played pathfinder and alot of people were saying theres a difference so I decided to add it as an option

I was just joking with you. Should I have used the winking emoticon instead?

I remember a few months ago I took these same comments wrong as well Wardragoon. I kept calling pathfinder D&D and Ahtman tried to learn me!

At least we have all moved on to making jokes about the dislike of one system or another.

Anyways you all should switch to Gurps. It is a way better system for D&D.

Gurps?

GURPS: Generic Universal Role Playing System, from Steve Jackson Games.

It's been around for quite a while, and has a definite. There are (although some may not be updated for the most recent edition) books for a ton of historical eras, fantasy, science fiction, as well as a lot of other settings both original and licensed.

It's extremely 'open' which is good and bad. If you don't lock things down you might give players a 'budget' to build characters and get a 'regular joe', a minor superhero type, and a wizard from one group of players. It'll be relatively balanced, although the 'regular joe' might not find a lot of use for his 'computer' skills in Middle Earth or wherever.

In reality, the GM needs to either set firm limits and expectations for player characters or be heavily involved in character creation.

Not a favorite system of mine, but Steve Jackson Games did some great supplements for GURPS that are great for historical game settings even if you toss the rules stuff. They wrote a bunch of the books like they were doing serious scholarly research.

Balance wrote:BTW, is the group using the original or 'fixed' version of Magic Missile? It the original 4.0 books it required a hit roll but did better damage, but was errataed to auto-hit for nearly no damage.

It's LFR so following the most up to date. I did like the Red Box version of it though. It is the current description but it allowed up to 2 targets instead of one.

I run 4E, but I try to downplay the combat. It seems like a lot of 4E adventures are combat-heavy, so I try to keep the characters immersed in the story, more than anything else. Not to say I won't run combats though. D&D without killing Orcs is like 40k without Spehhs Mehrens

swiftdraw wrote:Really, how so? Not disagreeing with you, just curious how you came to that conclusion.

Becouse on of the things 3.0/3.5 did was put the Players and the Monsters on the Same playing field, sort of. The monsters got Skills and Feats just like a Player Character. to if you wanted Your monster to have Great Cleave it wold have to have Power Attack and Cleave, just like a PC. So as one wat to put it was if the Moster Could Do it, your character should be able to do it.

Yeah, that's one aspect of what I mean. The 3E rules were both universalized (like Anpu points out) and rationalized. By 'rationalized,' I mean that the core mechanic can be and is used to determine everything and there is a stat for (basically) everything. Gone were the days of asking the DM what is possible in the game world. Thanks to universal, rational rules the players have an argument as to what is and is not possible. The DM had a lot more leeway to ignore these kinds of arguments in AD&D but ignoring them in 3E would draw justified criticisms of arbitrariness, unfairness, and the term (with negative connotations) that developed for it is "DM fiat." Looking back on AD&D, the DM's role was tyrannical and (in my mind) way too burdensome. Of course, some people claim 3E has encouraged rules-lawyering and that it 'restrcts' imagination.

Manchu wrote:Yeah, that's one aspect of what I mean. The 3E rules were both universalized (like Anpu points out) and rationalized. By 'rationalized,' I mean that the core mechanic can be and is used to determine everything and there is a stat for (basically) everything. Gone were the days of asking the DM what is possible in the game world. Thanks to universal, rational rules the players have an argument as to what is and is not possible. The DM had a lot more leeway to ignore these kinds of arguments in AD&D but ignoring them in 3E would draw justified criticisms of arbitrariness, unfairness, and the term (with negative connotations) that developed for it is "DM fiat." Looking back on AD&D, the DM's role was tyrannical and (in my mind) way too burdensome. Of course, some people claim 3E has encouraged rules-lawyering and that it 'restrcts' imagination.

And those people are WRONG. I'm joking of course, I can see where they're coming from. It's so reliant on the GM, though, that such rules-light systems will leave a lot of players feeling very dissatisfied with the game, and puts a huge burden on the GM to arbitrate fairly on the spot. GM's will always have to do that, but it shouldn't come up so frequently as to be the norm, in my opinion. I find that pre-existing rules to cover more eventualities makes for a more enjoyable game, and that it rarely detracts from the imaginative aspect of play.

So I'm really just repeating what you said, aren't I? AD&D DM, too tyrannical and too burdensome. You hit it on the head, for me.

We're so used to living inside of D&D mechanical tropes that it's easy to forget D&D is just another game.

For example, we're too used to thinking of DMs as a separate category from "player." But the DM is actually a player, too -- that is, the DM is also a person who is playing the game.

Now there's a basic aspect to every game regarding who's on whose side. I don't know what the pros call it but for our purposes it's the 'hostility line.' In most games, if a player one side of the line wins then the players on the other side of the line lose. Now, this isn't necessarily the case with D&D but there is still an obvious hostility line -- PCs v. DM. Every game, including D&D, depends on a sense of fairness across that line. The easiest way to maintain this fairness is to give players on either side of the line the same or functionally equivalent options. The rationalization and universalization of 3E went a long way towards this goal. D&D has been more obviously "fair" since 3E than previously.

IMO, this is radically beneficial because opponents have to trust one another to play fairly in order to enjoy the game. When rules are rational and universal, the opponents can 'check' one another's application of those rules -- in other words, there is a sense of transparency. Now the literal transparency is something that we have an explicit tool -- the DM screen -- to avoid. But the reason we can tolerate (and even desire) a DM screen is because we trust that if we were to see "under the hood" everything would be working as we expect . . . with the exception of a few "fudges" to build the drama. Of course, whether (potentialyl) "fudging" the rolls is actually any fun is itself yet another example of the trust between DMs and players that universal and rational rulesets encourage.

4th at the moment. I have tried Pathfinder in the past, and I think it is great too. They are two different games, not really much to compare.

I love good ol' 2nd edition

Manchu wrote:We're so used to living inside of D&D mechanical tropes that it's easy to forget D&D is just another game.

For example, we're too used to thinking of DMs as a separate category from "player." But the DM is actually a player, too -- that is, the DM is also a person who is playing the game.

Now there's a basic aspect to every game regarding who's on whose side. I don't know what the pros call it but for our purposes it's the 'hostility line.' In most games, if a player one side of the line wins then the players on the other side of the line lose. Now, this isn't necessarily the case with D&D but there is still an obvious hostility line -- PCs v. DM. Every game, including D&D, depends on a sense of fairness across that line. The easiest way to maintain this fairness is to give players on either side of the line the same or functionally equivalent options. The rationalization and universalization of 3E went a long way towards this goal. D&D has been more obviously "fair" since 3E than previously.

IMO, this is radically beneficial because opponents have to trust one another to play fairly in order to enjoy the game. When rules are rational and universal, the opponents can 'check' one another's application of those rules -- in other words, there is a sense of transparency. Now the literal transparency is something that we have an explicit tool -- the DM screen -- to avoid. But the reason we can tolerate (and even desire) a DM screen is because we trust that if we were to see "under the hood" everything would be working as we expect . . . with the exception of a few "fudges" to build the drama. Of course, whether (potentialyl) "fudging" the rolls is actually any fun is itself yet another example of the trust between DMs and players that universal and rational rulesets encourage.

What is this playing like, its been over a years since I was a PC but you do bring up a great point as a gm

One of the other thing I saw alot of with 3.0/3.5 is House Rules and lots of them to make the game work for each group. Evrything from How to generate Character to Races, to Spell Casting
Now I admit I have only seen one or two 4e Groups, but I have seen very little House Rules Needed.

Insert errata joke?

4E is really good about errata, at least. I think they learned their lesson from 3.5.

I started playing back in the days of "Chainmail", then progressed to the Beginner, Advanced, then finally Expert "versions" of the game.

The best time I had playing was at the beginning of the 2nd Edition rules, where they made adventures out of "Shadowdale", "Tantras", and "Waterdeep". This was the intro to 2nd Ed. I've seen the rules for ver 3, and 3.5, and don't care at all for them.

If I could find some people to play 2nd Ed online, that would be nice


Priest

2nd currently.

3.5, mainly because it has the most resources that I have seen and everytime I try to swap over to Pathfinder (Or anyother system) my players tend to revolt.

Asukane wrote:3.5, mainly because it has the most resources that I have seen and everytime I try to swap over to Pathfinder (Or anyother system) my players tend to revolt.

Heh, I am trying to switch over to deathwatch, heres hoping no french revolutions occur.

I have started to do a little Pathfinder and I am actualy enjoying it more that 3.5. Though I do enjoy 4e more

I currently play Pathfinder at the moment. I find the game to be fairly balanced but still retaining the 3e/3.5e feel. I find this to be an extremely good thing as the ruleset it complex enough to allow variety and uniqueness while still being streamlined to keep the flow of the game going. I have not seen anything overly broken but that maybe because our gaming group rarely power games but instead builds characters to specific traits they want in their characters.

The current campaign I am playing, I have been a part of for a long time. We started with a group of 6 and everyone at Lvl 1. After a mid campaign story switch as we completed chapters, characters leaving and entering the campaign (character deaths, characters leaving with certain chapter changes, or other reasons), and changing character backstories, we now have 9 characters in the campaign, played by 8 players, but split into two sessions with a group of 5 and 4 and everyone is Lvl 13. Both parties are accomplishing different tasks within the same campaign so it has created an interesting dynamic that one parties actions can effect the session of the other party.

I have only a few sessions under my belt with 2e and 4e. I really do not remember a lot of 2e but 4e seemed too much like an MMO to me, archetypes, ability cooldowns, and how the game is played. So, I would suggest trying out Pathfinder.

Ya I got sucked into the Kingdoms of Kalamar by Kenzer and Co (i think) long ago, so I doubt I'll ever leave 3.5. So much support material for Kalamar - I've got an atlas as well as a huge map for crying out loud! Pathfinder is tempting, tho - it's all in the one book? Pretty much 3.5 streamlined? Is it fairly compatible (as in monster stats and such)?

I just found a guy's blog who sums up pretty much why I love 4E.

Would you like to run up a dragon’s face and stab it in the eye? How about hurl someone ten feet back with the force of your ridiculously huge hammer? Call down the heavens in a fury of wind and lightning? Fourth Edition has a Power for that.

Easily the most cinamatic of the D&D Editions thus far, Fourth Edition is the edition you play when you want to stop being Gandalf and start being a bad-naughtyword naughtyword wizard, yo. Back in Second Edition, we used to think that the idea of a well-armed wizard was some hep jive. Now, if your wizard is carrying a sword, he’s naughtyword doing it wrong, because he can blast holes in an army with a gesture of his hand. Fighters used to stand around hitting a thing with their swords. Now, you fighter can stab a dude in the junk, hurl him at your rogue and make sure that Huge Guy with the Axe doesn’t murder you all. Your rogue doesn’t just stab people in the kidneys; your rogue stabs people in the kidneys, dances around them like she’s a naughtyword professional, flings them back at the fighter and mocks their mother. There is nothing in this game that doesn’t scream “I am a naughtyword badass.”

Wizard? Badass.
Rogue? Badass.
Fighter? Totally badass.
BARD? You don’t even know how badass your bard is.

The fights don’t quit when your wizard runs out of spells; your wizard can hit a bad guy, automatically, every turn forever. Your cleric heals your wounds by MAKING NEW WOUNDS ON YOUR ENEMY’S FACE. The fighter is a toolbox of punishment and can make sure the rest of your party stays alive long enough to do their jobs. There is not a single class that does not rock in this game.

Everyone has something interesting and powerful to do pretty much all the time, and that is naughtyword great.

http://giantsbridge.blogspot.com/2011/01/edition-love.html

I don't know how to sum it up better than That!!!!

The thing is, you could always do that stuff. You just had to use your own imagination instead of having your possibilities laid out for you in the rules. As a DM, I gave out XP bonuses for particularly spectacular descriptions of actions taken by PCs... but anyway.

I play 3.5. Partly because I don't really care for the 4e rules from having read them, and partly because I see no reason to not use the large amounts of books I have purchased for that edition.

I will agrea that It has always this way, Unless you had a GM that did not allow you to, I have had to many that did.

Most of the time in my 3.5 games I just roll my Initative, To Hit roll and my Damage all at the 1st of the round, becouse 90% what ever I do it will always be the same result

I Rolled a 24 so I go 2nd
I roll my 1d20+16 and Hit
I roll my 1d8+15 Damage

Rinse Repeat every Round

At least in 4th without having to look up special Rules [Grapple/Sundering Ect.] you can do somthing special with every attack with out needing to use "Special" Rules

Anpu42 wrote:At least in 4th without having to look up special Rules [Grapple/Sundering Ect.] you can do somthing special with every attack with out needing to use "Special" Rules

But you can only do those things. I tend towards... creative solutions when I play, and whilst I like 4E, I find that the powers limit the variety of actions you can take. Admittedly, a good GM can house-rule for these things, but, for me, it's nicer to have a ruleset where a greater diversity of actions are available to work with. Pathfinder's CMB/CMD system does a lot for allowing this whilst reducing the needless complexity of 3.5. I still really enjoy 4E, don't get me wrong, but I do find the power system to be a touch stifling.

htj wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:At least in 4th without having to look up special Rules [Grapple/Sundering Ect.] you can do somthing special with every attack with out needing to use "Special" Rules

But you can only do those things. I tend towards... creative solutions when I play, and whilst I like 4E, I find that the powers limit the variety of actions you can take. Admittedly, a good GM can house-rule for these things, but, for me, it's nicer to have a ruleset where a greater diversity of actions are available to work with. Pathfinder's CMB/CMD system does a lot for allowing this whilst reducing the needless complexity of 3.5. I still really enjoy 4E, don't get me wrong, but I do find the power system to be a touch stifling.

This is always an endless debate. For 'martial' classes, the amount of cool stuff you can do was dramatically increased. For some 'arcane' classes, it was decreased (mage). For 'leader' classes, it was increased a crazy amount. How many times did you group have to stick someone with the Cleric so they would have healing? How much fun was that when your turn devolved into 'I heal X for 28. Done go.'

3.5/Pathfinder is hands-down more customizable and has reams of more material. 4E is leagues simpler and is focused on a cinematic experience and allowing everyone (especially the DM) to have the same amount of fun. People like different things. /shrug

pretre wrote:People like different things. /shrug

But what would nerds argue about?

Ahtman wrote:

pretre wrote:People like different things. /shrug

But what would nerds argue about?

Yeaaaahhhh.... I'm starting to be kind of over the internet and nerd debating. I may have to take a good long vacation and see what outside looks like.

Ahtman wrote:

pretre wrote:People like different things. /shrug

But what would nerds argue about?

Kirk vs. Picard?

String Theory vs. M Theory?

Han shot first?

Monster Rain wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

pretre wrote:People like different things. /shrug

But what would nerds argue about?

Kirk vs. Picard?

String Theory vs. M Theory?

Han shot first?

Or Tyranids Vs. the Republic
Jedi Vs. SM


....oh wait silly me thats whats on 40k general right now

pretre wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

pretre wrote:People like different things. /shrug

But what would nerds argue about?

Yeaaaahhhh.... I'm starting to be kind of over the internet and nerd debating. I may have to take a good long vacation and see what outside looks like.

Outside is overrated.

You could get a sunburn!

Monster Rain wrote:

pretre wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

pretre wrote:People like different things. /shrug

But what would nerds argue about?

Yeaaaahhhh.... I'm starting to be kind of over the internet and nerd debating. I may have to take a good long vacation and see what outside looks like.

Outside is overrated.

You could get a sunburn!

Are you kidding me you could get SKIN CANCER!!!!

I heard there are girls there.

Mannahnin wrote:I heard there are girls there.

Sadly, this is a myth spread by the Sunscreen Marketing Board.

Monster Rain wrote:The thing is, you could always do that stuff. You just had to use your own imagination instead of having your possibilities laid out for you in the rules. As a DM, I gave out XP bonuses for particularly spectacular descriptions of actions taken by PCs... but anyway.

Fair enough. However, a number of games I ran or was in under 2nd edition and 3rd the GM encouraged this kind of behavior, but in practice cool tricks worked a few times, then the GM would get annoyed as the players tried to spam them. Grab a beam and push back a bunch of enemies? Cool once, but the 2nd time it's a tactic and is boring.

You can still do weird stuff in 4th edition if te group is up for it... Everyone just has some standard maneuvers they can use on-demand.

i enjoy finding paths

I play 3.5 and 4E.

A lot of people seem to hate 4E, but for beginner players it's great; it's way more user friendly and the rules are just more ironed out. I think 3.5 is better for the more advanced players, as it seems more in depth, but 4E is still great in my opinion, even better than 3.5 as it's more ironed out.

pretre wrote:

htj wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:At least in 4th without having to look up special Rules [Grapple/Sundering Ect.] you can do somthing special with every attack with out needing to use "Special" Rules

But you can only do those things. I tend towards... creative solutions when I play, and whilst I like 4E, I find that the powers limit the variety of actions you can take. Admittedly, a good GM can house-rule for these things, but, for me, it's nicer to have a ruleset where a greater diversity of actions are available to work with. Pathfinder's CMB/CMD system does a lot for allowing this whilst reducing the needless complexity of 3.5. I still really enjoy 4E, don't get me wrong, but I do find the power system to be a touch stifling.

This is always an endless debate. For 'martial' classes, the amount of cool stuff you can do was dramatically increased. For some 'arcane' classes, it was decreased (mage). For 'leader' classes, it was increased a crazy amount. How many times did you group have to stick someone with the Cleric so they would have healing? How much fun was that when your turn devolved into 'I heal X for 28. Done go.'

3.5/Pathfinder is hands-down more customizable and has reams of more material. 4E is leagues simpler and is focused on a cinematic experience and allowing everyone (especially the DM) to have the same amount of fun. People like different things. /shrug

Very True, the Fighter and Rouge can due amazing things.

4th, but WANT too try pathfinder

Ahtman wrote:[Indeed, both Pathfinder and 4E have excellent rules sets.

Sorry just the thought of 4E being an *excellent ruleset* just makes me giggle. It isn't bad as a table top tactical wargame set of rules, but is really lacking as a set of RPG rules. The DM guides go into so many interesting aspects of roleplaying that are completely missing from the Player's Handbooks. So unless you read those books or have an RPG background roleplaying is just this "esoteric" aspect of the game that has little meaning. Even the monster manuals no longer include much of any story or interesting background for the creatures involved and it is all about the powers/stats. Our group still makes "characters", but 4th edition really does encourage and focus more on the monty haul style of D&D playing that I just can't stand. If I want to just kill stuff, collect treasure and rank I'll play a computer game. Don't get me wrong. I love table top wargaming, it is just that is *not* what I play D&D for.

Ultimately it is what you make of it, but 4th edition really did make me mourn for what used to be an amazing constant in the roleplaying world.

Skriker

Skriker wrote:

Ahtman wrote:[Indeed, both Pathfinder and 4E have excellent rules sets.

Sorry just the thought of 4E being an *excellent ruleset* just makes me giggle. It isn't bad as a table top tactical wargame set of rules, but is really lacking as a set of RPG rules. :snip: Ultimately it is what you make of it, but 4th edition really did make me mourn for what used to be an amazing constant in the roleplaying world.

Thanks for bringing the edition wars back to this thread, we were really lacking it.

D&D has never really had 'RPG' rules. It has always been a tactical combat system, just not table top. Having a lot of tables to roll on to see what personality your NPC has (1st), kits to add onto your character (2E) or more skills to add points into (3E) don't actually count as roleplaying. Roleplaying counts as roleplaying and is system independent. As for fluff, there is just as much fluff now as there was before.

If you don't like the style of 4E, that's cool, it may not be your thing. Just don't try to bring up the ye ol' Role vs Roll play and push that back on us as the reason. That has been a problem since RPGs started and 4E is no more guilty than any other system.

3rd edition, and am looking for a group in/near swindon that a 13 year old can join

Pathfinder.

feth 4e

Comintern wrote:Pathfinder.

feth 4e

How articulate of you.

I'd also like to thank Shriker for both bring this thread back from the grave and turning it into a childish edition war in one swoop.

I think the moral of the story is 'Play what you want to play; play what makes you happy.'

Also, don't judge others.

pretre wrote:I think the moral of the story is 'Play what you want to play; play what makes you happy.'

Also, don't judge others.

Agreed on the play what you want to play, but disagreeing with someone is hardly "judging others" nor is critiquing a ruleset. You people need to lighten up and accept that its just a game and I don't have to like or play any particular version of it. Doesn't mean you can't think it is the greatest thing ever. The version wars only happen when someone says how great something is and then gets pissy because someone disagrees with them...

Skriker

Skriker wrote:Agreed on the play what you want to play, but disagreeing with someone is hardly "judging others" nor is critiquing a ruleset. You people need to lighten up and accept that its just a game and I don't have to like or play any particular version of it. Doesn't mean you can't think it is the greatest thing ever. The version wars only happen when someone says how great something is and then gets pissy because someone disagrees with them...

I didn't say you were judging others; I was talking in general. I did, however, say that you injected a lot of criticism of a game into a thread about which version of a game someone plays. It was unnecessary. Why did you need to tear down one system in order to tell us what you are playing? (Which you didn't even do in your post.)

Next time, just tell us why you like Pathfinder or 3E so much and why you enjoy playing it. Don't come in and tell us why you hate 4E so much.

4th Edition, after play testing it. Feels more like a card game then a roleplaying system. Also, because Wizard of the coast dismantled Faerun to mesh with the new casting system and make room for the new races released for Fourth edition.

That is why I do not play it.

Pathfinder took 3.5 and fixed several things. The way Pathfinder restructured the core classes, makes it enjoyable once again to play just the core classes without the need to jump into a prestige class. (which was not a bad system either).

The CMB/CMD is a nice way to smooth out and streamline grapple and other perceived combat maneuvers.

However, as everyone says, you play what you like.

In truth, I think I enjoy Dark Heresy more then I enjoy Pathfinder.

sorry if people were offended by the feth 4ed, but feth 4ed.

pretre wrote:[I didn't say you were judging others; I was talking in general. I did, however, say that you injected a lot of criticism of a game into a thread about which version of a game someone plays. It was unnecessary. Why did you need to tear down one system in order to tell us what you are playing? (Which you didn't even do in your post.)

Next time, just tell us why you like Pathfinder or 3E so much and why you enjoy playing it. Don't come in and tell us why you hate 4E so much.

Because some of my groupmates love 4th edition that is what I am stuck playing and why I am commenting on it. I don't have a whole lot of nice things to say about it. I play it because I am not the lord master of my gaming group and others get to choose the games we play too. I'd rather be back playing 2nd ediiton if I had my druthers, but at the moment I don't. Everyone is hooked on the "number of encounters we get through in a given session" and complain if we don't meet their expectations. Meanwhile I'm trying to have fun with my friends and interject as much roleplaying into the sessions as I can, but it keeps coming back to number of encounters...sigh...I might consider running 3.5 at some point. Right now, though, my best defense is getting my latest Call of Cthulhu and Shadowrun campaigns ready to go so that I can interject something different back into the mix.

Skriker

Pathfinder. Great game.

I was also a fan of HackMaster 4th edition, which was basically Advanced D&D with options and humor added.

Very lethal game.

Comintern wrote:sorry if people were offended by the feth 4ed, but feth 4ed.

So, essentially, you played one or two games of a new system you weren't overly familiar with than compared it to a system you had been playing for years and didn't find it as engaging? I have to say I am shocked.

Hey - 15 people voted for AD&D (i.e., 1st edition).

Aside from me - who are you?

PM me and we'll see where it goes from there...

Thanks!