Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Im in a couple campaigns depending on who the DM is. I'm either a Dwarf Defender, Half Elf Monk, or an Halfling Bard.

I've played 3.0 and 3.5. My wife and I have come to the opinion that 4.0 is the Windows Vista of the D&D world. It's okay in it's own way, but nothing we would use. Also, I like the proliferation of sourcebooks that exist for the 3.5 edition. So much more material to work from. I like to play wizards and rogues, with wizard being the definite favorite. I also DM'd a long running campaign that went for a year and was so popular among the local group that I went from three players to thirteen by the time it was done. The party was literally one cast spell level away from triggering localized armageddon at the end of the boss fight and ripping a hole right through the wards to bring the Plane of Madness coterminous (this was an Eberron campaign). The shocked faces all around when I showed them the spell level tally sheet after all was said and done were perfectly priceless.

Currently I'm starting a monk in a new Faerun campaign and DMing a Firefly campaign. The die progression system that setting uses is complicated to look at but once you use it a few times it's very easy and smooths out the mechanics allowing for more roleplay. I definitely recommend the setting to any fans of Firefly or Serenity who enjoy D&D.

Been playing since 1985, with the Frank Mentzer-edited boxed Basic D&D set. Moved onto 1st ed and 2nd ed AD&D, with a goodly number of house rules through the 90s. Got out in the late 90s, then got sucked back in shortly after 3rd edition came out, and have been playing consistently ever since. Am quite enjoying 4th edition right now, and enjoying running it, which 4th edition makes considerably easier and more streamlined than 3rd.

I like every edition. They all have their virtues and foibles. Things they’re good or bad at. 4th was a pretty radical step, and breaks with a lot of D&D traditions. But in doing so it also dumps a lot of headaches and problems and imbalances that had been problems for decades. I can absolutely understand folks who don’t like it. I’m tempted to try a game of Pathfinder at some point, too, as there are a few things about the 3rd & 3.5 designs that I miss.

That's good, let's see,... 184 views, 31 posts.
Maybe a poll will help the count?

But MMO's are DnD.

RPG's influenced the creation of online RPG's which in turn influenced RPG's. Do you believe that WoW came out before pen and paper RPG's? They adopted some of the language of MMO's, but MMO's did the same thing from them. How is a Paladin in WoW radically different DnD at it's core? In both they are holy warriors with lots of hitpoints and heavy armor. In both Mages/Wizards use magic and have low hit points. There are a lot of arguments to be made on why one prefers a system over another but this is a very poor one that doesn't hold up to even superficial scrutiny.

I know putting abilities in essentially card forms has made people think it is a card game, but it is not. They just used a format that keeps it simple. You could easily do the same thing in a spreadsheet format or any other way and get the same result. It also allows them to sell the prepackaged cards but I only know one guy in a group of 14ish that uses them. They aren't essential and you could write the abilities down in any way. On the other side you could make cards of all the spells and abilities in 3rd edition (or earlier) and get the same result.

Now one argument that certainly does hold some water, though it is entirely preferential and not mechanical, is that even at level 1 in 4th characters are pretty powerful. No more level 1 wizards with 2 hit points. It isn't good for more mundane settings. There are rules in DMG2 for scaling to play with no magic items, or very few.

I also think it requires to many books. You don't really need to buy the books as the Character Creator has everything in one location, but it isn't really the same. It is a little to geared toward multiple book purchases. The miniatures are not a very good deal either. I remember the boxes when they released at Gencon had 8 or 10 figs in them and now it is 4 random + 1 large you can see for $15.

They must not have failed that miserably because 4th Edition is doing quite well.

Mannahnin wrote:I like every edition. They all have their virtues and foibles. Things they’re good or bad at. 4th was a pretty radical step, and breaks with a lot of D&D traditions. But in doing so it also dumps a lot of headaches and problems and imbalances that had been problems for decades. I can absolutely understand folks who don’t like it. I’m tempted to try a game of Pathfinder at some point, too, as there are a few things about the 3rd & 3.5 designs that I miss.

This is basically how I feel. It doesn't bother me that someone prefers one system or another. If you don't have a good group they all suck, if you have a good one they can all be fun. My problem is when it isn't presented as a preference but a kneejerk reaction with no support and proclamations of why one is awful without actually saying why (they believe) it is.

From conversation I have had about Pathfinder is that it is 3.5 with all the flaws and bonus's but that the setting is fantastic. The book is also huge. I love the artwork for it to.

Pathfinder changed very little from 3.5, but the changes were worthwhile. Much less math is required, and grappling is much less confusing (I'm sorry if anybody else complains that it wasn't. My whole group refused to use it on virtue of it being complicated). I love what they did with skill points - rather than just having max ranks at +3 level, they made the max ranks equal to your HD. You also get far fewer skill points, but if you put a point into a class skill, you get a permanent +3 to that skill. It really made it easier to use cross-class skills.

Oh, and classes are far more balanced now. Every class gets more stuff as it levels up (Fighters don't just get moar bonus feats...although they are the only class to get a feat at every level). It's far more worthwhile to actually single-class in the system, rather than multiclassing.

As for 4th Edition, I really enjoyed it. Sure, it does need a lot of books, but the stack of 3.5 books my group has collectively is far larger than the stack of all 4e books ever released. 4e was really good for making the classes balanced out a bit more, with no more massive imbalance between Fighters and Wizards.

why can't everbody post? 229 views and only 36 posts?

leoaeris6789 wrote:I play 3.5, spent WAY too much money to convert to 4e. got about 90% of the good books

Same here (although no regular game at the moment). I would consider 4E, though, in the future--I figure 3.5E games will become increasingly hard-to-find over the next few years! I suppose there are plenty of other hobbies to spend my free time with anyway.

Ahtman wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Howlingmoon wrote:4e is terrible.

Could you be more specific. Just saying it doesn't mean much without saying why. Is it the ease of use? Or that you aren't pigeonholed into alignments? That melee characters can do more? That Wizards aren't OP?

If you want to turn this into a flame war I'd be more than happy to oblige you... via PM. Insulting people for not having your exact same tastes is not a nice thing to do.

Boy, talk about flying off the rails. I just asked him to be more specific in why he disliked it. I never said anything about any system being better than another. It is a silly argument as it is apples and oranges. If you like it I love it. All I did was point out some of the nice things about fourth.

You are an idiot. - THAT is an insult.

What was it that you didn't like? Here are some things that are good about it. - That is nowhere near the realm of insult.

And you thought I flew off the rails....

Go back and read your post. You clearly imply, by pointing out things you think 4E does better, that Howlingmoon is somehow judgement-defective. And since I happen to disagree with your points... I suppose that make me judgement-defective as well?

My oldest brother has been making a paper and dice game similar to d&d for years. Its pretty damn good so far. But yea Ive played a couple times with him. The insanity that happens in a game just makes melaugh

Vulcan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Howlingmoon wrote:4e is terrible.

Could you be more specific. Just saying it doesn't mean much without saying why. Is it the ease of use? Or that you aren't pigeonholed into alignments? That melee characters can do more? That Wizards aren't OP?

If you want to turn this into a flame war I'd be more than happy to oblige you... via PM. Insulting people for not having your exact same tastes is not a nice thing to do.

Boy, talk about flying off the rails. I just asked him to be more specific in why he disliked it. I never said anything about any system being better than another. It is a silly argument as it is apples and oranges. If you like it I love it. All I did was point out some of the nice things about fourth.

You are an idiot. - THAT is an insult.

What was it that you didn't like? Here are some things that are good about it. - That is nowhere near the realm of insult.

And you thought I flew off the rails....

Go back and read your post. You clearly imply, by pointing out things you think 4E does better, that Howlingmoon is somehow judgement-defective. And since I happen to disagree with your points... I suppose that make me judgement-defective as well?

I see you are still adding things to posts that just aren't there. I clearly don't think it is better, as I have written, I just enjoy it. I haven't made that value judgment specifically anywhere. I'm the only one that has been making any cogent argument about the subject. All I keep getting from the two of you is 'it sucks' and attacking me personally. Still have yet after all this to really address the issue at hand. I don't know if your judgment is deficient but your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

Ahtman wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Howlingmoon wrote:4e is terrible.

Could you be more specific. Just saying it doesn't mean much without saying why. Is it the ease of use? Or that you aren't pigeonholed into alignments? That melee characters can do more? That Wizards aren't OP?

If you want to turn this into a flame war I'd be more than happy to oblige you... via PM. Insulting people for not having your exact same tastes is not a nice thing to do.

Boy, talk about flying off the rails. I just asked him to be more specific in why he disliked it. I never said anything about any system being better than another. It is a silly argument as it is apples and oranges. If you like it I love it. All I did was point out some of the nice things about fourth.

You are an idiot. - THAT is an insult.

What was it that you didn't like? Here are some things that are good about it. - That is nowhere near the realm of insult.

And you thought I flew off the rails....

Go back and read your post. You clearly imply, by pointing out things you think 4E does better, that Howlingmoon is somehow judgement-defective. And since I happen to disagree with your points... I suppose that make me judgement-defective as well?

I see you are still adding things to posts that just aren't there. I clearly don't think it is better, as I have written, I just enjoy it. I haven't made that value judgment specifically anywhere. I'm the only one that has been making any cogent argument about the subject. All I keep getting from the two of you is 'it sucks' and attacking me personally. Still have yet after all this to really address the issue at hand. I don't know if your judgment is deficient but your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

I like quoting people.

The reason 4th ed "sucks" is because it removed pretty much everything that made D&D, well, D&D and turned into some generic rubbish with rules written for 4 year olds.

I myself play Pathfinder by Paizo Games. it is what 4th edition SHOULD have been. It is essentially 3.5 overhauled. All your 3.5 books and stuff is compatible with only minor tweaking as well. I definitely recommend anyone who likes playing good D&D to check it out.

Again, that isn't really an argument. What, praytell, is this everything that is missing. Without actually giving some examples of what rules make it for four year olds (where as other versions of D&D have always been srs bisness and would gain you the respect of your peers and the ladies). Give an example, not a blanket statement. All I'm still getting is that you can't tell the difference between not liking something and something being bad, because the two are separate things. People still get together and roleplay and drink Mtn. Dew, and kill enemies and save the princess, assuming she isn't in another castle.

How is a slightly improved version of 3.5 legitimately a new edition? That is like buying as sequel to a video game to find out that it is exactly the same game you bought before only with a few minor glitches fixed. That isn't a new edition, that is a FAQ or errata. There isn't enough difference to justify calling a different edition.

lord of the ghosts wrote:why can't everbody post? 229 views and only 36 posts?

Well I've posted once and viewed 4 times personally, and every view counts, not just one veiw per person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I liked the complexity of 3.x. Hell, I even liked the complexity of 1e and 2e. I miss THAC0!!!

I liked the skill system, I liked the feats. I liked the various prestige classes.

I dislike 4e because it is not D&D. Sure, make a new game, but don't call it D&D.

I played 2nd edition with a really good group. I dropped the game, though when the group broke up and we all went to different parts of the country.
After that, it seemed like the only people I could find that played, were a bit too into the game and not into hygene or reality.

This took the enjoyment out of D&D for me in a big way.

Fifty wrote:I dislike 4e because it is not D&D. Sure, make a new game, but don't call it D&D.

I've seen the books, they say D&D on the cover and are from the official publisher so I'm not sure what this means. It indeed is Dungeons and Dragons.

Wizards? Yes
Dungeons? Yes
Fighters? Yes
Different Races? Yes
Rangers dual-wieldan and bow shootan? Yes
Multiple books buying to have all options? Yes
Dragons? Yes
Allowed to house rule? Yes
Roll to hit? Yes
Skill checks/challenges? Yes
Saving Throws? Yes
Forgotten Realms? Yes
Dark Sun? Yes
Eberron? Yes

I still see people getting together and it seems just like any other D&D I've ever seen. Some of the rules are a bit different but at the core it is still the same game.

One of the funniest send ups of D&D I've ever seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhmUj9QJ9RM

followed up with part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9FMURHhgzc&feature=related

warning, may not be work safe.

Thing is Ahtman, you've made your mind up and won't accept any reasons why other people dislike 4e.

Gamma World, Shadowrun, GURPS, WFRP have many if not all of those same features, and look very similar, but they are not DnD.

Whether you agree with my reasons or not, they are the reasons I dislike the new version and prefer 3.x

Fifty wrote:Thing is Ahtman, you've made your mind up and won't accept any reasons why other people dislike 4e.

I don't have a problem with people disliking it, as i have stated multiple times. What I still have yet to get from anyone here is a cogent argument as to why. I keep getting petty things that really aren't arguments. You haven't given reasons why, just that you don't like it. Saying it isn't D&D when it is, is not a reason, it is just a statement, and not a very good one. Why is is not D&D? Is it so hard to express your reasoning that you have to resort to the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you"?

I used to dabble in WHFR. Actually I still have the book stashed somewhere for occasional toilet reading. The missus would disown me if she found it. She already hates the 40k enough

Fifty wrote:Thing is Ahtman, you've made your mind up and won't accept any reasons why other people dislike 4e.

No, see there's the problem. No one has given any specific reasons for disliking 4.0. I've seen some vague generalities thrown around but nothing in the way of a detailed description of the problem. I've always been curious about why all the hate for 4.0 mostly because I've never bothered with it. I checked out of the game pre-4.0 but even now after all this time the most common explanations for why people don't like it are those same vague non-answers. Which has convinced me to a degree that most people with those kind of answers probably would have hated it even if the core rule book had included a bound and gagged drow female with purchase just because it wasn't 3.5 or 3.0 or whatever their version of choice may have been.

Tyyr wrote: No one has given any specific reasons for disliking 4.0.

The complete destruction of the Magic System, the Levelling System, the Alignment System and No Bards, Monks or Sorcerers.

And that is just as a start.

In My Opinion, 4E does not play like D&D.

4E fighters now have an array of special abilities that they can use.... in just the exact same manner as do wizards, rogues, and clerics. In short, now every class behaves exactly like every other class.

Sure, the specifics are different. But the core capabilites are all the same. This makes combat... boring. Even predicatable. "It's the big boss, now's the time to use those 1/day abilities we've been saving!" Whoo-hoo.

I like the way earlier editions made different classes play differently. The thug fighter could always plan on doing his thing. The wizard hordes his powerful spells for powerful foes. The cleric backstops the thug and puts the party back together. The rogue sneals around looking for a good place to stick a knife. In 4E... they all go with the 'at will' abilities routinely. Boss monsters catch the 1/encounter powers. Big bosses get the 1/day powers. All thought of tactics is lost in the struggle for a very computer-gamey style of resource management.

The thug fighter should... thug. His special ability is hit things really hard. He doesn't need some sort of power to do some semi-magical attack against everyone in a radius. That's the wizard's job!

(And this is separate from my complaint that the 4E rules seems to promote combat over... well, pretty much everything else. Look in the Monster Manual. Try looking for an entry for something you might encounter in an adversarial role, but not really want to straight-up fight. Say, pixies, for example.

3.x may not have put much in the rules to support roleplaying, but there is even less of it in 4E,)

I've got a friend that helped write the original monster manual and worked with Gary Gygax a bit. Just for a laugh I'll ask him what he thinks of the new edition and report it back.

Shameless plug time!

I don't own the book for it, but one system that I'm playing around with is Chaos 6010. A fairly dark RPG set in the far future, with a few fantasy elements still in there (There is, in fact a mage class). Check it out if you're interested in it:
www.chaos6010.com

/shameless plug

Well, no bards in 4E means I won't be playing 4E. I've been running some Dwarf Bards off and on for a while now..

Grab PHB2;it has Bards and Sorcercers (honestly, who played a sorcerer in 3.5 for non-fluff reasons? the wizard outclassed it so hard it disappeared from the next edition).

RustyKnight wrote:Grab PHB2;it has Bards and Sorcercers (honestly, who played a sorcerer in 3.5 for non-fluff reasons? the wizard outclassed it so hard it disappeared from the next edition).

So, in order to play a class that has been a core class since AD&D (yes, Bards had rules back then in the PHB, albeit as an Addendum) you have to shell out for another book that most likely doesn't have anything worthwhile?

No thanks, I'll stick to Pathfinder, which is not only decent, but it is also a lot cheaper.

I've been playing D&D off and on for... I don't even know. As long as I can remember. From the red box up through 4e, and everything in between. These days I even have an adventure writing credit for Paizo under my belt (it was for Pathfinder). I have to say that my favorite is 3e/3.5, for a lot of reasons. The level of customization is great. Maybe the biggest thing, though, is just that we seemed to consistently have more fun playing it than any other edition.

Oh, and a shameless plug! I'll be helping write (and possibly run, if work allows) another multi-group adventure for this year's Gen Con, tentatively titled Xorvintaal. You should check it out! And if you have any questions, PM me.

Edit: I'm a dummy.

Haven't played in ages. I started with D&D, tried star frontiers, gamma world. Later I tried some form of D&D again and Deadlands. I would like to try again.

I always played the classics, elven/ranger, halfling/thief, or dwarven/fighter

Sidenote- I just picked up the old D&D cartoon, all 27 episodes for $12. My boys are 4 and 2, I think that is old enough to start.