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.

corpsesarefun wrote:Thanks again

On the subject of versions, what would you recommend? 3, 3.5 or 4?

Instead of those, for your first roleplay experience try a game of Dark Heresy or Deathwatch, both are 40k related tabletop roleplay games. If hard pressed, just make sure you choose for yourself what game you wish to play, remember that newer isn't always better, it's all based on the person.

happydude wrote:

4th edition: Play Heroquest for the same feel
3 and 3.5: Rules rules rules...
2nd: *bashes head off of desk*
AD&D: yay
Basic: never played it but I am sure the name says it all

More or less. This is one reason why I try to advocate the Pathfinder RPG system and Dark Heresy/ Deathwatch. 3rd and 3.5 were horribad with the amount of books and rules. 4th is just spamming books with minimal content. With Dark Heresy your at least still supporting the 40k universe, same with Deathwatch.

Besides, why buy multiple books when another company doesn't try to spread it out to just try to make money off you? My single 500+ Pathfinder core book was probably the best purchase I've made in a long time. So much content, for so little.

Still, if 4th stopped spamming and consolidated books, I would speak much more favorably of it. Then again, most people that get into these kinds of games don't exactly have a ton of money to toss at it.

juraigamer wrote:More or less.

Less. Much less. That 'chart' is fairly awful.

Hate to be a thread-jack, but in terms of making a PC, how do you determine the amount of powers they get at the beginning? Is it ALL level 1 powers?

Ask the DM for the starting level. Every DM has different opinions on where to start players. I usually start my players at level 6, I've seen everything from level 1 to level 10 for starting levels.

Cryonicleech wrote:Hate to be a thread-jack, but in terms of making a PC, how do you determine the amount of powers they get at the beginning? Is it ALL level 1 powers?

What system are we talking about?

Cryonicleech wrote:Hate to be a thread-jack, but in terms of making a PC, how do you determine the amount of powers they get at the beginning? Is it ALL level 1 powers?

Thread jack all you like.

juraigamer wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Thanks again

On the subject of versions, what would you recommend? 3, 3.5 or 4?

Instead of those, for your first roleplay experience try a game of Dark Heresy or Deathwatch, both are 40k related tabletop roleplay games. If hard pressed, just make sure you choose for yourself what game you wish to play, remember that newer isn't always better, it's all based on the person.

I'm not hugely interested in any 40k RPGs and I'm curious about getting into RPGs as a whole with a group of friends who for the most aren't into 40k anyway so I think I'll give those a miss, pathfinder still seems interesting though.

Cryonicleech wrote:Hate to be a thread-jack, but in terms of making a PC, how do you determine the amount of powers they get at the beginning? Is it ALL level 1 powers?

Pretty much. For details, read the rule book. That's what it's for. One nice thing about 4th edition is there's no (or very little) weirdness like a 'spell level' system that is not directly related to the main level system.

At higher levels there's some power swap stuff, but at 1st level you generally get a couple at-wills, an encounter, and a daily. Maybe a utility... I'd need to check the book to confirm. Some classes (especially with Essentials) get more or less.

Corspsesarefun: Pathfinder is available for free online, too!
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

This website has basically everything you need to run a campaign. That said, the production values and background in the pathfinder books is amazing (much better than D'n'D 4th) so they are well worth a look.

Chiming in late on systems, I'm a fan of both. 4th Ed is more streamlined, and easier to run for the GM. Monsters are easier to build, and in some ways that frees up your creativity. I think combat is fun and tactical in 4th. However, you need a map and counters or miniatures, and I think that's a pain. Some people like it, I've run games where it worked well, but it takes a lot of planning.
Pathfinder is more fluid, a bit harder to build characters in, and definitely harder to build and run monsters in. In 4th, each monster is designed to be easy to use, but in Pathfinder they will have many, many options and it's easy to miss the "point" that makes them worth their challenge rating. However, you don't need minis and the system does lend itself (I feel) to a more creative, storytelling approach to combat. Outside of combat I see basically no difference between the two.

Other systems I love are In Nomine (which uses a simple 3D6 resolution for everything and is about angels and demons trying to sway humans to good or evil acts) Seventh Sea (D10s rolled and you need a certain total) which is swashbuckling orientated with rules for drama dice and so on in combat, and WFRP/Dark Heresy which use percentile roll under and are set in the warhammer fantasy and 40K worlds.

Da Boss wrote: you need a map and counters or miniatures, and I think that's a pain

Thank goodness this isn't a forum devoted miniature gaming or that might sound a bit silly.

I understand what you mean, though. I like miniatures so that is part of the appeal to me.

It appeals to me, too, but I guess I like the flexibility that not using minis gives me.

I've used them in a couple of short campaigns and it's gone down well, but I don't dedicate the prep time to sessions these days to get it all sorted out. Reckon you need to be very well prepared to do it off to a tee- I was living alone and had more free time the last time I did it.

I'm often tempted to try a mini-using campaign again, believe me. Having to do it though, that's what I find onerous.
The urge to collect and paint up every possible monster in the monster manual is still there, and it's a big part of why I love the D'n'D boardgames so much.

Hate to break it to you, but no system requires miniatures.


They are strongly recommended in 4E, they were recommended in 3/3.5, optional in 2E and 1E and neato in Basic/White box.

You can play with slips of paper or just your imagination. Back in my day, we just told the DM what we were doing and imagined the whole thing. (Along with making swoosh, zap and spang noises.)

I reckon 4th can be played without them, yeah, but then you're missing out on some of it's best features (the tactical combat end of things).

I agree you don't need actual miniatures though. I probably just needed to invest in some wipe clean graph sheets or something.

Da Boss wrote:I reckon 4th can be played without them, yeah, but then you're missing out on some of it's best features (the tactical combat end of things).

I agree you don't need actual miniatures though. I probably just needed to invest in some wipe clean graph sheets or something.

Chessex mat with wet erase markers works quite well.

DnD? What is that?

Try Werewolf: The Apocalypse if you want to play combat monsters that spend most of the time ripping things apart and then acting all emo about it later.

If you play Vampire: The Masquerade, you just act all emo all the time.

Or there is Rifts!

corpsesarefun wrote:

I'm not hugely interested in any 40k RPGs and I'm curious about getting into RPGs as a whole with a group of friends who for the most aren't into 40k anyway so I think I'll give those a miss, pathfinder still seems interesting though.

Ah my apologies, I though that since this is a 40k website that there was interest in such things, hahaha.

juraigamer wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

I'm not hugely interested in any 40k RPGs and I'm curious about getting into RPGs as a whole with a group of friends who for the most aren't into 40k anyway so I think I'll give those a miss, pathfinder still seems interesting though.

Ah my apologies, I though that since this is a 40k website that there was interest in such things, hahaha.

No worries
I am interested in 40k but more for the modelling than the background to be honest.

Between Balance and Ahtman, you have all you need to know.

As for personal preference, for beginners 4.0 is WoW-without-electricity... literally... classes and everything...

Though, as a DM, Pathfinder allowed everyone to enjoy themselves much more. It was so immersive and player-oriented that you can even run a group on skype.

AvatarForm wrote:Between Balance and Ahtman, you have all you need to know.

As for personal preference, for beginners 4.0 is WoW-without-electricity... literally... classes and everything...

Though, as a DM, Pathfinder allowed everyone to enjoy themselves much more. It was so immersive and player-oriented that you can even run a group on skype.

I really really don't like wow so I'm not sure if that is a good thing

Ignore that Wow BS. People have been saying that without really understanding it because they do not like 4th ed.

Wow has been D&D without electricity since it came out. Everything is derivative of something, that's how creativity works.

WoW has roles. D&D 4E has roles. Oh no! Guess what, 3.5/3e/2e/1e/Red box/White Box had roles as well, they were just less obvious.

One of the great things that 4E does is that it makes it so that you don't have to have the 'short straw player' that you have in most other systems (including WoW).
"Who's going to be the cleric/healer this game?" GROAN "I guess I'll be heal-bot."

Leaders (4E's equivalent) not only heal (which is usually done with their minor action) but also do damage, control the battlefield and enable other party members to be more effective.That's directly opposed to WoW where healers in level-appropriate content (not outgeared zerg fests) are heal-bots and that's it.

Also compare the Defender role to Tanks in WoW. Tanks in serious content in WoW cannot do any other role. Their role is to stay alive while folks spam heals on them and other folks stab the monster. A perfectly viable alternative in 4E D&D is to use a Defender as a demi-Striker and have them use the repercussions of ignoring their marks and the damage they output as their contribution to the party, rather than just their AC/HP.

Lastly, when's the last time you had a skill challenge in WoW? Or Role-played? or used a non-combat skill other than manfacturing?

Just because something is 'common knowledge' on the internet doesn't make it true.

4.0 is fun. It's a very tightly 'integrated' system, so hard-core rules-tweaking is probably not the best idea unless done very carefully and with a lot of forethought.

3.5/PF is fun. It's a bit easier to tweak, but there's a lot of stuff the GM will need to review.

In general, I think 3.5/PF is a bit more 'simulationistic' as it still has the 3.0 conceit that monsters and player characters are 'equal.' They're described by the same numbers, and it's relatively easy to move between Player space and GM space.

On the other hand, this makes monsters relatively complex, and making them interesting takes a lot of effort. Sure, you can make that Orc fight interesting by giving them class levels, but beyond low levels that can be a nightmare for the GM to handle, so it's usually one or two with class levels, especially if it's anything with additional stuff like spells to handle.

4.0 Monsters are just complex enough to do the job (provide opposition to PCs) and designed with the conceit that they probably won't be in two combats. They generally come in flavors, so in addition to the basic Orc listing you also get (I don't have a MM handy, so I'm making stuff up) a Orc Shaman, Orc Soldier, Orc Archer, etc. Some of these can be interesting, some basic, etc. The neat thing is that these are actually all usable in a mix in combat! The 'specialists' have Powers prepared for their attacks written in the same style of players but balanced for the appearance: I think most 'caster' type normal opponents have one 'Encounter' ability for a powerful first strike and a couple At Wills for normal attacks.

This ignores Minions, which have higher defenses but only 1 HP. They're a great mechanic for big fights where the PCs need to wade through enemies.

It's a neat system if you're using it as intended, but not as free-form as 3.5/PF for other uses. A 'Diplomatic' campaign in 4.0 would be a struggle, but is technically possible. On the other hand, if 'diplomatic' means going to a neighboring nation's capitol and having to defeat a plot to assassinate the neighboring king to help secure the alliance, 4.0 is ready to rock and roll.

Agreed with Balance.

Another great thing with 4.0 is that the DM is considered a player and part of the experience. It isn't quite the adversarial role in early D&D, but more of a different kind of player than a bookkeeper/accountant/writer.

In 3.0/3.5 (especially at high levels), the DM was that masochistic guy who spent hours generating encounters for you and making the experience fun without much return other than your happiness and whatever that gained him personally.

Seriously, when I was DM'ing our longterm game in 3.5, some encounters would take hours to make, even with Character Builder. How long does it take you to make 5-7 20+ level NPCs? Geeze.

4.0 takes a lot less work to prep for and I can have more fun on the opposite side of the screen.

I've only spent maybe 20 hours playing dnd, and I only spent that much time because I was determined to give it a chance to wow me into liking it. It failed, and so here is my impression of the game.

I found dnd (4th edition) to be excessively dull when I tried it. Took hours to complete one encounter and after that I stopped caring about whatever weak story plot we were supposed to be slogging through.
I should clarify that we were playing some huge grand Champaign from a magazine I think. But seeing as how I never leveled in the two encounters we played through, and these encounters ran about 3 hours apiece, I shudder to think how long it would take to become a maxed out character.
The combat was IMO not so gripping; I rolled a single d20 once every 30 minutes. If I was lucky then I rolled another d6 and added modifiers to it this was about as exciting as it got. If I was unlucky than nothing happened, and I waited another 30 minutes until I could roll my lone dice again.
There seemed to be little gameplay that did not revolve around combat. What little there was required a skill check which was a pass/fail and more often than not contributed nothing, even if you rolled a natural 20.
After my 20 hours I never went back to the gaming group.

Again this was just my experience, yours may be different.

But I witnessed nothing there that I couldn’t have gotten from playing a video game instead.

@Ma55ter_fett :
Dude, I'm sorry, you had such a horrible experience, but that wasn't 4E's fault. The group you played with must have sucked.

For a three hour combat, either you were playing some massive high-level combats or they were really bad at it.

Add to that that there was no compelling out of combat interaction and you have just had a bad experience.

I hope you get a chance to tabletop D&D with a good group someday. Some of my best memories are playing with D&D (all versions) with friends and that just did not sound anything like my experiences.

I have to agree, RPGs are pretty much based on how the group is.

I think the recommended progression for 4th edition is a level every 2-3 sessions. My group does 2-3 big encounters in a session, but I'd say we're closer toe very 4.

ultimately, it's the GM's responsibility to keep combat moving and the player's to know their character powers and make decisions relatively quickly.

Skill Tests/puzzles/etc. are also something some GMs run well, some run poorly. I think they work best if the Gm si on the player's side a bit: They should be encouraging every good idea that nets a +1 to the final roll such that the actual roll is pretty easy at the end of the day. Some GMs go an alternate route and are happy to be the only ones who know the solution to a puzzle and let the players fumble around for hours until they state they want to examine the 4th rock from the left that the GM forgot to mention was a slightly different shade of grey...

Leveling in D&D is generally something of a 'big deal.' For 4th, personally I think I've reached the point where I'd be happy if the GM just handed out levels to the group at an appropriate time. It removes some number crunching (albeit minor) for XP counts, and the game works best if everyone is at the same level anyway. It's generally easier to level at the beginning or end of a session anyway, especially since so many people are using electronic tools to manage characters.

Balance wrote:Leveling in D&D is generally something of a 'big deal.' For 4th, personally I think I've reached the point where I'd be happy if the GM just handed out levels to the group at an appropriate time. It removes some number crunching (albeit minor) for XP counts, and the game works best if everyone is at the same level anyway. It's generally easier to level at the beginning or end of a session anyway, especially since so many people are using electronic tools to manage characters.

I'm thinking of doing something like this for my next game. I'm going to talk to my players and see what they think. It is a joke in our group that no one keeps XP correct and we have to do 'XP checks' at least once a session to make sure everyone has the right total. Maybe making it more dramatic or tied to certain events (and at the beginning / end of a session) will make it easier and more dramatic.

Much has been said here, but I play both 3.5 and Pathfinder and both work fine. 3.5 is cheaper to play because there are plenty of used books around. 4.0 can be fun too. Just pick the system that appeals most to you.

It isn't a good idea to start 4e at high level. The combat gets more complicated with all the effects flaying around which isn't a problem with experienced players but for new players it can grind the game to a halt.

Ahtman wrote:It isn't a good idea to start any D&D edition at high level. The combat gets more complicated with all the effects flaying around which isn't a problem with experienced players but for new players it can grind the game to a halt.

FTFY.

I really can't add anything to this thread. I haven't done any type of RPG's in a long time, maybe 12 years since the last session and we played Deadlands. It was probably another 12 years before that when I was playing D&D. Anyway, I just got together with some old friends and we decided to try some RPG. We picked D&D 4e and we had a great time. We played for about 5 hours and were able to create characters and start an adventure, even made it through 2 encounters. It helped that the DM has experience playing the system, so I think it moved pretty smoothly. I liked how combat worked with the miniatures, it was easier to keep track of where everyone was. I am looking forward to playing it again.

One question though since we were trying to keep it fairly simple so our characters were pretty straight forward. Halfling rogue for me. What are the other races and classes you can choose to be in 4e? Could you give a brief description of them (strengths and weaknesses)?

http://4e.writh.net/wiki/Races
http://4e.writh.net/wiki/Classes

A little google turned this up.