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.

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