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.

Hey dakka, i was just wondering what you need to start D&D because when looking on amazon i found about 30 different books.

Me and a few friends want to start but can anyone tell me what i would need.

Thanks, yellowblades

I'd caution you against buying into D&D at the moment. First, because the current edition is poor in my opinion.

If you are looking to get into fantasy role playing I'd suggest Pathfinder, which picks up where D&D 3.5 left off. Pathfinder is not only a superior ruleset to 4th edition D&D, but it is also can have a cheaper entry price. Paizo, the publishers for Pathfinder, released all of their books in PDF form as well as in hardback form. The main rulebooks go for $9.99 each in PDF form. I have the books I need on my laptop and bring that to every play session instead of a gym bag full of books.

Another reason to not buy into D&D 4th edition at this time is because they are in the process of play testing 5th edition right now. If you decide to go with D&D, buying into the system right now only to have a new system released in the near future wouldn't be all that fun.

To answer your question about what you need to get into the game I'll ask you another question.

Are you going to play as a player character? If so then all you really need to pick up is the Player's Handbook.

Are you going to run the game sessions (be the dungeon master)? If so then you'll need a copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide and the Monster Manual.

Beyond those three books and a good set of dice, everything else is just extra.

Ok thanks, by the way, what is wrong with the 4th ed rules. just wondering if it will affect my purchase becuase im torn between pathfinder and D&D at the moment

ALso i was wondering if anyone has bought this...

If yes what are the two books? are they the player manual and the dugeon keeper books

YELLOWBLADES wrote:Ok thanks, by the way, what is wrong with the 4th ed rules. just wondering if it will affect my purchase becuase im torn between pathfinder and D&D at the moment

A lot of people didn't get into the general 'feel' of 4th as the combat section is very aggressively miniatures/squares based and all characters use a common power system (or variation thereof) so everyone has 'spells' in a sense. It was a big disconnect for a lot of people that the fighter had to manage 'martial stunts' (Or whatever they're called) much the same as the wizard manages spells. Each class has a unique power listing with "At-Wills" (use every turn if you want), Encounter powers (use once per Encounter), Daily (1 per 'long rest') and Utility (Generally not direct combat abilities like movement or buff abilities).

In actual play it's fun and works well. The numbers get a little ridiculous at high levels: I played in a tournament-style game at GenCon and our level 25 characters were rolling d20+38 or something similarly ridiculous much of the time. But that was a very high-level game... The power structure means that every character class has something interesting to do. A Martial character (fighter-type) might get a special attack that does damage and 'pushes' an opponent around, while a wizard has more area-effect ranged abilities (Fireball).

Another big difference between the editions is that 4e monsters are built as opponents, not as 'living creatures' like 3.0 Monsters come in varieties (a boon to the GM) so an Orc Warrior and an Orc Bowman might be different descriptions in the monster books. Monsters have unique abilities that are At Wills, Encounter, etc... But they rarely if ever have dailies,a s the assumption is that monsters really are only 'around' for a single encounter and are either dead or refreshed between fights. In summary: monsters don't use the same rules as PCs.

Out of combat there is a system (Skill Challenges) that provides a framework for handling 'social combat' as well as some puzzles where use of skills is needed. I'm not, to be honest, crazy about this system as-written, and it's been revised a bit.

Pathfinder is essentially "3.5- Extra Good Edition" which is intended as a compliment, but it does have some flaws as well. I've heard of some issues with nonsensical add-ons in official material and it has some issues with casters becoming dominant at mid-high levels (inherited from 3.0/3.5).

In general, 4th is probably better at quick, casual 'dungeon crawls' with options to link these into a storyline. 3.0/3.5/PF is probably better at more 'sandbox' style games, with or without a major storyline, but where the GM and players want to have the flexibility to bring in a lot of material and desire modeling a lot of details that 4th ignores or handwaves.

YELLOWBLADES wrote:ALso i was wondering if anyone has bought this...

If yes what are the two books? are they the player manual and the dugeon keeper books

One is a simplified rulebook and the other is an adventure that walks you through the rules and can be played solo or with a group. It has been a awhile since I have perused it, but that is what I recall. It is a good way to learn the basics for new players and should be fairly cheap.

Thanks, i may go with this before spending £45 on the hardback books.

Thanks everyone for the advice

PM Sent

Combat in 4th ed is an attempt to make D&D appeal to WoW players, it seems.
Characters get a limited set of 'powers', with various cooldowns.
As mentioned above, they are at-Will (fast), Encounter (once per fight), and Daily (as it sounds, one-shots).
Utility powers are one of the previous types, but they generally do not do damage, such as teleports, heals, shape-shifts, etc.
There is litltle by the way of chance to improvise, as only Rogue characters get the power to disarm, for instance.

Also, even for a long-time group like mine, an encounter could take all session. A module took months to finish, for our weekly evening gaming sessions.

Skinnereal wrote:Combat in 4th ed is an attempt to make D&D appeal to WoW players, it seems.

That's a common theory, but I believe the designer's statements was that this was a combination of giving everyone fun, unique options to do in combat (So the fighter's turn is more than "I attack it with my sword" spammed every turn) and there's less incentives for the '15 minute workday' where the sanest course for many groups was to go in to a dungeon, fight a battle or two until the wizard's big guns were expended, then go home and rest up for the night. Lather, rinse, repeat until the dungeon is cleared out.

Skinnereal wrote:
Characters get a limited set of 'powers', with various cooldowns.
As mentioned above, they are at-Will (fast), Encounter (once per fight), and Daily (as it sounds, one-shots).
Utility powers are one of the previous types, but they generally do not do damage, such as teleports, heals, shape-shifts, etc.
There is litltle by the way of chance to improvise, as only Rogue characters get the power to disarm, for instance.

Also, even for a long-time group like mine, an encounter could take all session. A module took months to finish, for our weekly evening gaming sessions.

Length of combat and limits on improvisation are valid points. Combat goes much quicker if players and the GM prepare, and if the GM sues the right tools for the job. Minions, for example, can give the feeling of a large, dramatic melee, but die quickly. Some of the most fun fights I've seen in 4e have had minions 'spawn' by coming in through doors, summoned, etc. usually with a way that characters can stop the spawning at the expense of other goals.

In general, 4e combat encounters should be less frequent than 3e, but more involved. A lot of good ones have puzzle-aspects.

Improvisation is a definite concern, but I've seen it go both ways so I appreciate that 4e characters generally have a set of 'tricks' they know they can do. Some GMs are going to allow improvisations, but in general, Niche Protection seems to be another design concept: Each class has a role and is going to be less-than-great outside that role. So the Rogue might have a hit to disarm-and-damage, while the fighter or wizard improvising to do that might have to role to just disarm, at the GM's whim.

My issue with improvisation pre-4e is that the game had no real rules or guidelines for it, so it became a tool to attempt to put things over on the GM. If the players use a log as an improvised ram once, that's cool. If they decide the log is now MVP and valued equipment and carry it so they can alpha-strike with their ram attack, that's not so fun (for the GM).

All good points.

Balance (appropriately) is something they wanted to get in there, I read. The 'toolbar' appproach limits what the character can do, but also means there's less dithering on what it should do.
Every character can self-heal, in a limited way. Healer characters are still valued, but lots of classes can heal, to varying levels. The same will spells, both damage and otherwise.

It is the DM's job to allow or deny anything the players want to do. Improv is stilll there, but the DM is guided to limit who can do what.

So, play in 4th ed is more guided and streamlined, and previous versions (inc Pathfinder) are generally more open.
It'll depend on your playstyle.

Nothing is really wrong with 4th edition DnD. IT's just different, really, and that makes people upset.

I like 3.5th edition for its depth, but I can easily see the appeal of 4th edition, as well-- the depth of the previous edition results in far too many rules to memorize.

I'm hopeful that 5th/"Next" will learn a lot of lessons from both 4th and 3.0/3.5. I like that hey seem to be going to a much less rigid system for skills: From what I hear, climbing might be an Agility or Strength role. Certain races/classes/feats/whatever might grant a +2 to climbing. Or, alternatively, a Pirate theme might get a +2 to nautical skills, so they can argue that climbing the rigging on a pitching ship they qualify for the +2, but the GM might deny it if they're climbing a rock face. Places the onus of creativity back on the players, which I like.

From what I've seen they've got a good idea with the 'Themes' characters now get. Characters get one theme to start, and additional themes as they progress. So far, ti seems that 'Class' is heavily but not totally "What the character does in combat" while Theme is "What the character does out of combat" so most themes will provide bonuses to skills, social roles, etc. A Theme that has been mentioned is Sage, which has the bonus power that on failed roll to find information, the character still learns where they can go to find the information. I like seeing stuff like this: it gives the GM an opening to insert a plot hook ("Oh, you failed that role, well the information you need is probably in the Dwarven Archives. Which they might let you access, if you do them a favor...) and helps prevent pixelbitching where an adventure stops because the players failed a roll to find a key clue.

Anyway, back on topic: I agree that both 4e and 3e are good systems. 4e needs a little work to speed up play, while 3e needs some work to prevent characters that are unbalanced or otherwise not-fun.

Skinnereal wrote:
There is litltle by the way of chance to improvise, as only Rogue characters get the power to disarm, for instance.

Don't entirely agree with this. Other classes may not get a defined ability to disarm an opponent but that doesn't mean they can't. You can just say that you want to try and hit the weapon out of the opponents hand, or grab their wrist and force them to drop it. So you'll probably sacrifice doing damage to attempt to disarm your opponent.

It's up to the DM whether he allows you to. If he does then he'll probably make you make a strength check against the opponents fortitude with a minus for it being an improvised action to make it more difficult to do than a Rogue could.

The DMs guide has a section to cover this kind of thinking, with an example being a rogue swinging on a chandelier to then kick an ogre in the chest and push him into burning coals.

Another example I like is from the live DnD game from PAX 2010 (available to watch on the DnD website and Youtube). There's a dwarf running to a castle gate with a chest full of gold which the party wants. Said party arrived outside the castle on a giant beast and they're all too far away to stop the dwarf in time, so their wizard casts a spell on the dwarf to make it look like the beasts food, causing it to charge and trample the dwarf and stop the gold from being taken into the castle.

So there's still plenty of room for improvisation in 4th.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Another example I like is from the live DnD game from PAX 2010 (available to watch on the DnD website and Youtube). There's a dwarf running to a castle gate with a chest full of gold which the party wants. Said party arrived outside the castle on a giant beast and they're all too far away to stop the dwarf in time, so their wizard casts a spell on the dwarf to make it look like the beasts food, causing it to charge and trample the dwarf and stop the gold from being taken into the castle.

Was that one of the Penny Arcade/Scott Kurtz/Wil Wheaton ones? Those were great, and I wish they'd do more, but I have to admit they're pretty loose with rules onty he later ones.

Actually, WotC could do a lot worse than getting Wheaton to do shows about D&D. His Tabletop series is pretty entertaining... Imagine a weekly or monthly summary of D&D that was a hybrid of that and the Penny Arcade events.

Balance wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Another example I like is from the live DnD game from PAX 2010 (available to watch on the DnD website and Youtube). There's a dwarf running to a castle gate with a chest full of gold which the party wants. Said party arrived outside the castle on a giant beast and they're all too far away to stop the dwarf in time, so their wizard casts a spell on the dwarf to make it look like the beasts food, causing it to charge and trample the dwarf and stop the gold from being taken into the castle.

Was that one of the Penny Arcade/Scott Kurtz/Wil Wheaton ones? Those were great, and I wish they'd do more, but I have to admit they're pretty loose with rules onty he later ones.

Actually, WotC could do a lot worse than getting Wheaton to do shows about D&D. His Tabletop series is pretty entertaining... Imagine a weekly or monthly summary of D&D that was a hybrid of that and the Penny Arcade events.

It was indeed. Their games at PAX do get quite fluid with regards to rules but that's probably a result of having a strict deadline to wrap it all up by.

If it weren't for the quite large amounts of swearing within them I would say that the Penny Arcade/Wheaton/Kurtz games are the best possible advert for DnD ever. With the swearing they're still the best advert for somewhat older people (so at and above the age of 15 or so).

I'm hoping for some more podcasts after 5th comes out. They'll probably be the basis of whether I buy the rules or not. If martial classes like Fighters are back to just swinging a sword over and over again in combat then I'll probably stick with 4th as it would bore the hell out me to switch from my Tactical Warlord to that.

I have been playing clones of Basic/Expert D&D for the past few months and am having a ball.

http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html

http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/

The flavor of "D&D" I most want to play, however, is DCC RPG:

http://www.goodman-games.com/dccrpg.html

You take all the wild, cool weirdness of Appendix N, add the core mechanics of 3E, then subtract the heavy emphasis on tactical combat (i.e., miniatures) from 3.5. It's ... just awesome. So awesome.

 Manchu wrote:
I have been playing clones of Basic/Expert D&D for the past few months and am having a ball.

http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html

http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/

The flavor of "D&D" I most want to play, however, is DCC RPG:

http://www.goodman-games.com/dccrpg.html

You take all the wild, cool weirdness of Appendix N, add the core mechanics of 3E, then subtract the heavy emphasis on tactical combat (i.e., miniatures) from 3.5. It's ... just awesome. So awesome.

This is exactly what I was going to recommend, I've been playing Labyrinth Lord and it's great, the rules are really light and easy to remember. There are plenty of clones, I'd add to Manchu's list Lamentations of the Flame Princess (http://www.lotfp.com/RPG/). Frankly I don't think it matters hugely which one you learn with as once you know the basic rules there are only minor changes between clones.

All the clones I've seen are available as free pdfs so you can try them and see what you think before laying down any money beyond dice.

I have run D&D 4e for 4 years, I like it.

I also ran 3.5 for years, and liked it, but less, as preparation time was just a huge mess.

The biggest issue with using all sorts of new game systems is my players aren't the types to learn new systems. They barely know D&D.

What about AD&D? What's the difference between standard D&D and AD&D?

Isn't AD&D basically D&D, 2nd Ed? From what I recall the game is different from 3/3.5/4, what with armour rating being form 10 to -10, THAC0, the different classes needing different XP value to gain a level (rather than a single flat value for everyone), still got some basic rules that are similar, but combat is a whole lotta different

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
What about AD&D? What's the difference between standard D&D and AD&D?

Without getting into the gory details that wouldn't add to someone who isn't familiar with the game, AD&D is basically Second Edition D&D. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same game, but AD&D expanded on a lot fo the info and rules.

History (and my love of the game!) demands that I state that AD&D began with 1st Edition AD&D, back in the late 70's with the release of The Monster Manual, The Dungeon Master's Guide and The Player's Handbook!

Wikipedia wrote:In 1977, TSR created the first element of a two-pronged strategy that would divide the D&D game for over two decades. A Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set boxed edition was introduced that cleaned up the presentation of the essential rules, made the system understandable to the general public, and was sold in a package that could be stocked in toy stores. In 1978, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) was published, which brought together the various published rules, options and corrections, then expanded them into a definitive, unified game for hobbyist gamers. The basic set directed players who exhausted the possibilities of that game to switch to the advanced rules.

Almost from its inception, differences of design philosophy caused this dual marketing approach to go awry. Gygax, who wrote the advanced game, wanted an expansive game with rulings on any conceivable situation which might come up during play. J. Eric Holmes, the editor of the basic game, preferred a lighter tone with more room for personal improvisation. As a result, the basic game included many rules and concepts which contradicted comparable ones in the advanced game. Confusing matters further, the original D&D boxed set remained in publication until 1979, since it remained a healthy seller for TSR.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was designed to create a tighter, more structured game system than the loose framework of the original game. While seen by many as a revision of the original D&D,AD&D was at the time declared to be "neither an expansion nor a revision of the old game, it is a new game".The AD&D game was not intended to be directly compatible with D&D and it required some conversion to play between the rule sets. The term Advanced described the more complex rules and did not imply "for higher-level gaming abilities". Between 1977 and 1979, three hardcover rulebooks, commonly referred to as the "core rulebooks", were released: the Player's Handbook (PHB), the Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG), and the Monster Manual (MM). Several supplementary books were published throughout the 1980s, notably Unearthed Arcana (1985) that included a large number of new rules.

Other than that, yes!

Pathfinder is probably the best way to go for D&D these days; 4e is poorly-designed in that any time anyone does anything they do the exact same thing (I poke the monster with a dagger! 20 damage. I run up and smash the monster with a very large hammer! 20 damage. I zap the monster with a lightning bolt! 20 damage. I summon an eldritch horror from beyond time and space to step on the monster and squash it into powder! 20 damage.), and 3.5 wasn't well-balanced. Pathfinder did a good job of rebalancing the game and making the non-caster classes more interesting within the same basic system as 3.5 without the ground-up rebuild of 4e.

You may also want to consider the fact that D&D is far from the only RPG system out there; depending on what you want to do there's a list of RPG games written for that purpose.

You decided to raise this thread from its grave with some complete horsegak edition wars flame baint? Tsk tsk.

It'd only been a couple of weeks, so I'm not locking it as necro. But keep it friendly, guys.

2nd Ed is by far my favorite version of D&D. I have played 3.0/3.5 and find it very unbalanced as time goes on. 4.0 is like playing a D&D board game to me. 2nd Ed was the game that felt like D&D, had real and fast consequences and was generally just brutal on the PC's. I think it was also the longest running edition.

I run a weekly group of 7 players and they all have come from the 3.0/3.5 crowd and are really enjoying my 2.0 game. The only negative things I hear are how tough and unforgiving things are sometimes. (IE the level draining monsters...lol)

But you can never go wrong with a good 2nd ed game.

4th edition is fun.

3rd edition was fun.

I actually quit the game during 2nd edition, but I was a teenager, and teenagers do that angsty stuff.

1st edition was fun.

Mostly, I game with friends over beer and pizza, edition is just the coatrack we hang our beer and pizza coats on.

 Poison wrote:
Mostly, I game with friends over beer and pizza, edition is just the coatrack we hang our beer and pizza coats on.

Exalted.

People put a lot of stock into which game edition they are playing when I worry more about getting together and rolling some dice with my group.

 pretre wrote:

 Poison wrote:
Mostly, I game with friends over beer and pizza, edition is just the coatrack we hang our beer and pizza coats on.

Exalted.

People put a lot of stock into which game edition they are playing when I worry more about getting together and rolling some dice with my group.

I agree, people get all to pissy about the editions.. Sit back and have fun with some friends.. Every game has problems even the almighty pathfinder..