Which version of Dungeons and Dragons do you currently play?

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.

**Anpu42**

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

**Zyllos**

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.

**murdog**

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)?

**pretre**

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

**Anpu42**

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

**Monster Rain**

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.

**Anpu42**

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

**htj**

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.

**pretre**

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

**Ahtman**

pretre wrote:People like different things. /shrug

But what would nerds argue about?

**pretre**

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.

**Monster Rain**

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?

**Wardragoon**

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

**Monster Rain**

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!

**Wardragoon**

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!!!!

**Mannahnin**

I heard there are girls there.

**htj**

Mannahnin wrote:I heard there are girls there.

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

**Balance**

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.

**Papaskittels**

i enjoy finding paths

**Flaming Troll**

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.

**Anpu42**

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.

**Cambak**

4th, but WANT too try pathfinder

**Skriker**

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

**pretre**

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.

**nickick**

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

**Comintern**

Pathfinder.

feth 4e

**Ahtman**

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.

**pretre**

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

Also, don't judge others.

**Skriker**

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

**pretre**

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.