Poll: Dungeons and Dragons question

[Slycne]

No one edition is comprehensively better than the others. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses that lend themselves better to specific settings and play styles. For example, 3e and 4e mirror high fantasy better than 1e and 2e, which have a much more gritty dark fantasy feeling. With some tweaks this can certainly be changed in either direction, but the rules as written enforce certain principles inherently.

Take it from me though, there is fun to be had in every iteration of the game. I currently play in two campaigns on opposites ends of the spectrum, a Basic/Expert Box campaign and a 4e one.

At the end of the day it all comes down to what the players prefer and the world the DM is trying to create.

 

[Darth Brownie]

Same thing happened with my DnD group

We played 3.5 for roughly 4 years (me and my GM have ober 20 3.5 dnd books together) and we decided to move on to 4th edition because we knew 3.5 inside out. 4th is different, but as much enjoyable.

Don't forget that the important part of a DnD is to have fun with your friends and trying something new together is always a great experience

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Well im not an expert. I prefer the Dark Eye and Shadowrun. But I tried ADnD 3rd and 4rth DnD and i have the personal feeling that 4rth just comes more naturally, a little bit simplified, and i had to look at much less tables than before.
When it comes to the looks of the books, I liked the ADnD ones best. The world displayed in 4rth also seemed a little to forced and artificial to me. But thats a problem that every setting has, which comes near to high fantasy

 

[Naheal]

No one edition is comprehensively better than the others. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses that lend themselves better to specific settings and play styles. For example, 3e and 4e mirror high fantasy better than 1e and 2e, which have a much more gritty dark fantasy feeling. With some tweaks this can certainly be changed in either direction, but the rules as written enforce certain principles inherently.

Take it from me though, there is fun to be had in every iteration of the game. I currently play in two campaigns on opposites ends of the spectrum, a B/X campaign and a 4e one.

At the end of the day it all comes down to what the players prefer and the world the DM is trying to create.

I've found that 4e works better than the other editions in tech based settings, oddly enough. Even Eberron seems to work better in 4th.

I prefer 3.5 for FR, though.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I'm more familiar with 3.5 (and have maybe a little over half the sourcebooks, just for reading material), but I've been growing intrigued by 4th edition recently. Kinda wish I could find a group, so I could try out the new monks...

 

[Naheal]

I'm more familiar with 3.5 (and have maybe a little over half the sourcebooks, just for reading material), but I've been growing intrigued by 4th edition recently. Kinda wish I could find a group, so I could try out the new monks...

The new monks are weird. I rather like what they did with Bards, Warlocks, Clerics, and Paladins, and enjoy the Swordmage class.

 

[Nevyrmoore]

And should I suggest to my DM to stick with 3.5 or move on to 4th edition?

Please refer to the following picture.

 

[Toriver]

Yeah, as a friend of mine said, if he wanted to play an RTS game, he'd turn on his computer, not grab the dice. Basically, I agree. 4e turned DnD into a tabletop RTS game. They even set up using skills like something akin to turn-based combat. That's almost unforgivable. Powers practically eliminate the uniqueness of classes. Long story short, avoid 4.0 as long as you can.

 

[Naheal]

Powers practically eliminate the uniqueness of classes. Long story short, avoid 4.0 as long as you can.

Odd. I found the flavor of each to be worth the change to 4.0. Although, I do agree with the miniatures discussion (I dislike having to rely upon minis in order to get combat done.

 

[movienut]

I haven't played DnD for about 15 years now so I said AD&D but that is almost by default.
You know what I wish? I wish some genius out there could adapt the Shadowrun system to a different world setting. Not that there is any money in table top any more, but it would be nice for the die hards. Right now I stick to classic World of Darkness and Palladium.

 

[BasicMojo]

I've tried 4e, and vastly prefer 3.5. The latter has more of an emphasis on character customization, role-play, and balanced non-combat interactions, while the former is like D&D: The Tabletop MMO.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

D&D 4.0
- Rules are less abiguous so there's no arguing as to how something should effect something
- Combat is less frequent, but more challenging due to monsters having type roles, which lends to easier balancing in shorter time
- Classes feel unique with varied powers and roles despite having similar Power Sources (divine, martial, nature, psicic and arcane) but Paragon and Epic Destinies feel very samey and don't add enough extra flavour
- Classes are balanced better (no more useless fighter/uber wizard) and can function fairly well without the specialized type around them (defenders can still deal damage, magic-users can still use melee combat, nobody is useless in certain skills, etc.)
- Roleplaying has no rules. Be whatever you want.

D&D 3.0/3.5

- Rules are more ambiguous so that you can use them far more uniquly but can cause problems
-Combat is more frequent but less challenging/far too challenging if encounters are not built well
- Basic classes feel samey and can boil down to having the same combat styles, but prestige classes have bountiful amounts of flavour to them
- Classes are imporperly balanced (fighters get weak fast/wizards start weak but become ubermonsters) and rely on specialisations to be effective but encourages more party playing to achieve goals
- Roleplaying has rules attached to it, but can give a sense of depth/achievement to a character who has to abide by said rules to claim they are what they say they are.

I wouldn't suggest going farther back than these three editions. Everything starts to become a little more archaic and though we all have a special place in our hearts for THAC0, it just sucks. As you can see, however, both have points for and against them. I personally prefer 4.0 because the rules stay where they should be: combat. Because of this, combat is streamlined and roleplaying is very free-form.

 

[NeutralDrow]

My group plays 4th. I like it. It's simple from both a player and a DM perspective .

yes, 4.0 is "simple".

It's no longer D&D.

Stick with 3.x

Why? 3.x isn't D&D, either.

Stick with AD&D.

I'm more familiar with 3.5 (and have maybe a little over half the sourcebooks, just for reading material), but I've been growing intrigued by 4th edition recently. Kinda wish I could find a group, so I could try out the new monks...

The new monks are weird. I rather like what they did with Bards, Warlocks, Clerics, and Paladins, and enjoy the Swordmage class.

Haven't seen much of those, yet. I've only read a little bit of the first Player's Handbook, but wound up checking out Player's Handbook III because of my overriding interest in 3.5's psionic classes (I don't care if they're weak, I loves me my Soulknives).

Have to say, flavorwise, I'm not sure about the whole tying psionic power to the Far Realm thing, but I'm willing to give it a chance (not to mention the "psionic augmentation" mechanics), and I love the ardents. Mechanically, though, I'm still really interested in the monks. The whole "full discipline" thing (packing a movement and attack capability in a power) sounds really fun, especially since I like playing mobile fighting types.

 

[Naheal]

My group plays 4th. I like it. It's simple from both a player and a DM perspective .

yes, 4.0 is "simple".

It's no longer D&D.

Stick with 3.x

Why? 3.x isn't D&D, either.

Stick with AD&D.

I'm more familiar with 3.5 (and have maybe a little over half the sourcebooks, just for reading material), but I've been growing intrigued by 4th edition recently. Kinda wish I could find a group, so I could try out the new monks...

The new monks are weird. I rather like what they did with Bards, Warlocks, Clerics, and Paladins, and enjoy the Swordmage class.

Haven't seen much of those, yet. I've only read a little bit of the first Player's Handbook, but wound up checking out Player's Handbook III because of my overriding interest in 3.5's psionic classes (I don't care if they're weak, I loves me my Soulknives).

Have to say, flavorwise, I'm not sure about the whole tying psionic power to the Far Realm thing, but I'm willing to give it a chance (not to mention the "psionic augmentation" mechanics), and I love the ardents. Mechanically, though, I'm still really interested in the monks. The whole "full discipline" thing (packing a movement and attack capability in a power) sounds really fun, especially since I like playing mobile fighting types.

If you enjoy mobile fighters, you'll enjoy a Swordmage (FRPG). They're essentially a melee mage that focuses on close range blasts, short range teleportation, melee combat, and protective spells.

There are some definite benefits in 4.0 and it works when handling how to work through individual campaigns.

 

[NeutralDrow]

My group plays 4th. I like it. It's simple from both a player and a DM perspective .

yes, 4.0 is "simple".

It's no longer D&D.

Stick with 3.x

Why? 3.x isn't D&D, either.

Stick with AD&D.

I'm more familiar with 3.5 (and have maybe a little over half the sourcebooks, just for reading material), but I've been growing intrigued by 4th edition recently. Kinda wish I could find a group, so I could try out the new monks...

The new monks are weird. I rather like what they did with Bards, Warlocks, Clerics, and Paladins, and enjoy the Swordmage class.

Haven't seen much of those, yet. I've only read a little bit of the first Player's Handbook, but wound up checking out Player's Handbook III because of my overriding interest in 3.5's psionic classes (I don't care if they're weak, I loves me my Soulknives).

Have to say, flavorwise, I'm not sure about the whole tying psionic power to the Far Realm thing, but I'm willing to give it a chance (not to mention the "psionic augmentation" mechanics), and I love the ardents. Mechanically, though, I'm still really interested in the monks. The whole "full discipline" thing (packing a movement and attack capability in a power) sounds really fun, especially since I like playing mobile fighting types.

If you enjoy mobile fighters, you'll enjoy a Swordmage (FRPG). They're essentially a melee mage that focuses on close range blasts, short range teleportation, melee combat, and protective spells.

Hmm...that does sound pretty cool (sorta like how I imagined a 3.5 Duskblade/Abjurant Champion to fight). Especially if I can multiclass or hybridize it further...can Rogues still sneak attack with weaponlike spells (rays and the like)?

Though still, my mental image of a Dragon Tail-using 4e monk remains.

Spoiler: This power in particular.

Dragon?s Tail Monk Attack 1
Your hand lashes out like a dragon?s tail, and with the
lightest touch unleashes power that knocks your foe to the
ground.
At-Will ✦ Full Discipline, Implement, Psionic

Attack Technique
Standard Action Melee touch
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Fortitude
Hit: 1dX + Dexterity modifier damage, and you knock
the target prone.

Movement Technique
Move Action Personal
Effect: You swap places with an adjacent ally or an
adjacent prone enemy [/quote]

There's just something about the idea of knocking someone down and springboarding over them that I find wonderfully appealing. Especially once I realized that I was reading the print wrong, that when it says "you can only use one Full Discipline power per round," it counts both the attack and move actions as a single FD power...

 

[Naheal]

My group plays 4th. I like it. It's simple from both a player and a DM perspective .

yes, 4.0 is "simple".

It's no longer D&D.

Stick with 3.x

Why? 3.x isn't D&D, either.

Stick with AD&D.

I'm more familiar with 3.5 (and have maybe a little over half the sourcebooks, just for reading material), but I've been growing intrigued by 4th edition recently. Kinda wish I could find a group, so I could try out the new monks...

The new monks are weird. I rather like what they did with Bards, Warlocks, Clerics, and Paladins, and enjoy the Swordmage class.

Haven't seen much of those, yet. I've only read a little bit of the first Player's Handbook, but wound up checking out Player's Handbook III because of my overriding interest in 3.5's psionic classes (I don't care if they're weak, I loves me my Soulknives).

Have to say, flavorwise, I'm not sure about the whole tying psionic power to the Far Realm thing, but I'm willing to give it a chance (not to mention the "psionic augmentation" mechanics), and I love the ardents. Mechanically, though, I'm still really interested in the monks. The whole "full discipline" thing (packing a movement and attack capability in a power) sounds really fun, especially since I like playing mobile fighting types.

If you enjoy mobile fighters, you'll enjoy a Swordmage (FRPG). They're essentially a melee mage that focuses on close range blasts, short range teleportation, melee combat, and protective spells.

Hmm...that does sound pretty cool (sorta like how I imagined a 3.5 Duskblade/Abjurant Champion to fight). Especially if I can multiclass or hybridize it further...can Rogues still sneak attack with weaponlike spells (rays and the like)?

If you multiclass and don't hybrid it, I believe that you can. Typically speaking, though, multiclassing is rare in 4th (there's really no point) and hybrid characters can break a game.

Though still, my mental image of a Dragon Tail-using 4e monk remains.

Spoiler: This power in particular.

Dragon?s Tail Monk Attack 1
Your hand lashes out like a dragon?s tail, and with the
lightest touch unleashes power that knocks your foe to the
ground.
At-Will ✦ Full Discipline, Implement, Psionic

Attack Technique
Standard Action Melee touch
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. Fortitude
Hit: 1dX + Dexterity modifier damage, and you knock
the target prone.

Movement Technique
Move Action Personal
Effect: You swap places with an adjacent ally or an
adjacent prone enemy

There's just something about the idea of knocking someone down and springboarding over them that I find wonderfully appealing. Especially once I realized that I was reading the print wrong, that when it says "you can only use one Full Discipline power per round," it counts both the attack and move actions as a single FD power...

Monks are still really weird. I don't entirely know how they function yet.

 

[NeutralDrow]

My group plays 4th. I like it. It's simple from both a player and a DM perspective .

yes, 4.0 is "simple".

It's no longer D&D.

Stick with 3.x

Why? 3.x isn't D&D, either.

Stick with AD&D.

I'm more familiar with 3.5 (and have maybe a little over half the sourcebooks, just for reading material), but I've been growing intrigued by 4th edition recently. Kinda wish I could find a group, so I could try out the new monks...

The new monks are weird. I rather like what they did with Bards, Warlocks, Clerics, and Paladins, and enjoy the Swordmage class.

Haven't seen much of those, yet. I've only read a little bit of the first Player's Handbook, but wound up checking out Player's Handbook III because of my overriding interest in 3.5's psionic classes (I don't care if they're weak, I loves me my Soulknives).

Have to say, flavorwise, I'm not sure about the whole tying psionic power to the Far Realm thing, but I'm willing to give it a chance (not to mention the "psionic augmentation" mechanics), and I love the ardents. Mechanically, though, I'm still really interested in the monks. The whole "full discipline" thing (packing a movement and attack capability in a power) sounds really fun, especially since I like playing mobile fighting types.

If you enjoy mobile fighters, you'll enjoy a Swordmage (FRPG). They're essentially a melee mage that focuses on close range blasts, short range teleportation, melee combat, and protective spells.

Hmm...that does sound pretty cool (sorta like how I imagined a 3.5 Duskblade/Abjurant Champion to fight). Especially if I can multiclass or hybridize it further...can Rogues still sneak attack with weaponlike spells (rays and the like)?

If you multiclass and don't hybrid it, I believe that you can. Typically speaking, though, multiclassing is rare in 4th (there's really no point) and hybrid characters can break a game.

There's a point if you want flavor. I liked playing a wizard with pickpocketing and trapfinding skills in 3e (before my friend and I figured out that the multiclass rules were different from my AD&D CRPGs, meaning I was accidentally playing a gestalt character), and the idea of being able to do that for a relatively small price in 4e is a draw for me.

And the hybrid characters are broken? In which way, over- or underpowered?

Monks are still really weird. I don't entirely know how they function yet.

And I'm dying to find out! ^_^

 

[Bretrayer]

No Parthfinder!(then again Parthfinder isn't 'DnD' in that it isnt made by Wizards). So our group recently up/side graded to Parthfinder(3.75), which I'd probably recommend more than 3.5, if 3.5 didn't have all the content (which is Ok to convert but still a lot of work). 4th Edition is OK except it boils everything down a bit too much for my personal liking (though I'm sure most gaming groups could overcome this if they play it enough).

 

[Naheal]

My group plays 4th. I like it. It's simple from both a player and a DM perspective .

yes, 4.0 is "simple".

It's no longer D&D.

Stick with 3.x

Why? 3.x isn't D&D, either.

Stick with AD&D.

I'm more familiar with 3.5 (and have maybe a little over half the sourcebooks, just for reading material), but I've been growing intrigued by 4th edition recently. Kinda wish I could find a group, so I could try out the new monks...

The new monks are weird. I rather like what they did with Bards, Warlocks, Clerics, and Paladins, and enjoy the Swordmage class.

Haven't seen much of those, yet. I've only read a little bit of the first Player's Handbook, but wound up checking out Player's Handbook III because of my overriding interest in 3.5's psionic classes (I don't care if they're weak, I loves me my Soulknives).

Have to say, flavorwise, I'm not sure about the whole tying psionic power to the Far Realm thing, but I'm willing to give it a chance (not to mention the "psionic augmentation" mechanics), and I love the ardents. Mechanically, though, I'm still really interested in the monks. The whole "full discipline" thing (packing a movement and attack capability in a power) sounds really fun, especially since I like playing mobile fighting types.

If you enjoy mobile fighters, you'll enjoy a Swordmage (FRPG). They're essentially a melee mage that focuses on close range blasts, short range teleportation, melee combat, and protective spells.

Hmm...that does sound pretty cool (sorta like how I imagined a 3.5 Duskblade/Abjurant Champion to fight). Especially if I can multiclass or hybridize it further...can Rogues still sneak attack with weaponlike spells (rays and the like)?

If you multiclass and don't hybrid it, I believe that you can. Typically speaking, though, multiclassing is rare in 4th (there's really no point) and hybrid characters can break a game.

There's a point if you want flavor. I liked playing a wizard with pickpocketing and trapfinding skills in 3e (before my friend and I figured out that the multiclass rules were different from my AD&D CRPGs, meaning I was accidentally playing a gestalt character), and the idea of being able to do that for a relatively small price in 4e is a draw for me.

Skill training in general works differently in 4.0 than it did in 3.5. Basically, how it works is that all skill have a base bonus equal to your ability mod+1/2 your level+extraneous bonuses. Gaining training in that skill gives you a +5 bonus.

At character creation, you can choose between 3 and 4 skills from your class list. If you want another skill, you can always spend a feat (you get more feats in 4th anyway so this really isn't that big of a deal). Multiclassing also changed in that, if you want to multiclass, you need to spend feats to do it. Some multiclass feats also add skills, so I believe that a Wizard/Rogue would have access to the skills necessary to be an effective rogue.

And the hybrid characters are broken? In which way, over- or underpowered?

It can be OP, given the right combinations. One of the more potent combinations that I've ran into are Paladin/Cleric, Swordmage/Wizard and Swordmage/Warlord.

Monks are still really weird. I don't entirely know how they function yet.

And I'm dying to find out! ^_^

If I ever get my campaign going, I'll drop you a line.