Question of the Day, September 9, 2010
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I started playing with Basic Edition D&D, but I wouldn't want to go back to clerics not getting spells until second level and "Elf", "Dwarf" and "Halfling" being classes as opposed to races. I also played a lot of 1e, but the strength penalties by race and sex were annoying, even if they were realistic.
That's why 2e is my favorite, and the one I use preferentially when I roleplay online. 3e may have been a good rewriting of the rules, but it introduced TOO MANY sourcebooks and options. You practically need a computer database to keep track of them all.
And then there is 4e, which in its emphasis on tactical combat and skill challenges, reminds me of playing a first-person fighting game, not roleplaying. If I wanted to play that, I'd BUY a console fighting game. Honestly.
That's why 2e is my favorite, and the one I use preferentially when I roleplay online. 3e may have been a good rewriting of the rules, but it introduced TOO MANY sourcebooks and options. You practically need a computer database to keep track of them all.
And then there is 4e, which in its emphasis on tactical combat and skill challenges, reminds me of playing a first-person fighting game, not roleplaying. If I wanted to play that, I'd BUY a console fighting game. Honestly.
AD&D 2nd Ed. At least, I think it's second ed.
I've only really played that version of AD&D and D&D 3rd ed, and 3rd ed is quite annoying. Having to micromanage all those traits and such is a bit much, and confirming crits is a whore and a half. On the upside, Armor Class is finally done sensibly. But on the downside, Bards suck in 3rd ed.
I've only really played that version of AD&D and D&D 3rd ed, and 3rd ed is quite annoying. Having to micromanage all those traits and such is a bit much, and confirming crits is a whore and a half. On the upside, Armor Class is finally done sensibly. But on the downside, Bards suck in 3rd ed.
While I enjoy 4th Edition as it's the current iteration of the game and most likely to be being played should I find a group to join my heart will always belong to AD&D. It was the first I played, back in 1981, and while it wasn't as smooth-running as later editions would be it had the most heart and focused on the role-playing element more than the battle mechanics (which 4e does very well, I will admit.) Sure, we had a score of house-rules for our AD&D games (who didn't?!) so it was an additional chore to teach a new player both the rules and our adjustments to them but that's what made it more our game.
AD&D 2nd Edition, particularly the Planescape setting.
My friends and I started with the original system and moved up to AD&D (a mix of first and second edition) a few months later. I was in college when 3rdE was released and I really liked the system but it never felt well supported and 3.5 made a lot of changes which I didn't like.
I skimmed the fourth edition core books and it looked entirely uninteresting.
My friends and I started with the original system and moved up to AD&D (a mix of first and second edition) a few months later. I was in college when 3rdE was released and I really liked the system but it never felt well supported and 3.5 made a lot of changes which I didn't like.
I skimmed the fourth edition core books and it looked entirely uninteresting.
I'm playing 4th Edition now because that's what my group was playing when I started gaming with them, but 3rd/3.5 edition D&D still holds the keys to my heart. Which is funny, because I never actually played it outside of CRPGs that had, at best, an only mostly accurate presentation of the ruleset.
Homebrew 2nd. For instance, we let you make up actions instead of having feats and the DM decides the roll for it.
Wasnt the dwarf a fighter cleric, the elf fighter mage theif? I dont remeber the halfling, do you?
Fourth, as that's the only one I've played at the nearby card store. Fun as hell, though, especially the brain melting. The brain melting is awesome.
3rd. Of course, the tweeked 3.5 is better, and the further tweeked Pathfinder is even better...er. So Pathfinder is my choice, It's just that Pathfinder is functionally a strain of 3rd. Honestly, pre-3rd only has nostalgia. The rules were terrible. Kinda like how Darwins original view of evolution was terrible. Of course it's terrible, it was the first shot, it was still genius for it's time. If you still think pre third was good rules wise, explain to me the difference between multiclass and dual class. And then restate your point with a straight face.
4th is a trickier beast. 4th is still good. It is very simple, and has a streamlined MMO-like feel to be accessible. Its a fine starter. But for an experienced player, it is just not as good. Listen to a battle in 4th, then listen to a battle in 3.5. Now, try to picture the battles in your head. 4th looks like an interesting tactical battle that you would see in a really good MMO. But 3rd looks like an actual, well, fight. I play 4th and I practically see numbers floating up above the characters heads, and selected monsters with an itemized list of debuffs. 3rd, I see a story. And the stories the thing for an RPG, because we have MMOs for our purely abstract, tactical play. 4th tries to set up the entirety of the world that you can interact with to make for a tight, balanced system, but 3rd gives tools for putting some organization to anything you can imagine, gives you the rules to apply to anything. For a Pen and Paper RPG, that's just the better approach.
4th is a trickier beast. 4th is still good. It is very simple, and has a streamlined MMO-like feel to be accessible. Its a fine starter. But for an experienced player, it is just not as good. Listen to a battle in 4th, then listen to a battle in 3.5. Now, try to picture the battles in your head. 4th looks like an interesting tactical battle that you would see in a really good MMO. But 3rd looks like an actual, well, fight. I play 4th and I practically see numbers floating up above the characters heads, and selected monsters with an itemized list of debuffs. 3rd, I see a story. And the stories the thing for an RPG, because we have MMOs for our purely abstract, tactical play. 4th tries to set up the entirety of the world that you can interact with to make for a tight, balanced system, but 3rd gives tools for putting some organization to anything you can imagine, gives you the rules to apply to anything. For a Pen and Paper RPG, that's just the better approach.
Saga Edition Star Wars, applied to non-Star Wars settings, works exceptionally well. Simplified skill list + 3.5 mechanics. Oh, and I usually play D20 Modern right now, anyway.
Using that until I get a chance to play 4E, anyway. D&D isn't really my game of choice though, I prefer New World of Darkness.
Using that until I get a chance to play 4E, anyway. D&D isn't really my game of choice though, I prefer New World of Darkness.
Pathfinder: A 3rd party modification to 3.5 that adds some robustness, more characterization options, freer multiclassing, and adresses a few trailing issues with 3.5.
