Question of the Day, September 9, 2010

[Ganthrinor]

I prefer Pathfinder over D&D these days. Essentially it's D&D 3.5 with more tweaks and fixes to further blaance all the classes out and make everything really interesting and fun. Like a D&D 3.75 Edition. Their Core Rulebook is massive, composing of all the elements of a D&D PHB and DMG into one book.

 

[drdamo]

3.5 here.

Tried 4th and allmost went mental. Ok, i admit, its great for balance and small parties, yet all the creativity you needed to survive in previous editions is lost.
I liked it when i could come up with complex combinations of actions, spells and classes to overcome obstacles or create unique situations otherwise unavailable.

Even a few friends of mine who started with 4th begged me to DM a 3/3.5 game for them as they found 4th too easy, too standard and too boring.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

Edition 3.5 for me please.

 

[Cord Sims]

FUCK 4TH ED!!! what customization? no matter what "build" you choose, you will always be doing the same inane shit! and beyond any complaints i have with the character classes, the STUPID power system, and the dumbed down nature of the system as a whole, those are just small complaints when you realize that dnd is supposed to be a ROLE PLAYING GAME!!! 4th ed has no sense of role play, you have next to no ability outside combat, and the only thing the story of the campaign does is to be a vehicle to move the characters between fights.

i'll mostly play 3.5, but i'll play ANY of the other editions than 4.

 

[WinkyTheGreat]

I like both 4th and 3.5. 4th edition for it's balance as far as characters go, it's monsters, it's player races, and the ability to go to level 30 with the basic books alone. 3.5 for the ability to make whatever character you want to (something 4th edition kind of lacks) and for it's character alignment system. Both have their strong points and weak points.

 

[akibawall95]

Other: Never played it

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

FUCK 4TH ED!!! what customization? no matter what "build" you choose, you will always be doing the same inane shit! and beyond any complaints i have with the character classes, the STUPID power system, and the dumbed down nature of the system as a whole, those are just small complaints when you realize that dnd is supposed to be a ROLE PLAYING GAME!!! 4th ed has no sense of role play, you have next to no ability outside combat, and the only thing the story of the campaign does is to be a vehicle to move the characters between fights.

i'll mostly play 3.5, but i'll play ANY of the other editions than 4.

Yep, all the things that you love as a player are the same things that piss me off as a DM/GM. All that customization, min maxing, god combos, perfect builds, custom magic item creation... it's all a giant pain in the ass for the guy running the game to keep track of.

Personally I never found 3.5 to have that much "roleplaying" support myself and most of the best roleplaying/story moments had little or nothing to do with die-rolls or stats, at least nothing that MUST be handled by distributing points into skills like Craft or Knowledge. But I'm just getting started with 4e so I'll let you know if that changes.

A lot of it though depends on what you want to do with the system...

If you want to charge through dungeons, kill monsters and take their stuff whilst having a few out of combat laugh, 4th Ed works great.

If you want a moody, gritty game of corrupt urban alley bashers or grizzled frontier survivalists, 3.5/Pathfinder is more what you want.

If you want a game of deep characters, political intrigue and plenty of roleplaying... why are you playing DnD? DnD is and always has been a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff, not about political maneuvering and social discourse. If you want that kind of thing play REIGN or Burning Wheel, not DnD.

 

[SoldieroFortune]

Definitely 3.5

 

[Abanic]

3rd Edition was the starting point for me (thank you Baldur's Gate), so it will always have a special place in my heart. I've never really understood the whole 3rd versus 4th flame war, by the way. Different rules, different ways of doing stuff, whatever floats your boat in my book... =)

You've got the correct attitude towards the whole 3rd VS 4th war and most would feel the exact same way IF the company still produced products for the earlier editions. "Different rules, different ways..." is a wonderful philosophy IF players can FIND the different rules. The problem is that the company ONLY produce stuff for 4th Edition, so if you didn't like that edition, tough luck. It forces those of us who didn't enjoy 4th (which I feel is trying to be a tabletop World of Warcraft) to either purchase used material for our favorite set or switch to a better system entirely (like Pathfinder). I really wish more people thought like you and respected the opinions of others.

 

[Nenad]

Other: Don't play D&D (but don't have anything against it), just wanted to see the results

 

[Jake the Snake]

I hate 4e, it's way too commercialized and Magic was rendered completely useless. 3.5e is the way to go.

 

[Lion Ellus]

I'm surprised that no-one's posted pathfinder thus far. It's unofficially referred to as D&D 3.75 since it essentially picks up where 3.5 stopped and makes everything comprehensive in one (giant) book. Classes are all much better balanced and have individual class options available right from the get-go, and the magic items are as good as ever. Also, the lore is extensive and there is some very wonderful effort that has been put into making the game world seem like it could be an actual setting; eg most common monsters (bugbears, goblins, etc) are discussed as having cultures and ways of thought and communities such that they're not just seen as random 'spawns' but more a product of the world you're living in.

I'm sure I'm going to draw a lot of hate here but I absolutely despise 4th edition. I've played a few MMOs, and that's exactly what the game feels like. Pick a class, pick 'feats' (which do absolutely nothing), pick which skills you're going to specialize in, and then go to a dungeon and kill stuff. No freedom, no randomness, almost no backstory. You're a hero. The world needs heroes. Go. Kill. Stuff. EVERY SINGLE ROOM has an encounter, and almost no rooms have any kind of puzzle... unless you're a thick-o who thinks that skill-challenges are a kind of puzzle. Also, magic items are a JOKE. There is absolutely nothing interesting or creative about the magic items. Generic armor number one or number two? Who gives? The entire system is formulaic and lacks creativity, like it was created to appeal to robots or something. Considering it's supposed to tie in to a computer game some time this decade, I'm not surprised. It's un-immersive and I feel like I'm pressing on buttons rather than giving a soul to a metaphorical skin whenever I'm playing it. (I will admit though they started going in the right direction with new combat moves; they just took one step forward and two steps back off of a bridge.)

Now excuse me while I go sleep of my fatigue from stepping out of nerdrage.

 

[tehroc]

3rd Edition was the starting point for me (thank you Baldur's Gate), so it will always have a special place in my heart. I've never really understood the whole 3rd versus 4th flame war, by the way. Different rules, different ways of doing stuff, whatever floats your boat in my book... =)

Umm Baldur's Gate was second edition. The first third edition game was Icewind Dale 2.

I don't like 4th, a fighter is barely any different then a mage as they both get spell-like abilities every level. 3rd edition is made easier with a computer, but 4th edition is just a mockery of an RPG in order to cash in on the dumbed-down WOW/XBL crowd.

 

[Cord Sims]

4th ed can blow me!

 

[Cord Sims]

FUCK 4TH ED!!! what customization? no matter what "build" you choose, you will always be doing the same inane shit! and beyond any complaints i have with the character classes, the STUPID power system, and the dumbed down nature of the system as a whole, those are just small complaints when you realize that dnd is supposed to be a ROLE PLAYING GAME!!! 4th ed has no sense of role play, you have next to no ability outside combat, and the only thing the story of the campaign does is to be a vehicle to move the characters between fights.

i'll mostly play 3.5, but i'll play ANY of the other editions than 4.

Yep, all the things that you love as a player are the same things that piss me off as a DM/GM. All that customization, min maxing, god combos, perfect builds, custom magic item creation... it's all a giant pain in the ass for the guy running the game to keep track of.

Personally I never found 3.5 to have that much "roleplaying" support myself and most of the best roleplaying/story moments had little or nothing to do with die-rolls or stats, at least nothing that MUST be handled by distributing points into skills like Craft or Knowledge. But I'm just getting started with 4e so I'll let you know if that changes.

A lot of it though depends on what you want to do with the system...

If you want to charge through dungeons, kill monsters and take their stuff whilst having a few out of combat laugh, 4th Ed works great.

If you want a moody, gritty game of corrupt urban alley bashers or grizzled frontier survivalists, 3.5/Pathfinder is more what you want.

If you want a game of deep characters, political intrigue and plenty of roleplaying... why are you playing DnD? DnD is and always has been a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff, not about political maneuvering and social discourse. If you want that kind of thing play REIGN or Burning Wheel, not DnD.

those arguments you have about the customization and variety of 3.5 are the mark of a LAZY dm. i had been playing a year when i dm'd my first game and not once have i found my players special quirks a challenge to get around. so they massacre your encounter, understanding that it's survival of the fittest, the next one is more difficult, and then more so and so on until you find a balance. it's about knowing your players. what you put forth is that you need to be spoon-fed these encounters and stats so that everything goes the way you want it, the game isn't about the dm anyway, it's about the players.

also the stats are just a basis, they don't fully govern what a character can do, which is where a little imagination comes in. that being said, someone with no charisma and no bluff skill isn't going to be able to lie convincingly to the paladin. if you can't role play with the system you're the one who isn't using the system to it's potential.

finally 4th ed is still a load of dick. (plus i forgot to say how STUPID the idea of static defenses are, and how badly they fucked up saves)

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

those arguments you have about the customization and variety of 3.5 are the mark of a LAZY dm.

Or a DM who works a full time job, has a wife, other hobby's, a social life and can only really devote 4 or 5 hours a week to planning a game...

In response to your roleplaying comment, I don't believe in "You should have to be a good liar to play a good liar in a game." And it doesn't really address why/how 3.5 handles roleplaying better than 4th... it's the lack of Craft and Perform skills isn't it! ISN'T IT!

Similarly I've been dealing with Static Defenses in Star Wars SAGA for awhile, they're nothing new to me and they speed up play but I can see how going straight from 3.5 to 4th they might be a bit jarring.

But in closing, the more things change...

Spoiler

 

[Cord Sims]

those arguments you have about the customization and variety of 3.5 are the mark of a LAZY dm.

Or a DM who works a full time job, has a wife, other hobby's, a social life and can only really devote 4 or 5 hours a week to planning a game...

i've know plenty of people who have had similar situations, and yet they find ways to keep games interesting. very interesting in fact. i can understand having constraints outside play that makes it hard to be as engaging as one might wish, but that's not the players' fault.

if you can't set the time aside to make an interesting, engaging game, maybe you should let someone else run.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

i've know plenty of people who have had similar situations, and yet they find ways to keep games interesting. very interesting in fact. i can understand having constraints outside play that makes it hard to be as engaging as one might wish, but that's not the players' fault.

if you can't set the time aside to make an interesting, engaging game, maybe you should let someone else run.

Yeah but you can do that with any system... I like 4th Ed because it makes Number Crunching easy so I can focus on the "interesting and engaging" part without needing to constantly worry if my encounters will challenge the players without being too hard.

 

[Cord Sims]

i've know plenty of people who have had similar situations, and yet they find ways to keep games interesting. very interesting in fact. i can understand having constraints outside play that makes it hard to be as engaging as one might wish, but that's not the players' fault.

if you can't set the time aside to make an interesting, engaging game, maybe you should let someone else run.

Yeah but you can do that with any system... I like 4th Ed because it makes Number Crunching easy so I can focus on the "interesting and engaging" part without needing to constantly worry if my encounters will challenge the players without being too hard.

whaaaaaa...all you're telling me is that you like playing this rock stupid system with no real substance to make up for your own short comings.

 

[Altorin]

I really like 4th edition.

and NOONE I know likes it at all.

It's very irritating.