So I want to get into D&D

[DrunkOnEstus]

Pathfinder is my personal favorite. 4E might be a nice entry into understanding some nuances that cover many editions, like saving throws and how bonuses work when rolling character abilities and so on.

I highly recommend visiting your local "geek shop" if there is one, like the place that sells Magic cards, esoteric board games, comic books, or miniatures. The shop owner probably knows who plays, or in many cases has a room behind the shop for playing. I personally like to use a nice big dry erase board with a variety of quick-wipe markers for the maps and character configurations, but a fun game can be had with just a couple books, the dice, and copious use of imagination.

If someone wants to be a DM, try to see if their interest is of ensuring maximum fun for everyone and not just wanting to go on a power trip and destroy everyone because he can. The limits are your imagination and inhibitions. I've played with a Bard who had an actual lute, and a wizard in full Gandalf get-up, with a stereo playing a "D&D background music" CD, set to the proper track when appropriate. I've never played online, but keep in mind that the majority of fun is the social nature and camaraderie that probably gets lost in translation there.

EDIT: If you end up playing 3.5 or another "open" D20 system, the doors are wide open beyond the traditional "high fantasy" or "not in Western Europe" settings. You can play Star Wars, other space settings, weird sexual things I never bothered with (there's a whole ruleset for flirting and...stuff) and generally the imagination limit of your DM, as they can create their own world using the D20 ruleset.

 

[Nieroshai]

I don't think it matters that much which edition you use. I believe the fourth edition is the easiest one to grasp in terms of complexity, but it's your choice.

Great for the combat too, since it was geared for pure dungeon runners. When my players want action, I whip that out. My own favorite flavor though is Pathfinder, for purely personal reasons.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

Snip

No problem. I'm sure you can borrow a book from someone there (or just ask them to print out a full character sheet using the online builder, as that will have everything you need to actually run the character). Hope you have fun!

 

[Loki J]

Check out the Red Box for 4th edition [http://www.wizards.com/dnd/product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/244660000]. It's a solid beginner kit.

 

[Cpu46]

As someone who has about a year and a half on you as far as D&D experience goes I would recommend 4th ED. It was easy to grasp and, without any previous editions to base my opinion on, a ton of fun. Worth a shot, especially if you can't find an experienced player who knows 3.5 pretty well. Took a while for me to feel comfortable with 3.5.

 

[el_kabong]

I would recommend jumping into 4E. While Pathfinder is the rule set my local group most commonly uses, it's because we're all experienced with DnD. The general idea is that Pathfinder is more complex (and deep), whereas 4E is simple (and streamlined).

Even as an experienced player, I find that playing almost any of the spell casting classes in Pathfinder is WAY more complicated than it needs to be. Technically speaking, you have to keep track of spells you know (changes daily), how many spells of a given slot you can still cast, what the spell components are (and making sure you have them), what school your spell is in (because it can effect the DC), your possible spell penetration, and your concentration check (if you cast in combat). 4E, while not the most diverse system, does a good job of making sure that all classes have about the same type of maintenance. In other words, your spellcasters have the same amount of material to keep track of as your fighter.

Also, 4E is more balanced. The last time I played, you could optimize a character, but they won't outshine the other players on the board. Pathfinder, with it's vast rules and customization options, allow veteran players to "break" a character, essentially making them far superior than perhaps the rest of the party. In Pathfinder, I can build a character that can kill a dragon meant for an equivalent level party in one round. That's like, completely unheard of in 4E. While "breaking" a character gives me a personal sense of accomplishment, it detracts from the rest of my group having a good time. Gaming in a social circle is the major component of any DnD game, so you should strive for the ideal that everybody has fun.

Finally, while I like the Pathfinder system, I find the world in which it takes place (Inner World Sea) to be kind of a joke. In the same continent, you have this weird shift in tone. You caan go from (what is essentially) colonial America to a zone where barbarians fight robots from space (that's not an exaggeration). The countries and areas in Pathfinder's universe are supposed to exist in the same time-space, but are so drastically different that there's no unifying sense of adventure. It's kind of like playing in Mario Land.

4E, on the other hand, is a DnD product, so its worlds are much grander in scale. Faerun, Greyhawk, and Eberron are just a few of the settings that have decades of lore behind them, whether it comes from rulebooks, modules, or novels. You can always combine lore you like with rules you like (my group runs Pathfinder rules, but typically plays with Faerun history). Its usually harder for newer players to integrate in a similar way.

 

[Sacman]

Yeah I've been wanting to learn too... but I'm taking the history of games class right now... and literally the last half of the class is learning how to play D&D and than the final is playing a successful campaign...<.<

This class is awesome...

 

[bluerocker]

Well, I've never played 4th or Pathfinder, my first game was with 3.5 ED. All I can say is, have a calculator and some spare paper ready. There's quite a bit of math involved, which depends upon whether you have a more action based campaign or a more role-playing one; such as combat rolls, skill rolls, etc.

I think what matters most in getting into it is that you have a patient, experienced DM and (maybe) a veteran player or two. That way, you can learn everything in a calm and understandable environment. That's how I started out in 3.5, and I think if you have those, the system doesn't matter. Furthermore, it helps to have in mind what kind of character you want to play: "Do I want to be a melee combatant, a tank, a mage, etc" as well as what character concept you have in mind. Part of the fun of DnD is the roleplay and the story (at least, that's why I play).

Finally, just have fun. It'll be a lot of stuff to take in at first, but you get the hang of it in a session or two.

 

[The Harkinator]

Sorry if it confuses you but I'd say don't play 4th Edition, combat can get very slow and in my experience, half of us spent ages pondering what power to use and the other half couldn't be bothered to play properly and stuck to melee basic or ranged basic.

Just my opinion.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Yeah I've been wanting to learn too... but I'm taking the history of games class right now... and literally the last half of the class is learning how to play D&D and than the final is playing a successful campaign...<.<
This class is awesome...

Damn. I want to teach that class. Where do you go to school (and what department is that class in)? I want to send them my CV.

I'd say don't play 4th Edition, combat can get very slow and in my experience, half of us spent ages pondering what power to use and the other half couldn't be bothered to play properly and stuck to melee basic or ranged basic.

This was my experience as well. Combat dragged on forever. It wasn't a bad system, mind - just dull. Even after my group got the hang of it, it was still dull, because we all used the same At Will powers every single round. Greenflame Blade is awesome and all, but after the 10th time that combat, even awesome gets dull.

Even as an experienced player, I find that playing almost any of the spell casting classes in Pathfinder is WAY more complicated than it needs to be. Technically speaking, you have to keep track of spells you know (changes daily),

Not if you're playing a Sorcerer or an Oracle. And with the "Sage" archetype for Sorcerer, you can make your Sorcerer into a loreful Wizard type character and still be a spontaneous caster. Also, Oracle of Life channels better than any Cleric, and gets both all Cure spells and all Restoration spells (and Breath of Life) for free.

As a DM, I've stopped creating actual Wizards and Clerics - Sorcerers and Oracles are easier.

Pathfinder, with it's vast rules and customization options, allow veteran players to "break" a character, essentially making them far superior than perhaps the rest of the party. In Pathfinder, I can build a character that can kill a dragon meant for an equivalent level party in one round. That's like, completely unheard of in 4E.

First off, the OP is new to D&D, as is his friend. They have no veteran players, so that isn't an issue for them. By the time they have veteran players, they'll be experienced enough to handle this issue.

Secondly, it's only a problem if some characters are less experienced than others. I've been playing D&D since 2nd Ed. - I played Pathfinder when it was in it's Alpha Playtest. So has my spouse, who I play with the most. Our group is almost equally experienced. That means that we're all equally "broken" - which means there is never a broken game, because we're all equally awesome. The GM (which varies) has to up the challenge ratings of the enemies a bit to compensate, but we're all used to that at this point. And not even always - if you can make a powerful PC, you can make powerful NPCs as well.

Finally, while I like the Pathfinder system, I find the world in which it takes place (Inner World Sea) to be kind of a joke. In the same continent, you have this weird shift in tone. You caan go from (what is essentially) colonial America to a zone where barbarians fight robots from space (that's not an exaggeration). The countries and areas in Pathfinder's universe are supposed to exist in the same time-space, but are so drastically different that there's no unifying sense of adventure. It's kind of like playing in Mario Land.

That's rather unfair. There's a very good in-game explanation for all the weirdness (Starfall), A, and B, the idea is that there are numerous "sub settings" within the world. If you want an Oriental Adventures type game, then there's an area that's basically China/Japan. If you want Ancient Egypt, there's an area for that. If you want Ravenloft, there's a nation (Ustalov) which is basically ripping off Ravenloft so hard I expect Count Strahd to show up with a copy-right infringement lawsuit for the Whispering Tyrant. If you want African Jungles, head south, cause they're there.
Also - point here - in the ancient world, there were Barbarians next to Rome and Greece, which were near Egypt, which was north of the African jungle. The "Inner Sea" is basically the Mediterranean, except that instead of having more barbarians in Spain and France, they have "middle ages" Europe instead.

And C: the borders are rarely that jarring. The construct meteor is a rare and particularly weird example that isn't typical of the campaign setting overall.

Finally - and the best point of all - nothing says you need to use the Inner Sea. You can use any of the old D&D settings - including Faerun, Greyhawk, Eberron - not to mention Dark Sun, Planescape, and Ravenloft - or create your own.

Edit: corrected a typo