D & D

[zespri]

Anyone like D & D? What do you think of D & D next? Which edition of D & D up to date do you prefer and why?

[Echo35]

Which edition of D & D up to date do you prefer and why?

Pathfinder

[zespri]

Pathfinder

Yep, ok, so 4th was a step in a wrong direction for you. Why?

[Diazo]

I'm actually torn on which D&D is best.

As I've been gaming for years I prefer 3.5/Pathfinder but that is very complex and requires a DM who will put his foot down and override what the rules say for the sake of the game.

We had a player turn up once who had a character with an AC of 45 at level 1 once. Totally legal under the rules but game-breaking.  (For reference, most level 1 characters have an AC in the 13-18 range.)


However, if you are just getting into D&D 4th ed is the way to go. It is much streamlined and more straight forward then 3.5, at the expense of being less complex and so less flexible.

The fact that 4th Ed is less complex is where 90% of the complaints about it come from (imo). The established player base was used to 3.5 and the myriad of options that gives you. Having all those options taken away from the players really rubbed everyone the wrong way.

If you are new to the game and don't have 3.5 to compare to, 4th Ed is plenty complex.

And don't forget the other systems out there, my 'D&D' group is currently running a Shadowrun campaing and we contributed to the Deadlands Noir kickstarter so that is probably our next campaign.

D.

[Mick]

We had a player turn up once who had a character with an AC of 45 at level 1 once. Totally legal under the rules but game-breaking.

It's been many many years since I played D&D. When I was a DM, munchkins simply did not survive very long. I was much more interested in creating interesting stories than dealing with min/max B.S.

I lost interest in PnP games in college because everyone I met who played them seemed to be the min/max powergamer type, and I just wasn't interested in that.

[Echo35]

Pathfinder

Yep, ok, so 4th was a step in a wrong direction for you. Why?

4th feels like a pen and paper MMO to me. I'm more interested in role playing than seeing what random cool powers and one shots your character can throw at each encounter. In fact, D&D in general is pretty bad at encouraging people to munchkin and be combat focused rather than roleplaying. I enjoy Pathfinder because it's basically pen and paper comfort food, since I grew up with D&D, but there are absolutely other RPGs I'd rather be playing, as a player. As a GM, I can warp the system to whatever style I want, and I do.

[tigersfan]

For me, while I try pretty hard to actually get into the story, and role play my characters as well as I can... the encounters are still the most fun part. I actually like rolling dice. I like the look on the DM's face when he realizes I can do a LOT more damage than he thought I could. I'm a bit of a min/maxer, and I've had DMs make encounters just to try to stop me, but, for me, that's fun.

Of course, it doesn't hurt when the DM starts us off with a bit of extra money and I use almost all of it on a mercurial great sword that requires me to roll 6 dice when it crits.

[keith.lamothe]

DMery is a wonderful sport.

[Hearteater]

I play D&D like I play AIW: Munchkin all the way, expect the DM to go 10/10 on me.  Defeat impossible odds until they finally defeat me in a grand finale.  That said, I DM much more often than I play, in which case I tailor the game to a speed and type the players will enjoy.

[LaughingThesaurus]

I'm in a pathfinder game as a dual-class sorcerer/bard while also role-playing a particular set of traits that make for a very complex actual character as well. This is my first game of pathfinder. I'm actually already used to it, so I don't think the simplified game is really the way to go necessarily for new players, just for players who really can't be arsed. If you're a quick learner or read up a bit, complexity as a factor kinda goes out the window.
But I mean if I were a wizard I'd be totally screwed. Too much pre-planning in my eyes.

[keith.lamothe]

But I mean if I were a wizard I'd be totally screwed. Too much pre-planning in my eyes.

But basically nothing can beat a properly prepared high-level wizard.

[zespri]

Pathfinder

Yep, ok, so 4th was a step in a wrong direction for you. Why?

4th feels like a pen and paper MMO to me.

I actually never could understand this complaint. Yes, pen and paper MMO. This is WONDERFUL. It's like a computer game but you get to play it with real people in front of you. And you don't have any griefing issues. What not to like?

I'm more interested in role playing than seeing what random cool powers and one shots your character can throw at each encounter. In fact, D&D in general is pretty bad at encouraging people to munchkin and be combat focused rather than roleplaying. I enjoy Pathfinder because it's basically pen and paper comfort food, since I grew up with D&D, but there are absolutely other RPGs I'd rather be playing, as a player. As a GM, I can warp the system to whatever style I want, and I do.

As far as roleplaying goes you do not need anything as complex as DND to roleplay. There are zillion roleplaying systems and some of them can be described in just a few pages. D&D as far as I know included combat as an integral part of the game from the very beginning. So in a sense you get what you paid for.

Now my DND experience is very limited I played only a bit of 3rd edition a while ago but I own the core sets for 3.5 and 4th. I enjoy reading them (I'm a rule lawyer type) but you never can fully appreciate a game mechanic unless you actually *play* it as opposed to just reading the rules.

On the face value I liked the 4th chnages in my opinion they fix most glaring issues with 3 (wizards being imba in the end game, healers having nothing substantial to do in combat, etc)

Thus I'm quite interested to know *why* people prefer this or that edition. I never read Pathfinder rules but I understand they are not far from 3.5 with a few tweaks?

With 4th edition I understand Wotc tried to make the game more accessible. I think they succeeded but they alienated a big part of playerbase who can't embrace the changes. Now with DND next they are trying hard to please everybody by providing a slime core and the addon systems so in theory one can use as much or as little of the game system as they want. I'm not sure if this is a practicable approach, time will tell.

So if you guys can explain why you prefer one edition over another or what you take on DND next is, it would be most appreciated. 

[zespri]

But I mean if I were a wizard I'd be totally screwed. Too much pre-planning in my eyes.

But basically nothing can beat a properly prepared high-level wizard.

So basically they are imba?

[keith.lamothe]

But I mean if I were a wizard I'd be totally screwed. Too much pre-planning in my eyes.

But basically nothing can beat a properly prepared high-level wizard.

So basically they are imba?

No, they just win

[Echo35]

Pathfinder

Yep, ok, so 4th was a step in a wrong direction for you. Why?

4th feels like a pen and paper MMO to me.

I actually never could understand this complaint. Yes, pen and paper MMO. This is WONDERFUL. It's like a computer game but you get to play it with real people in front of you. And you don't have any griefing issues. What not to like?

Well, I hate MMOs, so, everything

So if you guys can explain why you prefer one edition over another or what you take on DND next is, it would be most appreciated. 

Honestly, it's more like, they made a product I liked, I have it already and enjoyed it, so why should I be interested when they try making another one and selling it to me when I'm happy with the thing I already have and have zero interest in another take on it? At this point, I've pretty much jumped ship and gone with the system I like and am already familiar with (3rd), that is getting all kinds of great support and ongoing development, continued events, etc (Pathfinder).