[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.15472579 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

I wanted to start learning D&D. What edition should I be learning?

>> No.15472595

do you want a boardgame?

do you want roleplaying game?

do you want a good game?
can't help ya there, mate.

>> No.15472621

the one your buddies play/the one that has an existing community near you.
there's no better answer.

>> No.15472633

>I have no real thing to comment and I must DERP
This is the only answer.
Fuck what /tg/ thinks about any edition.

>> No.15472638

Preferably, all of them, each brings their own set to the table. Find out what your local groups are playing, give it a shot.
Just don't get into the mindset that D&D MUST BE *insert your idea here*.

>> No.15472639

Keep your standards high, I'm sure one day something will disappoint you so much that you kill yourself.

OP, look the games over, you can find their rules online for the most part. http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/
err..... seems that WotC decided they weren't going to allow an SRD, though you could probably find a torrent for their books or something like that.

>> No.15472641

> do you want roleplaying game?
> pathfinder
> implying "I roll for Profession: mudfarmer" is roleplaying
> implying "I cast greater solve problem" is roleplaying

>> No.15472667

4e has more streamlined rules than 3.5 but combat has a tendency to drag out especially at higher levels.
Pathfinder is alright but it still has the same problems that 3.5 had in that fighters are pretty shit compared to wizards at high levels despite what some people may claim.
D&D essentials I haven't played much of but seems to have much more interesting classes than vanilla 4e and is more fast paced with monsters and characters that hit harder and have less HP bloat at high levels.
3.5 is a classic but has serious class balance issues. This should help if you decide to go with 3.5 http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0
Personally I'd recommend 4e essentials, its got the better rules of 4e without every class feeling like a cardboard cut out of the same thing.

>> No.15472693

Enjoy when everyone else has 200 books going back to 2e they're using for 3.5, with modified hacked and conflicting house rules you'll never understand.

>> No.15472737

I've only played a little of it, but I agree with this guy. D&D Essentials Starter Kit (the big red box) is MADE for new players. That is its PURPOSE.

>> No.15472760

2e, 4e

anything older than 2e

3.0e, 3.5e, Essentials


>> No.15472762

I love these threads.

>> No.15472781

Only good part about 2nd ed was Infravision and buff durations.

The rest... nonweapon proficiencies? BULLCRAP. THAC0? Fuck, shoot me now. Attacks per round? Hand me the calculator.

>> No.15472799


>likes rule heavy second edition and easy to play 4th, yet dislikes 3e? Logical fallacy


>> No.15472832

It is best to learn what your friends play, but nothing is more newbie friendly than the 1983 Menzter Basic set. A good alternative is Labyrinth Lord which is available as a free download and is a retroclone of the 1981 Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert sets.

>> No.15472837

I'm partial to Pathfinder. I've never tried 4e. Basically your choice is Pathfinder or 4e. 3.5e is no longer officially supported by WotC, so you won't find any new material that's not third party. Pathfinder picked up where 3.5e left off, streamlined some rules, and it's created by the same guys who made Dungeon and Dragon magazines. 4e is... WotC. My money is with Pathfinder. It's created by people who actually love D&D.

>> No.15472874

He... Didn't say 3.5 was WotC?

>> No.15472903

5th Edition is where it's at, it leaves nothing to the imagination. Instead you play pre-generated characters in dungeon modules only.

No original characters are allowed, nor is the DM allowed to deviate from the module he is using, or you are in violation of the EULA and Wotc will sue you for thousands of dollars.

Every month new characters and dungeons are released, each slightly more powerful than the last, meaning January's characters have no chance in Junes dungeon.

>> No.15472905

Alright, lemme get this straight...
Pathfinder picked up where a WotC game left off, made by the same people who churned out incredibly broken shite in Dragon Magazine (my personal favorite, a feat that lets you bang a fairy and magically have a wizard with more hp than a fighter, with no equivelant for non-Int based classes). Meanwhile, 4e is headed by Mike Mearls, a self-professed 2eaboo-and-earlieraboo.

So you're avoiding 4e's "WotC" ness while playing a game designed by people who couldn't let go of... a WotC game.

still confus over here.

>> No.15472916

>It's created by people who actually love D&D.
People who love not being jobless and working in their hobby's industry, just like at WotC. Seriously, what's with you PF fanboys thinking Paizo is some magical land of love and dedication? They only made Pathfinder because otherwise their modules were useless.

>> No.15472961


In all seriousness and under the guise that this isn't a troll thread, what do you want to play? Are there people around you playing a certain edition?

If you're totally on your own, I'd suggest 4e Essentials. Its not really a different game than 4e, but /tg/ may tell you otherwise. The reason I suggest this to you is that its still a living game system, where as the other D&D systems are not (except for Pathfinder, which is another can of worms), and Wizards is very interested in promoting the product and running events around it. If you have no friends or know of any communities around you playing D&D, you can always go to the nearest tabletop gaming store running D&D Encounters and try to join up in a game there. The rules they run these events off of is 4e Essentials, so if you learn that game you shouldn't be too lost. The link is pretty easy to find online, but since you're asking for help, here it is:


inb4 VIRAL

>> No.15472982

>It's created by people who actually love D&D.
Like that matters when you actually play the game.
>Basing my distaste of Paizo over a single retarded feat
Way to go bro. Also, Paizo isn't good at crunch as it is at setting and modules, learn what to espect from a company.

You guys are all retarded, trying to argue what is best and what is not. I don't play 4th because I grew up with 3.5 and I'm used to it, yeah, even if the rules are sometimes derpy and unbalanced. It's what me and my friend played. Now we play pathfinder because we Paizo filled the void left by WotC on 3.5 and because the manuals have high production values. We don't play it because it's "superior" to 4th.

OP, just look around, see what other players /your friends are playing, then choose. It's better if you try more things, but really, it all comes down to what your groups of friends wants to play.

Edition doesn't fucking matter.

>> No.15472989


>using 3rd edition Chainmail and not 1st

>> No.15472997

> I grew up with 3.5
So did I. Didn't stop me from learning new things and moving on.
Why so conservative?

>> No.15473003

> It's better if you try more things
> I don't play 4th because I grew up with 3.5 and I'm used to it
... someone hasn't read 1984.

>> No.15473006


Why does it bother you so much what kind of a game some dude plays?

>> No.15473012

Have you ever played Final Fantasy Tactics OP? 4e is basically that with pen and paper, the only real difference is that normal attacks are fucking worthless in 4e, whereas in Final Fantasy Tactics it depended on what weapon your character had. There's also about 50 times the number of moves in 4e not all of them as different and varied as they are in FFT.

>> No.15473024

D&D wasn't an add-on for Chainmail, but it was based on a Chainmail variant that Arneson ran, and used the man to man combat rules from Chainmail, but it also presented an alternative d20 based system that ended up becoming the norm.

>> No.15473027

Because he's insecure about his own choices therefore must project them on other to force acceptance

>> No.15473030

Because I also play/played M&M, Don't Rest your Head, Dogs in the Vineyard, AFMBE, Vampire the Masquerade, a game I invented, and freeforms over the internet.
I'm conservative when it comes to D&D because my group generally is, and because I want to.

>> No.15473045

I tried 4th, I prefer Pathfinder, so the fuck what.

>> No.15473047

I'm not bothered by someone not playing a game, I'm bothered by someone who supposedly poured blood sweat and tears into learning a clusterfuck who is now unwilling to learn a trivial amount of new knowledge to learn another. Speaking from experience; if you learned 3.5, learning 4e is *easy*.

>> No.15473056


>> No.15473068




>> No.15473076

Me and my friends play 3.5, but we haven't upgraded because 1) 4e books are gonna cost us a shitload and nobody feels like buying them and 2) they dumped a lot of the stuff we liked seemingly (gnomes, monks, etc)

Is it worth upgrading too?

>> No.15473080

>a feat that lets you bang a fairy


>> No.15473083

Easy, but uninteresting and some of the shit just doesn't make sense. I tried running it and one of the players used a move called "bear trap" to this very day I have the image of an archer with a bear trap on the end of an arrow, preparing to fire it at a fleeing mook, who then dies, because he has 1 hp total. The mook system is retarded, especially when players have a tendency of going places, and doing things the system isn't capable of handling.

>> No.15473088


>> No.15473100

You probably wouldn't like it.

>> No.15473115

>books cost money
internet bro, download then, read them, then decide.
>dropped gnomes and monks
they are in the PH 2/3 if I'm not mistaken
>worth upgrading
if you and your buds feel like it. Why not trying some 4th tournament/sample session and then decide?

>> No.15473120

> (gnomes, monks, etc)
4e has those, brah.

>> No.15473121

People complain that a wizard is so much better then a fighter in 3.5/pathfinder. Look at it this way, pretend the wizard is batman and the fighter is superman. With prep-time batman can beat anyone, but that doesn't mean superman is useless and can't be awesome.

Also, 4e is WAY more 'unbalanced' then 3.5 ever was. Look at the hundreds of pages of errata.

But the main reason I play pathfinder over 4e is for the freedom. 4e greatly restricts what players can do, often for no good reason besides the fact that they assume something is broken (when often it isn't) while pathfinder tries its best to give players as much freedom as possible while still maintaining balance.

>> No.15473143

Theres a template for gnomes in the Monster Manual
Monk just isn't in the core book it's not like there isn't a monk class
I personally like monks alot myself. I find it funny that most people on /tg/ seem to think the class is shit, unless its a 4th ed thread then people start popping up complaining about the lack of monk.

>> No.15473145

Bear, you know nothing. Everything you just said there is completely wrong.

>> No.15473151

> errata
Most of the recent errata has been Mike Mearls fucking up the balance, not restoring it. Most of the errata, on close inspection, are typo corrections in a very longhand style.
Incidentally, 3.5 by volume likely had more meaningful errata, not less. Polymorph as a spell descriptor, anyone?
> freedom
No, not really seeing it, aside from MC rules, which PF actively punishes you for doing anyway. Meanwhile, 4e has hybrids and actually MCing is considered an optimal thing to do, as character depth and overall power go hand in hand. Meanwhile in PF, if you aren't specializing in a skill or attack form, it's useless.

>> No.15473163


Okay. Thanks for contributing in a useful manner! Also when I say freedom I mean freedom in building your character, not freedom in terms of roleplaying. Both 4e and Pathfinder do that perfectly well.

>> No.15473171

3e monks *are* shit. PF monks are better. 4e monks are better still.
Because, when 1 attack/round is the norm, the ability to whirlwind attack, at will, from level 1, as a standard action, is pretty boss (also while taking 10 feet long 5 foot steps)

>> No.15473174

>People complain that a wizard is so much better then a fighter in 3.5/pathfinder. Look at it this way, pretend the wizard is batman and the fighter is superman. With prep-time batman can beat anyone, but that doesn't mean superman is useless and can't be awesome.

3.5 Wizard is Batman and Fighter is Robin.

The Wizard is better than the Fighter at everything the Fighter does, and can do all sorts of things the Fighter simply can't. When Brilliant Gameologists made up their tier lists for 3.5, this is what defined 3.5's inherent imbalance. Guess which class is Tier 1 and which is Tier 5 (the tier just above the Samurai and Commoner):

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

>> No.15473181


I've never understood the "fighters suck wizards rock" mentality that /tg/ has. They go on about these hypothetical level 20 situations where wizards have every spell needed and never fail a SR check or anything and just rape everything they come across while the fighter just "standard attacks" and does nothing.

But in every, absolutely every, game of 3.5 or Pathfinder I've played the fighters or monks or rogues have done tons of good things for the party, had fun, and never felt like they were "tapering out" or whatever.

Its also worth wondering how many games actually make it to the 17-20 level range that all the fighter haters talk about, very few in my experience, and while level 4 wizards are dealing a couple d4s worth of damage with magic missile or acid arrow, fighters can put out 30+ points per attack with power-attacks and high strength.

I'll never understand the hate that melee classes get in 3.5, or especially Pathfinder.

>> No.15473183

Oh.... wow, really? I think Pathfinder is up to 15 or so pages of errata all told? Most of which is produced in the later printings of the books.

>> No.15473185

>PF actively punishes you for doing anyway MC
More like "encourages you to stick with a class" which is not the same thing.

>> No.15473195


no meaningful duel-wielding for most classes and no large weapons in 4e. Also most attacks that allow you to do something have invisible walls for no apparent reason. Pathfinder/3.5 also has a few of those spells (Can't sell the iron in wall of iron, can't create valuble ores with some creation spells etc.) but those are few and far between compared to PF.

>> No.15473205

must be fun playing with you. Oh, don't bother respond, cause I don't give a fuck about the balance issue.

>> No.15473206

> level 4 wizards are dealing a couple d4s worth of damage with magic missile or acid arrow
Well see, that's the problem. A level 4 wizard doesn't cast magic missile; he casts web, which utterly bumfucks every enemy and allows the party to plink them to death with bows.

>> No.15473207

Pathfinder seems to be making something similar to that, the magus is 1 part wizard 1 part fighter, the ninja is 1 part monk 1 part rogue 1 part weeaboo (not that it's really a bad thing) but all fun once you get to level 2.

>> No.15473208

>Maintaining balance

Pathfinder couldn't even fix basic issues in the core rules that had been known problems for years. To say nothing of what happens when they actually write new stuff.

Fuck D&D, play AD&D. First edition preferably, though 2e has some ideas worth cannibalizing. The great thing about it is that it's a centralized complete ruleset that doesn't get fucked up every month because the designers needed to sell more books.

Seriously, feats suck. They ruined the game.

>> No.15473209

Because no edition thread would be complete without it, I'm going to shill Fantasy Craft, another d20 pseudo-D&D game. While Pathfinder is not much more than a rules update of 3.5 that adds something resembling 2e's kits, Fantasy Craft gives the d20 system a total rebuild, without abandoning it entirely like 4e.

Playing a melee combatant is made better by adding feats that are actually interesting and good, as well as pathfinder-esque goodies to fill the dead levels.

Non-combat party roles are given more support, adding talker classes and dedicated skill classes, like the courtier and keeper.

Magic users are nerfed slightly by giving them better spells later, (Mages start only casting 0th level spells and pick up 1st level spells at level 3, 2nd at lvl 5 and so on), and also by making save-or-die spells much worse against PC's and boss NPC's.

>> No.15473210

>while level 4 wizards are dealing a couple d4s worth of damage with magic missile or acid arrow, fighters can put out 30+ points per attack with power-attacks and high strength

Your Wizards are doing it wrong. Save-or-lose spells, not damage spells, are what make them overpowered. Utility spells like Teleport can seriously derail a campaign by bypassing every meaningful obstacle. Spell Resistance in 3.5 is a joke, and in PF the casters will just take spells that ignore SR.

>> No.15473215

If staying in a class is inherently better than multiclassing, then it's fundamentally the same thing.

>> No.15473216

> no dual-wielding
Uhh, let's see... Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Barbarians, Monks, and every Arcane Caster dual wields quite well. Also, large weapons *do* exist and *are* awesome. Mordenkrad? Execution Axe? Fullblade? Motherfucking GOUGES? Christ dude.

>> No.15473227

Oh, and a few nice, interesting means of Rogues to dual wield exist, and I've made a dual-wielding Seeker before. He was fun. Crossbow bolts. Crossbow bolts everywhere.

>> No.15473245

7th Edition is clearly the best.

>> No.15473260

except it's not. When creating a character concept or having a character develop, you can choose to multiclass as it seems fit. 3.5 had the multiclassing xp penality (something I would call "actively punishing", but I'm sure everyone ignored this rule anyway) while PF gives you 1hp/1skill point if you stick to your favoured class. A small but palpable encouragement to stick to your original character concept than picking hundreds of different class levels to "break the ga-

wait, this is /tg/, it's all rollplayers/powergamers, what the fuck I'm arguing about

>> No.15473273

Which issues are that exactly? Save or lose spells don't exactly last very long (no one fucking does pvp in D&D, except very briefly, then the fighter comes along and kills both sides of the argument for putting him in unnecessary danger.) so they are kind of hard to take advantage of, aside from keeping a target out of combat for a few rounds, and even then it's unreliable as fuck because saves are piss-easy to make.

The hardest DC a wizard can make is 30, meanwhile the worst save on a fighter is +11, assuming he has no stat bonus whatsoever, but it's probably more like +17-18 thanks to magic items.

>> No.15473281


What about capstone abilities? Or spellcasting progression?

>> No.15473297

You're leaving out all the racial choices one gets, like elv cavaliers, human sorcerers, etc. Quite a few of those are better than 1 hp/1 skill point, which is leading to race/class stereotyping. Much the same way 4e encourages Githzerai Centered Monks and Goliath Pit Fighters.

>> No.15473302


Casters do duel-wield well with double rods/wands/whatever i'll give you that. Large weapons still aren't useable for a dumb reason. (Hurr, hilt doesn't fit right. I can't get a blacksmith to get me a new hilt.)

Rogues and fighters can't duel-wield like a ranger can truly duel-wield. And why can't I duel-wield with my warlord? Or my cleric? Or why can't I use a bow with most powers even though there is no reason I can't?

>> No.15473335

are you asking this because "I want my character to be interesting/exactly how I imagine it" or because "I want to be all-powerful and piss the DM and my fellow players with system abuse"?

>> No.15473339

Most of the prestige classes that involve multi-classing give you capstone abilities before you can actually get them in the core class, like the Arcane Archer. Even then dipping into other classes is advantageous in it's own right, on more than one occasion I've had the single most powerful character in the group being a multiclassed character, especially since we basically never saw our capstone abilities, simply because we didn't play until 20th level, few people do, and it's really fucking hard to get there in Pathfinder.

>> No.15473347

>Dual wielding doesn't follow the unrealistic and arbitrary 3.5 rules, so it's not really dual wielding.

What if your "character concept" requires multiple classes?

>> No.15473352

> Large Weapons
Wait, are you seriously claiming PF gives more freedom because it allows you to wield Buster Swords? Get the fuck outta here.
> dual wielding anything pliz!
Because most people in real life... didn't dual wield! And when they did, it was defensive, not offensive. Also, you're confusing "class" with "character concept". Stop that. If you want dual wielding as your character concept, pick a class that fucking dual wields. Or at least hybrid it.

>> No.15473362

Then take the talent that gives you 2 favored classes and stop being a bitch, if you decide to pick up a second class after character creation, ask your GM or take the feat which gives you two talents. This shit isn't that hard.

>> No.15473372

My characters constantly are. Are they interesting thanks to multiclassing? Shit yeah. Are they powerful as non-multiclass ones? Fuck no, and I don't give a damn about it.

>> No.15473376

PF also lets you wield buster swords, one of the iconics does it, and they even state that it's a large-size-category weapon that she eats modifiers on.

>> No.15473387

even if you want a warlord or whatever to be able to swing around two bastard swords, multiclassing to ranger only takes a feat, and no other commitment if you don't want to be a ranger.

>> No.15473406

Exactly. Most GM will give you some level appropriate class abilities in exchange of the existing ones, if you ask nicely AND if your purpose is not LOLGAMEBREAKING.
This is the entire point of the countless class variants/noncore basic classes/hybrid...and the point of the character options in the PF Advanced Player Guide and Ultimate Magic. Want a spellcasting monk? Choose one of the different options that give you some sort of spells, giving up your basic capabilities. Or multiclass, your call.

>> No.15473539

>Rogues and fighters can't duel-wield like a ranger can truly duel-wield.

In other words, "I dun't get two attacks like I did in 3.5! Only that is truely duel-weilding!" Multi-attack deul-weilding isn`t the only way to handle it, and frankly I find it a bit stupid. "Attacking" is already extremely abstracted, not to mention how "2 Swords = Double the Attacks!" doesn't actually make sense.

>And why can't I duel-wield with my warlord? Or my cleric?

You fucking can. ANY character in 4E can weild two weapons. The benifit of this is that they can choose which one to use with any given attack, giving more options every round, especially if you have tow magic weapons with different properties. As well, it's trivial to pick up the Two-Weapon Fighting feat to gain a damage boost while weilding a second weapon, which represents offensivly using the second weapon better than "IMA GOT TWO O' THEM I GET TWO ATTACKS!" (although personally I think it should give +1 damage per [W] rather than a flat +1). And after that, you can take Two-Weapon Defense, which gives you an AC bonus from parrying.

Basiclly, those classes only can't "deul-weild" if you're so anal that you won't concider anything other than "TWO-WEP, TWO ROLL!" to be "true deul-weilding".

>Or why can't I use a bow with most powers even though there is no reason I can't?

What "most powers"? Do you mean "Melee Powers"? Are you retarded? And what does thsi have to do with deul-weilding? Are you just adding random complaints now?

>> No.15473748

> "2 Swords = Double the Attacks!" doesn't actually make sense.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.