Planning start PnP with buds, 3.5 or 4.0?

[magnvix]

Hey there guys.

My friends and I have recently decided, after realizing our love for board games, to start playing DnD. We are all complete newbs to the game (except I, playing DDO and had very brief 3.5 intro with a friend via VOIP).

We were wondering if we should play with the 3.5 ruleset or 4.0. Thats the only question I've got now, but any advice for us new players would be great!

EDIT: Few more questions... my friend wants to know if the DM 'has fun.' I guess he means will he be having the DnD experience if he is the DM (I would say that yes, definetly, but I'm not one to speak from experience)

How many people would we want to play? Right now we've got 4 total dedicated players, is that enough being that one has to DM?

[Uska]

Well if your chosing dnd I would say 3.5 but there wont be any new material coming out I cant in good faith recomend 4E I tried it for a year and cant stand it. Younger folk then I am seem to love it, now I game I highly recommend is Hackmaster Basic it feels to me a lot like old school dnd and at 19.95 for all you need to start its a steal.

As to your number of players yes your fine there a few more would be nice but to many can be a pain. As to gming many find it fun, I do just dont have the time to much of it lately.

[FluffyCalico]

3.5 -Pick if all players in the group are very smart and love complicated things.

4.0 -Pick if you have anyone of about average intelligence. The main reason for the changes that happened in 4.0 were to make it fun and enjoyable for more than just 1% of the population. Some call it increasing your audience size, some call it dumbing it down.

Anyway you slice it both are fun to play. One is just easier. There are always a ton of people who are "OMG" when anything about anything changes. If you want proof just read the forms lol. Simple truth is both are great games even though many people refuse to allow themself to believe that anything different could be good.

I hate what they did to the sorc in 4.0, but the new sorc is still fun, just not what I was expecting.

[Uska]

3.5 -Pick if all players in the group are very smart and love complicated things.

4.0 -Pick if you have anyone of about average intelligence. The main reason for the changes that happened in 4.0 were to make it fun and enjoyable for more than just 1% of the population. Some call it increasing your audience size, some call it dumbing it down.

Anyway you slice it both are fun to play. One is just easier. There are always a ton of people who are "OMG" when anything about anything changes. If you want proof just read the forms lol. Simple truth is both are great games even though many people refuse to allow themself to believe that anything different could be good.

I hate what they did to the sorc in 4.0, but the new sorc is still fun, just not what I was expecting.

I call 4E giving dnd a lobotomy but thats me.

[FluffyCalico]

I call 4E giving dnd a lobotomy but thats me.

And if they called it Fred so you didn't have preset expections of how it should be most likely you would have thought
Hey this is alot like DnD it's fun.

[Uska]

And if they called it Fred so you didn't have preset expections of how it should be most likely you would have thought
Hey this is alot like DnD it's fun.

No I wouldnt have 4E is a combat sim and thats what I thought when I first tried it back in beta and what I still think and there are better combat sims out there. I really tried to like it and gave it a year as a player and gm and wont touch another WoTC dnd game again. If ddo ever becomes to much like 4E I am out of here.

[Ereshkigal]

3.5 -Pick if all players in the group are very smart and love complicated things.

4.0 -Pick if you have anyone of about average intelligence. The main reason for the changes that happened in 4.0 were to make it fun and enjoyable for more than just 1% of the population. Some call it increasing your audience size, some call it dumbing it down.

Anyway you slice it both are fun to play. One is just easier. There are always a ton of people who are "OMG" when anything about anything changes. If you want proof just read the forms lol. Simple truth is both are great games even though many people refuse to allow themself to believe that anything different could be good.

I hate what they did to the sorc in 4.0, but the new sorc is still fun, just not what I was expecting.

Nicely summed up Fluffy. I just wish they would've made it two separate games instead of replacing one with the other.
oh well.

[Zenako]

I would offer that if any of you had prior gaming experience with D&D to just go with 3.5, since that mimics a lot of what you see in DDO. You would feel more comfortable with the system.

Given that your group has no preconceptions about the system or how characters work per se, going with 4.0 has the advantage of being readily available in shops.

Personally my groups are all long time players, with 30+ years of D&D experience. None of us who looked at how 4.0 were in the least interested in going that way. Now in our defense, we have everything we need to keep going with 3.5 until none of us can roll a d20 anymore, so getting gaming materials is a non-issue.

You can pick up lots of 3.5 and earlier stuff on EBAY and in some game shops which have room to stock older stuff. Most do not, and have cleared it out, making it a lot harder to find.

IF your group has experience with Miniatures Gaming, like the Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures series, then some of the mechanics of 4.0 will be more familiar and less jarring.

If you find playing with 1 DM and 3 players leaves the party feeling shortmanned, let each player have a henchmen/hireling to augment the party force. The old Knight and his Squire type thing. A little extra muscle when needed, or perhaps a loyal priest helping with a few spells and buffs, and an occasional mace swing.

Regardless of which system, I cannot stress highly enough how much the use of a gaming mat and miniatures can enhance the experience. (and make the Job of the DM a lot easier to moderate.)

[jjkolb]

I say go back to AD&D 1.0; you can find all the source material on ebay.

That's what I'm going to do when my kids are old enough to play. Then again, they'll probably call me a geek and then go play video games.

[Aspenor]

I prefer 3.5, personally. The DM definitely has fun. I DM my tabletop game and I have a blast, it's all about keeping the game interesting.

[sirgog]

3.5 (or paizo.com 's Pathfinder which is often referred to as V3.75) is my preference.


4.0 has less of an RPG feel and more of a miniatures wargaming feel. It's a good game and all, but not on the level of 3.(7)5 IMO.

That said, if you and your playgroup are fans of World of Warcraft, I'd go with 4.0. It takes a lot from that game (the mandated 'tank/DPS/healer' role assignment, extremely well done game balance, some ability for everyone to heal themselves although not as well as a 'healer' can heal them and more).

3.5 or 3.75 allows much more character customisation (note - this creates game balance issues once you reach level 12 or so), and doesn't pigeonhole players in the way that 4.0 does.

[Uska]

Nicely summed up Fluffy. I just wish they would've made it two separate games instead of replacing one with the other.
oh well.

That would have been nice 3.5 while not even close to being my choice for pnp is a better rpg then 4E which is a fine combat sim and would be a very nice expansion or replacement for the minis rules. I dont enjoy 4E even as a combat system because of the changes to dnd that annoy me and I already have mini combat system rules I prefer.

[Uska]

I would offer that if any of you had prior gaming experience with D&D to just go with 3.5, since that mimics a lot of what you see in DDO. You would feel more comfortable with the system.

Given that your group has no preconceptions about the system or how characters work per se, going with 4.0 has the advantage of being readily available in shops.

Personally my groups are all long time players, with 30+ years of D&D experience. None of us who looked at how 4.0 were in the least interested in going that way. Now in our defense, we have everything we need to keep going with 3.5 until none of us can roll a d20 anymore, so getting gaming materials is a non-issue.

You can pick up lots of 3.5 and earlier stuff on EBAY and in some game shops which have room to stock older stuff. Most do not, and have cleared it out, making it a lot harder to find.

IF your group has experience with Miniatures Gaming, like the Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures series, then some of the mechanics of 4.0 will be more familiar and less jarring.

If you find playing with 1 DM and 3 players leaves the party feeling shortmanned, let each player have a henchmen/hireling to augment the party force. The old Knight and his Squire type thing. A little extra muscle when needed, or perhaps a loyal priest helping with a few spells and buffs, and an occasional mace swing.

Regardless of which system, I cannot stress highly enough how much the use of a gaming mat and miniatures can enhance the experience. (and make the Job of the DM a lot easier to moderate.)

good post

[Uska]

I say go back to AD&D 1.0; you can find all the source material on ebay.

That's what I'm going to do when my kids are old enough to play. Then again, they'll probably call me a geek and then go play video games.

yup my fave editon

[Uska]

I prefer 3.5, personally. The DM definitely has fun. I DM my tabletop game and I have a blast, it's all about keeping the game interesting.

While its not my fave edition by far it is fun to play and to run.

[uhgungawa]

i Say Go Back To Ad&d 1.0; You Can Find All The Source Material On Ebay.

/win!!!!! :D

[sephiroth1084]

Hey there guys.

My friends and I have recently decided, after realizing our love for board games, to start playing DnD. We are all complete newbs to the game (except I, playing DDO and had very brief 3.5 intro with a friend via VOIP).

We were wondering if we should play with the 3.5 ruleset or 4.0. Thats the only question I've got now, but any advice for us new players would be great!

That depends on what you and your friends are looking for. Third edition has a more complex set of rules and attempts to cover a lot of the bases as far as bringing as many elements of popular fantasy into the game. Character creation is more complex from one standpoint and simpler from another, and characters play very differently from one another.

Fourth edition is simplified to a great extent, making for a difficult time if you like to improvise a lot (house ruling stuff in 4E seems prohibitively difficult due to the way the rules are constructed), while a much greater emphasis is placed on combat, with potentially more interesting combats for the melee and ranged types, but less dynamic for casters (much of what casters can do has been seriously nerfed, which preserves a balance of power, but makes for a somewhat stale system).

Personally, I prefer the type of customization 3.5 offers, along with its rules structure. I played a few 4 E games with my friends, and we all pretty much decided to just drop it and go back to 3.5.


EDIT: Few more questions... my friend wants to know if the DM 'has fun.' I guess he means will he be having the DnD experience if he is the DM (I would say that yes, definetly, but I'm not one to speak from experience) The DM can have fun, but their fun is more situational than that of the players'. I DM fairly frequently, and love writing a story and taking people through it, but after a while I start getting antsy and want to be on the other side of the proverbial screen again.

A friend of mine has something of a complex, and gets high on the power of being a DM, and seems to enjoy running pre-written adventures (or modules). I don't see the fun in that, but getting him to be a player takes a lot of nudging.

My suggestion would be to first use a module to get the game started, then see if anyone has any desire to write their own stuff. If not, continue with modules, rotating who DMs every adventure/story-arch. My friends are looking to try this out as a way of keeping games moving and avoiding DM frustration.[/quote]


How many people would we want to play? Right now we've got 4 total dedicated players, is that enough being that one has to DM?
You can run a game with 3, but just remember that you have to scale encounters down a little. If you're playing 4E that's less of an issue because each character can handle a lot more combat. Ideally though, you'd want to try and find a 4th player (5th person). Not a big deal, though. I've had games with just 2 players and a DM, and games with 9 players (incredibly difficult to deal with and don't recommend having a group larger than 6 players and a DM).

[FluffyCalico]

You can run a game with 3, but just remember that you have to scale encounters down a little. If you're playing 4E that's less of an issue because each character can handle a lot more combat. Ideally though, you'd want to try and find a 4th player (5th person). Not a big deal, though. I've had games with just 2 players and a DM, and games with 9 players (incredibly difficult to deal with and don't recommend having a group larger than 6 players and a DM).

You can also allow one of your more experienced players to run a 2nd person.

[sephiroth1084]

You can also allow one of your more experienced players to run a 2nd person.

True. Also, the DM can play as a character as well. It can be a bit awkward at times, and I suggest playing a character who is not going to be leading often (trying to lead while still trying to be ignorant of your DM foreknowledge can be tough).

I ran an NPC healer who functioned a lot like a hireling in DDO (healed, buffed a little, took orders, but didn't speak). It worked fairly well, but I kept forgetting about her, until a player would ask, "And what is Aldawyn doing?" Hehe. :rolleyes:

[SquelchHU]

Hey there guys.

My friends and I have recently decided, after realizing our love for board games, to start playing DnD. We are all complete newbs to the game (except I, playing DDO and had very brief 3.5 intro with a friend via VOIP).

We were wondering if we should play with the 3.5 ruleset or 4.0. Thats the only question I've got now, but any advice for us new players would be great!

EDIT: Few more questions... my friend wants to know if the DM 'has fun.' I guess he means will he be having the DnD experience if he is the DM (I would say that yes, definetly, but I'm not one to speak from experience)

How many people would we want to play? Right now we've got 4 total dedicated players, is that enough being that one has to DM?

3.5 rules, no contest. Let's put it this way: Would you enjoy DDO if it ran at 5% of the speed it is supposed to and didn't display any graphics or perform any processing for you? No, you would not. Yet that is what 4th edition gives you. 3.5 at least allows you to do other things, thereby playing to the strengths of a tabletop gaming medium rather than its weaknesses. The video games and MMOs can handle the hack and slash and the grinding just fine.

You should have at least 4 people acting as players. If you don't, then you have to adjust nearly everything you use as a DM, which takes up a lot of time. So if you get one more, you should be fine. You can take more than that, but that also requires heavy adjusting.

As for the DM, that depends on him, the game, and other factors. It is not a question that I, or anyone else here can answer.

But as a general rule, as long as you do not touch 4th edition with a 10 foot pole, and do not touch Pathfinder with an eleven foot pole you and your game will be fine.

[Nocturnal_Illusion]

I'm not going to say either way which I prefer or which you should play, however, I think it ironic though at the complaints of D&D 4.0 when you consider that the original version of Dungeons & Dragons, "Chainmail" began its life as an adaptation of fantasy based strategy war game. Interesting how things have come full circle, for right or wrong.

[Uska]

I'm not going to say either way which I prefer or which you should play, however, I think it ironic though at the complaints of D&D 4.0 when you consider that the original version of Dungeons & Dragons, "Chainmail" began its life as an adaptation of fantasy based strategy war game. Interesting how things have come full circle, for right or wrong.

If you played chainmail and original dnd then you know that your really cant compare them to 4E not really and I started with mini gaming(not chainmail) and then original dnd if I wanted a mini combat game I would pick a good one and generally when I want mini combat I dont want fantasy I want something like little wars or napoleonics or tank battles or maybe one of the warhammer lines. Yes dnd evolved lossely from chainmail we dont need to devolve back to that.

[Zimuel]

People have their preferences, but I think you've been giving 4th edition a bit of a bad rap. I've DM'ed both versions, 3.5 and 4.0. Now, D&D 3.5 is the system that DDO is based on, so you'll be more familiar with it. D&D 4.0 is a different system. As a DM I've had fun with both, but it depends on your style. We were all a bit sceptical about 4th, it looked dumbed down, some of the stuff looked silly, but once we gave it a go ... wow. It's been a great trip. Since most posters have been pro 3.5, I'll try to offer the other perspective.

Why D&D 4.0 rocks:

1) It's cool and cinematic and promotes improvisation - really, it does. You're given these simple building blocks and then you just build from there. A lot of folks miss out on these bits, like skill challenges in combat and the DM's best friend rule, but they're a must. It is not gritty - this is wu xia style, over the top, heroics. With my player's it feels like we're in a Conan movie. Coolness.

2) It's simple. And that's a good thing. You get into the story, into the action ... and just keep going.

3) It's a rugged system. You can house rule it all you like, bend it, twist it ... it can take a lot of abuse. And we abuse it, a lot. But it keeps working.

4) You get to do stuff. If you're a fighter, you suddenly have oodles of cool stuff to do. Yes, it's a bit campy at times, some of the names are silly, but ... the end result is still, more opportunities for everyone to shine.

5) As a DM it's simpler to fluff, wing-it, and go with the flow - it's in the DMG, winging it. You copy out about 2 pages worth of tables, and you're good to throw pretty much anything into it.

6) And you can easily play it without miniatures. Despite what everyone says. Our group plays loose and fast, and it's still a great game.

BUT - it's not 3.5. You can make it gritty, easy, but by default it's a hacking and slashing camp festival of destruction ... which isn't too bad really. And the DMG has really good tips for DMing, campaigns, adventures, story hooks, all the important stuff is detailed, while a lot of the chunky rules for things like bending bars (I think I used that ONCE in my whole 2nd ed. career) are gone.

For a taste - our next session features a battle with multiple sides and branching possibilities depending on what the characters do and how the enemy leaders react - but we've got bridge defenses, river fordings, mystic runes, wall scalings, pitch battles, ambushes and chases planned, starring a host of elves, necromancers, ents, giants, trolls, priests of light, men-at-arms, centaurs, dwarves, undead and dragons ... and for all that, I need just my players, 2 print outs worth of rules and 2 pages of notes. So yeah, it is simple - but it's fun. Consistently. Which is really good.

Oh, and grappling is simplified too.

[Kace]

A quick point about finding old editions. 3.5 is still going as 'Pathfinder', you can still find new material. And the old AD&D was purchased by Kenzer co. (of the hilarious Knights of Dinner Table comic) and they based their Hackmaster rules on it. Ie 4th edition, I absolutely adore the fights, very action packed, I'm less enthused about character creation.

[Aesop]

After reading all the most recent systems. 3.5 4.0 PAthfinder... I'm liking Pathfinder

I myself am going to start DMing that one pretty soon

Pathfinder is essentially 3.5 that's been beefed up. Classes that seem a little bland in 3.5 really have some nice flavor added to them.

There are more customizable aspects to the system too, and they've simplified a number the wonkier systems.

look it up.


Aesop

[Dymond]

I recently got back into gaming too and my wife bought me the 4E starter kit and I borrowed a friends 4E players guide at the same time. First thoughts? It was HORRIBLE. Like Uska said its all about the combat to the point of excluding everything else and the combat cards and all that ****.. WOW..Lets make DnD like WoW meets Magic the Gathering.. If your going to play 3.0, 3.5, heck even 2.0 and older, there is still a TON if resources on the web selling modules etc. After my disillusionment with 4e I was surfing the web when I came across the MicroliteD20 (http://www.microlite20.net) ruleset and it was exactly what I was looking for, D20 cooked down to its bare essence. I grabbed an adventure I downloaded right from their website, adapted it to an old campaign setting I created back in *gulp* D&D B/E and set my wife and kids off on their first adventure and we all had a blast, even me as the DM.

[Uska]

A quick point about finding old editions. 3.5 is still going as 'Pathfinder', you can still find new material. And the old AD&D was purchased by Kenzer co. (of the hilarious Knights of Dinner Table comic) and they based their Hackmaster rules on it. Ie 4th edition, I absolutely adore the fights, very action packed, I'm less enthused about character creation.

The new version of hackmaster is a much better game and doesnt have dnd as a true base as hasbro pulled the license

[erolat]

Regardless of which system, I cannot stress highly enough how much the use of a gaming mat and miniatures can enhance the experience. (and make the Job of the DM a lot easier to moderate.)
I cannot support this idea enough. I have been running a verity of role-play settings (D&D, Gamma World, and a few home brews) for over 25 years. In that time I have tried going with out a “battle mat”, with an abstract setting (figures only and rough movement/locations), and with a grid and figures. Of all three options the mat and figures proved the best way to go.

It not only helped the GM know exactly where everything was and control the flow of the story (or combat), but the players were often better able to “see” exactly what was happening and why. “You cannot shoot at that giant spider because the fighter is in the way.” “No, there is not enough room for all three of you to stand next to each other and still fight that troll.” “The passage curves to the left into the darkness. (And on the inside of the curve is a nice ambush spot. :D)”

[deephoenix]

Let me try and make a quick comparison about the two as I play one game of each on a weekly basis.

3.5: If it exists, there is a rule for it, or a rule that closely mimics what you are trying to do. However, with newer or less dedicated players this tends to become confusing and can overall slow the game down just to look up some obscure rule.

4e: Decided that having a rule for everything was too complex and the designers said screw it, lets make combat balanced and leave the roleplaying very free-form and up to the players. For anything not in rules they say look at this table and come up with something reasonable (page 42).

A glowing example of this difference would be the perform skill. In 3.5, you have to take every different perform skill (dance, sing, string, brass, oratory, etc) as a separate skill. In reality, the Perform skill had very little mechanical bearing on the game except for bard class abilities and a couple of prestige classes. However, you couldn't have a character who could competently perform without putting some ranks into perform.
4e takes this to the other extreme and removes Perform as a skill altogether. Bards are just assumed to be masters of all performance arts and any character who wants to play a flute in the downtime can do so without sacrificing other more useful abilities. However, there is no longer any measure of how good you can perform except for how good you say your character is. Thus a more free-formed approach to roleplaying.

just my 2 cp

[DoctorBadWolf]

I decided to not read the whole thread right now, mostly because I don't want to get myself into an edition war.

If your group likes using computers, 4e is nice with the character builder. The free version only goes up to level 3, but that works fine for starting a campaign, and it gives you all the options in all the books, all of which are core as per statements by wotc.
If your group like making characters quickly, the builder is just awesome.
If you've never played DnD before, 4e is even better. I've been playing since 2e, and I love 4e, but there are many people who hate it because there are things that feel different to them. 4e is easier to play, easier to get into. It has less of a learning curve, basically. That doesn't mean that you don't have as many options, you do. It just uses the same system for leveling characters, and puts the variety in what options are available for each class and race, and what the class features are, etc, rather than is what system your class uses to do things and level.

In my opinion, it's simply a more well made system, but 3.5 is still quite fun.

4e has more online support, of course, and new stuff coming out.

hmm, on a direct comparitive note:

In 3.5 a lot of the roleplaying support comes in the form of class flavor, and skills.
In 4e most of the roleplaying support comes in the form of things like backgrounds, skill challenges, and leaves a lot of it up to the players and DM. While I prefer that, as it affords more roleplaying freedom, imo, if you prefer the other way it's worth checking out.

I would at least go to wizards.com and download the free quickstart ruleset for 4e and check it out. Aside from obvious reasons, it also comes with a low level adventure set.

[AnderlornLOTR]

You can not go wrong with 3.5 or Pathfinder 3.75 - personally I like Pathfinder 3.75 and the Forgotten Realms.

2nd Edition was an improvement over 1st edition.

1st edition is nostalgic, however there were a lot of problems with monster balance. Dragons were a big improvement in 2nd edition. It gave them a fighting chance while first edition dragons were push overs.

4th edition is for people who adamantly opposed of all the rules in 3.5 and below or they are new to role playing and only played MMOs prior to PnP.

[AnderlornLOTR]

You can not argue people dislike 4th edition because it is radically different than version 3. Version 3 was radically different than version 2 - all of the good acronyms\systems like THAC0 and some of the good psionic powers went out the door in version 3. The reason why people liked version 3 over version 4 is because they worked with the gaming community. Hasbro only selected a very few and were hush hush about it. In addition, I have reviewed 4th edition and to me it leaves out the feeling of role playing. It is is too regimented and no feel of you can make this game your own like in previous versions. It feels more like a static MMO than the dynamic feel of a role playing pnp game.

And for some people, 4th edition is great. For the majority, it is not. Pathfinder is for the die hard role players that have been playing since the 80s or have been immersed in true role playing experiences. I agree there should be many forms of games and I have no ill will against 4th edition. It is just not for me and I feel cheated by Hasbro because they did not inform us or worked with us. And made the game feel more static and removed very nice and comfortable dynamics that role players love.

[AnderlornLOTR]

And frankly these are fighting words ... ;)

Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition (2008-Present)

According to the Dungeons & Dragons Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, Mystra has been murdered by Cyric, and is no longer a part of the Forgotten Realms pantheon.

Cyric murder Mystra, yeah right! That is like stating Mystra stripped AO of all of his powers... :)

[DakFrost]

I would say 3.5 is a role playing game that relies on creative story telling and imagination. Takes some time to learn and requires more work by the DM to run the game.

4th is more like a bigger version of the old Hero’s Quest game. Just with more abilities and more monsters. Great for kids, easy to learn, and very little work for the DM.

It all depends on what style you like.

[DoctorBadWolf]

I recently got back into gaming too and my wife bought me the 4E starter kit and I borrowed a friends 4E players guide at the same time. First thoughts? It was HORRIBLE. Like Uska said its all about the combat to the point of excluding everything else and the combat cards and all that ****.. WOW..Lets make DnD like WoW meets Magic the Gathering.. If your going to play 3.0, 3.5, heck even 2.0 and older, there is still a TON if resources on the web selling modules etc. After my disillusionment with 4e I was surfing the web when I came across the MicroliteD20 (http://www.microlite20.net) ruleset and it was exactly what I was looking for, D20 cooked down to its bare essence. I grabbed an adventure I downloaded right from their website, adapted it to an old campaign setting I created back in *gulp* D&D B/E and set my wife and kids off on their first adventure and we all had a blast, even me as the DM.

I know it's easy to skim through the books and get that impression, but it really is a false impression. I never even encountered combat cards for the first almost year I played 4e. They're not only not needed, I prefer not using them. I'd rather have my powers printed out on two sheets of paper with the rest of my character sheet, and just keep track of what I've used.
They are rather useful as a recordkeeping tool for absent minded/forgetful people, I suppose, but I don't really see much benefit from using them, for myself.
Also, it bears no resemblence to wow.

[DoctorBadWolf]

You can not go wrong with 3.5 or Pathfinder 3.75 - personally I like Pathfinder 3.75 and the Forgotten Realms.

2nd Edition was an improvement over 1st edition.

1st edition is nostalgic, however there were a lot of problems with monster balance. Dragons were a big improvement in 2nd edition. It gave them a fighting chance while first edition dragons were push overs.

4th edition is for people who adamantly opposed of all the rules in 3.5 and below or they are new to role playing and only played MMOs prior to PnP.

No, it's not. I loved playing 3.5(for some reason my group didn't abandon 2nd until 3.5 came out), didn't play MMOs until after highschool, so I'd been playing DnD for years at that point, and after playing in 4e for a while, I just gradually realized that in my opinion, it's a better system. I felt more free to make whatever kind of character I wanted, to tell whatever story I wanted, and to do inventive things in and out of combat. My characters have more thought put into them now, because I don't have the crutch of class fluff, and my games, both as player and DM are more engaging, complex, and less hack and slash than in previous editions.
The system needs less houseruling to work well, and supports more houseruling should you want to use it. I love 4e because I'm a long time DnDer, and not particularly fond of WoW.

Anderlorn: As I've said before, the impression that 4e is flat and doesn't support roleplaying isn't, in my experience, supported by actually playing 4e. Uska disagrees, but if I were a suspicious man, I'd wonder if Uska actually has played it, because our experiences and impressions are almost literally the opposite of one anothers. :P See above for why I think it's a false impression.

Cyric murdering Mystra bummed me out, to be sure, but it's pretty much like the whole avatar thing where cyric became a god: it happened to justify in the setting game system changes to how magic works. Also, if you've read the avatar books, it makes sense, at least. they're still bastards, of course. :P

I also have the impression from people I know who sell books and/or gaming supliments, that DnD 4e is doing quite well, so it probably isn't the majority who don't like 4e.

[DoctorBadWolf]

I would say 3.5 is a role playing game that relies on creative story telling and imagination. Takes some time to learn and requires more work by the DM to run the game.

4th is more like a bigger version of the old Hero’s Quest game. Just with more abilities and more monsters. Great for kids, easy to learn, and very little work for the DM.

It all depends on what style you like.

Both 3.5 and 4e are perfectly capable of story-light hack and slash dungeon crawls, and of creative story telling. 4e expects you to use your imagination, rather than filling in the blanks for you, which in my experience helps story telling. If I want there to be a rule for everything, GURPS does it much better than any edition of DnD ever has, and by a large margin.

[Furluge]

People have their preferences, but I think you've been giving 4th edition a bit of a bad rap. I've DM'ed both versions, 3.5 and 4.0. Now, D&D 3.5 is the system that DDO is based on, so you'll be more familiar with it. D&D 4.0 is a different system. As a DM I've had fun with both, but it depends on your style. We were all a bit sceptical about 4th, it looked dumbed down, some of the stuff looked silly, but once we gave it a go ... wow. It's been a great trip. Since most posters have been pro 3.5, I'll try to offer the other perspective.

Why D&D 4.0 rocks:

1) It's cool and cinematic and promotes improvisation - really, it does. You're given these simple building blocks and then you just build from there. A lot of folks miss out on these bits, like skill challenges in combat and the DM's best friend rule, but they're a must. It is not gritty - this is wu xia style, over the top, heroics. With my player's it feels like we're in a Conan movie. Coolness.

2) It's simple. And that's a good thing. You get into the story, into the action ... and just keep going.

3) It's a rugged system. You can house rule it all you like, bend it, twist it ... it can take a lot of abuse. And we abuse it, a lot. But it keeps working.

4) You get to do stuff. If you're a fighter, you suddenly have oodles of cool stuff to do. Yes, it's a bit campy at times, some of the names are silly, but ... the end result is still, more opportunities for everyone to shine.

5) As a DM it's simpler to fluff, wing-it, and go with the flow - it's in the DMG, winging it. You copy out about 2 pages worth of tables, and you're good to throw pretty much anything into it.

6) And you can easily play it without miniatures. Despite what everyone says. Our group plays loose and fast, and it's still a great game.

BUT - it's not 3.5. You can make it gritty, easy, but by default it's a hacking and slashing camp festival of destruction ... which isn't too bad really. And the DMG has really good tips for DMing, campaigns, adventures, story hooks, all the important stuff is detailed, while a lot of the chunky rules for things like bending bars (I think I used that ONCE in my whole 2nd ed. career) are gone.

For a taste - our next session features a battle with multiple sides and branching possibilities depending on what the characters do and how the enemy leaders react - but we've got bridge defenses, river fordings, mystic runes, wall scalings, pitch battles, ambushes and chases planned, starring a host of elves, necromancers, ents, giants, trolls, priests of light, men-at-arms, centaurs, dwarves, undead and dragons ... and for all that, I need just my players, 2 print outs worth of rules and 2 pages of notes. So yeah, it is simple - but it's fun. Consistently. Which is really good.

Oh, and grappling is simplified too.

This is a pretty good synopsis of what you have in 4e. One of the biggest problems I see people saying about 4e is that it doesn't encourage roleplaying. Which isn't true because the core books in 4e talk about roleplaying, and identifying the different reasons people like to play D&D, and how to do your best to satisfy everyones needs and have good variety of story, exploration, combat, and puzzles, than 3.0 (Look for an entry on puzzles in the 3.0 DMG. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. 4.0 devotes pages to puzzles and using free-formish roleplaying encounters with a loose framework called a skill challenge.) What I think gives this impression is that in 4.0 things that don't effect your adventuring career aren't given mechanics. The mention on perform above is a perfect example. Even though they spend pages talking about giving your character personality, trying to get you thinking about how he would act in certain situations, encouraging you to be descriptive in what your character does in combat rather just rolling dice and calling out numbers, encouraging you to give your spells, exploits, prayers, etc. their own visual flair to fit your character, for some reason because there isn't lines for Profession, Craft, and Preform and doesn't tell people /how/ exactly to roleplay their character, suddenly 4e doesn't encourage roleplay. This of course ignores the fact that frequently players in 3e constantly ignored those kinds of skills and spells so that they wouldn't be weaker. Often players couldn't roleplay what /they/ wanted to because they couldn't get or afford the mechanics to go with it.

Also, one last thing. If your friends are new to D&D, go 4e. 4e did a lot new things for the game, they made a lot of changes, but switching editions is always jarring. If you go through learning 3e then try to learn 4e it's going to be harder. 4e on the other hand is written with learning the system in mind. The layout of the books is better and mimics the style and layout you will find in quality college textbooks. It's written for comprehension and it shows.

If your DM is new then WITHOUT QUESTION pick 4e. 4e's biggest contribution to the system, IMHO, is making this easier on your DM to create an adventure. Let me elaborate. Let's say your DM has an idea for a dungeon...

In 3e your DM is going to have to first look through every entry in a wide range of CRs to determine what sorts of challenges might be suitable for you. The monster stat blocks are going to have a poor layout and your DM will have to read the entire monster just to get a basic idea "what it does". Don't even get started on cross-referencing monster manuals either. Once he's got an idea of what he can use he's going to have to pick monsters that will fit the story of his dungeon without hitting any sticking points in weaknesses for your party members so it's not overpowering. He also will have no guideline how the monsters will interact with each other if they are in a group, and when they work together they may prove incredibly deadly without him meaning to do so. He may or may not also have to get involved in giving monsters class levels and or extra hit dice to make the encounters appropriate. Doing this he can easily make something pathetically weak or painfully deadly. He's also going to have only a gold piece guideline to determine what sort of treasure is approrpriate

In 4e your DM will start with the DM. The DM will explain to your new DM that monsters have been given one of several different roles to help give him a general idea "what the monster does". (Note: These roles existed in 3e too, but they weren't clearly noted.) He will then be given several ideas for what sorts of makeups of what groups of enemies with certain roles makes a good encounter. He'll know how those enemies work together in a group because their roles give a general idea how they work together in a group. He can then goto the monster manual know and look through monsters or decide what kinds of encounters he wants in his dungeon and then look up the monsters. The DM can then look through the index of monsters and use the heading of the easy to read monster stat block to determine if the monster is something he wants to read in more detail or if he wants to skip over that monster. There will generally be several different versions of each monster to fit the different roles (IE: Orcs can be priests, fighters, barbarians, etc.) which means he generally won't have to give monsters class levels to give them "flavor". (3E monsters didn't come in flavors. There was just one entry for kobold, unless it was another race of kobold, and you had to "Flavor it up" yourself.) He'll also be able to get a good idea if a group of monsters is appropriate for your group thanks to the suggestions in the DM. If the DM wants to "level up" a monster doing so in 4e is simpler than it was in 3e. In addition the DM is also given suggestions about what mixture of items should be in treasure (IE: One magic weapon x level, coinage in this amount, etc.) rather than having to play it by ear.

In short 4e is going to save your DM LOADS of time trying to figure out the mechanical aspect of your encounters, allowing him to focus more time on the storytelling aspect and flow of his adventures. If you make him go through 3e he's going to go nuts trying to find the monsters to fill out his stories and he'll probably fall into, "Here is the one big bad monster for this fight" because 3e makes that easy to do.

[GramercyRiff]

And frankly these are fighting words ... ;)

Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition (2008-Present)

According to the Dungeons & Dragons Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, Mystra has been murdered by Cyric, and is no longer a part of the Forgotten Realms pantheon.

Cyric murder Mystra, yeah right! That is like stating Mystra stripped AO of all of his powers... :)

Had to respond to this one.

It is ridiculous, I have to agree; at least on the surface. Cyric did have Shar's help. Shar is no pushover by any means. Cyric didn't go unpunished too. He's permanently trapped in his plane. Shar lost the Shadow Weave as well, so her power is diminished. Mystra had a Contingency. All great Wizards do. Mystra will return. She's died before, and has always come back. It could be she's already back, but hasn't told anyone/made her presence known yet.

As for 4E, people see what they want to see. It's a cliche, but it seems to be true from my perspective.

4E and 3.5 have their pros and cons just like anything else. Most of the posters offer good advice here. I agree the players new to DnD should go 4E. 3.5 has more problems "out of the box". The biggest is the disparity between melee and casters. In other words, the learning curve of 3.5 is much steeper. Both systems are miniature war games to an extent. They're really more like mini skirmishes. You absolutely want to have a grid and minis (or some type of representation) when you play.

The most important thing to remember when playing 4E or 3.5 is that you're playing in a fantasy world. It's up to the DM and players, working in concert, to make it seem like a living, breathing world. This is the most important and fundamental aspect of a fun and dynamic RPG. The great thing is, you don't need any rules to do this. You're only limited by your collective imaginations.

[EDarkness]

3.5 -Pick if all players in the group are very smart and love complicated things.

4.0 -Pick if you have anyone of about average intelligence. The main reason for the changes that happened in 4.0 were to make it fun and enjoyable for more than just 1% of the population. Some call it increasing your audience size, some call it dumbing it down.

Anyway you slice it both are fun to play. One is just easier. There are always a ton of people who are "OMG" when anything about anything changes. If you want proof just read the forms lol. Simple truth is both are great games even though many people refuse to allow themself to believe that anything different could be good.

I hate what they did to the sorc in 4.0, but the new sorc is still fun, just not what I was expecting.

The good thing is that people can still use AD&D 1st Edition and 2nd Edition. No one has to be limited to just 3.5 or 4.0.

[FluffyCalico]

The good thing is that people can still use AD&D 1st Edition and 2nd Edition. No one has to be limited to just 3.5 or 4.0.

While true those are the 2 choices the OP wanted to choose between

[Lextek]

AdnD 2ed.

When 3rd came out, I bought it, but it just didnt feel the same and I wound up buying and having bit of fun playing Neverwinter Nights which was using 3.0 , but by time 4th came out, its just not DnD as I remember playing it. Besides you can play DDO for kinda 3.5 feel.

Adnd 2ed, the good old days, for me at least.

[Uska]

should read before I post darn necro threads.

[whysper]

should read before I post darn necro threads.

Nah, it is not that old, and GURPS is still the best option anyway :p

[Krag]

Nah, it is not that old, and GURPS is still the best option anyway :p

GURPS is the same as D&D. Rules-light systems FTW!

[omastar444]

If you want interesting builds and more epic adventures go 3.5. If you want an easier game that feels more like an RPG video game go 4th. As for how many people you have, 4 is fine. I ran game with that many people quite often

Also for your friends question about being DM and fun, yes. Just not the same fun the players have. Juts tell him traps are fun, ambushes are fun, but just don't go overboard.

[RictrasShard]

Magnvix, if money isn't a concern, buy books from each edition and play a campaign from each. After that, you'll have a good idea which edition is more to your liking.

[Armair]

Ok I am a bit old school here, my advice to you my friend is invest in AD&D first addition. You can never go wrong with the older hard back books, you can take any module and fit it into whatever world you play in. 1st addition meshes very nicely with 2nd addition handbooks and if you really want to get old school pick up the best of Dragon Magizine ( Bronze, Silver, and Gold ) covers.

There world for old school stuff is fleshed out really well already all you have to do is weave your plot line into those world. If you prefer your world with a ton of magic as I do then Forgotten Realms if for you, if not then I would suggest Grey Hawk. Now be reminded that none of the rules for those worlds is set firm it will always be at your discretion. I just prefer those because the characters, bad guys, nobodies are all so well fleshed out that all u have to do is add you imagination and flare and it is ready to play.

Just remember to do one thing torture your players and have fun. GL

[DoctorBadWolf]

Nah, it is not that old, and GURPS is still the best option anyway :p

As much as I hate to admit it...yeah. It really is.

Well, unless you specifically want cinematic high fantasy, then I'm not sure. Haven't done any cinematic fantasy in gurps.


GUPS is the same as D&D. Rules-light systems FTW!

eH?

necro, I know, but I've been absent for a spell. :P

[Mr_Ed7]

I can run a game with a d20 and throw the books to the dogs!
That being said I found 4.0 interesting.

Perhaps I have not played enought to get a true appreciation for it...I may pick-up the box set...

I feel that the 3.5 rules were the ultimate culmination of years of D&D.
The d20 system that accompanies 3.5 makes DM-ing easy.

4.0 Does NOT lend itself to easy play in my opinion.

What I did do when playing 4.0 is that if I was not sure what to do, I thought of my 3.5 rules and continued.

and thats my 2cp

[DoctorBadWolf]

IMO, 4e makes for gameplay of varying degrees of easy-hard. the rules are really easy to explain to someone, and if you pay for one months sub to dnd insider you get everything in the character builder, without having to buy every single book to have all the options.
and of course all the errata is updated in the builder, which is nice. best part? you don't lose anything if you stop your subscription, you just don't get future updates after that point.
and there is some awesome stuff from the mags that aren't in any books yet, but are rpga legal. like the assassin, which isn't the most powerful class in the game, but sure is a lot of fun.

I just made an assassin/duelist rogue. he's going to be a lot of fun, with pretty reliable damage, a ton of skills, and a background that just makes me want to dance. :P

can't wait.

anyway, 4e's dmg has guidelines for handling actions which aren't covered in the rest of the rules, like gaining a benefit from swinging from a chandelier onto or behind the BBEG. the guidelines cover enough ground that you can handle **** near any situation that might come up.

also, by RAW there are much fewer limitations on character creation in terms of concepts. want to play a paladin/bard? why not? go for it.

there's just a lot that can be done, while allowing all the races and classes to contribute meaningfully, both in and out of combat.
want to play a dwarf bardic diplomat? sure. hell, you've got two builds to choose from that play to your strengths. one using wis, and one using con. (both as secondary stats, obviously. cha is the bard's primary.)

MrEd, I'm curious, what did you not like about it?
I don't want to challenge you, or "call you out" or anything silly like that. Just curious.
It's always possible some of it is stuff I've had to deal with as well. Might be able to give some advice, enhance your 4e games. Maybe even get you excited about it.* :P

and if not, hey, as long as you have fun, right?

*I figure being able to get excited about and genuinely enjoying the current, supported edition is preferable to both playing the current edition and not enjoying it, and playing previous editions with no hope of real support or new content. YMMV, of course.

[Uska]

Nah, it is not that old, and GURPS is still the best option anyway :p

I'd rather be on death row then play gurps:rolleyes: hated that system since tft first came out way back when which had a lot of stuff SJ later used in gurps

[Bacab]

No I wouldnt have 4E is a combat sim and thats what I thought when I first tried it back in beta and what I still think and there are better combat sims out there. I really tried to like it and gave it a year as a player and gm and wont touch another WoTC dnd game again. If ddo ever becomes to much like 4E I am out of here.


I agree 100% ...though my impression of DnD 4.0

yay...they made a PnP WoW...

/emote pukes@the loss of 100$ (Players Handbook, DMG, Monster Manual)

I tried running a campaign in 4.0 (been a DM for about 8 years) and could'nt stand it. The monsters scale poorly.
The 1hp full stat monsters are completely stupid. Also the templates do not work very well.

To the OP...the correct answer is play Pathfinder. It is the people who made 3.0 and 3.5 and got ****ed at WotC and said...screw you I'll make my own game. It is fun and leaves the door open for classic "house" rules.

[Bacab]

3.5 (or paizo.com 's Pathfinder which is often referred to as V3.75) is my preference.


4.0 has less of an RPG feel and more of a miniatures wargaming feel. It's a good game and all, but not on the level of 3.(7)5 IMO.

That said, if you and your playgroup are fans of World of Warcraft, I'd go with 4.0. It takes a lot from that game (the mandated 'tank/DPS/healer' role assignment, extremely well done game balance, some ability for everyone to heal themselves although not as well as a 'healer' can heal them and more).

3.5 or 3.75 allows much more character customisation (note - this creates game balance issues once you reach level 12 or so), and doesn't pigeonhole players in the way that 4.0 does.


this

[epochofcrepuscule]

I suggest Pathfinders. Rules for combat tactics are simplified (no more arguing what the book says and how different people interpret it). I dont like there recommended point build system (I am a powergamer, I will kill my party if it means the next level -NE for the win).

If not pathfinders I suggest 2.0. Those 2 are my favorites!

-19 ac WOOT!!

[Bacab]

I suggest Pathfinders. Rules for combat tactics are simplified (no more arguing what the book says and how different people interpret it). I dont like there recommended point build system (I am a powergamer, I will kill my party if it means the next level -NE for the win).

If not pathfinders I suggest 2.0. Those 2 are my favorites!

-19 ac WOOT!!


To quote my buddy who played a CE Rog/assassin

"What are party members made of?"

"XP"

To be fair I did make him kill a party member to get his prestige class. He accomplished it in the middle of a fight. Was one of the coolest things to ever happen in out group. We still talk about it.

[BlargneyTheSecond]

Roll a d4 and play that edition. You'll have fun together no matter what.
-blarg

[Therilith]

4e is like a video game without the fancy graphics, automatic number crunching and fun.
It's basically just WotC trying to appeal to the WoW crowd. If you want a combat simulator your best bet would probably be to just pick up a computer game with LAN support.

I'd recommend either 3.5e or GURPS (although I've never played any earlier editions of D&D, so they might be worth a try as well).

[Krag]

4e is like a video game without the fancy graphics, automatic number crunching and fun.

Numerous repeating doesn't add any truth to a false statement.
4e is a great game if only because they made non-casting classes FUN to play.

[SquelchHU]

4e is like a video game without the fancy graphics, automatic number crunching and fun.
It's basically just WotC trying to appeal to the WoW crowd. If you want a combat simulator your best bet would probably be to just pick up a computer game with LAN support.

I'd recommend either 3.5e or GURPS (although I've never played any earlier editions of D&D, so they might be worth a try as well).

Yup. And Pathfinder is just some guy's house rules who heard 3.5 is filled with scary things but has no idea what or where those are, or how to fix them. Watching it try to fix 3.5 is like watching a blind party member stumble around the dungeon, and sometimes greasing them. Amusing, but entirely pointless.

As for play, well that goes like this:

Spam your dailies, which barely hurt anything. Spam your encounters, which hurt even less. Use the same at will over and over and over again until it finally dies. Repeat 289 more times, be forced to retire your capped toon, repeat ad infintium.

Let's compare to some other things.

3rd/3.5, non casters: Spam your at will over and over and over until it dies. While there's nothing else to spam first, you're still going to be saying 'I attack' a lot less than you would say 'I Tide of Iron' in 4th edition as combat ends in far fewer rounds. There's also fewer combats, 253 as opposed to 290.

1st and 2nd, non casters: Pretty much the same thing, except combat is even faster most of the time due to lower HP.

So no matter what you're going to be spamming the same moves, but when combat is quick (not 4th edition) you'll be spamming less.

Now let's look at what the spellcasters do.

1st and 2nd, casters: At level 1 you have exactly one spell. But beyond that it greatly depends on tactical circumstances. You have actual options.

3rd and 3.5, casters: At level 1 you're going to be using Color Spray and Sleep a lot. But past that, same deal.

4th, casters: Exactly the same top down spam grind as everyone else in 4th. Yawn.

Result: No improvement and mild downgrade for non casters, no improvement and massive downgrade for casters.

[Krag]

Daily powers can barely hurt anything?

Coming from a mouth of a powergamer, this statement is nothing but hilarious. Try better.


On the side note I agree that Pathfinder is a heap of houserules from some guy without deep understanding of a game.

[flynnjsw]

Daily powers can barely hurt anything?

Coming from a mouth of a powergamer, this statement is nothing but hilarious. Try better.


On the side note I agree that Pathfinder is a heap of houserules from some guy without deep understanding of a game.



I would differentiate by saying that the actual Pathfinder RPG felt that way, while the original 3.75 they did felt like (to me) a more classic D&D feel. IMO, Paizo did a much better job of writing things than WotC/Hasbro.

However leave it to Squelch to oversimplify...

[Therilith]

Numerous repeating doesn't add any truth to a false statement.

Nor does it make a true statement any less so.

[Krag]

Nor does it make a true statement any less so.

Even a true statement has no value without solid arguments to back it up. Much less the false one.

[SquelchHU]

Daily powers can barely hurt anything?

Coming from a mouth of a powergamer, this statement is nothing but hilarious. Try better.


On the side note I agree that Pathfinder is a heap of houserules from some guy without deep understanding of a game.

Yup, you're lucky if it takes off 10% of their health, and that's on an optimized build. It's why most of the optimized 4th edition builds are 'you can't hurt me, ever' or an infinite damage loop because it's very easy to get enough defense to be effectively infinite when you don't need that much, and the system is so easy to break that getting a truly infinite amount of something is not hard either. Trouble is, there's not a middle ground where stuff dies without a huge grind, but you aren't using an infinite loop.

I do find it very entertaining that Krag chose to get involved in this, and what his role is here.

[zorander6]

3.5 all the way, don't bother with 4.0

Just my not so humble opinion.

[Krag]

Yup, you're lucky if it takes off 10% of their health, and that's on an optimized build. It's why most of the optimized 4th edition builds are 'you can't hurt me, ever' or an infinite damage loop because it's very easy to get enough defense to be effectively infinite when you don't need that much, and the system is so easy to break that getting a truly infinite amount of something is not hard either. Trouble is, there's not a middle ground where stuff dies without a huge grind, but you aren't using an infinite loop.


Blah. Blah.
Using daily powers optimized ranger takes down any non-solo enemy of his level within one round.

[SquelchHU]

3.5 all the way, don't bother with 4.0

Just my not so humble opinion.

A voice of reason.

[Glenalth]

Honestly, you'll probably be happy with either one. They each have their good and bad points. In the end it's not about the system, it's about the players.

4th does rely on tracking effects/marks a bit more so you'll probably want some sort of game software or site that will display a map and tokens for your encounters. There are a lot of options out there.

[KKDragonLord]

After giving either one of those a GO, try 2e and tailor it to your tastes with the optional rules you might want (i would advise against the ones requiring the combat grid though).

Post your impressions aftewards.

[timberhick]

Nothing we say here actually matters to how you and your group will play magnvix. All we can do is post our own opinions and they mean squat to you.

Trust me, if you haven't already noticed, people are more than willing to post not to subtle of rhetorical statements about the "One True System"