Which D&D system do YOU prefer?

[setojurai]

So which system do you prefer as a Player when playing D&D?  Cast your vote today!

[Oniya]

2nd-ed with house rules.  Fix what was broken, don't break what wasn't.

[Vandren]

My nostalgic side says 2nd ed or 1st ed (started out with Basic, red box set long ago).  On the other hand, I've liked the improvements in 3.5.  On the third hand, I'm a GURP-er, which 3.5 is somewhat closer to (I think it's also closer to Palladium, at least in terms of Skills).

Upsides to 3.5: removed racial class limitations and balanced races with each other; better skills system; feats; multiclassing is much better than it used to be

Downsides to 3.5: still have alignment

[Mnemaxa]

You misted Pathfinder's 3.75 version.

[setojurai]

Well just remember that 4th Edition is D&D MMO, not the tabletop system we grew up with.  Of course their multiclass system is broken.

[Xillen]

Up until 3.5 it's been mostly improvements, whereas 4.x is headed in a totally different direction.

Give me 3.5, or maybe Pathfinder.

But shouldn't this thread be in Off-Topic?

[setojurai]

Isn't where I put my threads my buisness?

[Xillen]

Nope, not really.

This thread is just discussing D&D versions, which ain't related to "Chat Help and Games."

This board is for questions regarding the chat directly, or discussion of games that are planned over chat.

[setojurai]

Correction appreciated, constant "commenting" on my threads... not so much, Xil.  Thanks be to the Mods/Gods who moved the thread and I'll try to remember that in the future.

Anyways, back on topic!

[Xillen]

constant "commenting" on my threads... not so much, Xil.

You really do take things way too personal.

[setojurai]

Considering your comments have been universally negative on my threads Xil, not to mention disruptive, I'd say I'm justified in this position.

But back on TOPIC again, despite efforts to derail it... there's a D&D game in the works, actually there's been a D&D game in the works for awhile, which is right here: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=35743.0

If you're interested, please explore the information and see what you think.  Constructive comments and character sheet submissions are appreciated.

[HairyHeretic]

If you have problems folks, it's better to try and resolve them privately, rather than in open threads.

[setojurai]

As far as my poll missing any systems... I can only poll on systems I actually know about, and I'm restricting this to "Dungeons and Dragons"  Or at least games that carried that label.

[Cold Heritage]

Well just remember that 4th Edition is D&D MMO, not the tabletop system we grew up with.  Of course their multiclass system is broken.

4e's more like the D&D I grew up with than 3.x ever was. Calling 4e's multiclass system broken belies a dismaying misunderstanding of previous edition's multiclassing and what broken means as a word in the English language.

[setojurai]

Are you saying my broken is broken?

:P

Yeah, you're probably right, but I haven't seen the system in play, and from what I've seen of the system, it just doesn't fit with what I feel is "D&D" in D&D.  I might change my opinion if I had more exposure to it.

[RubySlippers]

Well I run 3.0 with some of the class changes in 3.5 (bards and sorcerors) but I hate messing with the game and felt they rip people off. I can already see DnD 4.5 - give me a fucking break. 2nd Edition was around 20 years and as far as I can tell was extensively playtested far over what was done in the rules now.

I said 3.0 because I own those rules and will NOT waste my hard earned money on a whole new set of books. EVER! Fool me one shame on you fool me twice shame on me, no fooling me again.

[tesseractive]

I certainly like 3.5e too, but I'm quite fond of 4e already. It's a shame that they nerfed multiclassing, but I think the actual classes are incredibly well thought out. I love the fact that if nobody wants to play a particular core class, you have tons of alternate options. Nobody wants to be the cleric? You can be a warlord and play a fighter that subs in nicely for a cleric. Or you can play a bard, which is actually useful in 4e. Want to tank, but think fighters are boring? Sure, you can be a paladin, but you can be a paladin of any religion -- or you can be a warden instead.

The skill system works much better since they pared the skill list down (goodbye, Use Rope!) and tied improving to level gains, and the introduction of skill challenges took skill use from one of the weakest parts of the game to close to par with the tactical combat system. Also, if you don't want to bring a rogue, it costs one feat to add thievery as a cross-class skill. If you play a warlock, thievery's not even cross-class.

If you want to cast some random spell, you no longer have to waste a spell slot or sit around for a day to relearn spells. Non-combat spells are rituals now, and they don't compete with combat spells for slots. Plus, lots of classes can do ritual casting, so you can still be flexible about who is in your party.

In a lot of ways, I like freeform RP better than system RP. But given a system, it seems to me that 4e does a really good job of resolving the things that need to be resolved.

[The Overlord]

Here’s the deal.

I grew on Basic and then Advanced. Spent the lion’s share of my tabletop time on 2nd Edition.

So it was when 3.0 came out, I remained unconvinced at first. Why, I asked, should I as a 2nd Edition gamer with tons of rulebooks, modules, and box sets ‘convert’ to the new 3.0?


Well, the short and correct answer is that TSR/WoTC needs to stay in business like anyone else, but the real correct answer is that 3.0 and the following 3.5 cleaned up a lot of stuff in 2nd Edition, and it added some nice angles to character development such as dividing up proficiencies and feats. It also converts fairly well from 2nd Edition, which is why 3.5 won me over and is my current campaign rule set.


But 4th Edition is where I had to get off Gary Gygax’s hijacked dungeon train. Tabletop Dungeons & Dragons influenced all the big MMO heavy hitters including EverQuest and World of Warcraft, so on a certain level it stands to reason the massive popularity of the MMO genre is going to influence its tabletop progenitor. However that’s not what concerns me, what does concern me is the dumb-down factor.


You see, I’ve witnessed it all before: I was a Battletech player for a number of years, and then….’Dark Age’ came upon us. ClickieTech.

Tantamount to, The Wellspring Hath Run Dry.


As in, we’ve run out of ideas, as a company, for this game setting. So it’s time to erase the blackboard and then burn down the school we had it in, because the next generation of students aren’t measuring up either.


Funny, because all us gamers never really seemed to run out of ideas to expand their source material beyond the point where they got it…maybe they’re hiring the wrong people.


As in, we need to follow popular media and dumb down considerably. Hell, even the fucking schools do it today; some are considering lowering the testing standards so more dumb kids can slip through with good grades.


Those of us in the ‘veteran gamer’ category, who grew up before net gaming got big and started with dice, those of us that were not born in the fetal position curled about a Blackberry, who integrated into the technology and were not born with it, but yet made the transition the best.


D&D 4th Edition- Too dumbed down, too trimmed, too unlike what tabletopping was meant to be. Sorry I’m out…maybe 5th Edition will be better. Good enough to buy.

[tesseractive]

Those of us in the ‘veteran gamer’ category, who grew up before net gaming got big and started with dice, those of us that were not born in the fetal position curled about a Blackberry, who integrated into the technology and were not born with it, but yet made the transition the best.

I got the red box in '81 or '82. Does that qualify me to have an opinion?

[setojurai]

yep!

[tesseractive]

Then hopefully we can dispense with the idea that only newbies like 4e.

I don't play MMOs, so I can't tell you how like them 4e is. But I've seen, read, and played it, and I think 4e is a solid game.

[Myrleena]

My half-copper.  I started with 3.0 D&D, and had never heard of it before that, besides vague mentions.  I loved 3.5, when it came out, and have been playing it ever since.  I tried 2e, and hated it with a burning passion.  Bloody THAC0, and everything else.  4e is a decent system and such in it's own right, but I do not see it as D&D, but the way it is flavored and built.  It is a solid system, but I don't like it.  I prefer complexity in my game, and 4e does not have it.

Instead I'm turning to the Pathfinder RPG, under Paizo.  It has the feel I am looking for, and sadly 4e doesn't have it.  I do not know about other people, but that is how I feel.

[The Overlord]

My half-copper.  I started with 3.0 D&D, and had never heard of it before that, besides vague mentions.  I loved 3.5, when it came out, and have been playing it ever since.  I tried 2e, and hated it with a burning passion.  Bloody THAC0, and everything else.  4e is a decent system and such in it's own right, but I do not see it as D&D, but the way it is flavored and built.  It is a solid system, but I don't like it.  I prefer complexity in my game, and 4e does not have it.

Instead I'm turning to the Pathfinder RPG, under Paizo.  It has the feel I am looking for, and sadly 4e doesn't have it.  I do not know about other people, but that is how I feel.

Oh 4.0 is a completely functional ruleset, but like I said there is a certain level of complexity that tabletop established for itself, and the 'new editions' of them don't cut the same intellectual edge.

Streamlining is one thing; when Dark Age launched it dispensed with the Battletech mech sheets for incremental damage on the clicky-bases. Yeah it sped up combat turns, but at the price of turning chess into Chutes and Ladders.

I think the one big effect of the OOM is that all combat occurs in real time, as opposed to turn-based tabletop where it can take a while to resolve a single turn of actions and combat. I think the real time environment may have pushed people more toward real time events and away from the game turn.

There's where newer players that haven't touched the older stuff fail; they don't have the same breadth of temporal scaling as the more rounded gamers. That's probably a nicer way of saying they don't have the attention span, and/or grasp to go turn based. Having played on both fields, I can say that reacting instinctively versus planning strategically are at once sides of the same coin, but also apples and oranges.

[Mnemaxa]

I have noticed an interesting trend in 4.0

The system is simple, and it is improbable that you could make a character which is not survivable even at first level.  However, most people who discuss it in gaming forums use specifically optimized builds - this race does best at this class with these power choices and these feats.  That race does best using this power choice modified by these feats and these abilities taken from this class using multiclass feats.  This combination of powers from this class used by this race works best for this set of tactics. 

It is an easy to learn system that is balanced....but it is designed for people with a short attention span, who don't mind taking the easy way out to build a character, or who like to hyper-optimize characters to ridiculous levels.  They limit character growth in one specific way - once you reach this specific level, you are forced to retire the character- there is nothing more for him to learn or do.  It is a demigod, ancient lich, ultimate champion, or living spell by that time, but it's still The End.  And I find that annoying.  It's so regulated and planned out, that they even advertise you can run adventures by yourself or with one other person, and you don't even need a dungeonmaster! 

That's not roleplaying, last I checked. 

However....it is appealing to new players, and it has the potential for fun.  But it limits growth and development of the character in certain ways.  You have the potential to make your character more like what you want him to be....within certain inescapable limitations.

3.5 was unbalanced.  This is common knowledge.  But it allowed for unparalleled character development in any direction the player saw fit (and a large number that gave the DM fits).  The unbalance issues were largely solved in Pathfinder; Monks and Bards became viable character classes, while the most game breaking aspects of Clerics and Druids were fixed, while making Fighters the killing machines they were supposed to be.  If Splatbooks (supplements) are allowed, the spellcasters could still be broken, but a DM who knows what is broken can avoid that by not allowing certain specific spells easily enough. 

But the biggest, most important thing about 3.5/Pathfinder compared to 4e is this:  infinite growth.  You can, if you so desire, create 100th level characters.  You can create gestalt characters, which take two classes and combine them in every beneficial way.  You can play monsters and give them class levels (potentially gamebreaking, but not if that's what everyone wants to do!).  You can, if you feel the urge, take a single level in every single class there is.  You won't be very effective at too much, but it might be amusing.  This is my main problem with 4e.  That and they subscribed to the White Wolf methodology of "all the books are core, so you really do need all of them to play effectively" (which is another issue entirely and has no real place here).

My preference?  3.5 or Pathfinder aka 3.75.  The versatility is unmatched by most other games with the exception of GURPS.

[Oniya]

You can play monsters and give them class levels (potentially gamebreaking, but not if that's what everyone wants to do!). 

We had a GM once who ran a yearly 'Monster Campaign' (typically starting around Halloween) with 2nd ed + house rules.  Lots of fond memories there.

[Xillen]

3.5 was unbalanced.  This is common knowledge.

It's not something that was introduced with 3.5. It's pretty much always been unbalanced, and 3.5 is actually quite more balanced than most of the preceding versions.

You can play monsters and give them class levels (potentially gamebreaking, but not if that's what everyone wants to do!).

Actually, if you follow the rules about racial levels and level adjustment, you'll find that the vast majority of playable monsters is actually less powerful than the coore races. The only "monsters" that are more powerful are those with LA+0 that have an edge, like the Gray Elf for Wizards.

[RubySlippers]

The only problem I have with 3rd edition and onward is the utter lack of proper playtesting and coming out with new editions every few years. I mean take 2nd Edition it was developed and playtested ,by DM led player groups, for if I recall TWO YEARS from an old gamer. They took player input and developed the final version and in my view clearly had a refined finished product.

Face it if the company handed the game to say 50 playtest groups of fans and let them try it out for a year or so you would not get these major blunders, and they could find out what players want. But NOPE rush game development through so called design teams and fuck the wishes of the gaming community.

Then keep cranking out new rules every time they fuck it up and make us bleed more green for them. I'm of the right mind to by 2nd edition the books are pretty cheap and DM that at least the designers had respect for their customers and put out in general ,from what I played, fine products.

I really think the game died when TSR sold the rights as far as I can tell. Like I said they snookered me with 3.0 then decided to fix it and did 3.5 which I never bought with the rules free online. And I'm NEVER going to buy another of the company products again. I felt cheated spending the money for the new rules at the time 3rd edition and now virtually can't use them. I don't mind playing 3.5 but hate they now focus so much on prestige classes and odd races. Its not bad overall save the rip-off of the 3.0 to 3.5 rules which they are likely going to be repeating sadly in 4th I suspect.

As for play balance what is the problem with the older rules? I love them no prestige classes, fixed racial rules that keep the overwhelming options to a minimum and most of the major rules are optional. And I played over the last few years using all the rules from the first set to 4th the two sets I like were AD&D 1st Edition and 2nd Edition with the latter likely the best set of rules.

[Xillen]

Those Skills and Powers Options series had major unbalances as well, and were still produced by TSR.

Remember where, if a Mage bought all Mage schools, he'd be completely out of points, while if a Cleric bought all the Mage schools, he'd have points left over? :P

[National Acrobat]

First Edition, since Basic wasn't on the List. Extreme old school.

[RubySlippers]

Those Skills and Powers Options series had major unbalances as well, and were still produced by TSR.

Remember where, if a Mage bought all Mage schools, he'd be completely out of points, while if a Cleric bought all the Mage schools, he'd have points left over? :P

OPTIONAL RULES is key here. In 3rd edition and 4th there is little flexibility. An example could you take out Feats in 3rd or all those quirky class powers in 4th? At least in earlier editions like 2nd you could simple say non-weapon proficiencies are not being used, no subclasses or so forth and the system easily accomodates that. Where is that option in the post-2nd Edition? I would love to have seen feats, odd class powers like healing and how magic is used optional and allowing the DM to opt out.

And you failed to note the playtest issue there is a reason 2nd edition stood for two decades it was lilely the only game playtested by fans, inputing ideas from fans and had fans saying what they wanted in the game during the key part of the development process. And that also eliminated most of the things they might have had to revise such as the 3.0 to 3.5 RIPOFF. And they seem to have done the same thing again with 4th edition.

[Myrleena]

Wow.  I thought this was supposed to be a reasonable discussion, not somewhere to vent.  Yeesh, I don't think I'll keep track of the thread anymore, I've seen enough of this BS elsewhere.

[Thufir Hawat]

People, I started out in AD&D2e, went to other systems and didn't really look back. But I've tried games in all the revisions, though, even if they were shorter story arcs or one-shots.
And in my opinion, you are comparing apples to oranges. Sorry, there was no better way to put it. And FYI, peaches are better :P.
Now, seriously, I can think of multiple games that are closer to one edition of D&D than another edition. Switching from 3.X edition to a lifepath-based system would be much more painless then to 4th edition. Maybe the designers actually wanted to do something closer to lifepath systems? It's a good design choice, by the way, and part of the reasons I voted for 3.5-3.75. Or going from 1st edition to a random rules-light fantasy game, and so on. Bottomline, they are different games to me, not just different editions of the same game.

I mean, they've got almost all design choices different between them. The fact that the attributes are named the same way, you've got alignments, saves and hit points and you roll a d20 are pretty much all the common points remaining from 1st to 4th edition. Yeah, I'm sure I might be missing something, but let's look at the things that really change the gameplay, ok?
Note that I'm really doing that analysis for fun. Also, I'm as impartial as you can get, not having strong preferences toward neither edition. I can paly lots of different games after all ;).

Relation between mechanics and fluff.
1st edition mechanics, from what I see in free games and from what old-timers on RPG.net told, were meant to be in the background for most of the time, but you had to rely on the GM a lot. 2nd edition mechanics gave you some degree of guarantee the GM is not going to blast your character with fiat, more choices, and more "pollitically correct mechanics", without assassins as a core class. 3rd edition, you can play all the time mechanically, but mechanics are often not into the background, and you can fail to make the right mechanical choices which means the character is a mechanical failure as you progress in levels. And in 4th edition, mechanics pretty much determine gameplay.
All in all, you get most freedom in your concepts in 3.X, by combining different classes. Still, that's not a major advantage, as with custom classes, you can get the same in any edition.

Balance and fairness issues.
You were not supposed to get balanced opponents in 1st Edition. If you had a bad random encounter, you run or died, or ran and died. Same thing in 2nd edition, but with GMs advised to roughly balance it out. In 3rd edition, if you get in a fight, it's likely to be a winnable one, that's what CRs are for and even more likely in 4th edition. On the other hand, getting a "better" character was assumed to be part of the fun in earlier editions. You were supposed to compensate by thinking quickly and keeping to your niche. In 3.X, they at least tried to do them more equal. And in 4e, you have mandatory equal characters for the same roles - unless you buy only this upcoming book, and that one, too... ;)

Random character creation
Randomness was supposed to determine what you played back in 1st edition, but you were able to make a new character in minutes. Every subsequent edition took you further away from this. Character creation can take hours in 2e, days in 3rd Edition or 4th edition. It's actually a mini-game within the game. However, in 3.X, you get punished for making the wrong choices. In 4e, bad choices are reversible. On the other hand, in 1st edition you're pretty much stuck with the concept you picked, or rolled for. in 3.X, multiclassing is way easier. And in 4e, you are going to play what you began with.

The power of PCs.
You get more and more out of being PC in any edition. Compare the "3d6, roll in order" to 3.X point-buy and lesser classes for NPCs, and even there, a wizard is pretty fragile. Not anymore in 4e, the developers don't want someone writing them frustrated emails because their wizard who didn't get combat training gets hacked to pieces in the first round of a combat with a combat specialist. Can't allow that to happen anymore ;).

OPTIONAL RULES is key here. In 3rd edition and 4th there is little flexibility. An example could you take out Feats in 3rd or all those quirky class powers in 4th? At least in earlier editions like 2nd you could simple say non-weapon proficiencies are not being used, no subclasses or so forth and the system easily accomodates that. Where is that option in the post-2nd Edition? I would love to have seen feats, odd class powers like healing and how magic is used optional and allowing the DM to opt out.

And you failed to note the playtest issue there is a reason 2nd edition stood for two decades it was lilely the only game playtested by fans, inputing ideas from fans and had fans saying what they wanted in the game during the key part of the development process. And that also eliminated most of the things they might have had to revise such as the 3.0 to 3.5 RIPOFF. And they seem to have done the same thing again with 4th edition.

Just to point out, most GMs in 3rd/3.5/Pathfinder Edition I know consider anything but the core book "optional rules", so you'd have to check it with them before creating an "expansion" character ;). And even core feats and spells might get banned, if they don't suit the campaign they intend to run, or a setting. I expect them to be doing the same with 4th Edition now, whether it says every book is core or not, and I think it's fine.

[setojurai]

Y'know, it's funny... I started this thread on the premise of asking people which major D&D system they liked the best, and why that was that they liked it.

Not a forum for saying how much you hate the other systems "that are far inferior" to the one you play.  Those of you who make logical and well thought out posts that are on topic, bravo.
Those of you that have done the "My System Is Better Than You System" stuff... go play an NES, for that is a relic of the years of the Console Wars.

[Corinthi]

I really like Fourth Edition D&D, and I've played all the way back to Basic Dungeons and Dragons.

Now, there are a few reasons why the 4th edition is my favorite thus far, and it's not just the 'ooh shiny' factor.

1. I /really/ like the focus on teamwork. A party is so much more than the sum of it's parts and the way characters can synergize their tactics really makes combat enjoyable.
2. I love the way the gap between a super-tweaked, highly optimized character, and a more holistically built character is so much smaller than previous editions. For example, I'm playing an Eladrin Tactical Warlord. Every single Warlord power relies upon Strength to hit, and my race doesn't give me a bonus to Strength. I've multiclassed into Wizard, taken Ritual Caster, and Linguist. None of those feats really help me fulfill my primary role and I'm pretty far from something you'd find on the Character Optimization boards, but my character rocks. I love him, and I can remember many a time when the group would have perished if it wasn't for some timely intervention from the Warlord.
3. I like that they've clearly defined roles. They've always existed in D&D, it's just they've decided to make them explicit instead of implicit. Admittedly, people pay a little too much attention to the roles. You don't need all 4 represented in a party, but a balance helps. Roles also help players pick character classes that appeal to their individual druthers. My wife likes to either kill things a lot (Strikers) or confound the enemy/DM (Controllers). I like to be a force multiplier, and don't care who gets the glory so long as the team succeeds (Leader). My good friend likes to slug it out mano-a-mano and be just too tough to die, or if he's going to die, he wants it to be glorious (Defender). The proliferation of classes also makes it easy to fill all the roles without feeling pigeon holed. If I want to play a Leader, and odds are I do, I can choose Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Shaman, or Artificer, all with their own feel and flavor, but still know I can support and heal the party when needed.
4. I love the Character Builder. It's a marvelous program and with a cheap subscription to D&D Insider, I get regular articles with both fluff and crunch (Dragon), Adventures including a full 1-30 adventure path (Dungeon), and actual useful electronic tools. I don't even have to buy the new books when they come out, because all the character options, with full rules, are updated into the Character Builder.
5. And I know this is a serious bone of contention with people, but I love how a Fighter has just as many options in combat as a Wizard or Cleric does.

I just feel that while the designers of 4th Edition D&D did murder an awful lot of sacred cows, they did so to design a game that was fun to play around a table. It's easy to grasp, easy to play, but has a lot of depth in play.

So yeah, I likes it.

[setojurai]

Hmmm... polls close in a few days... and from the looks of things we'll have a clear winner.  Not that I'll say WHICH system is the clear winner until the polls close. :D