LITERALLY EDITION WARS THREAD WHAT IS YOUR FAVOURITE? WHAT

>>48165777
Here's where we last left off >>48159844

Actually, I made that post. Come at me 3.PFags!

>>48165777
ALL OF THEM

THEY'RE ALL GOOD FOR DIFFERENT REASONS

EXCEPT 3.5.

THAT ONE IS JUST SHIT

OD&D

OUTDATED

AD&D2E

bretty gud

D&D 3.5

CLUNKY YET ROBUST

D&D 4e

JUST FUCK ME UP SENPAI

D&D 5e

CASUAL GARBAGE

THE BEST D&D IS D20 MODERN BECAUSE FUCK ELVES, FUCK MAGIC AND FUCK FANTASY!!!

>>48165777
First edition of anything and everything is always best edition by default

>>48165833
This.

File: DnD_Art-Easley_PHB.jpg (169KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1024x768px

>>48165777
ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 2nd EDITION!

BEST AND WORST ART

Rifts.
Siembieda's random spouting of nonsense is better than Gygax's random spouting of nonsense.

>>48165777
They all fucking suck, but some suck less in different areas.
I've heard good shit about AD&D, but the best of this bad bunch that I've played has been 5e.

>>48166752
At least Gygax is readable

>>48165777
I'll take that red box, right there on the right. Run me through the same small dungeon countless times with 7 different characters. So much fun.

>>48165833
This, basically. Though really have little familiarity with OD&D outside of retroclones. AD&D is a fun time, and 5e is kinda shitty but still one of the best things on the market as sad as it is to say. Definitely easy as fuck to write new shit for, which I take as a strength. My personal favorite would be 4E just for the mechanics and gameplay, and because I'm not an autistic baby that needs rules for literally everything. I always loved when 3.5 fags whine about 4E being rollplaying when the actual roleplaying is handled a lot more organically than 3.5 attempts.

If I want old school adventures with weird mechanics like a Bend Bars stat, AD&D. If I want to play Final Fantasy Tactics-style combat and play as a group of badass adventurers in a world filled with danger, 4E. And if I want to play with living people, 5E.

>>48165777

BCEMI or bust. Models from 1st AD&D are okay too. Settings from 2nd ed can be cool like Dark Suns, Spell Jammer, parts of Ravenloft.

3pf for being a dumbass 13 yearold, not knowing any better and having lots of fun with my friends despite the rules.

4th for a really weird and apparently somewhat well received attempt to mesh mmorpg/esports mechanics with tabletop. Not my thing but interesting to see how they did it. 13th Age seems like a slicker version, or Strike! even.

5th if you can't convince your group to play osr.

2nd ed ad&d and 3pf are the most annoying mechanically. Shit's all over the place. You can make it work, but that's more a testament to the people you play with than the games.

>>48167039
>attempt to mesh mmorpg/esports mechanics with tabletop
Kill yourself.

>>48165777
They're all mediocre but AD&D 2E seems to appeal to me the most.

>>48165833

THEY ALL SUCK FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, ESPECIALLY 5E!!!!!

>>48166445
>THE BEST D&D IS D20 MODERN

This post is in poor taste.

>>48167131
>Kill yourself.

What did he mean by this?

>>48167131

prove him wrong faggot

D&D 4TH EDITION IS THE BEST MADE GAME IN THE FRANCHISE BUT IT ISN'T D&D. A SOLID 8/10. IF IT WERE RELEASED WITH ANY OTHER NAME IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAILED AS THE GAME THAT WOULD FINALLY KNOCK D&D FROM ITS THRONE. BUT HAVING THE NAME D&D IT MEANS BEING AN OKAY GAME AND CONTINUING A TRADITION. 4E DID NOT DO THAT. IT SACRIFICED TRADITION FOR QUALITY AND WHERE ITS GREATEST BREAKS ARE (BEFORE ESSENTIALS) ALL APPEAR WHERE THE GAME TRIED TO FOLLOW TRADITION IN SOME SMALL WAYS.

File: 1409783659748.jpg (52KB, 700x419px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 700x419px

3.5 is best, and all the hate on /tg/ is made by irrational people who do not play any games.

3.5 embraced open gaming, making it the most customised and content-rich game on the planet.

3.5 had a solid skill system with many defined uses, which gives the players a meaningful ability to know what their characters can do and the DM guidance to set DCs by comparing to similar tasks. 2e's skill system (NWP) was too inconsistent, 5e's basically does not exist, and 4e had 3e's except with less skills and with less defined uses for them. I can understand reducing the skill list, but the way they removed nearly everything the skills can do made it a tacked-on afterthought.

Through Tome of Battle, 3.5 had the best martial mechanics. All the griping about 3e martials is done by pretending Tome of Battle never happened.

Finally, the beloved spell list. So many pieces to play, its like M:tG but built into an RPG! What's not to love?

File: 1466460590142.jpg (691KB, 2048x1665px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 2048x1665px

>>48167322

I disagree. 4e was clearly a development of 3.5, from its ability score dependencies to its skill system to its powers basically being spells by another name. It was not particularly clever or innovative, and what little it had was merely cutting away most of 3.5's content and re-formatting it into a narrow system with strict rules for what can be done by a power.

File: laughing echidna.gif (5KB, 140x185px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 140x185px

>>48167335
>3.5 had a solid skill system with many defined uses
>Finally, the beloved spell list. So many pieces to play, its like M:tG but built into an RPG! What's not to love?

File: 8d8f79ee655157e1f4eb04d27f3ee608.jpg (44KB, 400x586px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 400x586px

>>48166881
No edition of D&D has good "roleplaying mechanics" because roleplaying by definition is not a mechanic.
3._ whatever is just splashbook selling garbage for munchkins.
4e is for fagorts who want to play Roleplaying Games like a Vidya Gaem.

5e is a nice slimming of the rules with piss-poor editing/organization and a wtf CR system.

I have too much nostalgia for the older editions to weigh on them impartially.

>>48167335
>Finally, the beloved spell list. So many pieces to play, its like M:tG but built into an RPG! What's not to love?

Exactly this is not to love. The appeal of 3.5 is the capability to build broken as fuck spell-casters and legally pulling crazy shit with them. Good for the wizard's player. Shit for everybody else. Only worked well for CRPGs like NWN.

5E is best singularly because it's not 3.5 or 4 or 2 or any of the others

They all blow, take way too long to get anywhere as a character or do anything, and attract the worst breeds of powergaming min-maxing magical realm douchebag grognards to the hobby and they stay

5E 4 lyfe, fuckos

>>48165777
13th Age is the best high fantasy style game with lots of powers and toys for character classes without bogging the GM in a world of shitty calculations and bullshit.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess is the best old school version of the game, with clean mechanics, good encumbrance rules and great support with adventures.

5E is a GREAT place between these two styles of play.

File: Disdain4Plebs.jpg (26KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x462px

>>48167506
Filthy casual.

>>48167452

If my "shit for everybody else" you mean shit for people who insist on playing obsolete classes, then sure.

But here's the wonderful part: Nobody is Forcing You to roll a Fighter or Rogue. If you want to play a non-magical character, play Tome of Battle, and you can pull off plenty of crazy shit yourself.

>>48167535
another marketing victim

File: Fuck You.png (13KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x357px

>>48167536
Say that to my face fucker not online see what happens

>>48167544
>implying that D&D is only for people who want crazy as fuck PCs

That is the problem.

>>48167573
You going to jail? Or you pussying out because you don't want to go to jail?

File: Untitled.jpg (109KB, 443x553px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 443x553px

>>48167549
Ha. I play all three pretty regular. It's still D&D though, and not Runequest 6 so --- all D&D is still sort of shit because it's D20 but this isn't a thread for such things.

>>48167627
I'm already there, meet me in the courtyard in 5 minutes if u want an ass kicking

File: image.jpg (14KB, 123x125px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 123x125px

OD&D with the 1st Ed. Monster manual and players handbook is best. Fight me m8

>>48167697
Why with the AD&D Players Handbook? What you are describing is how we played as children in the early 80's.

>>48166745
GOTTA LOVE THE BLUE ON WHITE SHIT AND THE ELMORE SHIT AND THE 2E FOREVAR!!!!!!!!

Love it. still play it.

>>48167643
You don't think I'd stain my hands by touching you, you dirty lowlife? I'd pay people to take you out with the trash instead.

EVERY EDITION IS SHIT JUST USE THE SETTINGS IN A BETTER ENGINE LIKE FATE

File: 1355551810771.jpg (69KB, 471x750px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 471x750px

>>48167613

If you want to play NOT crazy as fuck PCs, then 3.5 can accommodate you as well. Just stick to tier 4 and below.

Though it was an accident, 3.5's variance in class power turned into a strength of the system: it can welcome different playstyles into one game. Just not into the same table at the same time, of course.

>>48167800
I'll be sure to bring all the non-5E books I can find, since they belong there too

4e is total trash
2e has good points
3.5 is the giant in the room but is mostly mediocre
5 is the least smelly turd

5e for me

>>48167784
>BLUE ON WHITE

This man understands.

>>48167929
>unable to play fairly low-powered campaign with wizards
>strength

ok

>>48167917
I love these guys. Fate is a gimmicky pile of shit.

File: WAP391CDD.jpg (423KB, 3000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 3000x3000px

>>48167996
4E would have been great competition for DESCENT. But they didn't box it up that way.

File: Dercetis pawn2.jpg (168KB, 858x1280px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 858x1280px

>>48167929
If you get a table of players together, and the rule system will allow someone to play something retardedly powerful, at least 2 of them will want to do that.
And at Least one of them will throw a fit if they can't.

File: 126520 Smiting Archangel.jpg (888KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 1600x1200px

>>48168036

Ah, but you can play a fairly low-powered campaign with wizards. You just have to broaden your understanding of "wizard". A warlock, a dragonfire shaman, or even an adept in a pinch: all of these can fill the classic "wizard" concept.

>>48168100
Spoken like a person who does not play any games. It is common, even normal, to use a subset of the game and not all of it.

>>48168154

3.5 haters just can't detach class from name, mang. They HAVE to play the "Fighter" class, and HAVE to play the "Wizard" class, and arbitrary declare that both have to be together or else. There's no reasoning with them, give up.

File: 7a02f84e8a035a3cd0a6ee354c3c03f6.jpg (41KB, 524x737px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 524x737px

>>48168154
I likely set around the gaming table more than you.
It's an unusual group that doesn't have at least one guy who doesn't want to play the most broken thing the system has to offer.

>>48168214
/tg/ gets daily threads from these people complaining that their DMs won't let them play "this interesting class".

File: 1357746049998.jpg (263KB, 700x897px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 700x897px

>>48168214
Well there you have it! Anti-3.5ers have shit groups to go along with their shit tastes, and cannot imagine that other groups are more fortunate than they. I have yet to see a tier restriction cause more of a reaction than a shrug, but hey, I'm not this guy.

>>48168244

Which threads are those? 'cause we have an archive, and I ain't seeing any.

In my opinion, the Moldvay/Cook B/X is the best D&D, and the 3.5 one is the worst. Haters gonna hate, no doubt.

File: He's dead M.png (175KB, 173x427px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 173x427px

>>48167544
> Obsolete classes
That's bad. That's a bad thing to be in a game.

>>48168763

No, it really is not. You just... don't play them! That's negative effort required. Their existence has no effect on tables where they are not used. A game is good based on what it is in play, not what it is in theorycrafting by forumites who obsess over the features that do not matter.

>>48165777
For me it's a competition between Mentzer and 5e if we're not allowed retro clones, otherwise Basic Fantasy RPG and 5e.

5e is the best of OSR and 3.5 mixed together and modernized. It has Mentzer's simple rules and 3.5's character creation. The character creation is bloated, but it's not as bad as 3.5's and the simple rules help to balance it out.

Honestly 5e is probably the best out of all of them. It's a return to form or at least a very good attempt.

5e is pretty good

Frankly the best edition of D&D is whatever you're having fun with at the moment. In straight hours of enjoyment, BECMI takes the cake for me. Your mileage may vary. I'm currently enjoying a 5e game.

OD&D is shit. I found 2e to be clunky as hell but better organized than adnd. 3.x was fun but led to character-building wankery. 4e was an interesting reaction to the problems of 3.x, but doesn't feel like D&D to me.

>>48168583
Which is, in it's modern form, Labyrinth Lord and Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

People saying 4E is the best are obviously forgetting how terrible the game was at release, its biggest problem being the first Monster Manual. The monsters in that book are bloated with HP but deal sweet fuck all damage (as well as missing most of the time) that it slows down combat to a snail's pace and kills any drama to the combat. Combat was pretty much a tactical miniatures game anyway so that didn't help to make the fights interesting either, and the focus of the game was obviously supposed to be on its combat. It's strange that they spent so long balancing that game that they didn't realise how boring a regular fight would become.

The later monster manuals and especially the essentials monster manual which I used for my non-Essentials campaigns helped to fix this to an extent, but don't try to tell that 4E was good out of the gate back in 08. I don't buy the argument of "B-but DMs can just change the stats" if we're comparing systems. First of all the DMG gave no rules on how to change monster stats, secondly if we follow that logic to its extreme then GURPS or some shit is the best version of D&D ever made because the DM can fix all of the problems.

It was still better than 3.X though which is the fucked up thing. As 4E went a long it got a lot better, while all versions of 3.X started shit and got shittier as fuck the party splatbooks started to surface.

>>48170073
4e was very heavy on math, everybody had an aura. The player handbook was also split into 3 books. It was horribly bloated. Great for war gaming though.

File: 1428626580297.png (926KB, 640x718px) Image search: [Google]

926KB, 640x718px

>>48165777

I'll only comment on editions I've played

2e
I love it, truly, but even I have to admit its problems. Granted, the culture of the game was different, and it was taken as par for the course that players and GM's would get together to house-rule the ever loving fuck out of the game until it did what they wanted. Granted, nothing is stopping players of any other editions from doing the same, but the culture surrounding 2e (at least the culture I encountered in my local area before the internet was ubiquitous) seemed more open to it. Non-combat proficiency system was really bad, but eventually we got used to actually role-playing out of combat to compensate.

3e
Hated it the moment I came out. Warmed up a little after the first few months, because the game ran smoother out of the box. However, my friends and I had a harder time house-ruling it into what we wanted. Not sure whether it was the system itself, or the culture behind it, or a little from both. Also, once all the ivory tower charop tricks were discovered, it became much more about individual power-characters independently doing their thing instead of the teamwork-based-play that I remembered and loved. However, character building is an independently satisfying game, similar to deck-building in MTG... appropriate since it was the first branching-out of a developer who until then had mostly just made MTG,

3.5
Indistinguishable from 3e. We had went back to our house-ruled 2e by then.

PF
Indistinguishable from 3e

4e
We LOVED it. The teamwork-based play was back. The game did out of the box what we had house-ruled 2e to do (simulate fantasy novel feels.) Every character class felt useful in combat. We were already used to throwing out non-combat, because 2e proficiencies were such utter shit.

5e
Distinguishable from 3e, but still at its core still feels like 3e, just with some band-aids on the most widely known problems. If I'm with a group that only plays OGL, 5e is a compromise.

File: 1463011337916.png (159KB, 1012x648px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1012x648px

>>48165777
>Dungeons & Dragons
>IEU O'INITIATION
What the fuck am I looking at dot jpg?

>>48167544
If Fighter and Rogue were put in the NPC classes section, instead of being marketed as a fully functioning PC class, your argument might have some merit. Unfortunately, the game was fallaciously marketed,

>>48167506
>5E is best singularly because it's not 3.5
Yes it is. it's like 90% 3.5. I mean the 10% is all improvements, but still, let's call a spade a spade, even if they added a laser pointer to the handle.

>>48165777
>0e
Bad but it kickstarted everything
>1e
Literally just Gygax trying to play up more rules and cut Arneson out of royalties...
>2e
... Which funilly enough is what happened to him. That said, the AD&D line did introduce a fuckton of awesome settings, a wide variety of new (and closer to modern) rules.
>Basic/BECMI/RC
A game originally meant to guide players into AD&D, then changed several times (so Arneson could keep getting paid) through different authors to make one of the most robust games on the market. Only real drawback imo is race-as-class.
>3.P
WotC attempting to mass market appeal the game and it worked (to varying results). Heavy with rules, bloated with errata and casters dominated, the game designers later apologized about designing it with "system mastery" focus (SEE: Ivory Tower Design).
>4e
AAn attempt to step back and overhaul the system for ease of play, classes became far more balanced at the expense of a large and cumbersome system. Still, not a bad game imho, but it was bad in sparking the dreaded Edition Wars.
>5e
Fearing Pathfinder and other games, WotC attempts to capture what people liked from previous editions and merge them together. Largely successful, my only issue is the fact casters are again supreme. That said, there are really only three tiers in the game - Great, Good and Nice (not counting Hunter Ranger or 4Elements Monk). Personally my fave system of core D&D.

>>48168583
THIS GUY GETS IT

>>48168210
>3.5 haters
>There's no reasoning with them, give up.

This.
There is literally no group on all of /tg/ that is more mindlessly convinced that their minority opinions are objective facts, and the only way to deal with them is to treat them like they have a scandalous disease.

>>48167394
DISAGREEMENT AND A CORDIAL TONE DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE CORRECT. WHILE THERE ARE SHADES OF THE CORE D20 SYSTEM UNDER THE 4E RULESET, IT IS STILL HANDLING THOSE THINGS IN VERY DIFFERENT WAY, AND TREATED CARRIED A TONE THAT DEVIATED FROM THE D&D TRADITION IN SUCH A WAY AS TO BE A RADICAL DEPARTURE. REMEMBER, UNTIL THE RELEASE OF PSIONICS IN THE PHB3, EVERYONE USES ONLY MINOR VARIATIONS OF THE SAME RULES TO HANDLE EVERYTHING. HOWEVER, EVEN AS LATE AS THE BOOK OF NINE SWORDS, D&D REVELED IN USING MECHANICAL VARIATION TO MAKE UP FOR A LACK OF VARIATION IN THEME AND TONE. 4E WAS A D&D-ESQUE SPINOFF OF D&D, NOT A SEQUEL. MORE OF A DEEP SPACE NINE, LESS OF A VOYAGER.

>>48165777
I love 2e and 4e. I've noticed a lot of people who still count 4e as their favorite are from the "started witn 2e" crowd like myself.

I like 4e, for a number of reasons

D&D has never been particularly good at noncombat, so the best noncombat has been mostly freeform RP, and 4e was spent all of its effort perfecting combat, and largely ignoring noncombat as an afterthought that we threw out anyway (just like how we threw it out in every other edition)

Every character contributes meaningfully to combat

Character optimization is a thing, but the difference between mid-op and high-op is enough for the mid-pp to still be signifigant.

When HP are used as they were always intended (i.e. not meat points) a 4e fight genuinely feels like a fight scene from a fantasy novel or movie.

The PC's while still vulnerable thanks to diminishing resources, feel genuinely like the protagonists of their story

The fluff crunch separation makes a literally staggering number of character concepts viable through refluff.

Similarly, refluff on the DM end makes DMing a breeze, because making an encounter becomes a breeze. You can make an encounter with the PDF's on a laptop in the time it takes the players to get themselves into trouble.

A functioning encounter balancing system... literally no other edition has this. Hitting the sweet spot between "the players trounce the encounter without using any resources" and "TPK, story over, everyone stop playing and having fun" is easy without having to fudge dice.

The combat, by itself, is fun enough to be a game. Even if the DM sucks, combat is still independently satisfying, meaning it's even MORE fun when the DM is good, and can make the stuff between encounters fun.

>>48170546
But I hate all of Deendee.

File: 442.jpg (227KB, 680x1020px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 680x1020px

>>48166881
>And if I want to play with living people, 5E.
Shit anon, how do you animate your skeletons with high enough mental stats to run 4e?

>>48167335
>3.5 had a solid skill system

I did a literal spit take on this

>>48167544
It must be really difficult to design a corebook with semi-balanced martials and magic users.

>>48170128
>4e was very heavy on math, everybody had an aura.

wat

>The player handbook was also split into 3 books

wat

>It was horribly bloated.

True

>Great for war gaming though.

I think being a really bloated RPG makes it bad at wargaming.

>>48170546
>admitting and discussing the faults of a game obviously makes you a hater

This reminds me of the Paizo boards where anyone calling core rogue or monk weak is a "hater" (eventhough they usually like those classes and want them to be good, which is why they make not of the imbalance).

>>48169975
Both LL and LotFP are slightly different, though. I'd say that LL complicates things a bit, for no real reason, and that LotFP could probably be some kind of improvement of the B/X system. To be honest, I'd still stick with my modded B/X game. In the eyes, the real power of B/X D&D is its ability to be easily modified. The reason I dislike (not hate) v3.5 D&D is that you can't modify it, without fucking up something (if not everything) else.

>>48165777
4e.
Way superior to 3rd, current ed with support, ditched the silly passive defense concept, and still mostly compatible with 3rd ed fluff books. Also, the gurpscharactersheet program is great.

It's a GURPS thread, right?

>>48174824
Sure. I'd enjoy seeing a GURPS edition war for once. HERO, too.

>>48174821
In the eyes => In my eyes
(Samefagging like a boss.)

>>48165777
THE NEWEST ONE IS ALWAYS THE BEST ONE HURRAH FOR CHANGE

3.5e is great once you realize that you're supposed to run it like Mutants and Masterminds: don't let one guy make Superman while the other makes Aquaman.

>>48174855
There can't be a GURPS edition war, pre-3rd barely exists, and 4e is just an improvement on 3rd (which was an improvement of 2nd, etc, hell some of Man to Man's (ie, proto GURPS) rules can still be found in 4e, because they already worked, among them the strength attribute and associated damages), mostly in rewriting the Basic Set with the most useful "side" rules introduced in other books and compendia, giving it all a better layout and having the stuff in a different, better order. (Notably, separating it in two, with one book helping players build their char with the basics for combat, and the GM's one having well, everything the GM'd need)
The difference are somewhat superficial, except for passive defence I mentioned (which kinda exists in 4e as defence bonus, granted by shields), snap shots disappearing, and a globally lowered accuracy on guns.

Jesus all the red underlining is really getting annoying. Computer's language isn't English. Really fucking annoying, making it hard to type and reread myself.

>>48165777
D&D is shit, my least favorite RPG system by far. It's simply dreadful, especially 4e. Only 5e is somewhat tolerable.

Strength in numbers!
http://www.strawpoll.me/10696118

>>48174863
tzeentch pls go and stay go

File: 1464973273690.jpg (604KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 1024x1024px

>>48165777
Why would I play anything but 5e?

>>48165777

OD&D = groggy trash.

AD&D = slightly different groggy trash, grogs pretend there is a huge difference.

AD&D 2e = hipster edition, nice amount of features ... always funny to see how hipsters think they are playing old school.

3e/3.5e = broken edition, elevated player agency to the highest levels yet ... which is why DMs hate it, they're all railroading trash.

4e = tactical wargame edition, not a bad game but had no continuity with previous editions ... which was objectively stupid. Telling 3e gamers they were doing it wrong added some nice insult to injury.

5e = lets have another go at 3e, but with less player agency. Telling 4e gamers they were doing it wrong made for some nice sour grapes.

3.5e and 4e objectively the best.

>>48175313
>all this bait
0/10

>>48167630
This man has the best taste in the thread, because it is identical to mine.

OD&D is the best one

>first game of tabletop roleplaying is 3.5 dnd
>told by DM it's the "only good system"
>play it for years, reject 4e outright
>drama goes down in life, DM rapes one of hte players(her dad was fairly abusive, so she went to his house because he was around 6+ years older than us and had his own place, we were all 17 and he basically told her that she had to fuck him to stay. she refused so he uh, well...you know) and the group disbands
>get into college and play pathfinder
>getting sick of the constant rules lawyering
>the endless bitching and bickering about rules
>the constant metabuilding and metagaming in every game
>get massively burnt out of tabletop games
>end up playing shit like World of Darkness, Numenera, Dungeon World and other shit like that
>realize that tabletop RPGs are not literally slower video games and aren't actually meant to be
>realize that my blessed youthful years were fucking stolen by DnD 3.5 and it ruined an entire generation of gamers
>5e releases and it encourage fast and loose interpretation of the rules on the fly
>metagaming featfapping has been rolled into archetypes
>start liking DnD again
>currently running a game, playing in another

fuck I love me some 5e. I just want some god damn, mother fucking, dark sun content, for fuck's sakes.

>>48176232
>5e releases and it encourage fast and loose interpretation of the rules on the fly
>metagaming featfapping has been rolled into archetypes
Exactly this, well said.

Your criticism of 3. is right on as well, it just encouraged munchkins to get uppity with bullshit character design with the one person doing the real work.

>>48171427

gavin, is that you?

>>48173493

>what do you do?
>screams and throws its skull at me
>jerry....you faggot

>>48167630
>>48175926
You both have shit taste though.
RQ is like D&D's retarded cousin that no one likes to talk about.

They're all kinda bad, because DND has a bad resolution mechanic.

>>48176284

mind you I really like Dungeon Crawl Classics, but that's as far from 3.5 a 3.5 game can get.

FC>2e>PF>3.5e>4e>5e
Never played AD&D.

>>48167544
>If you want to play a non-magical character, play Tome of Battle, and you can pull off plenty of crazy shit yourself.
Every time someone tries to port an initiator class to another edition, it's not magical enough for the ToB-fags. Checkmate.

>>48176378
Other than popularity RQ6 is literally better than D&D at everything.

Only ever done 3.5

I kept getting into groups that fucking dissolved before we hard hardly gotten started, so despite rolling several characters, playing a few sessions etc I don't have a strong opinion.

>>48175313
>4e = tactical wargame edition, not a bad game but had no continuity with previous editions ... which was objectively stupid. Telling 3e gamers they were doing it wrong added some nice insult to injury.
IDK man, I feel like 4e was the first edition change you actually experienced because you call
>AD&D 2e = hipster edition,
Meaning you weren't around when it was the actual standard, and similarly weren't around for the 2e into 3e. There was almost as much fallout, but the internet wasn't THE MOTHERFUCKING INTERNET, so there wasn't an echoing chamber to keep the grognarding alive. Each edition sort-of "told the previous gamers they were doing it wrong" but, what it was REALLY telling them was "we've hit the supercritical mass of splat books and can't justify printing more without fundamentally new rules (especially true for 3e/35)... and we need money.

>>48175216
Some people just plain don't like 3e, and don't want to play a game that's at it's core an expansion on and improvement of 3e.

Granted, I've no more spite left in me for 3e fans than I do for people who like olives (I don't like olives.) However, if someone told me they made the best olive salad ever, and it was better than any olive salad I'd ever tried, I'd still not eat it, because I don't like olives.

>>48165777
EDITIONS IN ORDER

>1e
DIDN'T PLAY IT
>2e
DEFINITELY SHOWS ITS AGE, BUT IS STILL ENTERTAINING
>3e
SHITTY TABLETOP DIABLO, IT WAS DIABLO 3 BEFORE DIABLO 3
>3.5
SEE ABOVE
>4e
OKAY TABLETOP WOW, BETTER THAN ACTUAL WOW THESE DAYS
>5e
BETTER VERSION OF TABLETOP DIABLO

>>48175055
>http://www.strawpoll.me/10696118
the amount of participation is staggering

>>48165833
This.

I can see arguments for everything but 3.5. Unless you enjoy trying to make the most broken minmaxed optimized build possible, but that isn't exactly the traditional idea of a roleplaying game.

>>48179696
to be fair, that's not an epic feat (pun intended)

>>48180532
>but that isn't exactly the traditional idea of a roleplaying game.

Ah, but for the majority of gamers (aka Deendee fags), it is.

>>48170218
Jeu D'initiation= Beginners Box/ Game's Beginning/ LITERALLY INITIATION TO THE GAME. It's not that fucking hard to read.

>>48165777
7th edition best edition. 3.5th was good but 7th supports 4d gamemaps.

>>48181110

all maps are 4d senpai

File: skub.png (10KB, 648x369px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 648x369px

Reminder that pic is unplayable garbage

>>48180314

> Each edition sort-of "told the previous gamers they were doing it wrong"

In a round about way. There aren't any Dragon articles where they clumsily try to deconstruct and trash 2e to sell 3e. There is a level of hostility to the previous editions in the 3e->4e->5e transitions which wasn't exposed as publicly before, the public edition warring was left to outsiders and ex-employees. Can't even blame the internet either, it wasn't just blog posts :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbbqMoEwDqc

>>48165777
They all have lots of problems, but...

>Pathfinder > 3.5 > d20 Conan > FC > True20 > 5e > M&M > 2e > 4e > 1e

>PF
Most options, mechanical support, customization opportunities, accessibility (thanks to d20pfsrd & AoN). Trap options and GMs who think WBL is unimportant.

>3.5
Second most options & support. Good Accessibility. (dndtools). Same problems as Pathfinder.

>d20 Conan
Does sword and sorcery, good support and gameplay. Limited accessibility and playerbase.

>FC
Good gameplay & customization, fuck all for support.

>True20
Rules Light D&D. Plays okay.

>5e
Okay balance. Minimal Support. Minimal Character Customization

>M&M
Excellent customizational options, bland gameplay.

...

>>48186728
>2e
Cool settings. Clunky.

>4e
Shitty Settings (Except Dark Sun). Super Boardgamey gameplay. Annoying core mechanic for powers. Limited Customization. Good Digital Tools, leading to good accessibility (offline character builder)

>1e
As clunky as 2e, but lacking the cool settings.

File: big bait.jpg (10KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x200px

>>48167335

>>48186755
Is it really fair to judge a D&D edition on its settings, since there's literally nothing stopping you from transposing setting from one to another, and the overwhelming majority of DMs don't use pre-existing settings.

File: this.png (80KB, 1109x455px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1109x455px

>>48165777
>WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE?
THE THREE LITTLE BROWN BOOKS

>WHAT MAKES IT THE BEST?
PIC RELATED

>WHY ARE OTHER ONES UNPLAYABLE GARBAGE?
FUCK OFF RIBS

>BECMI
I can say Rules Cyclopedia was the best DnD book ever made. I still have to see better and more entertaining weapon mastery.
>0e and 1e
Not played
>2e ADnD
Full of lore and ideas, lots of clunky mechanics but the attention on adventure and immersion made it great.
>3.0/3.5/PF
Full of flaws but still my favourite. If you see it as a toolbox, you will have a great time. If you are too autistic to do not tone down some aspect and the CharOpt memes, you will have a bad time.
>4ed DnD
Meh. Is balanced, but is the only interesting thing to say. Paradoxically, my martial players laughed the most at it, because of the pillowfisted combat
(where are my x3 crits?)
>5ed DnD
Looks nice but that boat has sailed.

>But DM, I don't feel cool or powerful! I just want to see big damage numbers and kill things all the time!

As a newbie DM, which system should I use to cater to my players since they're all fucking faggots that won't look outside of D&D?

I'm trying to play 5e with them but they're too stupid/lazy to learn the rules for it. Is there no hope?

File: DnDBasic.jpg (146KB, 600x777px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 600x777px

>>48165777
>WHAT IS YOUR FAVOURITE?
Moldvay/Cook Basic (B/X)

>WHAT MAKES IT THE BEST?
At 128 pages in total, it's concise, easy to learn, and easy to play. AD&D has more options, and that's sometimes nice, but it generally does a poor job with the added material, adds a lot of unnecessary stats and restrictions, and generally makes a lot of things more complicated merely for the sake of being more complicated.

>WHY ARE THE OTHER ONES UNPLAYABLE GARBAGE?
BECMI / RC add in too much clutter, injecting too much of AD&D into Basic (also, BECMI is a clusterfuck in terms of format: the individual books are laid out in the stupidest, least intuitive way, and there are fucking nine of them, so good luck finding anything). Holmes Basic, meanwhile, is only half a game (it only goes to level 3), and isn't as refined as Moldvay Basic (being as much an OD&D starter set as true Basic).

OD&D is so rambling that it's often impossible to tell what the actual rules are. 2nd edition AD&D failed to really improve much on 1st edition, and was more of the same at a time when other RPGs were learning and growing. Sure, it ditched some of the stupider stuff from 1st edition, but it lacked a lot of its creative energy.

3.x did a good thing by introducing a central mechanic, but it fucked the math all to hell, completely unbalanced the classes, and in its completionist approach, turn the game into barely playable, overly complicated trash. 4e turned D&D into a miniatures war game, and I'd rather have cinematics and immersion than tactical war gaming. As I've only just glanced at it, I can't really comment on 5e other than to say that I'm disappointed it isn't more streamlined than it is.

File: Mad.jpg (53KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x500px

>>48167335
>mfw

>>48171383
>>48167322
>>48165833
>>48165777
>>48167917

All caps. Did not read. Try again only not so hard, faggot

File: Pupi.jpg (146KB, 250x524px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 250x524px

>>48190524
Could you please show me on this anatomically accurate paladin where the 3.X wizard touched you?

>>48190178
>they're too stupid/lazy to learn the rules for 5e
>that won't look outside of D&D
Abandon all hope.

>>48190178
Shit, if they don't feel powerful in 5e, I can't think of any edition that would help.

There is no hope.

>>48191593
Right in the Full Attacks

>>48191642
Full attack worked as in previous editions - you get de facto more attacks (effective attacks, that is) against minor foes.

Few will hit and being effective against high level foes. Power Attack will adjust.
Use wisely the iteratives, power attacks, and even sometimes a full combat expertise made the combat variable, at least in my experience.

I remember fondly a player of mine extremely skilled with the fighter. The party was taked by surprised and nauseated en-masse by monsters. The fighter used great skill dispatching a close enemy, quickdraw a bow and pin a second one (there was a feat), drop the bow and quickdraw a whip, step aside, and trip a third one. This made the situation way more manageable.

Now, I preferred in BECMI when you could move and attack freely, and in my personal version of the game I would just make the iterative an option with the same bonus, and allow a basic movement between the attacks - it would allow pull stuff like that more easily.

You can overcome the need of iterative inflicting conditions or maneuvers, using feats for the charge (without exaggerating) in 3.5, o use polearms in any edition, or using stuff like lunge.

The great problem isn't even big monsters with reach, you can get around that but the 3D movement sucks. My party managed that because 1) they used terrain wisely 2) they crafted a lot 3) the casters preferred to buff because many high level enemies were immune to too much shit 4) the enviromnment was not always spell friendly (impeded magic, shadowlands like in Rokugan, etc)