I can't decide between D&D 4th and 5th edition for my

>>52305137
I prefer 4e, especially using the electronic tools and some common houserules.

But 5e really is simpler and more streamlined, and that also counts a lot.

I only DM'ed 4e once, but it was a negative experience. Fights were too long, with hit points on both sides being way out of control, I dislike the fact they took magic mart from 3.5 and made it even worse. Another poor choice was them deciding - hey, our players can't keep track all those fifteen buffs and spells they have on them at any given time. So let's make all those buffs last one round only, that'll simplify things!

5e, on the other hand, is very simple, it's fluid. Advantage/disadvantage system is a really welcome change, as are concentration rules. Combat is usually really quick too.

File: strike-rpg.jpg (434KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 1024x768px

>>52305215
>Fights were too long, with hit points on both sides being way out of control,
Was that before or after MM3 math fixes?

> I dislike the fact they took magic mart from 3.5 and made it even worse

I think it's a LOT better. By admitting that the treadmill exists, you can focus on making it fun by adding secondary benefits to your shit. Either way, there's an inherent bonus optional rule that removes the necessity for magic items (except armor IIRC).

>5e, on the other hand, is very simple, it's fluid. Advantage/disadvantage system is a really welcome change, as are concentration rules.

This is true as well.

>Combat is usually really quick too

I have found it gets a lot more long/boring at higher levels (but I was playing a rogue so w/e). At least in 4e the combat is long because you need 3-4 rounds for your decisions/tactics to be sorta meaningful. In 5e, combat is just long because... high level enemies are supposed to have lots of HP?

If only there was some game that tried to combine the best of both...

>>52305215
4e isn't bad, with the mm3 math, expertise feats, and a bit of system mastery, but at the beginning it really could drag.
5e is simple, but there are more trap options, works about as well for dynamic encounters, but has less options, and also combat feels more spammy and repetitive, round by round, thankfully it's short.
In the end, it's a personal thing, I'd rather DM 4e, but play 5e. Also, 5e doesn't have a comic yet, and the 4e comic was dwarven-made, that's an other point in its favour.

>>52305137
If they're retards use 4e.

If they're average intelligence or smarter use 5e

>>52305137
4e takes a bit longer to learn the ins and outs of the system, especially as far as what PCs are capable of. But once you've got that down, it's a really, really easy game to run.

However, one thing you really should consider is the tone of your planned game, 5e PCs are comparatively weaker than 4e PCs. Leaning more towards conan-style dungeon crawling than high-flying heroic journeys

File: Ryder confused.gif (4MB, 280x302px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 280x302px

>>52305401
>but there are more trap options
Uh, what?

>>52305481
Multiclassing and feats, if your group doesn't do either of those then the only 'traps' are the beastmaster and elemental monk - but in 4e there is no level-by-level multiclassing or having to choose between a feat and ability scores.

Compared to 3.5, there are no traps whatsoever, but that's not the comparison we're doing, is it?

>>52305481
Play a ranger or sorcerer in 5e. I dare you.

>>52305535
Sorcerer works just fine in 4e as long as there isn't a wizard in the party to do everything you can do only better

>>52305546
>4e
I meant 5e, whoops

>>52305532
Well, 4e does have Essentials classes which sorta drop off, they are about as trappy as Wot4E or the Ranger.

>>52305535
>Ranger
Ranger was fixed, and it's fix is even Adventurers League legal.
>Sorcerer
Sorcerer is a fullcaster, I think he's fine.

>>52305535
I originally played a phb ranger and he did feel really weak, but switched him up to revised ranger and now he gets shit done.

Sorceror has some areas they are worse than wizards, but others where they are better. It's not as unviable as you're making out

>>52305137
Do you want to play D&D or a Superhero Miniature game?

>>52305590
>Sorceror has some areas they are worse than wizards, but others where they are better.

Unless it's "making CHA skill rolls" or "multiclassing with Warlock"... just nope.

Knows less spells (from a worse list). Can cast less spells. Has worse class abilities.

It's worse in ever way.

>>52305598
OP was asking about 4e vs 5e, not WotC editions vs OD&D.

>>52305562
Only if you mix Essentials and Original 4e, if everybody does Essentials it's sort of ok, but you'll have to accept the boring at wil spam.
You need a good bit of mastery to mix them... I guess you're right, you could say the same of the Monk.
If everybody is W4E Monk, it's ok (and no enemy gets actions, like, ever).

>>52305137
5E is better for newbies in almost every single way.

>>52305626
>Only if you mix Essentials and Original 4e, if everybody does Essentials it's sort of ok, but you'll have to accept the boring at wil spam.

Not even, Mearls could not resist sucking Wizard cock in even in essentials. All the Wizard variants are just as good (situationally better) than the non-essentials versions of the classes.

But if you restrict yourself to simple classes... I guess that can work out.

>>52305137
>4th looks like it has more options for everyone across the board
You get to choose toppings for your shit sundae. Hooray.

>>52305186
What are some of the most common houserules for 4e?

>>52305137
4rh Edition is generally more boring. The simplicity of 5e makes it great for 99% of groups.

File: printablemm3businessfront.gif (27KB, 1050x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1050x600px

>>52305760

MM3/Monster Vault math fixes monsters and make fights shorter and more interesting.

Everyone gets an Expertise feat and Improved Defences for free, to fix the system math issues.

>>52305760
Some free feats to alleviate the need for taking tax feats, usually an expertise feat, improved defenses, and some other, class specific stuff (unerrata'd melee training) handed out as you level.

Take care to only use MM3 and up monsters, or at least use the monster math for it.

Optionally:
- using inherent bonuses.
- some houserules to boost paragon multiclassing.
- improving the scaling a bit on improvised actions.

>>52305461
>If they're retards it doesn't matter the system
5e is also for retards anon. It's hard to tell your different when you only hang around retards, but trust me, it's true

>>52305814
>>52305828
Thanks a lot!

>>52305137
Play the only good edition, 3.5

>>52305828
>>52305814
>HEY IF YOU ARE MAKING RULES CHANGES TO FIX SHIT THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN BEYOND REPAIR AND IS BADWRONGFUN
I will never get over the stupid levels of hypocrisy 4e players show.

>>52305853
You may also find these useful:

Useful resources: http://pastebin.com/85Hm56k5
Online compendium: http://funin.space/

>>52305889
>Errata is the same thing as homebrew.
I don't think you know what words mean.

>>52305889
Because handing out 2-3 free feats and using the later monster math is certainly comparable to the huge amount of shit you'd need to do to a certain other edition, who doesn't even have a generally agreed on simple set of house rules to fix it.

>>52305760
The houserules I've seen used for 4e are.

1. Everyone gets versatile expertise for free (Every 4e DM I've played with who uses houserules uses this one)
2. Everyone gets weapon/implement focus for free
3. Everyone gets improved defenses for free
4. Everyone gets pre-errata melee training for free
4-1. Melee training always comes in it's pre-errata form
5. Essentials and O-4e classes can both be used, but no using essentials-class powers on their O-class counterparts

I've never seen 2 and 3 used at the same time however

>>52305889

And here you show your complete lack of understanding of the argument.

The point you're misquoting is generally brought up to counter people who claim that their preferred system is perfect because its flaws may be fixed- Acting like the ability to ignore or work around a flaw causes said flaw to cease to exist or have any significance.

4e is a flawed game. We are implicitly acknowledging this by suggesting the fixes, and in pretty much every 4e thread I've seen people very happily and openly discuss said flaws. That there are common fixes does not stop the flaws existing, and 4e would be a better game if these flaws did not exist.

But a game being mechanically flawed does not inherently make it unplayable. That depends on the degree of flaw present, which requires an honest assessment of how badly the mechanics negatively effect the experience of the system RAW, as well as how easy they are to fix.

>>52305919
>who doesn't even have a generally agreed on simple set of house rules to fix it.

There are two "general" houserules to fix 3.5 as far as I know (that aren't "play 4e/5e instead"): Select a Tier to play in and have everyone agree to stay within 1 step of that tier, or, as a subset of above, ban core classes and only allow ToB, psionics and a few other select stuff.

>>52305956
>Select a Tier to play in and have everyone agree to stay within 1 step of that tier, or, as a subset of above, ban core classes and only allow ToB, psionics and a few other select stuff.
And this is the problem. Your fix is literally "ban most shit". Which makes most of the material useless.

It may not be my favorite edition, but 4e's fixes are far less severe than either 3e or 3.5. And certainly don't invalidate most books.

>>52305989
Look at who you are replying to mate. 4e is absolutely my favorite edition. I just think it pays to be fair in matters of system discussions.

>>52305875
no, that would be pf

>>52306001
You also forgot E6, which also falls under "Ban 90% of the content"

>>52306010
PF is a funny way of abbreviating BECMI or RC.

>>52306023
I did!

Good catch.

>>52306038
At that point just play Lamentations or Black Hack or something.

>>52305989
>>52306023
Banning 90% of the content still leaves a system five times the size of most systems.

And, you act like any large system isn't a matter of pick and choose. The fact that the parts can largely be used together and that you can integrate things at your own discretion is actually a bonus, not a fault, and you really just sound like a person looking for reasons not to like something, and deciding that anything different must be bad.

>>52306061
Hey Rich, how ya doing?

>>52306061
3.5 actively encourages players to make mixed groups of casters and non-casters

4e tells you that you CAN mix Essentials and non-essentials classes, but you probably shouldn't

>>52305535
Whats wrong with sorcerers bro? I think they play fine also ranger are awful. True the beastmaster ranger sucks ass but being a hunter, even straigh from the PHB os syill a good class. I think hating on the ranger as a whole is a retarded concept and more of meme at this point.

>>52306424
The problem with sorcerers is wizards

Wizards are just better sorcerers, more spells known and prepared, wider spell-pool, stronger class features.

Making a wizard, then preparing exactly the same spells every day and just calling yourself a "sorcerer" makes for a better sorcerer in 5e than the actual sorcerer class

>>52306116
>3.5 actively encourages players to make mixed groups of casters and non-casters

And? Depending on what material you use, it's not really that OMGTEHWORSTTHINGEVER like spergs like to pretend it is. 95% of the "OMGMARTIALSSUCK" complaints are actually towards a few specific martial classes, while there's plenty of similarly weak spellcasters. If anything, the Spellcasters Vs. Martials business is just an old generalization that's about a decade outdated, but still carried around because those 3rd edition haters aren't really interested in accuracy or anything resembling fair assessments.

At the end of the day, it's a stupidly big system, and it relies on the DM being able to work with it. Still, in the hands of a good DM, you're going to have a hard time finding a better game, especially considering the game is over a decade old at this point. While it's good to experiment with new systems, and perhaps move on to one's that cater to your group's needs better (like the thoroughly modernized 5e or the more balanced 4e), it's still a gold mine of great material, especially some of the published adventures.

It's a damn shame that /tg/ has a few autists that can't help but sperg out whenever the system is mentioned though, we'd be all better without them. I'm just glad that most people have stopped taking them seriously, and that they've mostly quieted down.

>>52306632

The only thing that's amazing is how far the 3.PF apologists will go to make excuses for their shitty, shitty system.

>>52306632
3.5's biggest problem is that the system lies to you

Yes, if you can figure out all the lies and tricks the books contain and work around them the system is huge, varied and offers a vast field of possibilities, even beyond the main appeal of the system (character building). But you shouldn't have to do that.

This is why I would say the absolute worst classes in 4e are the knight and bladesinger. Not because they're the weakest classes, they aren't, but because the correct way to build them involves discarding everything the books tell you about building them, and that is awful, awful game design

>>52305137
4e technically has more classes and monsters, but they're all very samey. There are four PC roles and like seven monster roles, and each thing plays like all the others within the same role. Also, apparently the monster statistics in the first two monster manuals are completely fucked to shit and unusable, so there might be fewer monsters you can actually use.

>>52306884

>each thing plays like all the others within the same role

Except this isn't true, at all. Different classes within the same role achieve it in very different ways, and even different builds within a single class can have completely different and highly distinct playstyles. This is an ignorant comment trotted out by people who do not understand 4e, or who become confused by the fact that all classes use standard formatting and clear layouts.

>>52306938
Relax, it's obviously a joke

No one actually believes that shit anymore, not unless they've been completely out of the loop for the past 7 years

>>52306884
>Also, apparently the monster statistics in the first two monster manuals are completely fucked to shit and unusable, so there might be fewer monsters you can actually use.

You really shouldn't just repeat half-remembered bullshit when you don't really know what you're talking about. Makes you look like an arsehole when you get stuff wrong.
for your edification, those monsters are completely usable. They don't deal enough damage. That's it. You just need to increase the damage. It's easy. There's even a formula and everything. Hell even if you don't bother changing them, they're still usable, there's just a chance your players might drag out combat.

>>52307082

Didn't a lot of the old monsters get updated stats with the new math anyway?

>>52306775
>>52306704
Those are some interesting and very personal opinions. I'm sorry you are part of that minority that somehow decided that your personal misinterpretations were the books lying to you, but for the overwhelming majority of players, and I repeat overwhelming majority of players, and I think I need to repeat that again because you don't really seem to appreciate that, for the overwhelming majority of players, it's nowhere near as controversial a system as you like to pretend it is. When looking at book sales, online searches, game convention and online statistics, it really seems like very few people have these intense problems you've personally experienced, or more importantly, have easily mitigated them.

Is it the most balanced system? Definitely not. The decade+ of intense scrutiny has revealed a fair amount of the system's balance issues, but that simply means that there's plenty of help and guidelines for people interested in learning how to tailor the system to their tastes. I get it, that you're the kind of people who are STILL upset about the game and no one's ever going to convince you otherwise about it, but it's kind of sad to watch you guys squirm around STILL. If anything, I think you might be better off trying to address the game as it's actually played already, because you seem to be trying to scare people away from 3.5, but only ending up convincing them to play the game while avoiding the common pitfalls. That, or moving them on to 5e. Either way, the numbers seem to be consistent that they're not trickling down to play the lesser known games or 4e, so if that was your goal, it doesn't really seem to be working.

But whatev. I'm not getting paid to be your strategist or psychiatrist.

>>52305137
It's a tough choice.

>more options for everyone across the board starting from level 1
Is really this a good thing for new players? Most 5w classes start simple for a reason. And you can start at level 3 if you want to avoid that.

>more meaningful powers
What does this mean?

>monster customization rules allow the DM for a lot of fun
This is true. 4e has better monsters. 5e definitely threw out the baby with the bathwater when it came to monsters, though it is possible to reintroduce and replicate a lot of that stuff in 5e, but obviously that is more work for the DM.

>It looks like it would fit my players, who only have a board game background, more.
4e is more boardgamey, yeah. If you think your players would prefer the tactical combat of 4e that's a big point in it's favour. With 4e, the combat is generally what will win you over or lose you. If there's something outside of combat that you feel 4e is missing, there's nothing stopping you from introducing it without affecting the combat.

>5e looks much simpler and easier to run and lends itself more to theatre of the mind kinda play, being more representative of the way I've always played RPGs prior.
All this is true.
It comes down to what you think you or your players will value more. It's also imortant to remember that it's not that difficult to borrow the aspects you like from one and add them to the other. With some work, it's largely possible to have the best of both worlds.

>>52307269

>Michael Bay's Transformers movies are excellent and should never be criticised because they're popular and make money

This is you. This is what you are saying.

>>52307269
>For the overwhelmingly majority of players
What? For whom? Nobody plays 3.5 anymore, everyone moved on - to Pathfinder, to 4e, to 5e. And for a good reason.

>>52307294
That's strawmanning, friendo. And bad strawmanning at that.
What's your next fallacy?

>>52307294
Stop replying to trolls FFS.

There's a 3.PF troll using the same shitty logical fallacies every single time.

>>52307269
You do know that this long, passive aggressive post makes it really obvious how upset you are, right? It's really transparent.

>>52307269
It's just worrying is all

I've met several people who refuse to play RPGs now because 3.5 gave them such a caustic introduction to the entire hobby. And people who have gotten so far into 3.5 that they refuse to try anything else because the "system mastery" 3.5 requires is silly

I don't want people to have their experience so heavily limited because of this bloated blanket system covering the tabletop RPG hobby. Fortunately, my fears are finally being waylaid by 5e. It's simple, quick, fun, and more popular than anything else, a perfect introductory system, and a far superior system to have blanketing the hobby than 3.5

File: 1480569493128.png (69KB, 534x174px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 534x174px

4e is very complex to play well, for both DM and players. I find it rewarding because I enjoy its class system, balance, and mechanical complexity. However, this is a double-edged sword, as it can be potentially overwhelming for players new to RPGs who can't take advantage of all of the opportunities they have given such an array of mechanics which can both speak for a character in fluff and provide valuable tactical effects. Also, it doesn't "feel like D&D" for a lot of people, for whatever that's worth.

5e is far better for new players. It's much simpler and more intuitive, while still quite fun, especially because there are mechanics that promote roleplay and helping people without experience create not just a character sheet, but a character. It's in no way the first or best at this, but it does a good job slipping the medicine in with the meal. It's also more open to improvisation, which I find is a fine thing to encourage in new players so they solve problems in more interesting ways for their entire hobby career.

>>52305297
Where's that optional rule to reduce magic item reliance? One of my three problems with 4e design compared to 5e is the magic item dependence/assumption.

>>52307407

Inherent bonuses. It's a good one to use, letting you focus more on the interesting powers and effects items have instead of just always racing for a higher modifier.

>>52307313
A fair amount have moved on to 5e, true, but I think it's very fair to group Pathfinder together with 3.5, where it's comfortably in 2nd place. Even not combined, it's in 3rd place. Despite its advanced age, it's still surprisingly popular, so it's not really fair to say "Nobody plays it anymore."

But almost none have moved to 4e beyond the initial migration. In fact, it's recently become the first D&D since 2e to drop below a non-D&D game in global popularity, and it's steadily dropping. It might actually be surpassed by World of Darkness by the end of the year, as it seems to also having many of its players move to 5e.

Overall, I think the key thing to take away isn't that 3.5 is bad so its losing players (it holding onto so many players for so many years is actually pretty impressive), but that 5e is really good. Almost half of all players play 5e. and they'll very likely have a majority by the end of the year.

>>52307407
In the Darksun book.

It's supported by the CBLoader, so you can find it in there too.

>>52307393
I would disagree on the DM-ing front

4e is super-easy to DM, the monsters are clear, concise, and there's a bajillion of them to use, on top of that, if you find a monster to use that's the wrong level, you can easily down-level or up-level it to the point where you need it.

>>52307393

As a player I've always found 4e very simple to play. Everything is very clearly laid out and easy to use, with CBloader making character generation a breeze.

Sure, you might not be playing optimally, bit if the GM is running a low-op game you can afford to fool around and learn how to use your powers by experimentation and you'll still do alright.

>>52307422
3.5 didn't hold on to players so much as it had so many players that even after losing a gigantic amount of it's playerbase to other systems, it's still got a fuckton of players.

In the early 2000s, 3rd edition was pretty much the end-all-be-all of RPGs. EVERY game had a d20 variant. EVERYONE who played tabletop RPGs was a 3e-3.5 player

>>52306884
>There are four PC roles and like seven monster roles
Hey, it's three times as many monster roles as 5e has.
>>52307082
Elite and solo monsters also have too high defenses.

>>52307422
Are you talking about the roll20 stats?

You know that players can be in multiple games there, right? 3.PF and 3.5 have basically equal player count because anyone playing one will also play the second. We can also safely assume that there's another huge overlap between 5e and 3.PF/3.5 numbers. It's really hard to tell from that graph what people actually are playing at the moment, because all the games are counted.

Meanwhile, 3.PF sales are down the shitter. With 5e appealing to the same audience, it player retention rates are fucking terrible.

>>52305137

5e is amazing for newer players, especially players unfamiliar with these kinds of games. Especially with the easy to understand Advantage/Disadvantage systems. Players learn real quick what is detrimental to them when they see that shiny 17+ roll get replaced by the crappy 6-

>>52307353
3.5 doesn't really so much require "system mastery", it's just that the game has so much depth and material that people can end up with wildly different levels of mastery which generates conflict. New groups tend to play the game without any major issues, and experienced groups likewise, but there is the issue where powergamers can really twist the system if the DM isn't ready for them. You need to remember that 3.0 revitalized the industry and more than doubled the amount of players in the world, and for its time it was a perfectly good first step into the world of role playing games. It may not be to everyone's tastes, however, but there's really no reason for anyone to be so bitter about its popularity, then or now.

But, yeah, I'm also glad about 5e. It's really great for new players, and has really helped bring tons of new people into the hobby. With its existence, it's really hard to recommend playing 3.5, but that shouldn't undermine the wealth of material that edition provides, no more than 5e's existence should undermine all the great lore and material from 2e.

>>52307509

His argument is basically self indulgent horseshit. Especially since Roll20 is implicitly biased towards D&D and similar games, since they require a grid while a lot of other games do not, and thus have no real need for Roll20's extra features.

>>52306488
>>52306424
A good solution is to let sorcerers know all spells.
A fun mechanic is to let them permanently burn a spell from their spell list to cast it when they're out of spells/day. (Last resort)

>>52307531

>Expending permanent progression for temporary benefits

Eurgh, no.

>>52307542
I dunno, burning fate points in 40k RPGs is an interesting mechanic

>>52307393
>mechanical complexity
>4th Edition?
wut? 4E is very much straightforward with very little ways to combo.

>>52305137
Started to Dm a group of absolute newcomers because 5e is advertised as being simpler allthough rhe rules are not in my native language yet. Best decision ever. 4e would have been an absolute shitfest.

>>52307625
It's mechanically complex but all the rules are laid out in a straightforward manner

There's a lot more dancing around actions and individual bonuses in 4e than there is in 5e

>>52307625

Combos in 4e are generally teamwork based instead of within your character, although there are still some powerful synergies you can make use of.

Figuring out how the various party members can combine their strengths most effectively is a large part of the fun I have with the system, and a lot of why I enjoy playing Leaders, enabling my allies to leverage their strengths most effectively.

>>52307630
5e is better for new players but worse for new DMs, 4e is better for new DMs but worse for new players.

If you have both new DMs and new players, pick 5e since the DM has much more narrative control than the players and can correct mistakes quicker.

>>52307509
The only roll20 numbers I pay attention to are games being played.

But, you're actually wrong about the 3.PF sales being in the shitter. They're much lower than they were in the past, but they're still outselling just about every single system short of 5e. That's partially thanks to Wizards reprinting 3.5 books not too long ago, and just general brand recognition and availability, but it's still fairly impressive.

And, you shouldn't overlook convention numbers. Even though they're doing much better about encouraging people to play other games, 3.PF still sits comfortably in 2nd place, though the margin between it and 5e widens every day.

Overall, 3.PF is still doing pretty well going into seventeenish years, though it does seem like the juggernaut that is 5e has finally, finally started to really start hitting 3.PF's numbers. Maybe in two or three years, we might see a non-D&D system rise above it to be in 2nd place, but we're not going to see it drop from the top 10 in the next decade.

>>52307542
It's gonna happen rarely but it's still pretty cool.
A wizard without spells = fucked.
A sorc without spells = can still cast their most powerful spells, but is it worth it?

It also makes for some really memorable situations.

>>52307523
>With its existence, it's really hard to recommend playing 3.5
I disagree. I really don't like 4th but I'd rather recommend playing 4th because at least that edition knows what it wants to do. 5th just feels like substance-less pandering, where they put on some make-up to appeal to fans of 2nd or 3rd but there's no actual content behind it. Trying to run an open ended oldschool style adventure in 5th falls flat because the rules still allow people to roll for awesome instead of having to figure stuff out in meta, trying to play an autistic simulation a la 3.5 doesn't work because the framework isn't granular enough, a tactical combat simulation a la 4th doesn't work because there's not enough combat content to keep people different. I honestly have no fucking clue what 5E tries to be except as marketable as possible.

>>52307643
>>52307646
I disagree, because even on a team level bonuses tended to be straightforward numerical or standardized status effects rather than the open ended effects of 3.5 that allowed for just plain crazy shit to happen by using/abusing fringe cases of abilities.

>>52307741
>that edition knows what it wants to do.
Problem is, most people don't like what it does.

5e is much more like a toolset than its more defined preceding editions, but that's what enables different DMs to easily adapt it to their own styles. It's got a loose and somewhat bland "default", but if you're ever expecting people to stick to the default for longer than a few sessions, you're looking at some particularly uncreative people.

3.5 is like K'Nex. Fun, but somewhat awkward, and it takes a bit of expertise to really take it to the more advanced levels, but you can build truly amazing things with it, including toy cars.
4e is like a pre-made toy car. Looks great, fast, and does everything you'd want a toy car to do, but it's really, really hard to make it more than a toy car.
5e is like legos. Simple, easy to use, and while it may be a bit clunky and blocky at first, there's really no limits to where you can take it.

>>52307933

By that analogy, 3.5 is some shitty knockoff K'Nex with some pieces missing, some sockets that don't work and rods of inconsistent length that make actually building what you want with it far harder than it should be without knowing exactly how everything doesn't quite work.

>>52307974
Are you still here? Go on, shoo. Adults are talking.

>>52307933
I've found 4e surprisingly good for running old-school style dungeon crawls. Which is generally something I've heard people say it can't do.

>>52307933

But D&D isn't sold as a construction kit game like GURPS. It's a fantasy adventure RPG that you expect to work for that out of the box.

>>52307741
>I disagree, because even on a team level bonuses tended to be straightforward numerical or standardized status effects rather than the open ended effects of 3.5 that allowed for just plain crazy shit to happen by using/abusing fringe cases of abilities.

Using/abusing fringe cases of abilities doesn't lead to interesting gameplay though. It leads to degenerate shit, where the wizard + planar shepard take 16 full turns before anyone can even move.

Imbalance is fun; when localized. When you have the chance to set up some exploding barrels pre-fight to cause a cave in and destroy an entire encounter, or you set up a zone of silence ritual before the fight so your enemy commander can't communicate, or you use the traps against the kobolds who set them? Those are fucking great.

The problem with 3.5 is that the imbalance is basically always available. It removes the need for tactical thinking and turns it into a checklist of "did he think of a way to block THIS instant win move I have?".


>>52307933

How the flying fuck is 4e more boxed in than 5e? Just try running Eberron, or even Planescape in 5e as it is. The system is absolutely not able to deal with that shit, while 4e can be really easily de-powered.

>>52307933
>there's really no limits to where you can take it.
But there is, as I elaborated. Old school won't work, because you still roll to get out of jail free. Autism won't work because the system doesn't simulate enough mechanical details. Tactical Combat Game won't work because the combat is too streamlined to fit all the options in there.

>5e is much more like a toolset than its more defined preceding editions
No it's not. It has fuck all content or modularity. GURPS is a toolset, because it's modular. You can stick any two rules from any two GURPS books together and they'll interact in a mechanically sound reason. 5E just has very basic rules that somewhat work together and basically rely on DM bullshitting a lot more to do anything else except not on a consistent basis.

>By that analogy, 3.5 is some shitty knockoff K'Nex with some pieces missing, some sockets that don't work and rods of inconsistent length that make actually building what you want with it far harder than it should be without knowing exactly how everything doesn't quite work.
Nah. 3.5 is a big box. In that box are a bunch of LEGOs, constrction tools and a selection from the steel isle of your home depot.
If you play with the LEGOs you're fine, if you use the construction tools to make a scale model of the golden gate bridge down to the rivets you're fine, try to mix and you'll have half you're people sit around doing shit while the others are busy welding and stuff.

>>52308101
You might want to consider reading the DM's Guide for once.

>>52307933
Knex and Legos are shit explanations. As much as I like 5e my dislike of 3.5 is irrelevant the systems are only good for D&D. It isn't something like GURPS or FATE that can be adapted to a huge number of situations. However, they present different versions of D&D still. 3.5 is hella finnicky and high power high fantasy for the lucky classes with an old style of book and art. 4e is high power high fantasy that specifically gives high flying "action movie"esque battles, where combatants save their special moves for the strongest foes and cut down waves of minions. 5e is lower power, more bare-bones and simple, and is outputting official content at a much lower rate, as well as refurnishing classic content such as Ravenloft or the about-to-release collection of 7 famous dungeons.
So don't try saying that 4e's "rigid" any more than its siblings, especially considering homebrew. In 5e it's easy enough if you pay attention, since the benefits are generally simple and easy to reign in to bounded accuracy if you learn the existing material. In 4e you can achieve amazing customization by building smartly and refluffing things; the game is built and encourages using the mechanics and describing them however you'd like. Trying to homebrew in 3.5, which has the same cluttered "natural language" as 5e but much more fiddly material, is a nightmare.

>>52308120
>But there is, as I elaborated. Old school won't work, because you still roll to get out of jail free. Autism won't work because the system doesn't simulate enough mechanical details. Tactical Combat Game won't work because the combat is too streamlined to fit all the options in there.

You just need to adjust a few things. I'm really shocked that you want to try and ascribe so many restrictions when the game goes out of its way to provide a wealth of variants and suggestions to enable people to play in a variety of styles.

If your goal is to not have fun, you're clearly going to succeed. But, trying not to have fun is not really how people play games.

>>52308121

I have. So what's your excuse?

>>52308174

>You just need to adjust a few things.

If the system can't do it unless you go outside the system to do it... Then the system can't do it, you're just bodging it to make it work.

>>52308113
>Just try running Eberron, or even Planescape in 5e as it is.

Okay.

....


...


...


...


...


Wasn't that bad, really.

>>52308175
If you've read it, you'd know you're just talking out your ass. So, don't lie about your illiteracy.

>>52308230

...Eberron. The setting built around practical magic. Where the 5e version of the Artificer, one of the iconic and very important classes can't actually make magic items. While Wizards can.

>>52308230
Then your bar for 5e is so low that it's basically meaningless.

>>52308113
>Using/abusing fringe cases of abilities doesn't lead to interesting gameplay though
I disagree, but this is the point where it's a matter of personal taste. However, I hope you agree that setting up most of the instantwins isn't a thing of straightforward application of stuff but rather one of mechanical interaction between different abilities, which is what I mean when I say 4E has less mechanical complexity that 3.5. Hell, look at the power system. In 3.5, every different power system uses a different kind of resource system, some are daily, some use point pools, some ar per encounter, some are at will, some are at will but with cooldowns, it's a big toy box of different stuff you can use, and every variant you use actually plays differently.

>Imbalance is fun; when localized. When you have the chance to set up some exploding barrels pre-fight to cause a cave in and destroy an entire encounter, or you set up a zone of silence ritual before the fight so your enemy commander can't communicate, or you use the traps against the kobolds who set them? Those are fucking great.

>The problem with 3.5 is that the imbalance is basically always available. It removes the need for tactical thinking and turns it into a checklist of "did he think of a way to block THIS instant win move I have?".
I'd rather formulate it and say 3.5 requires strategical thinking rather than tactical, because it allows winning a fight before it began more easily. But again, that's a matter of taste. I like short, brutal beatdowns, 3.5 works for me with that.

>You just need to adjust a few things
U wot? Please enlighten me how to adjust 5E to run my autistic strategical master of magic games because honestly I see no way of getting that granular effects back into the game without entirely rewriting the spell list and the way the game resolves core mechanics.

>>52308251
Actually, nobody can make magic items in 5e RAW.
Unless you look at the NEW full-class artificer that had a playtest released a bit over a month ago? They can make magic items. Granted, it's as a class feature at interval levels, but they can. And also imbue things.

>>52308184
>If the system can't do it unless you go outside the system to do it

It's within the system. The variants and suggested rules are printed right in the books. I don't understand how you expect to argue "You're only allowed to play in a single way, and that way is the way necessary for me to build my entire argument around it" and not have people look at you like you've never played a roleplaying game before, or even opened up one of the rule books.

Fuck are you even arguing? That a game isn't ideal if you're not allowed to do what the system recommends you do to make it ideal?

>>52308267

In 3.5, battles are won on your character sheet. Build right and the actual actions taken in combat are basically automatic, following a single ideal progression to let you win quickly and easily.

While character sheet matters in 4e, in my experience there's a lot more variability and actual choice in playing out the combat itself.

>>52308317

IIRC, those granted magic items as a feature are also irreplaceable. So you can permanently lose access to a class feature which basically amounts to 'magic item progression', something most people get anyway.

>>52308322
You seem to be heavily generalizing, to the point where people familiar with the systems have to call you out on just sort of spewing pure bullshit. I'm just glad you at least had the sense to add the "in my experience" business to your description of 4e.

File: ss+(2017-03-22+at+02.29.54).png (28KB, 325x302px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 325x302px

>>52308340
The magic items it grants aren't +X weapons, because 5e is built around not NEEDING such things. They help, but following CR guidelines they're not required. A Bag of Holding won't help throughout your entire game?

>>52308322
>In 3.5, battles are won on your character sheet
Outside of actual CharOP circles, no.
Fuck, not even a wizard or a druid can autosolve everything, the former still needs too prepare the right spells while the latter needs to pick the right wildshape.

>>52308415

It's still a really shitty half-measure compared to actual magic item creation rules, and it makes the setting of Eberron not make any sense.

>>52308438
I can't disagree with that, I just wanted to point out that they made a better crack at Artificers since the one back near game release.
I've been running 5e Eberron; none of the players have tried to craft magic stuff, I give out lots of weaker magic items that are remnants from the Great War and small conveniences that lots of people would like to have, like Everbright lanterns. It can be done, but it isn't ideal.

>>52308113
>while 4e can be really easily de-powered.

Too bad it can't be really easily de-sucked.
Even with the better part of a decade, the best attempt at making 4e not suck so much were the D&D board games.

>>52308267
>I hope you agree that setting up most of the instantwins isn't a thing of straightforward application of stuff but rather one of mechanical interaction between different abilities

Yes. If you want me to put my problem differently... You are basically playing a combo deck from MtG, except all the cards are in your hand on the first turn.

It's basically like playing Legacy, except worse. Early game is deck building, mid game is coinflip, lategame is the first two turns.

This guy >>52308322 is exaggerating, but that's basically it.

...

Unless of course you restrict yourself to t3 or lower, or play E6, at which point it's a generally worse 4e, with a few cool stuffs.

>I'd rather formulate it and say 3.5 requires strategical thinking rather than tactical, because it allows winning a fight before it began more easily. But again, that's a matter of taste. I like short, brutal beatdowns, 3.5 works for me with that.

I'm fine with that, I guess. I'm just not sure then what were you thinking of when you said


>>52307643
>>52307646
>I disagree, because even on a team level bonuses tended to be straightforward numerical or standardized status effects rather than the open ended effects of 3.5 that allowed for just plain crazy shit to happen by using/abusing fringe cases of abilities.

The first one isn't even about 5e or combinations, and the second one is weird point to argue; 4e characters need teamwork a lot more than 3.5 guys, exactly because they don't have as many ridiculous abilities. You can get super-extra-mega ridiculous shit in 3.5 if you combine stuff, but good characters can be very self reliant. In 4e you are a Team, with capital T, and you cover for and empower each other as the default assumption of the game.

>>52308552

By 'suck', you mean 'not fit your preference'.

Since it's, y'know, a good game. It just doesn't do what you want.

>>52308562
>It's basically like playing Legacy, except worse. Early game is deck building, mid game is coinflip, lategame is the first two turns.
Funnily enough, I play Legacy and never made that connection.

>The first one isn't even about 5e or combinations, and the second one is weird point to argue
I was talking about 4E there, yes, and
>You can get super-extra-mega ridiculous shit in 3.5 if you combine stuff
Was what the second part was referring to.
super-extra-mega ridiculous shit is actually what out group likes in their games, but I understand fully why people like 4E. I just personally hate how you can't really make a self reliant character.

>>52308625

> I just personally hate how you can't really make a self reliant character.

Can you expand on this a little? I find it kinda hard to wrap my head around. After all, the game is about cooperation and teamwork from its base premise. Why wouldn't that be represented in the mechanics?

>>52307663
Thats correct. Never dm before too. So not only novice players but also novice dm ob my part. So far they all agree i am doing a good job. The advantage/disadvantage system is realy rewarding. Come up with a cool idea from the pc? Hell yeah i'll give you an advantage because of that. Clearly doing something horribly stupid? Bam disadvantage. No need to look up many rules and makes it way more easier for me to impro unforseen stuff. And boy i never realized before how different an all new group handles things..

>>52308671
>Why wouldn't that be represented in the mechanics?
It absolutely should. see
>but I understand fully why people like 4E
and
>I just PERSONALLY hate (emphasis added).
It's not a bad game, I just don't like its niche. As opposed to 5E where I have no fucking clue what the niche is supposed to be except "entry-level"

>>52308712
I can understand that diehard players feel the lack of customization compared to previous editions but the appeal of 5e besides its easy entrance to newcomers is it's clarity and balance. If you tell me some classes are broken (too bad and too op) in other editions i immideately question why anyone would complain about not enough options if half of em is garbage anyway. In 5e obly beastmaster is kinda a letdown but besides that it is balanced. It works out of the box. Which is incredibly imho. Though i admit new dm with new group here so yeah maybe i just love the accessability.

>>52308861
The difference in-combat (aside from a few game-breaking stuff) is little. In that respect, it's a massive improvement over 3.5, although I find the combat really boring, especially with martial characters; but I can just not play them (even though I kinda want to).

Out of combat it's a huge step back, however. Casters still get to play with all the toys martials have, while also having massive advantages in versatility that is impossible to match without being a caster yourself.

>>52305889
>Errata is the same as homebrew
Wew lad, I know you're a salty 3aboo but you shouldn't show off that brain damage this early in the thread.

>>52308625
3.PF (and to a lesser extent 5e) is the only edition of D&D where characters could easily become self-reliant once you've made it past level 5.

Beyond that, characters were expected to perform specific abilities that would help the party as a whole survive dungeons and that's because if you could go through the game as Billy Badass turning the campaign over with minimal effort, it raises the question "why the fuck am I sharing EXP with these chodes when I'm the one doing most of the work?"

>>52308424
You don't really need to prepare the right spell when there exists spells like grease, glitterdust, dispel magic, or wind wall that can solve a fairly large amount of problems per cast.

Also, Druids have their own NPC Fighter, along with a full spell list that they can access whenever they want.

>>52313770
Shoo.

>>52308131
>4e is high power high fantasy that specifically gives high flying "action movie"esque battles, where combatants save their special moves for the strongest foes and cut down waves of minions
This
>In 4e you can achieve amazing customization by building smartly and refluffing things; the game is built and encourages using the mechanics and describing them however you'd like
And this is exactly why I personally prefer 4e if I have to choose a D&D game to participate in

>>52305137
>D&D
>for fairly new people.

5e. go run the Starter set. great introduction for beginners.

>>52305137
4e is more DM-friendly (overall), 5e is more player-friendly.

Much as I love 4e in terms of doing its own thing, 5e is probably better for getting into the hobby. Though if you're DMing I recommend you at least check out the 4e DMG.

If you do use 4e, make sure you use the Monster Manual 3 math.

>>52307427

Isn't it also in DMG 2?

>>52305137


>3.PF
If any of your friends are power-gamery people, I'd say this is criminally unfair to train newbies on. I started on 3.pf, but had the luxury of a group that was more about RP than mechanics, and none of us were full casters, so there wasn't a huge power imbalance between us.
A good 3.pf game requires (in my opinion) the group to build a party together, rather than building 4 separate characters and making them run together. What I mean by this is to essentially work out with the group how strong everyone is going to be, what their specialties are, and intentionally build themselves away from trampling over someone else's niche. Additionally, I'd say that 3.pf, more than any other system I've played (d&d and otherwise), practically requires mentoring to develop a good understanding and enjoyable experience. It's almost impossible to learn the "right" way to play just by reading the books and jumping in. So if no one is experienced with it, someone has to do the legwork to learn all they can from the internet so they can help everyone else wrap their heads around a lot of the unique things that 3.pf has and represents, because there really is nothing else like it.
There's a lot of broken shit in it though, so 3.pf shines when you essentially boil it down to its most basic d20 rules and let the DM take on the arbitration of what else is and is not allowed. It requires the most Rule 0, but if you have a skilled dm, arguably allows for the most versatility, since you can /technically/ do anything. Though I've only had good experiences with it, I can see it was because my group and dm were very experienced with the system, and already had their own ways of working around its faults.
I wouldn't recommend 3.pf for anyone who doesn't consider themselves/their group to be very experienced with rpgs. There are too many things that can go wrong, and are essentially designed to go wrong, if the group isn't on the same page.

>>52320668

>4e

4e presents the rules in a standard, easy-to-understand format, that makes it actually pretty simple to pick up and play for a level 1 game. Unfortunately, there is an absurd number of mechanics and ongoing management for combat that comes about as you level further and further, and keeping track of everything going on in combat can be a nightmare. Every turn gives every player the option of doing so many things, even before you think about any additional circumstances of the fight (such as environment, unique mechanics from the DM side, etc.), that combat tends to drag among inexperienced players, even when using the math fixes, simply because they can be overwhelmed at all the choices. Since 3.5 and 5e are more spammy, they tend to have easier and quicker combat overall, since most players turns boil down to "repositon and make an attack roll". Every class is incredibly unique in its playstyle, and the older a class is, the more unique playstyles are contained within it. You could play a different fighter every day of the week and have a completely different experience. Again, this is fun once its fully grasped, but it is overwhelming to present to new players.

Its rules take a step away from the "make a rule for everything" approach of 3.pf, so this is for groups that understand the concept of rping well enough to not want/need rules for it. The main strength of 4e imo is that every class has a bag of tricks for use out of combat. You don't have situations where the wizard floats over a wall and then the fighter rolls badly and faceplants into the moat. Some people say that this fix is "making everyone a spellcaster," but it's always been a matter of fluff in my opinion. If the character is jumping over a wall, it doesn't make a difference if they rolled an athletics check or used a class feature to do it. At the end of the day, they are a strong guy who jumped over a wall because they're a badass.

>>52320682

4e works best for a group that wants combat to be unique and complex. The group can come together with characters already made and still be assured that everyone will be able to contribute, and the each character will naturally be better than the others at their niche. I'd recommend it for intermediate groups, since it handles RP with a laissez-faire approach, and the complexity of combat might be a welcome change of pace from the generally rules-lite games people start with. The flaws are commonly known and errata'd, and the system itself stays functional for everyone regardless of how good or bad someone's choices in build are, so it's a good system for people to kind of spread their wings a bit and get used to experimenting with things they wouldn't otherwise use/run/play without worrying that they're going to ruin their entire experience.

>5e
5e is much lower-power than 3.pf and 4e, I'm going to say that from the start. The players are going to take a pretty considerable while to be on the tier of "Fantasy Heroes" most people think of when they think of D&D. However, this slow buildup does tend to instill an organic form of system mastery in players. It's the easiest system to learn on your own, and there are a lot less trap options than 3.pf. However, they still exist (though WotC keeps attempting to fix them and make them not shit), and the system favors building a party rather than building a group of individuals and then showing up with them on game day. The combat feels more like 3.pf than 4, and casters run almost identically in any given fight. However, they did take a page from 4e when it came to making martial combat more interesting.

>>52320698

It's hard to convey overall, but in 3.pf the fighter was it for martial combat. Every martial character fought the same way as them. You would take a rogue because he got skills and could do a big hit from the shadows, but you still just spammed attacks most of the time. You would play ranger because you wanted to have an animal companion and some decent spells to play around with, but you still just spammed attacks most of the time. The tradeoff for the fighter is they had to sit on their thumbs when combat wasn't happening, cause it's all they were good at. In 5e, the martials do feel different from each other. Even the fighter feels different from his 3.pf counterpart.

5e goes more in the direction of giving rules for RP, but not to the extent of 3.pf. Its skill system is a little strange, having some unecessary extra skills that were removed in 4e (Investigate and Animal Handling) ressurected, but the lack of homework you need to do on each level up is refreshing. I distinctly remember dms (and I did this myself), having us spend entire sessions a level lower than our xp dictated because we levelled up near the beginning of the session, and no one wanted to take the 20-40 minutes it would take to go over all the bookkeeping required for everyone to level up. In 5e, my experience has been either instant level ups (which I'm not a huge fan of) or level-ups at extended rests. Regardless, it's easy to handle progression in 5e, from a player and gm side, so that's less time reading books and more time playing. Great for beginners.

>>52320720

5e does what I think a new edition of d&d should do: it draws on the strengths of games in the hobby, and tries to avoid the pitfalls. It doesn't feel like a brand new edition like 3.5 and 4e did. You can see the influence both systems had on it, and they're generally positive ones. However, I do feel that it does very little in the way of innovation. It is 'just D&D", and the rules don't support doing anything else with it. This can be seen as a positive or negative thing, because even though the rules supported more exotic ideas in 3.pf and 4, they didn't really do a good job with them. 5e is a great system for beginners, because it plays on a lot of the common tropes one would expect of a fantasy game (making it accessible), while having enough options to express a good number of unique concepts as well. I'd recommend it to pretty much anyone, to be honest, since its easy enough to get into that even if it wasn't well-received, the effort that went into learning it wasn't so high as to be damning.

>tl;dr

3.pf and 4e have some good ideas, but are kinda shit if you're not already familiar with them (though 4e can be used for a VERY specific flavor of gameplay that I haven't seen anywhere else). I wouldn't generally recommend either, but if I did it would be for more experienced groups. 5e is easy for beginners, has a decent amount of complexity, and doesn't require a terrible amount of investment to get into as far as learning the rules. Play 5e.

>>52320668
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I'll chime in with a few observations as well.

3.5 probably has the most diverse array of possible team strategies, but a majority are horrible, some are good, and some turn into the One True Strategy.

Games that work on the One True Strategy aren't impossible to run, it's just that the DM has to be similarly good at system mastery or better. For the most part, battles end up being variations on the OTS being pulled off or shit going wrong and the team scrambling to set things right such that the OTS can be pulled off.

A horrible team strategy isn't unworkable, it just means that individual action is usually the better choice. Such parties tend to feel less cohesion as players go off doing their own things. It's easy to run a "one limelight one person" campaign where the rogue has to unlock the door, the fighter has to charge in to provide cover, and the ranger takes out the enemies in the back. It's hard to force teamwork because the characters aren't built for it to be particularly effective and making it effective is often obvious to the players, sapping the potential narrative power.

4e standardizes things by making the horrible interactions into good interactions and reducing the number of interactions overall, but also makes OTS almost impossible to pull off. Where 3.pf is more of a 1:1 mapping of flavor to mechanics, 4e makes the mechanic dressing generic and actively encourages reflavoring, so it ends up being easier to create weird things so long as you start concept-first. 3.pf allows weird things to emerge from its mechanics instead, but you need good system mastery to realize these linkages.

Running 4e is so much easier than 3.pf though, because the framework on the other side of the table doesn't suck. You do a lot less translating between concept and actual rules. If you're a new group, play 4e over 3.pf due to this factor alone - an overwhelmed DM makes for poor gaming, no matter what.

File: 210px-Johnny_Ringo.jpg (11KB, 210x283px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 210x283px

>>52308267
The way you play means you only have three to four viable, fun levels and the rest of your time is spent optimizing your character to their ultimate lethality re dpr, bab, AC as usual, saves etc. I'm not saying a damn thing is wrong with that but the word build came into being as a substitute for character around the time of 3.x and on, if memory serves me well.

It's fun to see tg not shitting all over 4ef for a change. We used maps for combat purposes since 1e since hello, it's a fucking wargame, kids. I can keep explaining to this guy where the river is in relation to his character after he pulls off his awesome Wu-jen/ninja broken ass move a hundred times per session, slowing down gameplay to a near halt sometimes or he can look at a fucking board and figure it out for himself, saving us both precious game time. Not everyone in the world is as visceral as most of y'all here and GASP SHOCK HORROR we used minis too. My friend actually painted my dragonlance minis.

Take that!

>>52308497

Mind you, he's not wrong about irreplaceable. If you lose the item/it gets stolen you just lost a class feature that won't come back.

>>52323007
Meh, that's just shit class design in UA as usual.

But even if those kinks were ironed out, it's blatantly obvious that Mearls just can't bring himself to step over the limits 5e was made with.