[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/tg/ - Traditional Games

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Inexprienced DM 06/10/14(Tue)20:55 UTC+1 No.32694940 Report

hey guys, first-time DM here.

What's better to start with, Pathfinder or D&D 3.5?

I've heard that something called Fantasycraft was supposedly like 3.5e done right.


I'm looking for a fantasy game that allows neat fighting in addition to being story-focused, variety of classes/races.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)20:57 UTC+1 No.32694970 Report

4th edition D&D.

I'm not sure whether this counts as trolling, because although it's a belief I sincerely hold, I AM posting it just to stir shit.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)20:59 UTC+1 No.32695013 Report

Fantasycraft is also cool, but I wouldn't recommend it to a beginner and honestly it's mainly designed to appeal to people that already love 3.5

If it absolutely has to be between 3.5 and Pathfinder, then go with PF. I've heard some of the adventure paths are alright.

But seriously just play 4e. It just works.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:01 UTC+1 No.32695063 Report

>>32694940
4E. It has plenty of neat fighting, a nice variety of classes and races, and is as story-focused as you want it to be.

Plus, it's really easy for beginners to learn, and probably the easiest edition to DM in, at least that I've played.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:04 UTC+1 No.32695098 Report

>>32694970
>>32695013

This, a thousand times. PF/3.5 isn't shit because it isnt' fun to play, it's shit because it doesn't work as advertised and it teaches bad habits to people starting up with it.

That being said, Fantasycraft is pretty much Pathfinder but with feats and classes that aren't shit and do what they're meant to do. It is rather heavy, though, in the style of Pathfinder but it doesn't pretend it's not with "simple" classes.

4e is pretty much the perfect edition of D&D to learn to play, because you cannot fuck that shit up if you try to. The fighter isn't going to be one-upped even by a perfectly optimized shardlaserwitchmind thingy, the Wizard isn't going to invalidate the party by accident.

Other games to try include Fate, Savage Worlds, and any retroclone you'd like, like Labyrinth Lord or something. There are tons of options, D&D is good entirely for brand recognition.
>>
Inexprienced DM 06/10/14(Tue)21:04 UTC+1 No.32695100 Report

>>32695013
>>32695063

I'm somewhat familiar to 3.5e, how's 4e different, though?
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:04 UTC+1 No.32695115 Report

>>32694940
Your question is: "I'm going to have soda for the first time. Is it better to try Coke, or Coke Zero? Also, I've heard that Dr. Pepper is kind of Coke, but better."

Personal choice off that list would be Fantasy Craft, but I'd rather play: Savage Worlds, 13th Age, Torchbearer, 4th ed., Numenera, or Burning Wheel than any of them.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:05 UTC+1 No.32695133 Report

>>32694970
4e's okay but only if you give everyone a free +1 to hit. it will fucking matter later
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:06 UTC+1 No.32695146 Report

3.5 is neat, but it's not nearly as streamlined as 4th, also unbalanced, Pathfinder is moderately better. 4th is not as neat, as classes play more or less the same, seeing as magic, and physical combat use the same systems, but it's really easy to play. If you want something totally pick up and play, find Barbarians of Lemuria, it's $7.50 on http://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?manufacturers_id=522
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:06 UTC+1 No.32695154 Report

>>32695133
Specifically, a free +1 to hit for each ten levels. So, +1 from 1-10, +2 from 11-20, +3 from 21-30

They made these a feat but that's just them covering their asses.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:06 UTC+1 No.32695158 Report

>>32695100
Basic mechanic is the same, that's about it.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:06 UTC+1 No.32695160 Report

>>32694940
OP, seconding this >>32695063 motion. A lot of the annoying aspects of prep as far as combat goes is handled rather nicely. Just use the monsters from the Monster Vault and Monster Manual 3 onwards. The first two monster manuals had monsters with just too much health and dragged combat on and on and on.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:08 UTC+1 No.32695196 Report

>>32694970
>>32695098

4E's a different type of game, though. If OP is looking at 3E/Pathfinder, that's probably the game they're interested in. It's like telling someone to play checkers when they ask about chess, no qualitative judgement intended.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:10 UTC+1 No.32695234 Report

>>32695160
Too much health is only part of the problem - a guy went through recently and actually did side-by-side comparisons and MM1 critters aren't THAT much more durable.

The larger problem is that MM1 and 2 toughies have shitty saves and no way to get extra actions or avoid lockdown. The end result is that 'Brute' is code for 'Boffo the Clown'
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:11 UTC+1 No.32695238 Report

>>32695146
>classes play more or less the same, seeing as magic, and physical combat use the same systems
I never saw why this was a complaint. It just unnecessarily complicates things otherwise. Sure, combat takes a long time in 4E due to the thing with the monster stats in the first Monster Manual, but at least it's not taking a long time for the same reasons as 3.5. (IE: Everything was far too complicated.)
>>32695196
Well, if your heart's set on a 3.X game, play Fantasy Craft. It's really the only game out of the bunch that isn't horribly unbalanced in a lot of aspects. Plus it has Drakes, Giants, Rootwalkers and Unborn as playable races in the core rulebook.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:13 UTC+1 No.32695280 Report

There is no fixing D&D. It's fucked.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:13 UTC+1 No.32695286 Report

>>32695100
They streamlined and condensed a lot of things, made it easier to adjudicate things on the fly, etc.

For example, they consolidated some of the skills into groups so there's less confusion as to what applies when. Or they made combat maneuvers, like grappling, much easier to handle. A lot of little things.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:15 UTC+1 No.32695306 Report

>>32695196
I disagree. It's not the game that high-level 3e turns into, but it is the game that's advertised by every edition of the PHB. The basic D&D experience is killing incrementally more powerful monsters, acquiring treasure, levelling up and outside the killing-and-looting sections doing some light improv mediated by vague skills. That's what you get with 3.P and all its published adventures, 4e just tunes the game better for it.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:15 UTC+1 No.32695311 Report

>>32695146
I'd agree with most of this except the classes aren't as "same-y" as as some people like to pretend. Even if, say, a Fighter and a Paladin have the same role, they play MUCH differently.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:16 UTC+1 No.32695323 Report

>>32695280
Fantasy Craft does it pretty well. To be fair, it's pretty damn different from 3.X, despite a lot of similarities, but still. Also, I know 4E has its flaws, but I'd say it fixes a lot of things.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:16 UTC+1 No.32695325 Report

>>32695154
Yeah, I honestly just give my players the math-fixing feats for free and then tell them to take more flavorful things later on.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:17 UTC+1 No.32695338 Report

>>32695234
Fair enough. I did notice that the monsters from MM3 onwards could do insane amounts of damage. I remember a kobold shifter just shifting everywhere and did like 16 pts of damage to a level one fighter. Scared the pants off the party.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:18 UTC+1 No.32695353 Report

>>32695196
Huh. When did 3.5 and Pathfinder stop being a fantasy RPG? I could've sworn they all were. I guess I should've been keeping up with them a bit better
>>
Inexprienced DM 06/10/14(Tue)21:19 UTC+1 No.32695367 Report

So far I've noticed that 3.5e and 4e seem to focus heavily into dungeoncrawling, where as my group enjoys a healthy amount of out-of-combat activities. So that'd include a lot of skill-usage and actual roleplay and all.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:19 UTC+1 No.32695376 Report

>>32695311

Agreed. Strikers are excellent at incapacitating a single target- but you've got options to do it via spike damage, condition lockdown, at range or in melee, by magic or sword etc.

Two Defenders have the same relative function, but the means by which they're executing that function is often very different.

Admittedly, standardizing the presentation of all those powers does make it superficially appear the same. Nowadays I just appreciate having a consistent manner of reading character/NPC abilities.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:20 UTC+1 No.32695379 Report

>>32695311
I agree with you. 4e may have pigeonholed classes into roles - and even then not so tightly - but each class approaches the desired effect of their role in a very different manner. Even with their damage dealers. Hell, especially with their damage dealers. It's one of the things I really liked about 4e.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:20 UTC+1 No.32695387 Report

Don't start with anything that uses classes and leveling. Get the Basic Role-Play (BRP) rules and use those with the setting/fluff of your choice.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:20 UTC+1 No.32695393 Report

>>32695306
That's not true at all. D&D prior to 3E is radically different from 4E. 3E/3.5 is at about the tipping point where you can take it either way depending on your preference, but you don't HAVE to go the 4E highly-tuned meatgrinder route if you don't want to.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:21 UTC+1 No.32695400 Report

>>32694940
>in addition to being story-focused

Abandon everything with the words "D&D" and "Pathfinder" in it, if that's really what you're willing. Those games (whatever edition) have their strengths and flaws, but all of them are horribly heavily combat-focused.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:21 UTC+1 No.32695405 Report

>>32695100
Biggest difference is that every character in 4e has a repertoire of limited-use powers, not just the spellcasters, while the stuff that full casters can pull at high levels has been radically toned down. This makes it a lot more fun for the guy who just wants to play a fighter or rogue.

Also 4e is easier on the DM, because the monsters are more tightly tuned to provide level-appropriate challenges and you get explicit exp budgets to build balanced encounters.

If you're getting into 4e then the Rules Compendium and Monster Vault from the Essentials line are good buys, but get the original Player's Handbook in preference to the Essentials ones, it has more interesting character options. Also its worth taking out a DDI subscription or just pirating the offline character builder - it's streamlined from 3.5 but it can still be a chore to build and manage character sheets.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:22 UTC+1 No.32695414 Report

>>32695367
I don't know about that. I've played sessions of 3.5 and 4E without combat or dungeoncrawling at all. I know it can be a tough concept to get around sometimes when you look at the books but YOU decide what happens. There's only as much combat and dungeoncrawling as you decide to do. I've never has any issues handling out of combat things with either edition.

Both can have a lot of skill usage and actual roleplay, so if that's what you're into, that's what you should do with it.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:22 UTC+1 No.32695419 Report

>>32695367

You can use skills and actually roleplay in dungeons as well, brah.

Negotiating massive chasms with suicide drops, fording undeground rivers, negotiating with the spectral guardians of ancient ruins, puzzling out the combination to a draconic runelock- 4e has those covered.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:22 UTC+1 No.32695425 Report

>>32695311
Shit man, two different builds of fighter play more differently than barbarian and fighter does in 3.5
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:22 UTC+1 No.32695429 Report

>>32695353
We're talking about more subtle distinctions than that. You could say any RPG is the same as D&D and you'd be right, that doesn't mean they don't play differently.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:23 UTC+1 No.32695444 Report

>>32695367
It can. It doesn't have to be. In fact I know that 3.5 has a ton - and I mean a ton - of supplements for things outside of your typical dungeon crawl. I cannot speak of their quality though I recall some of them had some neat ideas. However if you're the type that needs hard coded rules for certain things, be prepared to do a fair amount of digging through the supplements. In this particular case 4e is a little more lenient.
>>
Inexprienced DM 06/10/14(Tue)21:24 UTC+1 No.32695447 Report

>>32695414
>>32695419


Ah, thanks guys.

So far I'm leaning into 4e due to inexperience.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:24 UTC+1 No.32695458 Report

>>32695376
>>32695379
Maybe it's all the 4E hate I've been exposed to in the past couple of years, but I feel like you/you guys get it. You make me happy.

Also, is it just me, or is there less anti-4E lately? Maybe because of the new edition coming out?[/spoiler[
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:25 UTC+1 No.32695480 Report

>>32695447
Cool, now choose 13th age instead. It's everything good about 4e without any of the bad.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:26 UTC+1 No.32695500 Report

>>32695447

The important bit is to recognize that there is not One True System. You find the game system that works for you, that interests your folks, that you find easy to run and rewarding to engage with. Ultimately, that's the fact that is left by the wayside when edition warriors start sharpening their greentext.

We're all here to have fun. If you end up finding yourself hating 4e, and thinking anyone who plays it is a pampered WoW manchild, well, I'll disagree with you but I won't say you have to keep playing 4e.

Go with Gygax (or the game designer of your choice), and when you come back you better have stories to tell.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:26 UTC+1 No.32695503 Report

>>32695458
/tg/ hates everything anon. Next is will be no different.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:27 UTC+1 No.32695515 Report

>>32695458
The people pissed off at 4E were probably mostly 3E players who resented being "displaced". As a 1E player even though I don't personally like it I never felt like I had to bitch about it on the internet.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:27 UTC+1 No.32695518 Report

>>32695393
>D&D prior to 3E is radically different from 4E

You're going to have to show me how. D&D has always devoted by far the greater part of its rules text to combat, and most of the core rulebooks has always been taken up by monsters to kill, treasures to loot and spells to cast. 4e differs only in expanding spells to powers for all classes.

You can play any version of D&D without the combat focus, but the result is a rough and ready freeform game that would be served better by a whole bunch of other rulesets. If 4e is a finely-tuned meatgrinder then older editions are just meatgrinders.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:27 UTC+1 No.32695523 Report

The system really doesn't matter, anon. Basically any system is exactly like another. Just go with 3.5.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:28 UTC+1 No.32695530 Report

>>32695447
Well, if you do, I'd be more than happy to help however I can. I seem to have gotten into the habit of browsing /tg/ when I'm not at school, so hopefully I'll see it (unless there's an easier way to get in touch).

I'm sure that, whatever game or edition you go with, you'll get plenty of help from the people here. There might be a game/edition war going on in the thread too, but there'll definitely be some help in there
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:28 UTC+1 No.32695536 Report

>>32695480
Yeah, I really like 4e and that's pretty accurate.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:29 UTC+1 No.32695548 Report

>>32695500
This. Dear God.

Personally, I love 4e and Fantasy Craft, and can't stand 3.5. But when I play a game and I'm not having fun? I say 'Well, I'll play a different game'.

When I got mad at a game as a kid, my mom would unplug that shit. Didn't matter where the nearest save point was. You know what I learned? It's a fucking GAME. There will be other games.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:30 UTC+1 No.32695566 Report

>>32695518
Yeah, 1st edition AD&D was certainly like this. 2nd edition less so. Depending on if you used setting material or not.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:30 UTC+1 No.32695571 Report

>>32695447
As a new DM, you might want to at least consider Basic/Advanced D&D. Different feel to 3.5 but much more rules-light, very easy to learn, and you can pick up free "changed just enough for copyright" rules on the internet. It depends how much you like crunch.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:31 UTC+1 No.32695588 Report

>>32695503
Yeah, that makes sense

>>32695515
I don't think they needed to take it out on us, but I can understand how that feels for the 3E players. I'm kinda glad Paizo could keep things going for them a bit.

Also, for the record, I'm totally cool with you not liking 4E (just so no one thinks I'm a crazy fanatic or something). To each his own
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:31 UTC+1 No.32695589 Report

>>32695458
Edition wars in general has toned down a fair bit these days but then again it could just be the quests taking up more space in /tg/, That said, I'm glad I've made you a little happier, no homo.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:32 UTC+1 No.32695600 Report

>>32695367
Dungeoncrawling is optional, but if you don't like to get in fights with regularity then D&D isn't the ideal system for you. Fate Core is a popular and simple system for story-focused gaming, and has a neat resource management mechanic that empowers players to decide where the story goes - try the attached "accelerated edition" on for size.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:33 UTC+1 No.32695623 Report

>>32695523
This is a pernicious heresy that leads gamers into error. Leave this place and read Ron Edwards essays until you realise the folly of your ways.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:36 UTC+1 No.32695661 Report

>>32695571
Advanced is not easier to learn than 3.5. It's harder to learn all of 3.5, but to just sit down and play it, AD&D is a much bigger pain in the ass.
Want to do something in 3.5, here, roll this die and add this number and tell me what you get. In AD&D, I tell you the AC, subtract that from your THACO and roll that or higher. For certain skills roll percentiles, for other things roll a d6. Come on.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:37 UTC+1 No.32695677 Report

>>32695518
tThe rules around combat are detailed because it's where impartial adjudication and fair chance is most important. It's the only place in a rules-lite game where you need that kind of detail. It's like, poker doesn't have rules for bluffing, you know? If you've played much of the early editions and your DM wasn't fudging you'll know that it's deadly enough that one of your major concerns is how to AVOID combat. That and it's over so quick that it takes up WAY less of the session I mean, it's a part of the game, but it's not like in 4E.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:38 UTC+1 No.32695705 Report

>>32695661
AD&D doesn't have skills. But you're right about sitting down to play it. I was thinking more starting with Basic and fazing into Advanced if you like it's style, which is how I did it.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:39 UTC+1 No.32695716 Report

>>32695523

System matters, because for better or worse the game part of any game acts as an incentive for player action. If you make a game with 1001 ways to punch dudes in the dick, and only a single afterthought included to cover how one might sugar up a courtier or blackmail a noble you can't exactly complain that all players are doing is punching dicks in new and interesting ways.

Players use the tools the system gives them, and will build based on what the tools they're given infer. Give them hammers, they hit things, give them screwdrivers, they tighten and loosen screws.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:40 UTC+1 No.32695725 Report

>>32695705

Rogues had their rogue skills, percentile based, grew with levels.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:41 UTC+1 No.32695733 Report

>>32695661
Wait, that's how THAC0 works? I'll be honest, I always found it confusing. I just figured it's one of those things that works once you can see it done and have practiced it a bit.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:42 UTC+1 No.32695778 Report

>>32695733
Yeah, it's really not that hard. Substract AC from THAC0 (remembering that substracting a negative means adding), that's your target value.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:44 UTC+1 No.32695800 Report

>>32695600
>Fate Core is a popular and simple system for story-focused gaming
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:44 UTC+1 No.32695805 Report

>>32695705
AD&D had Thief/Rogue Skills like >>32695725 mentioned and the Proficiency skillset. There were skills in AD&D, they were just percentile checks rather than d20 checks with modifiers.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:44 UTC+1 No.32695815 Report

>>32695733
Basically. You need to roll your THAC0 to hit. Your enemy's AC is a bonus to your THAC0. Therefore they want a low or negative AC to make your target number lower.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:45 UTC+1 No.32695843 Report

>>32695725
True, but if you think that makes it quicker/easier to roll up a party and start playing in 3.5 than Basic you're off your rocker, no offence. The price of a crunchy system is time.

>>32695778
It's not hard, but it's still dumb. It's just a holdover from Chainmail that doesn't make sense any more, I switched it out for ascending AC in my games.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:47 UTC+1 No.32695887 Report

>>32695843

Oh, no I agree with you about the ease of playing between Basic and 3.5. Just correcting you on the "no skills" party.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:48 UTC+1 No.32695895 Report

>>32695805
There's no Proficiency skillset, you're thinking of 2E. The closest thing is an optional table of "professions" buried in the DMG, which don't have any dice attached at all - it's literally just "your character knows how to do X".
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:54 UTC+1 No.32695999 Report

>>32695677
Hmm. No. I don't think so.

You don't need a lot of detail to get fair and impartial results. 3e has fair, impartial conflict resolution built into its skill system, for instance. Want to beat a guy in a foot race? Roll off your athletics against him. Job done, no fuss.

If D&D actually was a rules-light game then it could treat combat as a one-roll test of combat might. Plenty of actual rules-light systems do, after all. It devotes a ton of detail to combat because that's where the gameplay is, that's what the game expects you to be spending the bulk of your time on. If it was focused on some other kind of gameplay then it would have correspondingly more space in the rules, the way Ars Magica has a chapter of intricate rules and many supplements devoted to the mechanics of building enchanted items, or Reign has extensive descriptions of political or espionage actions you can undertake with a company you command.

Admittedly the focus has shifted across the various edition of D&D. In 1e it was all about managing your resources and looting a dungeon with minimum fuss, while 4e focuses on the big setpiece battles, but ultimately it's always been a game about going to a dangerous environment and killing and looting your way to glory.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:57 UTC+1 No.32696057 Report

>>32695815
What. They want to make your target number higher, and lower AC meant better. The number you need to hit someone is your THAC0 MINUS their AC
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:57 UTC+1 No.32696061 Report

>>32695999
Having actually played AD&D, a lot, and talked about it with groups other than myself, I have to disagree. The bulk of your time isn't spent on combat. In fact, unless you're a high level party, you simply couldn't survive that. Accounts of D&D players from back in the day back me up, too. Are you basing this on your experiences? They can't have been typical.

>treat combat as a one-roll test of combat might
Sounds boring.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)21:58 UTC+1 No.32696083 Report

>>32695895
>There's no Proficiency skillset, you're thinking of 2E.
>2E
>AD&D
gg no re
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:01 UTC+1 No.32696141 Report

5th edition comes out when... next month?

That's not necessarily a reason to not use 4e rules, but I wouldn't invest heavily in it.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:03 UTC+1 No.32696172 Report

Whatever you're familiar with

If you're not familiar with any systems, whatever the players are familiar with

If everyone is new, stay the fuck away from 3.x
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:04 UTC+1 No.32696214 Report

>>32696172
>If everyone is new, stay the fuck away from D&D/Pathfinder in general

A "rules lite" system is in my experience a better introduction for a group of complete newbies.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:07 UTC+1 No.32696273 Report

>>32696214
In my experience, it depends on the players in question and never the rule system. Just my 2 cents.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:09 UTC+1 No.32696309 Report

>>32695306
Well maybe if 4e had something to equal planescape I'd play it.
But it doesn't, and muh nostalgia.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:11 UTC+1 No.32696345 Report

>>32695999
You explore dangerous environments, yeah. The point is combat is way quicker and deadlier, which makes the game experience quite different. Wandering monsters are a bad thing to be avoided, you have to manage your resources and avoid too many fights, you don't fight the enemies three dungeon levels down who can kick your ass, etc. In 4E combat is much more of a set piece thing.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:11 UTC+1 No.32696355 Report

>>32696061
>The bulk of your time isn't spent on combat.
True, it's quick to resolve individual fights in 1e and Basic, and especially at low levels you want to avoid them where you can. But the fact that combat is given so much space in the rules belies the fact that combat is essentially what the game is about: a classic dungeon delve (like the keep on the borderlands campaign I did play in once) is like planning a tiny military expedition - all your energy is devoted to working out how to survive combat, where to engage and how to get out with maximum profit. It doesn't give anything like the same amount of consideration to manipulating court intrigues, because going into damp holes and robbing monsters is what you're actually going to do in the game.

>Sounds boring.
It is! And it's the baseline for resolving any conflict situation in an RPG, and what D&D uses for everything that is NOT combat. 1 die + bonus, highest wins, is the mechanic you roll out when you're not actually interested in the gameplay potential of the situation, just its consequences.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:12 UTC+1 No.32696361 Report

>>32696273

There is some of that. However, when faced with either (and I purposefully chose two extremes here) digging through three 300+ pages books constantly to check rules, or a single printout that is about 20 pages in all, the latter option tends to be less daunting and demoralizing.

However, indeed, if the players are interested enough from the start, then any system will do.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:12 UTC+1 No.32696371 Report

>>32695458
Maybe it is just observation selection bias, but I noticed in a few recent threads of people saying 4e is shit but not providing any arguments beyond 'D&D fans don't want 4e since it is not D&D' or '4e had a short run compared to other editions'. Of course, given the nature of 4chan, it just might be the same guy.

I play 3.5 despite the flaws primarily because I am familiar with it since it was the edition being published when I was a teenager. And I suspect that is true for every '4e is WoW' threeaboo. D&D 3.5 is to male nerds as Disney movies are to college girls.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:17 UTC+1 No.32696463 Report

>>32694940
4E. It's very simple for beginners. Especially simple for players, but also good for DMs.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:26 UTC+1 No.32696631 Report

>>32696355
I think you've got the wrong idea. When I say combat, I mean melee. Navigating a dungeon is "out of combat", not the same play experience. 4E spends a lot of time "in combat", not just in dangerous environments.

>it's the baseline for resolving any conflict situation in an RPG
That would be roleplay. The roll comes only when the outcome is uncertain and there are consequences for failure, and even then it doesn't typically REPLACE the gameplay, i.e. roleplaying, planning, etc.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:28 UTC+1 No.32696684 Report

>>32696371
I'd be inclined to agree. In my college, which was largely 20-somethings and thus the generation that would have grown up with it, 3.5 was the chief game of choice.

At my FLGS, which was mostly 2e grogs in their early to mid 30s, 4e quickly became preferred, especially after the RPGA events got everyone actually trying it.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:30 UTC+1 No.32696714 Report

>>32696309
I don't mind no Planescape, but I am still a little raw about never getting a Ravenloft supplement.

Then again, after Heroes of Shadow, maybe that's a good thing.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:42 UTC+1 No.32696916 Report

>>32696684
Wait, you are saying 2e grognards liked playing 4e? If so, what did they like about it?

Christ, is it maturity, a generational thing, or being locked in an echo chamber that prevents most 3.5 players from trying 4e or other games?
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:48 UTC+1 No.32697016 Report

>>32696916
Hey I started at 2e. I liked 3e through 3.5e.
I don't like 4e, not because of the mechanics, but just for that WoW feel.
I just can't shake the image of WoW graphics when playing theater of the mind.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:54 UTC+1 No.32697099 Report

>>32697016
If not the mechanics, what is it about 4e that gives it a WoW feel to you? Why is that a bad thing?
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)22:58 UTC+1 No.32697175 Report

>>32697099
WoW graphics are terrible, I always hated everything to do with warcraft since warcraft 3. Just too unbelievably silly, and not just the character design.

I don't know man, whenever I've tried to play 4e I just get images of those disproportionate beef cakes from WoW fighting with light particles shining all over with every blow.
It just makes me absolutely disgusted.
I associate 2e with book covers and perhaps Baldur's gate.
3e I associate with the rulebook art and maybe Neverwinter Nights.

Much more tolerable, you must admit.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)23:03 UTC+1 No.32697249 Report

>>32696355

>Going into damp holes and robbing monsters is what you're actually going to do in the game.

Yes. That is correct. 1e is a game about going into damp holes and robbing monsters. 3e & 4e are about going into damp holes & *killing* monsters. Do you see the difference?
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)23:26 UTC+1 No.32697731 Report

>>32697175

Agreed, WoW's 'cartoony' art is grating. I think it was so lower end PCs could run the game and the art meant the graphics wouldn't be laughably bad.

That is interesting. It shows the importance of having decent art in the main books. And how much of an impact, at least for tabletop RPGs, that having a decent video game that people associate with the edition/game. Both Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights were released some years after their respective editions, whereas people compared 4e to WoW from the get go.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)23:31 UTC+1 No.32697826 Report

>>32697731
To be fair, back at the height of D&D's popularity there was practically no art at all asides from the monster manuals and what was there was B&W line art.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)23:36 UTC+1 No.32697909 Report

>>32697731
It's kinda retroactive, of course. I'm sure when I firsted started playing 2e I gad other images in my head.
But now I really do think of every ranger as Minsc's sprite.

I guess maybe I started associating 4e with WoW precisely because of how much people compared it to 4e.
Can't unsee and all that.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)23:37 UTC+1 No.32697939 Report

>>32697175
Neverwinter Nights had an awful, bland aesthetic though.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)23:39 UTC+1 No.32697960 Report

>>32697939
Beats fucking WoW.

It was decent, but it was no Baldur's Gate. Not even Icewind Dale.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)23:40 UTC+1 No.32697998 Report

>>32697909
The eladrin kind of wear their influence on their sleeves
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)23:42 UTC+1 No.32698024 Report

>>32695196
>4E's a different type of game, though.

If being well made makes it a different type of game, then yes you're right.

Otherwise you're fucking stupid.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)23:44 UTC+1 No.32698055 Report

>>32697960

I loved BG but the first IWD is probably one of the best games ever made. The soundtrack alone was genre defining.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)23:49 UTC+1 No.32698146 Report

>>32698055
I didn't like either Icewind Dale as much as I liked either Baldur's Gate.
Just too much combat to too little story.
I even uninstalled IWD 1 on my first play through halfway through because I had just beaten that first valley full of Yetis, and with three lines of dialogue I was sent of to fight those giants and I just went
"Not more fucking fighting! Give me some context you motherfucker! Tell me stories! Give me side quests! RARGH!"
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)23:53 UTC+1 No.32698225 Report

>>32698146
Yeah, there's a reason BG II is considered the best D&D vidya ever made.
It just had the best story, and lots of fun side quests and little things hidden in the dialogue.

Though I suppose you could argue much the same for Planescape Torment, but that's a much more unorthodox take on D&D.
>>
Anonymous 06/10/14(Tue)23:57 UTC+1 No.32698310 Report

>>32698146
>>32698225

There is a LOT of story hidden in IWD - it just isn't presented as a list of "five responses ranging from snarky to paladin".

Seriously there's a lot going on there. Pay attention to the boss dialogue, read the floating text as you explore the areas.

I'm not trying to shit on BG2 - it's a fucking phenomenal game and I play through it probably every other year. IWD is definitely more akin to the old Wizardry or Might and Magic games with it's "Create your entire party, use your imagination to fill the gaps" air. Maybe that's why I love it so much.

And seriously IWD's set pieces are *gorgeous*; the backgrounds combined with the amazing soundtrack really set the mood for me. IWD very much feels like a classic D&D adventure and reminds me heavily of gaming w/ my Dad & his grognard friends back in the day.

I feel like IWD never gets the love it deserves.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:01 UTC+1 No.32698387 Report

>>32698310
I know there the story. It wasn't bad.
It was just very sparsely presented, and there really were barely any sidequests. You had that neiad and some goblins in the beginning, and after that, fuck you, follow our combat piled railroad tracks. Want side quests? here's some more dungeons filled with skellis or Yuan-ti. What do you want, a motivation? Fuck you!

The graphics were on the same level as BG II. The fact you create your entire party off the bat also means you just don't get all that fun party interaction and NPC dialogue or side quests relating to your party members you got in BGII.

IWD was fucking fight-o-clock, with hardly more than an excuse plot behind it.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:02 UTC+1 No.32698393 Report

>>32698024
Everything in your screencap is a matter of roleplaying. When people talk about different RPGs, typically they're talking about the mechanical side of things. Since you find 4E to be well made and, implicitly, 3E not to be, obviously 4E is better suited for the type of game you play. Since people enjoy 3E, obviously it's better suited for the type of game they play.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:06 UTC+1 No.32698469 Report

>>32698387
IWD is nice as a tactical exercise. In BG you typically lose a fight when your MC goes down, so you have to reload. In IWD when you're losing you have to retreat and then come back with a bunch of level one assholes replacing your fallen party members to try again. It adds a nice edge.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:07 UTC+1 No.32698496 Report

>>32698387

I'm not talking about "the graphics" - I'm talking about the actual art pieces used as backgrounds for IWD vs BG, particularly the first Baldur's Gate but frankly the environments in the 2nd game weren't that memorable either.

I'm not even saying IWD is a better game than BG2 - just that it is, in it's own right, a good game. It was explicitly designed to be a dungeon crawl more akin to the old gold box games than Planescape or BG - that isn't a fault for me.

To each their own I guess. I had a lot more fun clearing most of the dungeons in IWD than I ever did in BG2. I mean, shit - I recall most of the dungeons in BG2 feeling more like a chore one had to complete before getting to the "rest" of the game, namely the sidequests and character interactions you (rightly!) uphold as the best of BG2.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:08 UTC+1 No.32698521 Report

>>32698393
>Since people enjoy 3E, obviously it's better suited for the type of game they play.

That is by no means a given.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:08 UTC+1 No.32698524 Report

>>32698469
I don't play games to simulate combat.
I have all the resources to do that in the rulebooks if I wanted to.
I play a D&D based game for the story and setting it can produce.

IWD to me is a failure, because BG and Planescape, and even Neverwinter Nights with expansions far and away surpassed it. Because they actually gave me a reason to care and a reason to keep going when coming up against difficulties.

Look, there's people who like Rogue likes too. I'm not one of them.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:10 UTC+1 No.32698564 Report

>>32695379
>4e may have pigeonholed classes into roles

That would be 4e going back to D&D's roots. Roles have always been in the game, and the people who say otherwise are idiots.

The problem with 3.x is that they made some class's have the role of "Does everything" and other classes have the "Doesn't even do it's advertised job very well" role.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:10 UTC+1 No.32698565 Report

>>32698524

NWN is literally the worst game bioware has ever produced, bar none. You and I are on completely different planes of existence on this one man.

This is the point where we just shake hands and walk away, because this just isn't something we'll ever be able to agree on.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:11 UTC+1 No.32698570 Report

The story in Baldur's Gate was by and large a by-the-numbers tour of the sword coast. Solid enough as far as it went, but what really made the game was the huge amount of content and the open-ended structure.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:13 UTC+1 No.32698615 Report

>>32698570

I just really appreciate that BG and IWD made the Forgotten Realms actually seem like a setting worth playing in. They did a good job of capturing the "This land is steeped in history and magic" feel without it being oppressive because the world wasn't TOO open ended and the story was held to script.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:14 UTC+1 No.32698638 Report

>>32698565
*smacks with glove in the face*
Sabers or pistols anon?

NWN sure as fornication wasn't as bad as Mass effect 3 or Dragon Age 2, you filthy homo sexual who takes it up the anus.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:15 UTC+1 No.32698642 Report

>>32698393
>Everything in your screencap is a matter of roleplaying.

That's the point. Everything you can do in 3.x can be done in 4e(except being able to make 90% of the party obsolete, but I see that as a good thing to lose)
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:16 UTC+1 No.32698661 Report

>>32698521
In the specific case, no. But in spite of all the edition wars "people don't know what they like" crap, a large proportion of 3E players have tried 4E or 1E or whatever and preferred 3E, and a large proportion of those did it for rational reasons, just like for any other game.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:20 UTC+1 No.32698721 Report

>>32698642
Everything you can do in 3.x can be done in freeform roleplay, or GURPS, or whatever. Game mechanics influence, and affect how certain things play out at the table (like combat, for example). That's the point that's under discussion in any comparison of rules.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:20 UTC+1 No.32698722 Report

>>32698638

NWN was literally "Go to the East Zone and Fight A Boss, go to the West Zone and Fight A Boss, go to the South Zone and Fight A Boss, go to the North Zone and Fight A Big Boss - Chapter Over!"

It did this *FOUR TIMES*. It was literally the same 8 hours of Chapter 1 gameplay repeated for FORTY HOURS.

It was the beginning of the Bioware Game Formula. It was also ugly as sin and managed to make 3.x even more awful somehow.

NWN was basically a video game nazi science abortion experiment from which ALL OTHER BIOWARE ABORTIONS WERE SPAWNED.

It was Literally The Worst Thing Ever.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:21 UTC+1 No.32698738 Report

>>32698524
I don't play video games for the same reasons I play D&D, friend. I can't relate.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:22 UTC+1 No.32698742 Report

>>32698722
You're Literally Hitler for thinking this.

I take it you never played any of the expansions either, ya fagget. Cause I did specify. They're a lot better.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:24 UTC+1 No.32698770 Report

>>32698742

No, I did play the expansions and to be fair to you they are a lot better than the base game. But many of the things I hated about the base game are still in the expansions.

Like, I straight up hate the aurora engine so much it hurts my eyes to look at screenshots of NWN. Neverwinter Nights, to me, is like... the shining shitchievement of why I didn't like 3.x as an edition (even though I played it a ton and appreciate the fun times I had with it.)
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:25 UTC+1 No.32698791 Report

>>32698770
Well, as long as you implicitly defend Dragon Age 2 by saying NWN is worse, I still insist on Pistols at Dawn.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:25 UTC+1 No.32698793 Report

>>32698742

But seriously NWN was the birthplace of the "bioware formula" and it deserves an extra dose of fuck you for spawning that shitpile.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:27 UTC+1 No.32698829 Report

>>32698791

NWN was the gaping maw from which DA2 crawled out of. If I must Andrew Jackson you fine anon to help you see that it is wiser to hate the source of corruption than just the corruption itself so be it.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:31 UTC+1 No.32698904 Report

>>32697826

Yes, but what b&w art it was!
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)00:36 UTC+1 No.32699005 Report

>>32698829
See, now *that* implies DA 1 was no good.
Which it was. It was almost like it was based on D&D. Like the 4ed vidya we never got.

I see no reason to go easy on you anymore. No pistols. Rabid Squirrels at dawn sir!
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:15 UTC+1 No.32700905 Report

>>32694940
dropping best advice ever
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:18 UTC+1 No.32700965 Report

>>32700905
>I have never been on a roadtrip.jpg
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:25 UTC+1 No.32701101 Report

>>32700965
So, I disagree with the left-hand part of your image since I think that good games can fit in any of those boxes, but I mostly agree with the right half of it.

That said, if you know for a fact that shitty recipe A is delicious if you just add cinnamon, while that isn't an excuse for whoever made the shitty recipe, the fact remains that the new recipe, which is almost identical to the original but for the cinnamon, is good.

The image says that an RPG is just a list of rules, which is true, so when people come in saying "YOU SHOULDN'T PLAY ANY GAME YOU HAVE TO HOUSERULE TO MAKE IT GOOD," they're just talking out their asses, since you're not playing the list of rules they're thinking of. You're playing one that's the same, but for a houserule.

Also, road trips can be fun.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:27 UTC+1 No.32701150 Report

>>32701101
>Also, road trips can be fun.

I'd imagine being on a road trip with no AC and shitty gas mileage is going to suck no matter who you're with.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:27 UTC+1 No.32701160 Report

>>32701150
>implying
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:28 UTC+1 No.32701183 Report

>>32701150
If everyone chips in a bit for gas, the tank is big, and you have the windows down the whole way, who gives a shit?
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:29 UTC+1 No.32701207 Report

>>32701101

Are you honestly comparing the effort of fixing the shitfest that is d&d 3.5e and pathfinder to "just add cinnamon"?
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:30 UTC+1 No.32701220 Report

>>32701150
>no AC

Americans... why you so spoiled?
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:32 UTC+1 No.32701246 Report

>>32701220
I live in Arizona, dude. At 110 degrees, cars by nature become man-killing heatboxes made of steel and upholstery.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:34 UTC+1 No.32701292 Report

>>32701246
Well, one could possibly argue it's your own fault for living in lands not meant to be inhabited by man?
If you'd just stop tempting god you wouldn't need to drain all that water from the rest of your country.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:34 UTC+1 No.32701316 Report

>>32701292
Stop moving the goalposts and admit it's a shitty analogy.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:35 UTC+1 No.32701342 Report

>>32701292
Midwest here. AZ's not getting any of our water.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:35 UTC+1 No.32701344 Report

>>32694940
>Playing an outdated broken system
4e, Savage Worlds, 13th Age. If you're good at running loose rules, World of Darkness does pretty well, but I mean you'll often have to outright ignore rules and just wing it because some parts of it are a fucking mess.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:35 UTC+1 No.32701348 Report

>>32701292
>Well, one could possibly argue it's your own fault for living in lands not meant to be inhabited by man?

Considering Australia is still inhabited, that's no excuse.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:37 UTC+1 No.32701380 Report

>>32700905
>dropping worst advice ever
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:43 UTC+1 No.32701494 Report

>>32701348
>doesn't know about south eastern Australia's temperate climate

The Australians keep it a secret, but it's actually really nice in most of the south east and Tasmania.
They all just pretend it's Perth.

>>32701316
pic related
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:53 UTC+1 No.32701696 Report

>>32701494
>bagging on a retarded analogy
>in any way equivalent to hating fun
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:56 UTC+1 No.32701754 Report

>>32694940
Pathfinder for a number of reasons.
Adventure paths or modules so you can get a foundation of game knowledge on how to run games and what to expect.

Large community means you can get more people, if you need to as well as online forums.

This kind of goes in hand with the last point but the the large online databases already existing, the prd and d20psfrd or something have all the rules online, so not every player needs the rulebook to look up some rules or a cool weapon.

While these points have nothing to do with the game I listed these because every system has neat fighting and is story focused you just have to find one that suits your taste.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)02:57 UTC+1 No.32701782 Report

>>32701696
It was a joke, not a debate. Hardly appropriate to start throwing around accusations of false equivalence around.

This is why you hate fun.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)04:26 UTC+1 No.32703728 Report

>>32696371
>>D&D 3.5 is to male nerds as Disney movies are to college girls.

I understand my girlfriend SO much more now. Except I'd substitute 4E for 3.5 for me, personally. Still trying to find a decent RPG to emulate Disney though
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)04:37 UTC+1 No.32703967 Report

>>32696371
>D&D 3.5 is to male nerds as Disney movies are to college girls.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)05:00 UTC+1 No.32704368 Report

>>32701782
>Joke's on you, I was only pretending to be retarded!
Nah.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)07:50 UTC+1 No.32707454 Report

>>32701344
RPGs can't be "outdated", dude. They don't benefit from the latest microchip technology. The reason they keep making new and different editions is so they can sell more copies. People get that, right? I don't understand edition wars at all.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)09:44 UTC+1 No.32708729 Report

>>32699005
I liked DA1, as well as Awakening.

DA2 was horseshit. Varric and pirate-slut were the only two characters that I was even close to liking, especially because I had to let the sister die if I wanted to be a mage for some stupid fucking reason.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)09:48 UTC+1 No.32708766 Report

>>32704368
A Polack, a nigger and a jew walk into a bar... what? What!?
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)10:19 UTC+1 No.32708983 Report

>>32707454
>RPGs can't be "outdated", dude.
Design ethos changes, taste changes.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)10:47 UTC+1 No.32709196 Report

>>32708983
Uh, you understand that taste is, by definition, individual? Or are you suggesting people should take into account popular trends when deciding what they personally like and dislike? Or are you just equating "outdated" with "not in vogue"?
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)10:49 UTC+1 No.32709207 Report

>>32708766
>A Polack, a nigger and a jew walk into a bar...
The bartender says "get the fuck out of here, this ain't a joke!"
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)10:52 UTC+1 No.32709231 Report

>>32709196
Different anon. Look I get what you are saying, but he's right that over time design philosophy and even gaming philosophy change. He's using the term to refer to the fact that over time people realize certain mechanics/nuances aren't the best way to handle things. It is odd that he chose to say "play fourth ed. and 13th age (the game that fixes 4th's design flaws) in his example.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)10:55 UTC+1 No.32709254 Report

>>32694940
Played both 4e and PF
4e is goddammn fucking boring, holyshit
PF is meh
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)11:00 UTC+1 No.32709289 Report

Jesus. I'm still new to D&D in general, but I was always told that 3.5 is the way to go, and that 4 is garbage. Seeing so many people stating otherwise is kind of eye opening. What is it about 4 that solicits so much hate from my friends? Maybe just nostalgia?
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)11:06 UTC+1 No.32709333 Report

>>32709231
>He's using the term to refer to the fact that over time people realize certain mechanics/nuances aren't the best way to handle things.
That's what I'm objecting to. Minor rule improvements do occur, but that's not and never has been the driving force of change between e.g. different editions of D&D. 4E isn't an improved version of 3E, it's a different set of rules with a clearly different design philosophy.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)11:11 UTC+1 No.32709373 Report

>>32709289
No, it's the way too heavyhanded focus on balance.

Some people roll with it, others want balance to stick to (pvp) video games and hate it. That's also where most of the whole "4e = MMO" hate comes from, due to the incessant bitching about OP, FOTM classes/skills/combo's and demands for 'balance'.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)11:11 UTC+1 No.32709377 Report

>>32709289
Do you really want to know? I could list the reasons I don't like it, but it's practically guaranteed to start a fight.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)11:15 UTC+1 No.32709409 Report

>>32709377
No, I understand. the way my friend put it, its like 3.5 = driving a stick shift, and 4 is driving an automatic.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)11:23 UTC+1 No.32709487 Report

>>32709289
4e levels the playing field by a)taking a gigantic axe to caster power and versatility, and b)upping the 'rules-heavy' to a new level in order to guarantee non-casters options in and out of combat. 3e had casters that could do whatever the fuck they wanted provided they were given resources and prep time while non-casters were free to play distant second fiddle in whatever way they felt like. 3e also has a mountain of blatant, intentionally placed trap options and knowing how to spot them inflated the tiny fragile egos of those who put the effort into obtaining system mastery, while in 4e you need to be intentionally stupid to make a character that doesn't work, and trap options are mainly the result of inept designers. In short, 4e caters to a very different sort of groups than 3e does, while it still calls itself D&D, and that makes 3e fans very angry.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)11:30 UTC+1 No.32709532 Report

>>32709409
More like '3.5 = driving a stick shift made in Eastern Europe in a country that no longer exists, and 4 = driving an automatic on a track where you can't afford to get your hands off the wheel'.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)11:32 UTC+1 No.32709549 Report

>>32709487
Alright, fair enough. Like I stood, I'm still new, but I WAS told at one point that with 3, if someone knew how feats and skills worked, they could break the game. I just assumed the problem existed in 4 as well.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)11:36 UTC+1 No.32709577 Report

>>32709549
There was a race that kinda broke the game in a supplement that came out after they announced the game was dead. But in general, 4e is a very balanced game. Many people feel it is balanced to the point that it makes classes irrelevant. I am not one of these people.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)11:40 UTC+1 No.32709604 Report

>>32694970
kys
>>
Detlev Von Rendulic 06/11/14(Wed)12:05 UTC+1 No.32709793 Report

>>32709487
>>32709487
This a million times. This is exactly why I personally GM only 4e games. I still play in 3.x, but I can't handle people breaking characters in my campaigns.

Also to everyone saying 13th age, I disagree. It requires alot more creative group and GM, or you lose out on alot of the fun of the system. Also I can't say how much I hate trying to run a long spanning campaign of 13th and trying to explain every one of my abilities. It becomes tedious at best. For short burst campaigns for vets of RPG's, sure. Anything else, no.
>>
Billy Mays 06/11/14(Wed)12:10 UTC+1 No.32709828 Report

>>32694940
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)12:13 UTC+1 No.32709854 Report

>>32709793
> Detlev Von Rendulic

A kindred soul, I presume.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)12:18 UTC+1 No.32709904 Report

Both 3.5 and 4 are terrible to start with. If you are going to go with DnD, play the DnD Next playtest.
>>
Detlev Von Rendulic 06/11/14(Wed)12:18 UTC+1 No.32709907 Report

>>32709854
You presume correctly, unless you think I'm a neo-nazi. Somehow my trip invokes nazi and not commander.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)12:25 UTC+1 No.32709964 Report

>>32709907
>Somehow my trip invokes nazi
Weird. But not out of question. people populating /tg/ usually think in B&W and refuse to entertain more than first scenario they think about.

Cheers.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)12:33 UTC+1 No.32710018 Report

>>32695013
>>If it absolutely has to be between 3.5 and Pathfinder, then go with PF. I've heard some of the adventure paths are alright.
>>Being this wrong
The answer is always both you nignog. Use the PF chassis and allow anything you want from 3.5.
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)14:41 UTC+1 No.32711035 Report

>>32709828
>mfw this image
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)14:45 UTC+1 No.32711068 Report

>>32709904
Don't listen to this math-incompetent moron.

FC is what I'd recommend (and I play PF).
>>
Anonymous 06/11/14(Wed)16:42 UTC+1 No.32712218 Report

Generally, as long as it isn't 3.x or Pathfinder, you're good to go.
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.