#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
I never switched from 3.5 to 4th edition. At the point where you have collected somewhere around 100 3.5 books in either Hardback or PDF the last thing I see happening anytime soon is me going to the 5th edition. Why start over now ehile so many people still love 3.5 rules?
|
#18
|
|||||
|
|||||
Being totally ignorant of DND and all things DND, what edition is the most fun and allows for the most flexibility in creating a character? From what I've read on the internet, 3.5 seems to be the cool kid on the block.
I'm seriously considering getting my dirty mitts on some DND books because I want to open up my options as a player (possible GM) on this site. However, I want to get THE coolest edition and not necessarily the most widespread.
__________________
Don't talk about my mom's yo... |
#19
|
|||||
|
|||||
As far as flexibility in creating a character, I'd agree your best bet is probably 3.5. There are so many resources you can probably find a sourcebook for whatever you want to make.
That said, the fun question is a lot more subjective. I've played 1st and 2nd (long ago), 3rd (and 3.5 and Pathfinder) for many years, and am just starting up with 5th (I skipped 4th as I'm not a huge fan of grid-focused combat, but you'll find people who really like it). So far I'm loving 5th and have no plans of looking back at 3.5. The balance is better, a lot of unnecessary complexity has been stripped away, and it's still managed to retain some good flexibility and fun mechanics. I'm really looking forward to the line expanding. What edition you prefer will probably come down to your own interests. Comparing 3.5 and 5th, 3.5 is probably better if you like having a ton of mechanical choices, enjoy reading through the options to come up with a powerful build, etc (which can be really fun but can also mean broken builds and lots of fiddly stuff to deal with in combat). 5th is probably better if you just want some evocative class and background choices to help you focus on making a character you like story/personality-wise and then getting down to business. Haven't played 4th, but it looks like it may be best if you like detailed tactical combat. There are probably people with other opinions on the strengths of the editions, and really there's so much subjective that it's hard to say what's the coolest. 3.5 has lots of free content available in the System References Document though, and 5th has its basic rules with certain classes and backgrounds available, so you can check them both out before buying. |
#20
|
|||||
|
|||||
I'm all about character customization, so it sounds like (from what you're telling me plus what I've seen on the net) that 3.5 is more up my alley. I don't mind creating a "broken" character in terms of class function for combat or game mechanics. I like to create the character that I want to play; how I envision the person in my head. I like to add as much flavor and fine tuning as I can. So, he / she might not be the best damage dealing tanker in the realm. I don't care, as long as I have fun playing that character.
One of the things that really turned me off about D20 / DND (which is why I never got into it) for years was the whole rigidly class based structure of the game. You play in a military unit with every one character filling an important role (healer, tanker, sorcerer etc). You are sort of pegged into having to play a type of character to fill out what the party needs to be efficient in combat. Also, with the class system, you can only play a character that is good at a few things and terrible at everything else. I don't really like that kind of approach to gaming. I find that it limits creativity.. what if I want to play a cultured / highly educated soldier? What if I want to play a thief who can also do a lot of other non-thief things? I know there is a lot of dual classes, prestige classes and other options now to counter this somewhat. However, it's still there as a fundamental aspect of the game. Still, I'm starting warm up to DND / Pathfinder.. I see plenty of great games going on here in those systems that can be entirely character / story based as opposed to just being hack n' slash.
__________________
Don't talk about my mom's yo... |
#21
|
|||||
|
|||||
Based on what you've said about your concerns about builds limiting roleplaying opportunities, I do want to clarify that 5th also has advantages in certain sorts of flexibility, due to the way the skill system works, as well as the "bounded accuracy" concept that's used in the design:
Skills: In 3.5, you get points every level to spend, but the number is based on your class (rogues get a lot, fighters few, etc.), and each skill is either available to you as a class skill (spend 1 point to get +1 to a certain limit) or a cross-class skill (spend 2 points for +1, and your maximum is halved). This does allow the flexibility for a fighter to spend some points in diplomacy, for example, but the number will be limited compared to what a rogue can do. You can spend feats or jump into prestige classes to get better at such skills, but this will be at the expense of some of your fighter abilities. In 5th, you get to choose a few skills to be proficient in based on your class and background. Everyone has a proficiency bonus based on their level that gets added to the kinds of attacks, saves, and skills that they're proficient with. If you create a fighter with the Noble background, for instance, Noble makes you automatically proficient in History and Persuasion (basically the cultured and educated idea you mentioned) and you can choose a couple more skills from a class list (including some obviously fighter-y things like Athletics and Intimidation, as well as some less-so like Animal Handling and Insight which helps you detect lies, etc.). Using backgrounds I created a barbarian with the Urchin background who could sneak around and detect traps, and a bard with the Soldier background who was skilled in Athletics and Intimidation. It's pretty easy to create new backgrounds as well, although not all DMs will allow this. Still, the skill system in 5e does give advantage to certain classes like in 3.5 - rogues for instance get an expertise ability which lets them choose a couple skills to get double their proficiency bonus (thus a traditional rogue would probably be really good at sneaking and picking locks, but you could also make one good at arcane knowledge). Bounded accuracy: The bonuses you can get to rolls are much "flatter" in 5e than in 3.5. Proficiency bonuses in 5e range from +2 at 1st level to +6 at high levels. In 3.5, by contrast, you can start with +4 by spending 4 points, and get up to +23 by spending more points as you level up. There are quite a few other influences on rolls (like certain class abilities), but in effect it means that the specialized characters in 5e don't outstrip the others nearly as quickly, so if you put a decent score in Charisma for your fighter you won't fall far behind the classes that have more abilities that can benefit skills like Persuasion. This also, however, probably means that it's harder to make a character with super high, heroic levels of persuasive skills than it would be in 3.5, if that's something you want. All that said... there are still areas where 3.5 is more flexible, and where D&D is less flexible than other systems. 3.5's feats, prestige classes, etc. mean that there are just a lot more special abilities and synergies available (mostly combat and magic-related). This means you can create a wide variety of unique and powerful builds. 5e on the other hand only has the base classes so far, though each of them has a number of specialization options (e.g. rogues can take the arcane trickster archetype which gives them some spells, which requires a prestige class in 3.5). D&D in general does have the limits of the class system as you say, so it will never allow for the same kind of freedom as something like GURPS - if you want a healer you'll probably need to have some levels in a class like cleric or druid. Summarizing my overall view: 3.5 has more flexibility when it comes to getting your characters cool, powerful abilities. 5e has more flexibility when it comes to making your character capable in different areas (especially noncombat skills) that aren't necessarily the obvious role of the class. They both still have a level of rigidity when it comes to your role in combat (tank, healer, etc.) that can be mitigated somewhat by multiclassing or choosing certain class specializations. Personally 5e got me back into D&D after spending time in more freeform systems because it made it easier to make the characters I wanted (like the sneaky barbarian or military bard) without dealing with a ton of different sourcebooks and weighing a ton of feat/class choices. Also the system seems quicker and lighter which is something I'm valuing more and more in RPGs. I've had a ton of fun in 3rd too, and you can create some really fun and unique characters (there are sourcebooks that let you make monster characters, that kind of thing). But to create something like the "cultured and educated fighter", 5e takes a lot less legwork in my opinion. As you can tell, I'm quickly becoming a 5e partisan, as I think it better suits my roleplaying inclinations - I would have abandoned D&D in favor of RuneQuest and some other flexible point-based systems if 5e hadn't come out. But I'm sure there will be people who prefer the variety of content available for 3.5. And in the end the choice of system matters less than the DM and players when it comes to making a great story. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
As someone who's played both 3.5 and Pathfinder, I find that the latter has more roleplaying-friendly character customization. In 3.5 you can give your fighter a bunch of feats, and make him good at anything from swinging around on vines to just hitting dudes real hard, but you're sort of limited outside of that. Pathfinder gives you a bunch of packages on top of feats that can actually change the nature of the class (for example, in Pathfinder you can make a tactician-type fighter with mechanics backing that up).
That being said, they're both really good systems. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
I bought the 4e books when they came out but my group sort of fell away slowly not giving me a chance to get into it. I'll probably have a little look at 3.5e after what you guys have said and start with that. Cheers for the information.
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
I am an old school D&D guy so I cut my teeth on BASIC and AD&D way back when. After playing 3.0 and 3.5 I came the conclusion it was the best representation of D&D I have seen in a long while. 2E was needed to get us to 3.5 and frankly Pathfinder did an excellent job of cleaning up the rules in 3.5 to make it a much more streamlined version. I have not been interested in 4E but I have the books and read them and in all honesty I have very little interest right now in picking up 5E... I like 3.5/Pathfinder but as someone stated previously it comes down to a matter of preference.
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
I started way back also, briefly with D&D basic then more with AD&D, as I got older I sort of stopped playing table top and moved onto DDO, which seemed to incorporate 3.5 rules. A friend recently got me hooked on PbP with 5e, I just started looking at the pdf's available for 3.5 and plan on playing that also.
I have not played Pathfinder, but between 3.5 and 5e, like most have said here , is flexibility in character creation (3.5 can be overwhelming at times) where 3.5 you can do more detailed customization which can lead to more powerful characters and also more Gimped characters (which you may not discover until they are maybe level 5-6 ). 5e seems to be easier to create a character IMHO. Also like what was brought up is cost, I bought the 5e books (Phb, DM And Monster manual) at about $80 for the set, give or take a few. 3.5 is available on line for free (OGL), so that could be a good reason to go with 3.5 |
#26
|
|||||
|
|||||
I have only played 4e, so i can't really say if it is better than any other editions or not. However, I am most certainly enjoying it.
Some people talk about the lack of role playing and emphasis on combat but that really all depends on your DM and how much imagination you are willing to put in. I find that detailed combat rules give a sense of immediacy to battles and that you can get as much role playing as you are willing to put in. As I said, I have not played any other editions but that's how I feel about 4e. |
#27
|
|||||
|
|||||
I'd like to add to the pool of folks touting 5e as an easy-learning edition. I love how everything is streamlined without (in my opinion) being dumbed down. To draw a nerdy connection here, it feels like a really good MTG Core Set: Solid basics, easily built on, but great fun on it's own.
|
#28
|
|||||
|
|||||
Ok, if your a new player, never rolled a die before, I'm gonna say start with 5e.
Now hear me out on this one before anybody says "No go 3.5", "No, Pathfinder", or "OG or Bust" 5e is what WotC is printing right now, any hobby/book store will be able to get books in so you can read them, and there will be new material printed for it (hopefully) regularly. From there, you have a starter point. If you want a more in-depth skill/feat system, then yeah, 3.5 and (I'm assuming) Pathfinder might be good things to branch out to, and hell, you might like them more. If you want more swing the ax, crush the skulls, then you might want to go 4e (I heard they do that really satisfingly). If you want heavy Roleplay and character baised adventure vs stat blocks, 2e AD&D can do that really well. It really depends on what you want to get out of the game. When I started learning, 3.5 was out, so thats what I learned. I love it, its a great edition. But, if you're just trying to get your feat wet, try 5e. You can see what you like, what you don't like mechanic wise, and ask questions more like "I like the character Ideals/Bonds/Flaws that 5e has, but I don't like the idea of an over all proficency bonus, I want to be more specialized/have a wider range of skills. What edition would be good for that?" Those questions are a lot easier to answer. Try your hand at little of everything is some of the best advice I got. So I give it to you my friend. |
#29
|
|||||
|
|||||
Can I take a third option and say that I consider Numenera to be one of the best tabletop RPGs for beginners? The mechanics of the system are very simple and easy to teach though a single session. Or single game here. Plus it encourages cooperative storytelling, so the new player feels like he's affecting the world along with the other players.
As for the best D&D version for beginners... that's a tough question. 5e was a rather bland system for me, but I got my head around most of it as a player. 4e I consider to be a much more fun system, but it's got a steep learning curve. It's still possible to start with that, but I would suggest going with an Essentials character, which are deliberately simplified, and are what I feel to be the better parts of that (besides the mage subclass of the wizard). No experience with D&D versions before that, unless you count Baldur's Gate as 2.5e experience.
__________________
Born of Legend Co-Creator. Join the Alpha War! My Games On This Site (player + DM) STEP Project (Moderator) - Skyrim Mods Last edited by William Imm; Apr 2nd, 2015 at 01:34 PM. |
#30
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
__________________
Off To Work I Go. Visit When I Can Is This Suppost to be Good... "Okay, fine. Now roll Fort Vs The Clap" ... And I'm Great in Parties Oathtaker
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|