I have very little experience playing D&D with my main exposure being video games. As an outsider looking in, I've found that 3.5 is my favorite system to play around with and build characters even though NWN2, IWD2, and TOEE are among the weakest video game adaptations. AD&D/2E is probably my least favorite mechanics wise, but by far has the best video game adaptations. I started playing BG3 recently and I like it a lot, but I don't like the system as much as 3.5.I'm curious what the consensus on all the editions of D&D is among people that actually play the real game.
I only have a non-answer, but that's bc you will find ardent defenders and at least halfway-cogent arguments, which stand up under the slightest scrutiny, for every system prior to 5eBG3 is kind of fun despite the system, as once you break everything with babby's first warlock shenaniganery the combat stops being novel or interesting IME, much like real 5e
>>97104525>I'm curious what the consensus on all the editions of D&D is among people that actually play the real game.The only consensus is that 5e sucks. But I think 3.5 is the best.
>>971045615e is like 3.5 lite, it doesn't have any of the flavor
>>97104525>I'm curious what the consensus on all the editions of D&D is among people that actually play the real game.Bold of you to assume there's consensus. They're called edition wars for a reason.
I have played 2e, 3.5, & 5e.by the time you got to 3.5e the minutiae of the rules became so over-developed that you were basically playing a videogame, only you were doing the computations. frankly, boring. The main reason 5e sucks is that the canon kitchen-sink settings are boring, and that the core group of players moved from outcast losers who know they're losers to normie losers who don't. anyway the best videogame for 3.5e wasn't Neverwinter Nights 2 or ICD2, it's KOTOR.
>>971045254E=late 3.5E>Basics>1E>OD&D>2E>early 3.5E>Essentials>3.0E>5.5E>5E5E is really really really shit.
>>97104525>consensuslmao. there's none to begin with, only preferences. the closest thing to one is 4e but even then there's fans of it. my two cents for these eds are like:>2eit's for grognards but not quite ready to go back to AD&D or OSR in general. it had some wild esoteric rules itself (thac0, kits tied to race if not stats, strict alignment rulings) but it's the golden age when it comes to settings which actually defined D&D that we know and love. Faerûn was a weirder place because it was made by a horny canadian hippie with a lot of control for his stuff back then. the rules in this ed is an acquired taste still and tend to be fluffy vs crunch>3(.5)e this edition is usually for mega autists who likes building characters more than playing them and im saying this as a guy who played 3.5e. it has the most crunch of all the editions imo and it forces people to be good at building their characters as well as abusing setups to buff and debuff before and during fights. it's great for spellcasters too since it delves very heavily into it. this edition introduced Eberron, the pulpy fantasy setting which you can play as a robot>4ethis is for people who only play MMOs and never played tabletop in their lives. they even have stupid shit like cooldowns on a fucking turn-based system so make that what you will. >5epersonally this is the easiest edition to pick up. a.k.a the normalfag's edition of choice. fuck no it's not balanced but the rules are simple to learn and the amount of calculations necessary for attacks, damage etc. the streamlining of the crunch (which makes a lot of 3.5e autists feel dissatisfied) also came with streamlining how bizarre faerun was to the point of it being inoffensively generic, fluff-wise. fuck 5.5e tho.never played 1e so i can't say. we usually houserule the stuff we want in regardless, even the settings
>>97104525Are you asking a question, or just shitting your pants in front of us?
>>97104525There's no consensus about THE best D&D edition, everyone here has his preferred one biased by nostalgia and/or preferred play style. You can make some objective takes on why an edition is better than the others but even then you can't feasibly ever have the full picture.IMO the best one is Rules Cyclopedia because is one book deal with EVERYTHING you'll ever need of for decades of games. Close second is AD&D 1e because it's a game with well definite loops and mechanics complimenting that extensively, it's almost a world simulator on p&p. Close third is 3.5e because of rules completeness and options.
>>97104525>I'm curious what the consensus on all the editions of D&D is among people that actually play the real game.Oh, anon.
>>971045255e is too streamlined for my taste, but playable. 3.5 I like on paper, not so much in play. 4e is my favorite
>>97105047>stupid shit like cooldowns on a fucking turn-based system>3.5>use this ability again in 1d4+1 rounds>x/day abilitiesAnon, you should think before you post.>inb4 muh presentationThese are RULE books, faggot, not fantasy novels.
>>97107251Shit, anon, recharge abilities are older than 3e.The guy is regurgitating /tg/ talking points, not actual experience.
>>97104525I can't say much about the older editions because I only ever played 2e a few times way back when, and never ended up playing a 1e game.3.5 is my favorite version of the game mostly because of the options and the way you can sort of cludge together interesting characters from pieces. Making something weird like an Anima Mage or multiclass Coglayer/Warlock is really fun, and just the different mechanical stuff you can mess around with. It's got a lot of crunch and a lot of harsh edges, but if you can tolerate those, it's fun. Hard to run as a DM and hard to learn as a new player, but once you're used to it it's a lot better.4e was WOTC copying MMORPGs. It's very streamlined, and they tried some stuff that worked and some stuff that didn't. Every character of the same type (All controllers, all strikers, all leaders etc) feel the same. Every ability is just 'Strength + X damage', sometimes with rider effects, and all a character effectively is just their various abilities. Very easy to run and make characters for, though some of the monster CR math doesn't work out.5e was made after the criticisms of 4e, and they decided to regress partially toward 3.5. Problem is, while both 3 and 4 had their own strengths, 5e somehow managed to get the drawbacks of both games' design ethos without getting their benefits.
>>97104525The only consensus is that nobody talks about Holmes D&D.
>>97104920You mean KOTOR II TSL
>>97107303This anon has never played 4e btw and somehow got BOTH the positives and negatives completely wrong.
Wipe me down
>>97104920KOTOR was definitely more 3.0 than 3.5
>>97104525Note that BG3 plays different from the tabletop. Solasta, despite its major flaws and shortcoming, it is more faithful to the tabletop.
>>97104525Pathfinder.
Like many others above already said, there is no consensus. I've played 2e, 3.5, 4e, 5 (+5.5). What I want is a system that gives my players the options they want in a way that is easy for them to understand. On my end I want something that is easy to run and make a game for. I'm just looking at the different versions as the rulesets, not the settings that the books are written in or whatever since you can just pick and choose your own no matter what edition.>2e I have the least experience with, people dont want to deal with Thac0. It also has some weird restrictions that players dont like.>3.5Never been a big fan of this system, the amount of shit released for it is overwhelming for both players and myself. There's way to many skills, feats and whatever the fuck else. If you like number crunching, character builds and general munchkin behavior this system is for you. >4e Weird edition that changed up a whole lot of things. People like to shit on it but I think it works well for a tactical dungeon crawling game with the boys. Not much in the way of build variety and the proposed way of handling "skill challenges" is fucking stupid. This version failed spectacularly due to utter incompetence from WoTC. >5e (or 5.5 which is just 5e with some tweaks)Relatively easy to pick up and play, with some built in anti munchkin features like concentration. Posters here pretend that this system is the worst thing ever but thats what grognards always say about the latest system.People in general just dont seem to grasp that DnD is first and foremost a ruleset for dungeon crawling and all version work fine as a variant of that.
>>97111464Concentration is not anti munchkin its just anti funAll the munchkin shit in 5e just revolves around action surge or per short rest instead
>>97105047>cooldowns on a fucking turn-based systemAnonencounter powers aren't on a cooldown, they're rechargeable by a short rest, like 5e warlock spells.Has anyone alive on /tg/ ever actually read the 4e phb? The shit I hear people say about it it sure feels like no one has ever even tried reading the rules.
>>97104669Yeah basically people thought 4e was too different (it sucked but that's not why) so when it came time to make 5e they just did 3.5 again and dumbed it down for the masses.
>>97111614But how can I be irrationally upset and make broad sweeping false statements if I actually read the PHB and know how it works?
>>97111464>the proposed way of handling "skill challenges" is fucking stupidI actually like the idea that everyone has to make a skill check once before anyone can do so a second time in *some* instances. I use it to represent situations where one party member can inadvertently fuck things up for the rest. The bard can be as eloquent as he likes at a state banquet, but if the barbarian blunts out "And then I called her a whore!" in the middle of a delicate negotiation, a good amount of that is gonna reflect on the group.They definitely overused it, like when our mage was trying to use levitate to save a child from drowning while maintaining his own levitation and keeping the ritual that created their boat in the first place going. Rules wise the encounter should have been a skill challenge but really just wpund up as a skill check for him to keep all those plates spinning and not drop himself or anyone else in the drink.
>>97111629>like when our mage was trying to use levitate to save a child from drowning while maintaining his own levitation and keeping the ritual that created their boat in the first place going. Rules wise the encounter should have been a skill challenge but really just wpund up as a skill check for him to keep all those plates spinning and not drop himself or anyone else in the drink.That was on your DM for not being engaging with it. If one guy is doing all of these things, I'd just make it one roll with a malus. Skill challenges are supposed to involve the party, not a single dude.>>97111624This.
>>971045255e is basically baby's first 3.5 with a few fixes. I would suggest PF1e over 5e. As well as I been liking DC20 as a system but it's still in beta. I also would suggest ACKS if you want something more B/X.
>>97111629Sure but thats just a group skill check, I'm fine with those. They work for a variety of situations like the whole party trying to sneak past something or as you said trying to not make a fool of themselves during a banquet. What I'm talking about are those "skill challenge" encounter things they tried to make work. Essentially just 5 checks in a series. They made little sense from both a logical and mechanical perspective. I'd have to look it up again how they work exactly to give a specific example for it.
>>97104525This thread is disingenuous and meant to only make people argue with each other. Those systems are absolute garbage when translated to video games.
>>97111653>Essentially just 5 checks in a series>skill checks require 3-12 success to succeedAnon, are you sure you remember this right?
>>97111665I had to look again how they work and they're dumber than I remembered. Here's a link with critique of how they work RAW. https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1971/roleplaying-games/playtesting-4th-edition-part-6-skill-challenges
>>97107303>>97111341>Every character of the same type (All controllers, all strikers, all leaders etc) feel the same.A fighter and a Shielding swordmage play very differently, despite both being defenders. One holds the front line, while the other maneuvers away from their marked target to engage other enemies.A "caster" cleric and an Intelligence warlord play differently, despite both being leaders. One focuses mostly on defensive support from mid-range, while the other specializes in offensive support and attack-granting from up close.A rogue and a sorcerer play very differently, despite both being strikers. One is a mobile, single-target shanker who wants to flank or otherwise catch enemies off-guard, while the other is a multitarget blaster.A druid and a wizard play very differently, despite both being controllers. One switches back and forth between melee mode and ranged mode, while the other is a more dedicated and "generic" hard-controller from afar.If you want some examples, here are five 4e character sheets at level 1. All of them play rather differently.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L-uQ9Tdl0ZJX9xOXpAf2I6Py2ajc9O7tnqaeL60FghA/edit>Every ability is just 'Strength + X damage'I am fairly sure that the warden's Form of Winter's Herald is different from the fighter's Rain of Steel, despite both being low-level daily attack powers on defender classes.https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power5106 https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power1436I am fairly sure that the wizard's Visions of Avarice is different from the invoker's Silent Malediction, despite both being low-level daily attack powers on controller classes.https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power4074https://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power7161The differences between powers are significant.>some of the monster CR math doesn't work out.This is an actual problem. It is mostly fixed by Monster Manual 3 and Monster Vault era math and monster design. Avoid older monster statistics books, and you should be roughly fine.
>>97111690>the mechanics do not represent the in-universe, but how the players interact with the game, and I do not like itThis guy is a complete wet towel.That said, he misses the point. Skill challenges are supposed to be narrated in effect by the DM. It harkens back to 1e and 2e where you didn't have skills, you said you wanted to do X thing, and the Ref told you what to roll for it, and narrated how it worked out.I think it was really the 'neurodivergent' group of players that really had issue with 4e, because it wasn't direct A -> B thinking. Everything was representative, not literal, and I've seen a lot of 'people' in this hobby really struggle with any manner of lateral or expressive thought.Even moreso, this guy on his blog manages to miss something that really would turn his head sideways: the players can call for a skill challenge if they want to.My group asked for a skill challenge to fight a dragon rather than combat, and it honestly was far better in terms of gaming experience than 'I roll v fort defense'.
>>97111738Sup, TF, wondered if you would drop in or not.
>>97111637>That was on your DM for not being engaging with it. If one guy is doing all of these things, I'd just make it one roll with a malus.That's what it was, it did start out as a potential skill challenge but got changed when it became clearer what was actually going on.
