How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Rules-focused discussion of pen & paper RPGs. Threads in this board must be tagged by rules set.

Moderators: Idabrius, Blacky the Blackball

How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Original Dungeons & Dragons (White Boxed Set)
11
5%
Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (Holmes)
9
4%
Dungeons & Dragons B/X (Moldvay/Cook)
23
10%
Dungeons & Dragons BECMI (Mentzer)
40
17%
Dungeons & Dragons Black Box/Rules Cyclopedia
28
12%
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1st Edition)
30
13%
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition/Revised 2nd Edition (Players Options
32
13%
Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition/Revised 3.5 Edition
25
10%
Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition/Essentials
10
4%
Dungeons & Dragons (5th Edition)
31
13%
 
Total votes : 239

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby ripvanwormer » Sat Aug 27, 2016 12:04 pm

Zeromaru X wrote:Was the 3.0 to 3.5 change that severe?


Enough that the d20 companies felt screwed over because they suddenly had a bunch of 3.0 inventory that no one would buy anymore because 3.5 had rendered it obsolete.

BECMI and the Rules Compendium are the same edition, but 3.0 and 3.5 are not.
ripvanwormer
Black Dragon
 
Posts: 2858
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:14 pm

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby rabindranath72 » Sat Aug 27, 2016 12:38 pm

ripvanwormer wrote:
Zeromaru X wrote:Was the 3.0 to 3.5 change that severe?


Enough that the d20 companies felt screwed over because they suddenly had a bunch of 3.0 inventory that no one would buy anymore because 3.5 had rendered it obsolete.

BECMI and the Rules Compendium are the same edition, but 3.0 and 3.5 are not.

Indeed. A lot of that inventory is still around in many stores.
Some of the 3.0 main designers (Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds, for example) had been very critical of the new changes; most of which were apparently done for no real reason other than screw compatibility up and force people to buy again the books (someone who worked there at the time, can't recall his name, commented that the issue of the 3.5 books was mainly a result of the slumping in the sale of the 3.0 books.) It was also the period when Peter Adkison had left WotC and Hasbro had took over. The 3.0 books were loss leaders, they were VERY cheap. When the 3.5 books were published under Hasbro, their prices increased drastically.
Cook stated that a "revision" was in the plans from the start, but that it would have come much later in the product's life, and it would NOT have meant screwing with the basic elements of the game, but only revising stuff that clearly didn't work. Cook and Reynolds argue that 3.5 had to be more correctly branded as a new edition, not a revision.
Finally, 3.5 was playtested only in house. The designers of the new stuff said they "listened to the people who played" but given a lot of the changes, it seems they listened to the vocal parts that probably had a grudge against the AD&D legacy stuff, and wanted "more kewl powerz"; also some design decisions screw some fundamental elements of the game, for example magic item economy (the designers of the revision weren't probably into the inner workings of 3.0)
All in all, we not only felt shortchanged, but we actively disliked 99% of the changes. Considering that we were "core books only" anyway, we didn't need the revised upcoming stuff. D&D 3.0 is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination (what game is after all?) but it has its charm, it's original because it attempted something new with the D&D tropes, and it saved the D&D brand from dying. 3.5 is just some people's house rules; they do not address any of the problems of 3.0, but in turn add a whole lot more.
rabindranath72
White Dragon
 
Posts: 2595
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby Zeromaru X » Sat Aug 27, 2016 1:48 pm

Thanks for the summaries.

So, 3.0 to 3.5 became even more complicated... feels like the reverse of 4e to Essentials, in whose case stuff became more simpler.
User avatar
Zeromaru X
The Elder Wizard
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:24 am

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby rabindranath72 » Sat Aug 27, 2016 6:05 pm

Zeromaru X wrote:Thanks for the summaries.

So, 3.0 to 3.5 became even more complicated... feels like the reverse of 4e to Essentials, in whose case stuff became more simpler.

That's definitely a good analogy! Although you can mix and match stuff from 4e to Essentials, things are definitely less straightforward between 3.0 and 3.5; an ungodly mess :evil:
rabindranath72
White Dragon
 
Posts: 2595
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby Gecko » Sun Aug 28, 2016 5:15 pm

timemrick wrote:Thanks for the summary, Zeromaru X!


I definately second that, I've been trying to learn 4e - mainly by going through the backlog of posts in the 4e forum and I was starting to see various posts here about Essentials and became very confused.

I'm not sure what's different between BECMI & RC so I checked both (have used GAZ & RC and a bit of BECMI in the past), checked 2e (most of my actual playing years was 2e), 3.5 (my main system nowadays), & 4e/Essentials (currently trying to learn it)

I'm surprised by all the complaints about incompatability between 3.0 & 3.5. I've had no problems using 3.0 stuff in 3.5. Is the problem when trying to go in the other direction? (ie 3.5 -> 3.0 instead of 3.0 -> 3.5)
User avatar
Gecko
Storm Giant
 
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Marooned in California

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby willpell » Sun Aug 28, 2016 6:36 pm

Zeromaru X wrote:Was the 3.0 to 3.5 change that severe?


I wouldn't say "severe", but "significant" definitely. The conversion documents Wotco put out covered the most straightforward changes, but there were a lot of details they missed, especially in the Monster Manual. They were so busy standardizing monsters to follow the same rules as player characters, they got rid of a lot of neat "bits" that the 3.0 monsters had - for instance, the Annis Hag had an extraordinary "ability" called Brittle Bones, where she reduced all damage from piercing and slashing weapons by 1 point, but took 1 point extra from bludgeoning weapons. This vanished in the 3.5 revision, when they changed how damage reduction worked, likely because they didn't want any "loophole" abilities that resembled DR but weren't called out as such.

A more drastic example is the Slaads; in MM 3.0, there was a table of random abilities that you could roll up to make every Slaad unique, where some of them would have four arms or the like, and this entirely vanished from 3.5 - this is probably the single biggest loss between editions IMO (but then, I'm irrationally fond of Slaads - which is of course the way the Slaads would prefer anyone to be fond of them).

rabindranath72 wrote:1) Character creation is fast; if you want to save time, each class contains a package which allows creating a character of whatever race in a few minutes. I think something similar was done for 3.5 as well in a web enhancement, but in 3.0 it's straight in the PHB.


Pretty sure the equipment packages and skill suggestions are still in 3.5

2) Little or no decision paralysis, both at character creation and when advancing: there are very few feats, and their design is very tight (as a bonus, if you come from AD&D, you recognise some of those feats as previously fixed class features.) Many feats are designed as clear exceptions to very specific rules. For example, Alertness is designed to provide a bonus in surprise situations, and it's the only feat providing a bonus to two skills. If you want to get better in a skill in general, there's Skill Focus. Furthermore some of the feats in 3.0 were split into two or more feats in 3.5, with the result that each feat becomes less relevant. In general, when you take a feat in 3.0, it's a significant boost (this is important since, except for the fighter, there aren't many occasions to get feats.)


I'll have to look into this at some point, as it sounds interesting, but I suspect it may not hold up on examination for the majority of examples. In particular, even if this was true in the 3.0 PHB, it quickly stopped becoming true as additional books were put out, each of which had a slew of new specialty feats which were often added to the 3.5 core.

3) The game is not strongly wedded to the grid; there are some references in the DMG, but that's all. You won't find things like diagonal movement costing differently than horizontal/vertical movement (which technically doesn't even make much sense as it imposes an Euclidean concept of distance, whereas in fact when we use the grid, we are implicitly assuming a non-Euclidean metric.) This relies on DM fiat being more important, and in our experience, it also typically results in way faster combats.


3.0 had directional facing, while 3.5 didn't (except as an optional rule in Unearthed Arcana). I assume you're saying that 3.5 is the one which requires a map less than 3.0 did.

5) Lots of monsters are easier to adjudicate in play, since monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs when it comes to skills and feats. Again, faster combats (and faster prep.)


Perhaps, but I think the Savage Species changeover is worth it. 3.0 treated monsters very awkwardly, and it always annoys me when any edition (including 5E) regards them as somehow being inherently different than characters with class levels (even if these are NPCs).

6) Lots of monsters are scarier, as you will need specific magical bonuses; a weapon being generically "magic" is not enough.


Asking for a specific numerical bonus annoys me; I like requirements like dr/silver or dr/chaotic instead of dr/+3. But I agree that dr/magic might as well not exist, since every player character past about level 3 has at least a +1 weapon (unless the DM specifically denies them access to magic item shops).

8) Gnomes favour being illusionists (as traditional in AD&D.)


Neverminding how shit the Favored Class mechanic was in both versions of 3E, this was the only case of any class having a wizard subclass as favored; elves got to favor Wizard whether they did Illusions or not. Nobody had Bard as a favorite, and Gnome fits nicely I think.

9) Some skills are class specific, and can't be acquired by other classes as cross-class skills AT ALL: Animal Empathy, Decipher Script, Read Lips, Scry, Use Magic Device. This too is a sort of "throwback" to AD&D, and in general it helps with "niche protection".


I regard this as having been a sort of a nice idea, but not worth the rules baggage it carried. It's much easier to memorize the class skill lists when you don't have to keep any exemptions in mind. Animal Empathy turned into a class feature, although I actually think that might have been a mistake; I don't see any reason why a Wizard or Rogue couldn't learn how to "Diplomacy" animals instead of just Handling them. UMD is widely regarded as the most powerful skill in 3E, and maybe allowing anyone other than Rogues to access it created problems, but this could be fixed the same way Animal Empathy was, just treating UMD as a class feature instead of a skill.

12) Most spells have the same name and level as their AD&D counterparts. In 3.5 spells changed names AND levels, which makes porting spellcasting characters and monster a huge hassle.


Agreed, and a lot of spells changed their effects too. I love the 3.0 version of Creeping Doom - it does exactly 1000 damage in an area, flavored as insects which appear, bite once, and then vanish. The new version creates Swarm monsters under the player's control, and as much as I love summoning, it's a pain in the ass at the game table, creating a ton of extra work and delays if not handled carefully.

13) In general, classes are simpler, and have less "stuff" going on and/or fewer/simpler features; in general, they are less "powerful (e.g. the clerics don't have Auras; paladins don't have Auras and can only smite once per day; sorcerers can't change their spells; rangers don't get an animal companion by default etc.) The overall "feel" is definitely grittier (and play is faster.)


The auras you're talking about here are largely irrelevant, only interacting with Detect spells. But limiting Smite to 1/day is just sad, and denying Sorcerers the right to change their spells just makes them even more gimped than they already were compared to wizards.

Overall, 3.0 retained a lot of legacy features from AD&D, which made the game more easily recognisable by players used to AD&D, and made porting of characters and scenarios A LOT easier.


This is of course something I cannot weigh in on.

rabindranath72 wrote:Some of the 3.0 main designers (Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds, for example) had been very critical of the new changes; most of which were apparently done for no real reason other than screw compatibility up and force people to buy again the books


I don't think that this is true. Pretty much all the changes I've been able to spot seem to be well-reasoned - for instance, DR 50/+5 was pretty much a "**** you" to all players who didn't want to just focus in on getting the most powerful sword, instead wanting something fancy like a Dancing weapon of Fiery Burst. With that much DR, anyone who didn't have the right sword shouldn't even try to kill this thing - unless they're a wizard, since Fireballs etc. don't care about DR, so it just made LFQW worse. Likewise, most of the monster changes were prompted by Savage Species showing up how unnecessarily awkward the process of making monstrous PCs was, and adding more spells and feats gave players more options to personalize their characters. It would have perhaps been logical to keep some of the 3.0 stuff in as an "on ramp" for new players or 2E converters, but more ability to create characters that aren't narrow cliches is definitely something I care a lot about.

also some design decisions screw some fundamental elements of the game, for example magic item economy (the designers of the revision weren't probably into the inner workings of 3.0)


I'm very curious what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?
User avatar
willpell
White Dragon
 
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:10 pm

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby Zeromaru X » Sun Aug 28, 2016 6:55 pm

As I'm becoming interested in Planescape and Dragonlance, I've updated my vote with 2e.

Gecko wrote:
timemrick wrote:Thanks for the summary, Zeromaru X!


I definately second that, I've been trying to learn 4e - mainly by going through the backlog of posts in the 4e forum and I was starting to see various posts here about Essentials and became very confused.


Well, If I'm not wrong Essentials was just an attempt to appeal to fans of old Editions with 4e (as the devs always tell us that Essentials was "a return to the classics", and they introduced many old school concepts to 4e with this line). I don't think they were successful in that (4e died rather awful), but as a fan of 4e, I for one like this line. If you're going to play 4e, I recommend you to go with the Essentials line, as I say isn't only simpler, but also is more flavorful (depicting the Nentir Vale setting more accurately than other 4e books). And if you already have 4e books, there is no problem because they are fully compatible.
User avatar
Zeromaru X
The Elder Wizard
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:24 am

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby Gecko » Sun Aug 28, 2016 10:07 pm

Zeromaru X wrote:As I'm becoming interested in Planescape and Dragonlance, I've updated my vote with 2e.

Gecko wrote:
timemrick wrote:Thanks for the summary, Zeromaru X!


I definately second that, I've been trying to learn 4e - mainly by going through the backlog of posts in the 4e forum and I was starting to see various posts here about Essentials and became very confused.


Well, If I'm not wrong Essentials was just an attempt to appeal to fans of old Editions with 4e (as the devs always tell us that Essentials was "a return to the classics", and they introduced many old school concepts to 4e with this line). I don't think they were successful in that (4e died rather awful), but as a fan of 4e, I for one like this line. If you're going to play 4e, I recommend you to go with the Essentials line, as I say isn't only simpler, but also is more flavorful (depicting the Nentir Vale setting more accurately than other 4e books). And if you already have 4e books, there is no problem because they are fully compatible.


I had been soloing (being both DM & Players) a group to test it out, but haven't done anything recently. I'm not sure which are Essentials and which are pre-Essentials:

Human Tinkerer Artificer
Elf Archer Ranger
Goliath Wild Battlemind with Wilder Theme
Deva Invoker
Eladrin Bladesinger Wizard

Based on what you wrote I take it the Bladesinger is Essentials, but not sure which the others are.
User avatar
Gecko
Storm Giant
 
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Marooned in California

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby Zeromaru X » Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:46 pm

Gecko wrote:I had been soloing (being both DM & Players) a group to test it out, but haven't done anything recently. I'm not sure which are Essentials and which are pre-Essentials:

Human Tinkerer Artificer
Elf Archer Ranger
Goliath Wild Battlemind with Wilder Theme
Deva Invoker
Eladrin Bladesinger Wizard

Based on what you wrote I take it the Bladesinger is Essentials, but not sure which the others are.


Yeap, only the Bladesinger is a Essentials class in that list.

The Essentials books/products are the Dungeon Master's Kit, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, Monster Vault, Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale, Rules Compendium, and the Red Box. There are also some Essentials-specific Dragon Magazine articles, I can make a list of those if you're interested.

There are "essentialized" books, meaning they are not officially part of the Essentials line, but follow its philosophy of simpler stuff and character creation/advancement. Those books are: the Player's Options Books (Heroes of Shadow, Heroes of the Feywild and Heroes of the Elemental Chaos), Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, and the Neverwinter Campaign Setting.

The rest of 4e books are vanilla 4e books.
User avatar
Zeromaru X
The Elder Wizard
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:24 am

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby rabindranath72 » Mon Aug 29, 2016 12:05 pm

willpell wrote:
Zeromaru X wrote:Was the 3.0 to 3.5 change that severe?


I wouldn't say "severe", but "significant" definitely. The conversion documents Wotco put out covered the most straightforward changes, but there were a lot of details they missed, especially in the Monster Manual. They were so busy standardizing monsters to follow the same rules as player characters, they got rid of a lot of neat "bits" that the 3.0 monsters had - for instance, the Annis Hag had an extraordinary "ability" called Brittle Bones, where she reduced all damage from piercing and slashing weapons by 1 point, but took 1 point extra from bludgeoning weapons. This vanished in the 3.5 revision, when they changed how damage reduction worked, likely because they didn't want any "loophole" abilities that resembled DR but weren't called out as such.

A more drastic example is the Slaads; in MM 3.0, there was a table of random abilities that you could roll up to make every Slaad unique, where some of them would have four arms or the like, and this entirely vanished from 3.5 - this is probably the single biggest loss between editions IMO (but then, I'm irrationally fond of Slaads - which is of course the way the Slaads would prefer anyone to be fond of them).

rabindranath72 wrote:1) Character creation is fast; if you want to save time, each class contains a package which allows creating a character of whatever race in a few minutes. I think something similar was done for 3.5 as well in a web enhancement, but in 3.0 it's straight in the PHB.


Pretty sure the equipment packages and skill suggestions are still in 3.5

2) Little or no decision paralysis, both at character creation and when advancing: there are very few feats, and their design is very tight (as a bonus, if you come from AD&D, you recognise some of those feats as previously fixed class features.) Many feats are designed as clear exceptions to very specific rules. For example, Alertness is designed to provide a bonus in surprise situations, and it's the only feat providing a bonus to two skills. If you want to get better in a skill in general, there's Skill Focus. Furthermore some of the feats in 3.0 were split into two or more feats in 3.5, with the result that each feat becomes less relevant. In general, when you take a feat in 3.0, it's a significant boost (this is important since, except for the fighter, there aren't many occasions to get feats.)


I'll have to look into this at some point, as it sounds interesting, but I suspect it may not hold up on examination for the majority of examples. In particular, even if this was true in the 3.0 PHB, it quickly stopped becoming true as additional books were put out, each of which had a slew of new specialty feats which were often added to the 3.5 core.

3) The game is not strongly wedded to the grid; there are some references in the DMG, but that's all. You won't find things like diagonal movement costing differently than horizontal/vertical movement (which technically doesn't even make much sense as it imposes an Euclidean concept of distance, whereas in fact when we use the grid, we are implicitly assuming a non-Euclidean metric.) This relies on DM fiat being more important, and in our experience, it also typically results in way faster combats.


3.0 had directional facing, while 3.5 didn't (except as an optional rule in Unearthed Arcana). I assume you're saying that 3.5 is the one which requires a map less than 3.0 did.

5) Lots of monsters are easier to adjudicate in play, since monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs when it comes to skills and feats. Again, faster combats (and faster prep.)


Perhaps, but I think the Savage Species changeover is worth it. 3.0 treated monsters very awkwardly, and it always annoys me when any edition (including 5E) regards them as somehow being inherently different than characters with class levels (even if these are NPCs).

6) Lots of monsters are scarier, as you will need specific magical bonuses; a weapon being generically "magic" is not enough.


Asking for a specific numerical bonus annoys me; I like requirements like dr/silver or dr/chaotic instead of dr/+3. But I agree that dr/magic might as well not exist, since every player character past about level 3 has at least a +1 weapon (unless the DM specifically denies them access to magic item shops).

8) Gnomes favour being illusionists (as traditional in AD&D.)


Neverminding how shit the Favored Class mechanic was in both versions of 3E, this was the only case of any class having a wizard subclass as favored; elves got to favor Wizard whether they did Illusions or not. Nobody had Bard as a favorite, and Gnome fits nicely I think.

9) Some skills are class specific, and can't be acquired by other classes as cross-class skills AT ALL: Animal Empathy, Decipher Script, Read Lips, Scry, Use Magic Device. This too is a sort of "throwback" to AD&D, and in general it helps with "niche protection".


I regard this as having been a sort of a nice idea, but not worth the rules baggage it carried. It's much easier to memorize the class skill lists when you don't have to keep any exemptions in mind. Animal Empathy turned into a class feature, although I actually think that might have been a mistake; I don't see any reason why a Wizard or Rogue couldn't learn how to "Diplomacy" animals instead of just Handling them. UMD is widely regarded as the most powerful skill in 3E, and maybe allowing anyone other than Rogues to access it created problems, but this could be fixed the same way Animal Empathy was, just treating UMD as a class feature instead of a skill.

12) Most spells have the same name and level as their AD&D counterparts. In 3.5 spells changed names AND levels, which makes porting spellcasting characters and monster a huge hassle.


Agreed, and a lot of spells changed their effects too. I love the 3.0 version of Creeping Doom - it does exactly 1000 damage in an area, flavored as insects which appear, bite once, and then vanish. The new version creates Swarm monsters under the player's control, and as much as I love summoning, it's a pain in the ass at the game table, creating a ton of extra work and delays if not handled carefully.

13) In general, classes are simpler, and have less "stuff" going on and/or fewer/simpler features; in general, they are less "powerful (e.g. the clerics don't have Auras; paladins don't have Auras and can only smite once per day; sorcerers can't change their spells; rangers don't get an animal companion by default etc.) The overall "feel" is definitely grittier (and play is faster.)


The auras you're talking about here are largely irrelevant, only interacting with Detect spells. But limiting Smite to 1/day is just sad, and denying Sorcerers the right to change their spells just makes them even more gimped than they already were compared to wizards.

Overall, 3.0 retained a lot of legacy features from AD&D, which made the game more easily recognisable by players used to AD&D, and made porting of characters and scenarios A LOT easier.


This is of course something I cannot weigh in on.

rabindranath72 wrote:Some of the 3.0 main designers (Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds, for example) had been very critical of the new changes; most of which were apparently done for no real reason other than screw compatibility up and force people to buy again the books


I don't think that this is true. Pretty much all the changes I've been able to spot seem to be well-reasoned - for instance, DR 50/+5 was pretty much a "**** you" to all players who didn't want to just focus in on getting the most powerful sword, instead wanting something fancy like a Dancing weapon of Fiery Burst. With that much DR, anyone who didn't have the right sword shouldn't even try to kill this thing - unless they're a wizard, since Fireballs etc. don't care about DR, so it just made LFQW worse. Likewise, most of the monster changes were prompted by Savage Species showing up how unnecessarily awkward the process of making monstrous PCs was, and adding more spells and feats gave players more options to personalize their characters. It would have perhaps been logical to keep some of the 3.0 stuff in as an "on ramp" for new players or 2E converters, but more ability to create characters that aren't narrow cliches is definitely something I care a lot about.

also some design decisions screw some fundamental elements of the game, for example magic item economy (the designers of the revision weren't probably into the inner workings of 3.0)


I'm very curious what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?

I don't have time nor the inclination to reply point by point, but in general your stance seems that 3.5 is an "improvement" since it distances itself furthermore from specific aspects of AD&D, which however according to many are not bugs but features. Like, the LFQW "problem" (which is not a problem at all if one follows the criteria laid out in the DMG of actually using random encounters which are designed to sap the resources of spellcasters so they don't arrive at the end of a scenario with a full complement of spells to "press the win button"; indeed, I NEVER had any LFQW problems at my table. Like, NEVER.) Or requiring +5 weapons (yes, some things are THAT nasty! Live with it. There's a quest just behind the corner to actually find a +5 weapon.)
In general, the departures from AD&D, were not something we were onboard with, at all.

For more specific points:

The point I was trying to make are essentially two:
1) 3.5 is not a revision, it's a new edition
2) Most of the changes suggest that they were done to explicitly distance itself from 3.0 and many AD&D tropes. To main drive from those in the know was to sell more books.

For more specific points:

1) Full Class Packages are not in the 3.5 PHB. They are in a web enhancement. In 3.0 they are in the PHB.

2) Yes I have been talking about 3.0 core books only, clearly that's not true anymore if you add the class splatbooks. Not something we were keen on anyway.

3) In the PHB there's barely reference to areas (e.g. some area of effects of spells are marked with circles!) Please provide a page reference where facing is stated in core 3.0. First time I saw facing in the game was in UA.

RE: screwing the magic items economy, Sean Reynolds notes that the costs of the +X weapons were designed taking into account that there were monsters requiring +X. If you allow anyone with a measly +1 weapon to hit a Balor, then that weapon has a much higher value than stated in the DMG.

YMMV etc. etc.
rabindranath72
White Dragon
 
Posts: 2595
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby willpell » Mon Aug 29, 2016 3:30 pm

rabindranath72 wrote:The point I was trying to make are essentially two:
1) 3.5 is not a revision, it's a new edition


I'll more or less agree with that. It's kind of a semantic question, but I definitely think you have a valid point.

2) Most of the changes suggest that they were done to explicitly distance itself from 3.0 and many AD&D tropes. To main drive from those in the know was to sell more books.


I still say there's no evidence that this was the intent, even if it had that effect.
User avatar
willpell
White Dragon
 
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:10 pm

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby rabindranath72 » Mon Aug 29, 2016 3:59 pm

willpell wrote:
rabindranath72 wrote:The point I was trying to make are essentially two:
1) 3.5 is not a revision, it's a new edition


I'll more or less agree with that. It's kind of a semantic question, but I definitely think you have a valid point.

2) Most of the changes suggest that they were done to explicitly distance itself from 3.0 and many AD&D tropes. To main drive from those in the know was to sell more books.


I still say there's no evidence that this was the intent, even if it had that effect.

The first comment was by Cook and Reynolds; the latter comments that "I am pretty smart, but there's no way that I could convert this on the fly as WotC says". The second from a guy who had worked at WotC first (he was one of the first employees), and then when it was acquired by Hasbro. Can't recall his name, but he definitely knows what he was talking about.
rabindranath72
White Dragon
 
Posts: 2595
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:10 pm

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby shesheyan » Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:43 pm

I voted 5E since imho its the «best retro-clone of D&D» available. I played it for a year (18 sessions) and it «felt» like the good old days of my teens and early twenties. I don't feel I need any other edition - retro, past or future.
User avatar
shesheyan
Stone Giant
 
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:58 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby Hunter_Maddox » Mon Jun 05, 2017 7:44 am

Owned the BECMI boxes but never played them - I was too young & didn't know any one into playing them. I played in both 1e & 2e, then ran an aborted session of 2e (drama ruined it). I then shifted to other systems before giving 3.0 a try but nearly stopped buying or playing D&D after 3.5 made my 3.0 collection obsolete. It wasn't until years later that I joined a a 3.5 group & ended up buying the 3.5 books but the love affair died soon after. I then spent nearly a decade playing in a RM2 game before running a year+ 5e campaign - but I'm running a RMU game now & will not likely run 5e again unless its for my nieces & nephews. If I run a D&D related game again it'll likely be an OSR clone like Swords & Wizardry or 1e inspired system like Castles &Crusades.
User avatar
Hunter_Maddox
Orc
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:21 am

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby finarvyn » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:16 pm

This was a hard poll to answer, as I've played pretty much all of the editions at one time or another. I would say that at the moment I am most interested in the early and the late (e.g. OD&D and 5E). OD&D because it's the genesis of the game and the one I grew up with, and 5E because it's the one I play most at the game store.
Finarvyn
Earl of Stone Creek, C&C Society
OD&D Player Since 1975
Original D&D Discussion
I'm partly responsible for the S&W White Box
User avatar
finarvyn
Orc
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Chicago = Greyhawk

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby Dread Delgath » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:14 pm

finarvyn wrote:This was a hard poll to answer, as I've played pretty much all of the editions at one time or another. I would say that at the moment I am most interested in the early and the late (e.g. OD&D and 5E). OD&D because it's the genesis of the game and the one I grew up with, and 5E because it's the one I play most at the game store.


Your post finarvyn, is identical to my current tastes, albeit Holmes as the entry to 0e, rather than being an entry to AD&D; and I started playing with Holmes, so I have gone back to the game that started it all for me.

I had to go back through this thread to see if/when I posted in it, and that was back in August 2016. A lot has changed since then. I am totally onboard with DMing 5th edition now as my primary focus, and that only because its a choice between choosing 5th edition players and Pathfinder players. I don't mind playing PF but I'll never DM it, but if I can, I'll D&D any day. ;)
Coming Soon(er or later)! A new Campaign Journal of our group's 5th edition D&D campaign set in my world of Dakan Mar. The Prophecies of the Roaming
User avatar
Dread Delgath
Frost Giant
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Location: Thankfully, NOT where the swirl starts when you flush the country.

Re: How many D&D editions are you interested in?

Postby timemrick » Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:53 pm

In the almost year since I posted in this thread, I've more committed even more solidly to Pathfinder over 3.5, but at the same time I've also started running 5E semi-regularly. I left my answer as 3.5 and 5E, though, because I'm still interested in some product lines (mainly Freeport) that started in 3.0/3.5, so I still get a fair amount of use out of those materials.
Tim Emrick, Green Ronin Freebooter and Keeper of the Freeport Errata
Winds of Freeport: My Pathfinder Freeport campaign (2014-2016).
Time of the Tarrasque: My homebrew Pathfinder campaign (2017-).
Studded Plate: My blog about RPGs and LEGO.
Thastygliax's Vault: My other gaming pages.
User avatar
timemrick
Hekatonkhieres
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:33 am
Location: Emirate of Kobara

Previous

Return to The Crunchy Bits

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests