PDA

View Full Version : Which Edition



Walk Hard
2015-02-10, 12:11 AM
Hi there play grounders

I am considering a change over and running a D&D game - however I have fairly little experience with it.

As an idea I am heavily experienced in Rolemaster (and despite the knocks it gets I quite enjoy it), I have also played in a few D20 games - Fantasy Craft & a bit of Star wars
My main familiarity with D&D is only an assortment of PC games - Neverwinter Nights, Temple of Elemental Evil, Baulders Gate etc. etc. I believe these are 3E??? I could be horribly wrong....

Despite the above I am now looking towards a system that has a wider support to it and more resources available.

Now getting onto my question..
Taking away any issues of purchasing books or acquiring any other gaming resources, what would be the recommendation for me on which edition to look into and why??

Lastly as a follow up question, what are the main differences between editions?? or are there simply too many to list?? what I am aiming at there is if certain editions can be used simultaneously and what sort of issues could arise from that if done too much or incorrectly.

I look forward to the discussion

Sith_Happens
2015-02-10, 01:10 AM
My main familiarity with D&D is only an assortment of PC games - Neverwinter Nights, Temple of Elemental Evil, Baulders Gate etc. etc. I believe these are 3E??? I could be horribly wrong....

Baldur's Gate is 2E, Neverwinter Nights is 3E, Temple of Elemental Evil is 3.5 (a.k.a. 3E Revised, but no one uses that name).

I don't know much about 5E and don't expect anyone to recommend 1E, 2E, or 3E, so here are the commonly-accepted pros and cons of 3.5 versus 4E:

3.5 Edition:

Pros:

1. Extreme customizability. Thanks primarily to the way multiclassing works (provided you scrap the XP penalty for doing so, which you should), the wealth of alternate class features available, and the sheer amount of books that exist for it, D&D 3.5 is about as close as it gets to point-buy without actually being a point-buy system when it comes to the sheer variety of characters it's possible to build.

2. Strategic depth. For almost every given problem there are an extremely large number of possible ways to solve it, even before getting into more "creative" applications of your character's abilities, and a party given time to prepare for their next objective is a thing to be feared. Note that as a DM this becomes a double-edged sword.

Cons:

1. Extremely poorly balanced, in a lot of ways. That wealth of possible problem-solving methods and ability to prepare for things I talked about? That's if you're a spellcaster or similar. Non-magical and barely-magical characters will spend most turns in combat doing the exact same thing over and over again, and depending on their classes they may or may not have anything that they're particularly able to do at all the rest of the time. Combined with the fact that versatility is the most effective thing to build your character for nine times out of ten, and things can get ugly fast.

2. Buggy. A lot of rules and abilities don't work right, and many more are written in a highly ambiguous fashion.

3. Combat at higher levels is extremely rocket-taggy, which makes encounters a pain to design.

Love It or Hate It:

1. Steep power curve. At low levels you're a band of gritty survivalists, a few levels in you're the Fellowship of the Ring, by mid-levels you're basically superheroes, and at high levels you're killing Smaug and Dumbledore as your morning exercise.

4th Edition:

Pros:

1. Extreme tactical depth. Combat places lots of importance on things like positioning, teamwork, and smart use of your abilities to gain incremental advantages over the opposition.

2. Well-balanced. Every character class gets a variety of cool things to do in and out of combat and no one in the party is likely to consistently outshine anyone else.

3. Easy to build exciting encounters and challenges for without worrying too much whether your players will steamroll it or get steamrolled by it.

Cons:

1. Has a decent variety of disbelief-stretching bits to it. To name two examples, every class's in-combat abilities work on something resembling a cooldown system without much explanation given for why that's the case for a fancy sword strike, and the default loot from many enemies doesn't necessarily match up with the equipment (if any) that said enemies actually use.

2. The variety of solutions that can be brought to bear against most problems is much more constrained. Note that from a DM's perspective this has its benefits, though.

Love It or Hate It:

1. Uniform/standardized class mechanics. While the specific powers that different classes get can be quite different from each other and those classes will play quite differently as a result, the underlying structure governing the use of those powers and the rate at which they're gained with level is the same or very similar for everyone.

Gavran
2015-02-10, 03:16 AM
I'd just like to say that's one of the most fair comparisons I've ever seen, even with this forum's standards on how to treat people who like a thing that isn't your thing.

I can't be nearly as helpful, but I will just chime in that 5th edition seems to me to be true to the mechanical philosophies of 3.5 (the return of Vancian casting, Spell Levels, Spell Lists, 3.5 style multiclassing) while incorporating some of the design philosophies of 4E. I don't know how successful it was, but I've seen things that make me believe they're putting more of an effort into making sure every character can do some cool stuff. It does seem like casters are still considerably ahead, but the margin is I think much smaller than in 3.5 (where it is staggering).

Some random other observations:

- 5E seems to want to put a lot of power in the DM's hands when it comes to arbitration compared to 4th (and I believe to 3.5)

- 5E has a streamlined skill system, roughly one step more complicated than using your attributes exclusively. (You will find no Craft (Glass Horse Statues) skill here.)

- 5E has far less material than older editions (naturally). This will most certainly change, but for now it means that it is easier to learn and has less room for customization.

- 5E has "bounded accuracy", essentially meaning you can rarely completely outscale threats. A battalion of level 1 goblin archers can threaten a higher level character. Some people really hate this.

sakuuya
2015-02-10, 08:53 AM
Also, 5e by default puts a little more emphasis on character, with backgrounds as a major element of character creation and inspiration points for acting on your character's traits. Neither of the previous two editions had even that much roleplay incentive. That's not to say "You can't roleplay in X edition!" because roleplay is what you make of it, but if you want mechanical reinforcement for acting in-character, 5e is the way to go, though it's still pretty light compared to something like 13th Age.

Palegreenpants
2015-02-10, 09:23 AM
I'd second sakuuya's point. If you want mechanical benefits from your character's background, go for 5E.

Anonymouswizard
2015-02-10, 09:29 AM
Also, 3.5 and 4e effectively require a battlemat to use as design, as does 3e to some extent, while BD&D, AD&D2e, and 5e are not designed around them in anywhere near the same way. I cannot speak for OD&D or AD&D1e.

Eldan
2015-02-10, 09:43 AM
They also change in their degree of simulationism. Third edition seems to put more weight on the idea of "would these mechanics explain how the world works", while 4E puts more weight on "do these mechanics make for a balanced game".

kaoskonfety
2015-02-10, 09:48 AM
Looking at what you've presented for D&D games I'd suggest 3rd (3.whatever/pathfinder) or 5th. How much complexity do you want being the follow up question.

3rd works - it has its flaws but it works. There is alot of details scattered about but if you stick mostly to the core books and a *pre-defined* list of extra material (this small pile of stuff I bought at a garage sale) its manageable and can be run "out of the box" with only a few DM hand waves. that said there are alot of rule interactions (synergy bonuses, what kinds of bonuses stack/don't, what the heck does the water subtype do?).

5th is newer and simpler - there is less added material and the core material is easy when contrasted with 1st to 3rd ed mechanics. No skill points, but still skills. No BAB and skill modifiers and save modifiers - all replaced with: proficiency bonus yes/no +stat. No creature "types" - if a monster does something its rules say so and you don't need to go on a sidequest in your books to see if a "half fiend aberration" can be subjected to the charmed condition


1st and 2nd edition, while I love to run them, are full of holes, often badly worded and from time to time actively confusing. If I did not already know them back to front from back in the days of "little other choice" I'd never bother.


No experience on 4th - missed it completely as my group was full on 3rd ed till 5th came out and caught our eyes during the play testing with the old school modules and the nifty, simple rules and backgrounds you could take that mattered and help write a character.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-10, 03:37 PM
2. The variety of solutions that can be brought to bear against most problems is much more constrained. Note that from a DM's perspective this has its benefits, though. No, the variety of solution that can be brought to bear is the same as it always was, but the number of useful solutions the players have to ask permission to be able to use has changed. For casters, it might have gone down - they now have to ask the GM if they can gain a certain effect that a spell used to grant them automatically - but for non-casters it has gone up - they don't have to ask the GM if they can reliably push an enemy back, or whatever, because their power says they can.

Powers are just things the players don't have to ask permission to do. This guarantees that a character will have at least a baseline level of capability without the GM's say-so. If they want more, they're free to ask, and the GM is free to grant it.

So, if the "cool down" mechanic bothers someone, they should ask if the GM minds if they use that power again. If the GM doesn't like the cooldown mechanic either, they're free to allow it. But even if they don't, the character is still plenty capable.

So, obviously, I like 4th Edition. I played The original Red (and Blue) boxes, AD&D, 2nd Edition, 3.5, 4th Edition, and a couple games of 5th. 4th Edition addresses problems (and not just with combat balance) that I had with all the other editions (including 5th). I have the imagination to explain for myself why I can't apply the effect of my limited powers as often as I'd like, so I get to enjoy the balance and the permissionless capability of my characters.

MKV
2015-02-10, 05:00 PM
I am a personal fan of the '81 rules also known as the magenta box or the Moldovay basic box. For me it has the perfect combination of out-of-the-box play-ability and house-rule-ability (totally a real word) in addition it is going to be easier on your wallet since you can find a free retro-clone here (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html). Wikipedia has a pretty good list of the various editions of D&D but personally I can only say one thing pick an edition, any edition and see if you can make it work for you if you can't house-rule it until it does.

neonchameleon
2015-02-10, 08:50 PM
I am a personal fan of the '81 rules also known as the magenta box or the Moldovay basic box. For me it has the perfect combination of out-of-the-box play-ability and house-rule-ability (totally a real word) in addition it is going to be easier on your wallet since you can find a free retro-clone here (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html). Wikipedia has a pretty good list of the various editions of D&D but personally I can only say one thing pick an edition, any edition and see if you can make it work for you if you can't house-rule it until it does.

BECMI/Rules Cyclopaedia is good.

To me it depends what sort of game you want to play.

If you want gritty dungeon crawling and a game of skill go for bD&D (Red Box (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/116619/DD-Basic-Set--DMs-Rulebook-BECMI-ed-Basic)/Rules Cyclopaedia (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/17171/DD-Rules-Cyclopedia-Basic?it=1)/Labyrinth Lord)

If you want action-movie physics running like a larger than life film/tv series and kinaesthetic tactical combat go for 4e.

If you want characters to build up to the point where they can rearrange the world and tactical combat go for 3.X or Pathfinder.

If you want something that does a little from each camp but isn't focussed on any one style go for 5e.

If you want to have fun with friends slinging dice and telling stories and joking with friends go for Dungeon World (http://www.dungeon-world.com/)

1337 b4k4
2015-02-10, 11:32 PM
BECMI/Rules Cyclopaedia is good.

To me it depends what sort of game you want to play.

If you want gritty dungeon crawling and a game of skill go for bD&D (Red Box (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/116619/DD-Basic-Set--DMs-Rulebook-BECMI-ed-Basic)/Rules Cyclopaedia (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/17171/DD-Rules-Cyclopedia-Basic?it=1)/Labyrinth Lord)

If you want action-movie physics running like a larger than life film/tv series and kinaesthetic tactical combat go for 4e.

If you want characters to build up to the point where they can rearrange the world and tactical combat go for 3.X or Pathfinder.

If you want something that does a little from each camp but isn't focussed on any one style go for 5e.

If you want to have fun with friends slinging dice and telling stories and joking with friends go for Dungeon World (http://www.dungeon-world.com/)

This is probably the best sum up for you, but I would add one suggestion which is if you decide to go with the older D&D edition (like BECMI) I would take a look a Swords and Wizardry which is another retro-clone like Labyrinth Lord. The major difference is it doesn't attempt to be a 1 to 1 match, and they made some design decisions to make things easier like Ascending AC and single number saving throws. It's also an extremely light and easy to customize system if you decide you want to add or remove things.

As a final note you asked about "wide support and resources". If you're looking for mechanical support and rules support, you probably can't do better than 3e, there's so much information and resources out there and so many things to pull from. The downside is separating the wheat from the chaff but if you can do that, 3e is probably you best bet. 4e has resourced, but not to the extent that 3e did largely due to the more restrictive licensing. 5e has the current commercial support from WotC but not much beyond that at the moment. OD&D/BECMI/Labyrinth Lord/Swords and Wizardry/Retro-Clones has the benefit of being largely compatible with almost the entire AD&D and earlier catalog of materials. Some adjustment is needed but is well documented online. The largest problem is in both the sheer volume of material (the Rules Cyclopedia alone is 300 pages designed to take characters from farm hands to immortals) and the decentralized nature of those resources. If you're willing to dig through the blogs and visit yet another set of forums, the OD&D/Retro-Clones have incredible amounts of community support.

So again, as noted, it depends specifically on what you're looking for, because despite the common name, D&D has been many things over the years.

Walk Hard
2015-02-11, 02:02 AM
So here is where I am at now.

I am looking at either 4E or 5E - it appears that anything 3E related is a bit too expansive for what I am wanting so either 4E or 5E it will be.


I also like the comment of simply choosing a system and then just house-ruling anything that doesn't work, so with that in mind I am rustling up the books that I can borrow from friends/family (A few of my friends have expansive RPG book libraries) what would the best book from 4E & 5E to look into to help solidify my decision?

Also kudos to everyone who has posted in here - some very insightful thoughts here :)

1337 b4k4
2015-02-11, 02:31 AM
Probably the best way to narrow down is to ask "Why are you looking to start a D&D game?" Is it because you're wanting to play a fantasy RPG game in a new system? Is it because you're looking for a specific type of play that you've heard D&D can give? Is it because you want the "D&D" experience? Realistically 4e was a very different game from most other editions of D&D so choosing between 4e D&D and 5e is akin to choosing between a traditional Final Fantasy game and a Final Fantasy Tactics game (please tell me that reference isn't too dated yet). For 5e, you can download the basic rules from WotC's website and give them a once over. If you like what you see and it has you feeling like you want to know more and get more, all that's really out right now are the core books and the starter set. For 4e, you will also need to look at original 4e and 4e Essentials as while they are 98% compatible, there are some differences. So again, I think we could really help better if you could answer in specifics with what you're goals are.

Walk Hard
2015-02-11, 03:19 AM
I like fantasy games - general medieval settings with magic :)

Yes I am wanting to run a fantasy game in a different system, as per my original post I am heavily experienced with Rolemaster and although I do get great enjoyment from this it can get quite laborious due to the large number books and tables involved and have the general feeling that D&D (any edition) will be a bit more simpler to run.

To clarify a little further, when I say simpler to run usually my planning involves me flipping through at least 7+ books and PDFs trying to find just the right details and rules for what I want to achieve out of a set of encounters, don't get me wrong the result is usually great but getting there can be a pain and juggling the big numbers can be a bit of a pain too.

Lastly I usually run with homebrewed worlds and settings however these are quite heavily based on random D&D modules that I have laying around and never really used, being able to simply pick up and play or directly use some of their content with out having to convert it over would be great (converting from a system you don't really understand can be kinda difficult....)

I think to answer my own question from my previous post would be to pick up either the players handbook or DM guide for the Editions and see what kind of feel I get from those and what pulls me in.

Again any direction given to me is appreciated

Magic Myrmidon
2015-02-11, 04:36 AM
If you're looking for simplicity, 5e is probably the way to go. One of the design goals was to simplify a lot of things, and a lot of the situational bonuses/penalties were reduced to advantage/disadvantage, which saves time on rule checking.

That being said, I have DMed neither game, only 3.5. I've heard DMing for 4e was nice in that monsters were really easy to balance against the players, but 5e's bounded accuracy kind of seems to make almost any higher challenge monster (or mistake in judgement) more of a realistic battle for the PCs.

neonchameleon
2015-02-11, 08:50 AM
I like fantasy games - general medieval settings with magic :)

Yes I am wanting to run a fantasy game in a different system, as per my original post I am heavily experienced with Rolemaster and although I do get great enjoyment from this it can get quite laborious due to the large number books and tables involved and have the general feeling that D&D (any edition) will be a bit more simpler to run.

To clarify a little further, when I say simpler to run usually my planning involves me flipping through at least 7+ books and PDFs trying to find just the right details and rules for what I want to achieve out of a set of encounters, don't get me wrong the result is usually great but getting there can be a pain and juggling the big numbers can be a bit of a pain too.

I'm really going to recommend 4e to you in that case even if the PHB is plain ugly and badly explained. Literally all the rules you need for NPC construction are below.
http://blogofholding.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/mm3businessfront.gif

(You probably want Monster Vault and possibly MV: Threats to the Nentir Vale and the MM3 for inspiration). You follow that math and work out the NPC abilities that would fit - and simply write them down, turning them into what you think the game mechanics ought to be. 5e has the problem of the multi-page-flipping because a lot of monsters cast spells so you need to refer to the PHB both in creation and in play, rather than just giving them the abilities.

For handling utterly ridiculous PC plans, the Skill Challenge rules are great but very badly explained. I'm going to recommend my retroclone guidance (https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t-lWABpQoNnT_HbV97HjHYko-2MSxIXKBeAe9d5ADM/edit#) (it being a retroclone, the rules are almost the same).

Walk Hard
2015-02-12, 10:16 PM
I have done some limited research and have another question - hopefully this doesn't open too big a can of worms

What are the differences between the following?? also pros/cons??

3E
3.5

Also to go along with the above what exactly is 3.X - I have seen many references to this before and never really understood it.

And lastly - Pathfinder - again I have seen many references to Pathfinder and again am unsure exactly what it is, as far as I'm aware it is some version of DnD???

Gavran
2015-02-12, 10:21 PM
3E or 3.0 - D&D Third Edition.
3.5 - A revised version of 3E.
Pathfinder - a 3rd party clone of 3.5 that tries to be... better I guess.
3.X - 3E, 3.5 or Pathfinder
3.P - PF or 3.5 using some things from PF maybe.

edit: I'll let the 3.x players fill you in on the differences and their pros/cons, but from an outside perspective those differences are granular enough to not really matter.

Sith_Happens
2015-02-12, 10:39 PM
What are the differences between the following?? also pros/cons??

3E
3.5

3.5 is just 3.0 with some of the wonkier bits of 3.0 ironed out and is almost completely backwards compatible. There's no real reason to play 3.0.


Also to go along with the above what exactly is 3.X - I have seen many references to this before and never really understood it.

3.X = 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.


And lastly - Pathfinder - again I have seen many references to Pathfinder and again am unsure exactly what it is, as far as I'm aware it is some version of DnD???

It's basically D&D 3.6, but not called that because it's by a different company.

On that note, if you ever see someone say "3.P" that means D&D 3.5 with ported Pathfinder content allowed.

Milo v3
2015-02-12, 11:11 PM
On that note, if you ever see someone say "3.P" that means D&D 3.5 with ported Pathfinder content allowed.

Or PF with 3.5e content allowed. I've seen alot of people play PF, then put warforged and decent PrC's into the game.

1337 b4k4
2015-02-13, 12:04 AM
I like fantasy games - general medieval settings with magic :)

Yes I am wanting to run a fantasy game in a different system, as per my original post I am heavily experienced with Rolemaster and although I do get great enjoyment from this it can get quite laborious due to the large number books and tables involved and have the general feeling that D&D (any edition) will be a bit more simpler to run.

To clarify a little further, when I say simpler to run usually my planning involves me flipping through at least 7+ books and PDFs trying to find just the right details and rules for what I want to achieve out of a set of encounters, don't get me wrong the result is usually great but getting there can be a pain and juggling the big numbers can be a bit of a pain too.

Lastly I usually run with homebrewed worlds and settings however these are quite heavily based on random D&D modules that I have laying around and never really used, being able to simply pick up and play or directly use some of their content with out having to convert it over would be great (converting from a system you don't really understand can be kinda difficult....)

I think to answer my own question from my previous post would be to pick up either the players handbook or DM guide for the Editions and see what kind of feel I get from those and what pulls me in.

Again any direction given to me is appreciated

Given this, I would likely suggest you start with 5e as it's the most modern of the D&Ds with the least amount of work necessary to get up to speed. If you then find that you like it, but would really love a lot more guidance on EVERYTHING and a lot more stuff for the players to choose from, you could switch to a 3.x game (but beware the extra book keeping). Or if you decided you like things fairly fast and loose but really really wish combat was more structured like a tactics RPG, you could switch to 4e (but beware the higher conversion necessary).

That said, if your modules that you're pulling from are older (AD&D and before) then I would highly suggest looking into the BECMI/Retro-Clone lines. The numbers are going to be much closer to whats in your modules then. Realistically, especially with the Retro-Clones there's even less to dig into than 5e to get started, and almost anything you want has probably been backported in some way shape or form. The only thing to bear in mind is that old D&D assumed a certain level of caution amongst players. Not everything was meant to be killed as the way forward.

Honestly though, if you're just looking for fantasy, want to try a new system and don't specifically need it to be D&D, I have to once again plug Dungeon World as an awesome alternative.

neonchameleon
2015-02-13, 06:13 AM
I have done some limited research and have another question - hopefully this doesn't open too big a can of worms

What are the differences between the following?? also pros/cons??

3E
3.5

Also to go along with the above what exactly is 3.X - I have seen many references to this before and never really understood it.

And lastly - Pathfinder - again I have seen many references to Pathfinder and again am unsure exactly what it is, as far as I'm aware it is some version of DnD???

Basic history of D&D under WotC:
In 2000, WotC released 3rd edition D&D (otherwise known as 3.0) and decided for reasons to make the ruleset open source. In 2003 they released the updated rulesset of 3.5 as a mix of bug fixes and blatant cash grab with just enough changes to make the two versions incompatible. Most people active in the online community eventually moved over to 3.5 despite the square horses. In 2008 WotC then released 4e which is a different game, so in 2009 Paizo exploited the fact that 3.5 was open source to release their own slightly tweaked version.

So 3.X means the family of games that covers 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder. They use almost the same rules and are played almost exactly the same way.

As a rule people starting out these days will choose Pathfinder. It's the only one currently supported.

Kurald Galain
2015-02-13, 06:59 AM
Despite the above I am now looking towards a system that has a wider support to it and more resources available.
The most widely supported game with the most resources available, by a wide margin, is Pathfinder (which, as pointed out above, is based on third edition D&D).

It is in active development, has a huge player base everywhere, and all the rules are available on their website for free.



Lastly as a follow up question, what are the main differences between editions?? or are there simply too many to list?? what I am aiming at there is if certain editions can be used simultaneously and what sort of issues could arise from that if done too much or incorrectly.
No, editions cannot be used simultanenously, except that 3E, 3.5, and Pathfinder mostly share the same ruleset ("3.X") and therefore can be combined.

The difference is in design goals, basically what Eldan already said.

5E: Tradition > Simplicity > Realism > Balance
PF: Tradition > Simplicity > Realism > Balance
4E: Balance > Simplicity > Tradition > Realism
3E: Tradition > Realism > Balance > Simplicity

Spriteless
2015-02-14, 12:09 AM
You can get some of 5th ed for free. 4 races and 4 classes, (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules?x=dnd/basicrules) and another 3 races on top of that (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-eberron). It means players who don't mind limited options shouldn't feel obliged to get a $50 book. >_>

A lot of 3rd edition is online for free (http://www.d20srd.org/) too. The D20 License basically lets you reprint most anything except character generation, xp points, and Beholders. Well, reprint stuff from 5 specific books by WotC, and also third party stuff. You also have to give credit to creators.

Pathfinder is probably better though.

(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/)You can use 1st and 2nd edition (A)D&D together.
You can use 3.0, 3.5, and pathfinder together.
You can probably convert some monsters pretty quickly between every edition but 4th, if you already know what the numbers mean and which are better high and which better low in each edition. Some people would say that is unbalanced, I say the first Monster Manual predates the idea of RPG game balance so it doesn't count.

Edit: Responding to the ninja.

Milo v3
2015-02-14, 12:40 AM
You can get some of 5th ed for free. 4 races and 4 classes, (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules?x=dnd/basicrules)
Note: Last time I checked, the basic rules only has rules for playing the classes in their most cliched manner, Blasty Wizard, Healbot Cleric, etc.

aspekt
2015-02-14, 01:03 AM
If you can pick up only one 5e book I would reccomend the Player's Handbook ie., PHB, if what you want are rules to review.

Don't get me wrong I love the 5e DMs guide. In fact I think it's one of the better DM guides in a long line of them. But it's focus is far more on prepping you to DM and then giving you handy tables to use. Personally I found tbe PHB more rules informative.

I will add to what's been said concerning materials and support for editions. 2e has a crazy number of modules, expansions, books, and more. But I have a feeling you would find 2e too close to your experience with RM.

If 2e has crazy, but dated, support, then 3.x is an explosion. The amount of material you can find with the moniker d20 attached to it is nothing short of a renaissance. With the open source (OGL) license there were more independent publishers and materials than for any other rpg ever. And I am not exaggerating. One sidenote, most 3.5 materials are still fairly pricey even used. But with the release of 5e I have noticed a slew of 4e materials up for sale along with a slow but steady price drop in 3.5 materials.

4e has quite a number of retconned materials from 1/2e and 3.x. Yet it is nowhere near the level of any previous version of DnD. Also it seems that with 4e people either love it or hate it.

I have high hopes for 5e. It seems like several important lessons may have been learned between 3.5 and 5e. Also there are already a few independents starting to create material for 5e, but you would be getting in on the ground floor of a system which, if you like it, can be useful for your head and your pocketbook.

Sith_Happens
2015-02-16, 06:49 PM
Oh, worth bringing up: You know how I listed one of 4e's cons as "might require you to stretch your disbelief a bit further than you're used to?"

There's one major exception to that: If you're one of those people who doesn't like the idea of someone getting impaled by a triceratops (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0927.html) and still walking afterwards just because they're high level, you'll love the way 4e handles hit points. Specifically, it takes the idea that hit points are what you make of them and runs with it. Sure, the party divine caster can still heal you with actual healing magic... or one of the warriors can "heal" you by lifting your spirits with a brief inspirational speech, thereby helping you keep up your ability to narrowly turn serious hits into glancing blows because that's totally what you've been doing rather than actually getting stabbed. Matter of fact, if I understand the "bloodied" condition right it's generally not until you're below half health that your foes are considered to have seriously injured you.

Granted, as far as I know there's still no way to bypass someone's hit points entirely without rendering them completely helpless first, but at least when a PC doesn't feel threatened by a thug pointing a crossbow at them it's not necessarily because of some inexplicable ability to get shot in the face and laugh it off.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-16, 07:01 PM
5E: Tradition > Simplicity > Realism > Balance
PF: Tradition > Simplicity > Realism > Balance
4E: Balance > Simplicity > Tradition > Realism
3E: Tradition > Realism > Balance > Simplicity
Excellent summary. That is precisely why I like 4th Edition.


Matter of fact, if I understand the "bloodied" condition right it's generally not until you're below half health that your foes are considered to have seriously injured you. Even then, there's no one particular way to describe that state. Non-magical healing can bring you back from bloodied instantly, so it either doesn't involve a serious injury, or it's on that the character can ignore for a time.


Granted, as far as I know there's still no way to bypass someone's hit points entirely without rendering them completely helpless first, There are a few monsters, and even a few powers that can kill instantly, with the right set up. 4th Edition deliberately tried to get a way from "save or die."

Another way to do it would be a skill challenge that, on success, resulted in some target's death. But that would tend to be ad hoc.


but at least when a PC doesn't feel threatened by a thug pointing a crossbow at them it's not necessarily because of some inexplicable ability to get shot in the face and laugh it off. Good point. There will always be some weirdness about hit points, but with more encouragement to think about them in different ways a lot of stuff can be more easily imagined.

oshi
2015-02-17, 05:51 AM
I'm in a similar situation, I've skimmed a few PHBs and I was wondering if I could get some feedback on how accurate what I perceive about the various D&D systems is. This is obviously based on not the greatest understanding of any of the systems, but here goes...

3.5E: I haven't looked into this, because I understood PF to be mostly accepted as being outright better, and to have some content compatible with PF
PF: +Lots of content, rules all available for free, good support for non-combat skills, lots of decisions in character builds
-Possibly too complex for people new to d20, few action decisions per turn for non-casters*
4E: +Interesting action decisions each turn for non-casters*, decent variery of character builds
-Not good support for non-combat skills
5E: +VERY easy to learn
-Limited character builds, few action decisions per turn for non-casters*, poor non-combat skill support

* I'm REALLY not a fan of every turn being "I hit him with my weapon x times. *rolls*".

Am I close to the mark?

Beta Centauri
2015-02-17, 03:09 PM
PF: +Lots of content, rules all available for free, good support for non-combat skills, lots of decisions in character builds
-Possibly too complex for people new to d20, few action decisions per turn for non-casters*
4E: +Interesting action decisions each turn for non-casters*, decent variery of character builds
-Not good support for non-combat skills

Am I close to the mark? What sort of support does PF have for non-combat skills? I assumed it was basically what 3.5 did, i.e. complicated point allocation and lots of skills that rarely saw much use, like Forgery.

4e doesn't have explicit support for non-combat skills, but there is strong encouragement throughout the rules for GMs and players to be inventive with skill use.

Kurald Galain
2015-02-17, 03:36 PM
4e doesn't have explicit support for non-combat skills, but there is strong encouragement throughout the rules for GMs and players to be inventive with skill use.

No, not really. Players have a strong incentive to always roll their best skill, and make up some vague excuse for why that might help the current situation (because the rules suggest that this should work, and in pretty much all printed adventures it explicitly does work, and this gives the highest chance for success).

Wilderness survival? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff.
Need to bash open a lock? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff.
Convince the duke to help you? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff. And so forth. No, not everybody plays it that way (thankfully) but the rules strongly encourage this behavior, and most players figure that out sooner or later.

This in stark contrast with 2E/3E/PF (and to a lesser extent 5E) that actually have substantial rules for out-of-combat situation. Every edition of the game has skills that are commonly used (hello perception!) and skills that are rarely used; that's nothing new.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-17, 03:59 PM
Players have a strong incentive to always roll their best skill, and make up some vague excuse for why that might help the current situation (because the rules suggest that this should work, and in pretty much all printed adventures it explicitly does work, and this gives the highest chance for success). I saw the same thing in other editions. Because GMs were encouraged by the rules to say no, even to creative ideas, the result was that certain players would sit out of entire swaths of the game. Certain classes had almost no opportunity for participation outside of combat.


Wilderness survival? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff.
Need to bash open a lock? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff.
Convince the duke to help you? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff. And so forth. No, not everybody plays it that way (thankfully) but the rules strongly encourage this behavior, and most players figure that out sooner or later. No one plays it that way who wouldn't find a way to pull the same kind of stunt in any other game they sat down to. Would you play this way?


This in stark contrast with 2E/3E/PF (and to a lesser extent 5E) that actually have substantial rules for out-of-combat situation. Substantial, yes. Realistic, maybe. Workable and fun, that's another question to which my answer, after having tried to use the system for years, is "No."


Every edition of the game has skills that are commonly used (hello perception!) and skills that are rarely used; that's nothing new. And it's nothing anyone should settle for, either. Don't cruft up the rules with skills that aren't going to see much, if any, use. Don't have two or more skills each for detecting, remaining undetected, engaging in thievery and exhibiting physical strength. Yes, I get that in the real world not every good climber is a good jumper, etc., but since D&D is decidedly not and has never been the real world, just couple similar things together. Want to be better at jumping and dealing with traps than with climbing and picking pockets? Take some feats or powers that boost Athletics and Thievery in certain situations.

It's really strange to see the 3.5 style skill system defended in any way, and basically from the position of its inflexibility. Oh, well.

aspekt
2015-02-17, 07:35 PM
I think 5e could be classified as 'very easy' and with' little support' simply because of its relative age in comparison to the other editions. It remains to be seen whether this will remain the case.

goto124
2015-02-17, 07:38 PM
Need to bash open a lock? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff.

I like the idea of convincing a door to open for you.

sakuuya
2015-02-17, 07:53 PM
I think 5e could be classified as 'very easy' and with' little support' simply because of its relative age in comparison to the other editions. It remains to be seen whether this will remain the case.

But if Walk Hard gets into it now, s/he'll be able to keep up with whatever new complexities and support come out, especially since WotC has said they're trying for a lighter release schedule this edition. I still think 5e's basic ease and newness are selling points for people trying D&D for the first time, though I'm personally champing at the bit for more content.

Milo v3
2015-02-17, 07:58 PM
What sort of support does PF have for non-combat skills? I assumed it was basically what 3.5 did, i.e. complicated point allocation and lots of skills that rarely saw much use, like Forgery.
Most the unused skills in PF have been removed or merged, for example, forgery was merged with decipher script and speak language to become Linguistics. Still not amazing, but much better than any of those skills were alone.

The point allocation is no longer complex, which some people like but others don't, since it means you can now put ranks into cross-class skills without forever sucking at the skill.

Also, there is a feat that lets non-magical characters make magic items with their craft and profession skills (one of my players is currently using Profession Farmer skill to grow magic plants and plant-weapons).

Gavran
2015-02-17, 08:15 PM
If you don't want non-casters going "I full attack" or "I attack seven times" or whatever, 4E is pretty much your best option. And personally I see nothing in 4E that makes the skill system any less useful than any other edition. Hell, 5E has people rolling attribute checks generally, does it not?

Kurald Galain
2015-02-17, 08:28 PM
I saw the same thing in other editions. Because GMs were encouraged by the rules to say no, even to creative ideas, the result was that certain players would sit out of entire swaths of the game. Certain classes had almost no opportunity for participation outside of combat.

That is pretty much the exact opposite of what I said, so I have no idea why you think this is "the same thing".

At any rate, no RPG that I know of encourages GMs to say no to creative ideas. Please provide a citation from the rules that actually says so?



If you don't want non-casters going "I full attack" or "I attack seven times" or whatever, 4E is pretty much your best option. And personally I see nothing in 4E that makes the skill system any less useful than any other edition. Hell, 5E has people rolling attribute checks generally, does it not?

Here's the funny thing: certain players like playing a character that's so straightforward in combat. And players that don't like it, simply play another class. This is not a fault of the system, this is catering to playstyles other than the one you personally prefer.

Note that WOTC eventually realized this, and started printing quite a lot of 4E classes that only make a basic attack each turn. Precisely because certain players like that.

Milo v3
2015-02-17, 08:48 PM
If you don't want non-casters going "I full attack" or "I attack seven times" or whatever, 4E is pretty much your best option.

Though, 3.5e has a book called Tome of Battle that removes this issue, and PF has the Path of War line that removes the issue.

Kurald Galain
2015-02-17, 08:58 PM
Skill comparison!


In 2E, 3E, and PF, your character's intelligence influences how many skills he gets (called "NWPs" in 2E); in 4E and 5E, it doesn't.
In 2E, 3E, and PF, your character will learn more skills as he levels up; in 4E and 5E, he doesn't (except by spending a feat on it, which is generally considered a poor choice).
In 2E, 3E, and PF, a skilled character is substantially better at that task than an unskilled; in 4E, he is moderately better; in 5E, an unskilled character will frequently beat a skilled character.
In 2E, 3E, and PF, a skilled character with an average ability score is still better than an unskilled character with a high ability score; in 4E and 5E, this is not the case.
In 2E and 3E, cross-class skills are more expensive to get; in PF and 5E, they're at the same cost as class skills; in 4E, you cannot normally take cross-class skills at all (except if Eladrin).
In 3E, you're substantially worse at any cross-class skill; in PF, you're a little bit worse but not much; in 2E, 4E, and 5E, you're equally good at cross-class skills as at class skills.
In 3E and PF, you have granularity to be slightly trained in one skill and extensively trained in another; in 2E, 4E, and 5E, you're simply either trained or you're not.
In 4E, you're encouraged to always roll your best skill for everything (and make up a reason for why that might work); in 2E, 3E, PF, and 5E the rules don't let you do that.
In 2E, 3E, and PF, there are numerous rules for what skills do in out-of-combat situations; in 4E and 5E, there aren't.
In 2E, reading is a skill, and if you don't take it, your character is illiterate. In 3E, PF, 4E, and 5E, all characters are always literate (except barbarians in 3E/PF).


2E has the longest skill list; 3E uses a condensed list which is still quite long, 3.5's list is further condensed from that. PF, 4E, and 5E each have an even more condensed list (in slightly different ways) of which 4E has the shortest.

Sith_Happens
2015-02-17, 09:07 PM
No, not really. Players have a strong incentive to always roll their best skill, and make up some vague excuse for why that might help the current situation (because the rules suggest that this should work, and in pretty much all printed adventures it explicitly does work, and this gives the highest chance for success).

Wilderness survival? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff.
Need to bash open a lock? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff.
Convince the duke to help you? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff. And so forth. No, not everybody plays it that way (thankfully) but the rules strongly encourage this behavior, and most players figure that out sooner or later.

That just means that making up the vague excuse becomes the fun part. When PC A is good at [A], PC B is good at [B], and so on, how do you approach the problem at hand in such a way as to make it solvable by doing [A], [B], and [C]?

Milo v3
2015-02-17, 09:31 PM
(except barbarians in 3E/PF).

In PF barbarians are not illiterate unless you pick a specific archetype. I wouldn't mention this if it wasn't ridiculously annoying when GM's try to claim my barbarian is illiterate for no reason other than them not actually reading the PF barbarian rules. :smallannoyed:

oxybe
2015-02-17, 10:35 PM
Kurald, you forgot to mention that the 4th ed skills generally cover far more ground individually then the ones in 3rd and 2nd though. The Athletics and acrobatics skills in 4th cover a wide berth of mix of jumping, swiming, tumbling, climbing, etc... what would be individual skills in previous editions.

Looking at it by the numbers, sure 4th ed has less individual skills but a 4th ed character's individual skillset usually puts him above what his 3rd ed counterpart would have.

A 4th ed Ranger gets Dungeoneering/nature and 4 other skills to choose from: Acrobatics, Athletics, Dungeoneering, Endurance, Heal, Nature, Perception, Stealth. It might not seem like a big list, but choosing Nature+Acrobatics, Athletics, Perception, Stealth is the equivalent of choosing the 3rd ed equivalents of:

Climb
Jump
Swim
Tumble
Knowledge Nature
Knowledge Geography
Escape Artist
Search
Spot
Listen
Move Silently
Hide
Survival
Handle Animal

Less individual skills yes, but the skills themselves cover a broader concept of for the most part, so the only thing you're really losing is granularity.

As for the "makes you use your highest skill" well duh. People tend to rely on their best tools first.

If you're good at a thing you're likely to try to use it in times of duress unless another obviously easier method exists. If you're bad at public speaking, or speaking in general, you use other methods to get your point across. If that involves hucking a station wagon to prove a point, then you're going to huck a station wagon.

Now, this doesn't mean the GM will let your action succeed, but it's a mentality I've seen existing for years before 4th ed was even a whisper on forums. Abraham Maslow (the hierarchy of needs guy) said "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

Part of it is testing waters, but part of it is being creative. It's not just "I use athletics"... you need to frame the use of athletics within the context of the situation.

Not that this is a 4th ed only thing though. I rarely see people use untrained skills in 3rd ed or pathfinder and you don't let the 2nd ed fighter with low charisma trying to persuade people in ways that aren't "use sword on peasant"

Either way, at least the player is actively engaging the scene instead of sitting on his thumbs because he rolled up a 3rd ed dwarven fighter with average intellect and got a whopping two skill points per level (a whole eight points at level 1) and spent them on climbing and swimming.

I'd much rather have a guy trying to Athletics his way through the session then doing nothing.

Gavran
2015-02-18, 12:34 AM
Though, 3.5e has a book called Tome of Battle that removes this issue, and PF has the Path of War line that removes the issue.
This is what stopped me from saying "your only" option and made me choose "best" instead. I do not know the full extent of these fixes, but I do assume they're somewhat less than a system that was designed from the ground up with that in mind. Also worth noting that 5E seems to have kept some of that philosophy, even as they moved classes to much more strongly resemble 3.X - my familiarity with the system is pretty low but I think there is only one class variant that only uses basic attacks, the Champion Fighter. And the rest isn't just "basic attacks with some spells" either, I believe the Battle Master Fighter is a mix between a 3.X maneuver(?) enhanced Fighter, and a bit of 4E Fighter/Warlord. That said, that's largely hearsay - I have nothing resembling proof that your average rogue does anything more than basic attack + sneak attack die, or barbarians do more than basic attack + rage sometimes and so on.


Here's the funny thing: certain players like playing a character that's so straightforward in combat. And players that don't like it, simply play another class. This is not a fault of the system, this is catering to playstyles other than the one you personally prefer.

Note that WOTC eventually realized this, and started printing quite a lot of 4E classes that only make a basic attack each turn. Precisely because certain players like that.
I know that you know that Twin-Strike Rangers were always a thing. :P

And well, I'd argue that 4E implementing Essentials-style characters is a much more elegant solution to that problem than "play another class", and based off of the limited amount of ToB features I've seen (which granted is pretty small, never played 3.X even once), it's superior to that as well. Regardless, it's not just the playstyle I prefer, it's the one the guy I was quoting said he prefers, which is why I both said it and prefaced it with "If you..."

--

Frankly, my one foray into 5E I felt more limited than in 4E at the same level despite the fact that I was a wizard. It was a low-level pre-gen though, so that is perhaps not very indicative of the system.

oshi
2015-02-18, 05:28 AM
Thanks everyone, great GREAT responses!
The thing I liked about the PF skill system was that it appeared to be more central to the game than any of the others, which looked like tack-ons to a combat game... It looked like you continue improving as you level up, it doesn't force you to sacrifice precious resources (Feats, I guess, in D&D) to be useful with your skills, the skill system was very open, and there were some classes that could almost be played as skill-monkeys.
I'm saddened to hear it doesn't play out like that, but the responses mean that 4E does interest me very much more now...

aspekt
2015-02-18, 05:57 AM
But if Walk Hard gets into it now, s/he'll be able to keep up with whatever new complexities and support come out, especially since WotC has said they're trying for a lighter release schedule this edition. I still think 5e's basic ease and newness are selling points for people trying D&D for the first time, though I'm personally champing at the bit for more content.

Agreed, on all points.

Anonymouswizard
2015-02-18, 07:21 AM
Either way, at least the player is actively engaging the scene instead of sitting on his thumbs because he rolled up a 3rd ed dwarven fighter with average intellect and got a whopping two skill points per level (a whole eight points at level 1) and spent them on climbing and swimming.

I once made a pathfinder fighter specifically designed to deny the enemy a 15ft by 15ft block in pathfinder. Because of his build (Str 10, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 15, Wis 11, Cha 10 if I remember correctly), and the fact I took the skill point favoured class bonus to get a whopping 6 skill points per level made everyone ask me "why not play a rogue", as if fighters couldn't be agile, smart, and skilled.

neonchameleon
2015-02-18, 07:33 AM
No, not really. Players have a strong incentive to always roll their best skill, and make up some vague excuse for why that might help the current situation (because the rules suggest that this should work, and in pretty much all printed adventures it explicitly does work, and this gives the highest chance for success).

Wilderness survival? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff.
Need to bash open a lock? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff.
Convince the duke to help you? Well, the fighter rolls endurance, the wizard rolls arcana, and the bard rolls bluff. And so forth. No, not everybody plays it that way (thankfully) but the rules strongly encourage this behavior, and most players figure that out sooner or later.

The rules only encourage that sort of behaviour if neither players nor DM give a damn about the setting, consistency, or roleplaying.

A more accurate summary of a 4e experience that's being played by players who actually care what's going on in the game world would be:

Need to open a lock?
The thief rolls thievery to pick the lock, or the fighter uses athletics and a crowbar to force the lock open, or the bard rolls bluff to try to persuade the person with the keys to do it for them.

Wilderness survival?
The wizard rolls history (also Int based) to try to remember where roads, rivers, and memorable events are. The fighter rolls Athletics to bring as much firewood as possible and create as much shelter as they can. The ranger rolls Nature to hunt for food while the rogue tries to set traps with thievery (which will be at a harder DC than setting them with nature; the traps will be better just not in the right place).

Convince the duke?
The bard rolls diplomacy to get them to like you. The wizard rolls history for background knowledge with which to brief the bard. The fighter goes carousing either with the duke or the captain of the guard and tries to be the last one standing (endurance) and otherwise convinces of competence.

In all cases except the first the operative word is "teamwork" - working out how what you are good at helps with the overall goal. The first is a simple pass/fail check. The others are much more interesting than "Everyone roll survival" or "Leave it to the Bard", turning the whole thing into a mini-decker problem.


Thanks everyone, great GREAT responses!
The thing I liked about the PF skill system was that it appeared to be more central to the game than any of the others, which looked like tack-ons to a combat game... It looked like you continue improving as you level up, it doesn't force you to sacrifice precious resources (Feats, I guess, in D&D) to be useful with your skills, the skill system was very open, and there were some classes that could almost be played as skill-monkeys.
I'm saddened to hear it doesn't play out like that, but the responses mean that 4E does interest me very much more now...

There are three fundamental problems with the 3.X/PF skill system.

1: Continuing improving as you level up but only in certain skills makes the gap absurd. If the bard is rolling diplomacy at +18 and the ranger is rolling diplomacy at +0 (example in the game I'm currently in). So in any complex negotiation the best thing the ranger can do is stay quiet.
2: The skills are too tightly defined. How far can you jump? Easy question. Do you know something random that might be useful? Much weaker support. How do you carouse? Goodness knows. Even with all the detailing you need to know, half the time you're winging it anyway.
3: Too many skills. Ignoring the four skill families, 3.5 has 33 skills (PF has 22). It also has a lot of knowledge skills, and an unlimited number of craft and profession skills (and speak language/linguistics is weird). Which means that with the most skilled class getting 8+Int skills/level (and the least skilled getting 2+Int) even the rogue has no grounding in most of the skills. PF is also an improvement here partly because it encourages one-point-breadth of skills with its skill training rules. (4e has 17 skills, 5e 19 from memory, and both have a much higher floor on number of trained skills and lower gap between trained and untrained)

There's also a fourth problem with the 3.X/PF skill system.
4: A lot of skills are irrelevant when compared to the power of Pathfinder's magic. An extreme example is that at 10th level, my Summoner has Overland Flight. For ten hours per day he flies. Climbing and jumping are skill checks. While the barbarian put resources into being able to climb the cliff, my summoner just scoots up it without needing to roll. (Invisibility vs Stealth is another favourite).

4e's skill system is much more open and doesn't suffer from either issue to anything like the same degree. The huge problem is that the skill challenge system is terribly explained; I think the version in my retroclone (https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t-lWABpQoNnT_HbV97HjHYko-2MSxIXKBeAe9d5ADM/edit) explains what you are doing far better.

Kurald Galain
2015-02-18, 08:18 AM
Wilderness survival?
The wizard rolls history (also Int based) to try to remember where roads, rivers, and memorable events are. The fighter rolls Athletics to bring as much firewood as possible and create as much shelter as they can. The ranger rolls Nature to hunt for food while the rogue tries to set traps with thievery (which will be at a harder DC than setting them with nature; the traps will be better just not in the right place).
That's precisely my point, yes. Despite the fact that the game has a clear and explicit skill for survival, the players instead opt to use whatever their highest skill is and make up a vague handwave for why that would work. This is true even if that handwave has nothing to do with what the skill is actually for; it shows no regards for the setting or for roleplaying.


In all cases except the first the operative word is "teamwork"
None of what you describe is teamwork. All of it is each player, individually, doing what he does best, with no regards for consistency with what the other players are doing.


1: Continuing improving as you level up but only in certain skills makes the gap absurd. If the bard is rolling diplomacy at +18 and the ranger is rolling diplomacy at +0 (example in the game I'm currently in). So in any complex negotiation the best thing the ranger can do is stay quiet.
Why on earth is it a problem, if the party has a specialist focused on negotiating, to let that specialist do the negotiating? Yes, if you build a character so that he's good at something, he's actually good at something. That's a feature, not a bug.
Every player deserves spotlight time. That doesn't mean that everyone has to be continually in the spotlight together.


Which means that with the most skilled class getting 8+Int skills/level (and the least skilled getting 2+Int) even the rogue has no grounding in most of the skills.
Yes. That encourages teamwork, since no one character will be able to do everything. Again, feature, not a bug. If most characters have more-or-less the same chance at every task (or if you can basically substitute your best skill for whatever you're trying to do) then there's no point in having a skill system in the first place.


There's also a fourth problem with the 3.X/PF skill system.
Yes, yes, casters rule / mundanes drool. Funnily enough this is still the most popular RPG in the world by a wide margin, and most players don't actually experience this problem.

neonchameleon
2015-02-18, 09:00 AM
That's precisely my point, yes. Despite the fact that the game has a clear and explicit skill for survival, the players instead opt to use whatever their highest skill is and make up a vague handwave for why that would work. This is true even if that handwave has nothing to do with what the skill is actually for; it shows no regards for the setting or for roleplaying.

If the handwave has nothing to do with what the skill is actually for then you quite literally ignoring the laws of cause and effect. If you actively needed rules to have regard for the setting and roleplaying then freeform RP would be physically impossible. 4e assumes either that the players are playing in good faith or that the DM is strong enough to enforce basic cause and effect. If the group isn't playing in good faith, but rather playing as if it were a computer game, and the DM is doing nothing then it's going to fall apart. Me? I don't play with players not playing in good faith.


None of what you describe is teamwork. All of it is each player, individually, doing what he does best, with no regards for consistency with what the other players are doing.

You are inventing things.

You can not convince the Duke if no one is convincing the Duke. The laws of cause and effect still apply. The Bard is the star of the convincing the duke scene. But look at an American Football match. The stars of the play are normally the Quarterback and the Receiver. But the whole thing is an exercise in teamwork. Your objection is basically "Hey! Lineman! What are you doing? Why do you think standing there and taking a few steps forward is going to help us score a touchdown! You're doing what you individually do best with no regard for consistency or what the other players are doing!"


Why on earth is it a problem, if the party has a specialist focused on negotiating, to let that specialist do the negotiating? Yes, if you build a character so that he's good at something, he's actually good at something. That's a feature, not a bug.

That's what you have in 4e and mid-high level 5e. Characters who are good at things. What you have in 3.5 is that if you build a character so he's good at something then everyone else should sit down, shut up, and let him do it all rather than let him do everything possible. Turning even social interactions into the equivalent of the shadowrun Decker Problem as other players sit on their hands.


Every player deserves spotlight time. That doesn't mean that everyone has to be continually in the spotlight together.

Indeed. Which is why a gap of +5 or even +10 is OK. That's enough for serious spotlight time.


Yes. That encourages teamwork, since no one character will be able to do everything. Again, feature, not a bug. If most characters have more-or-less the same chance at every task (or if you can basically substitute your best skill for whatever you're trying to do) then there's no point in having a skill system in the first place.

But they don't. This is a fabrication based on not actually understanding 4e. You can't diplomacy open a door. You might be able to with difficulty work out who has the key - but the consequences of that are significantly different.


Funnily enough this is still the most popular RPG in the world by a wide margin, and most players don't actually experience this problem.

Funnily enough, McDonalds is the most popular restaurant in the world. And most people don't have serious problems there.

Kurald Galain
2015-02-18, 09:02 AM
Convince the duke?
The bard rolls diplomacy to get them to like you. The wizard rolls history for background knowledge with which to brief the bard. The fighter goes carousing either with the duke or the captain of the guard and tries to be the last one standing (endurance) and otherwise convinces of competence.

This deserves a separate quote just to show how silly it is.

Ok, so you're in the duke's throne room convincing him to support you for whatever, and the party members who are good at this are doing their thing. And then the fighter suggests "hey, let's go have a drink tonight".

Yes, in the middle of negotiations or discussion, the fighter suggests to drop everything, have some drinks together, and tomorrow everything will be better.

Wow. So, is this teamwork? Clearly not: the team is doing something, and the fighter is interrupting it to do his own thing (drink) and expects that to help somehow. Does it respect the setting? Clearly not: the party is talking to an authority figure, not an old drinking buddy; in most settings, a duke who make decisions in this way is unlikely to stay duke for long. Is it consistent? Also clearly not: the party is in the duke's castle, and somehow the fighter expects to fade to night, go drinking together, ignore whatever the other players want to do until tomorrow, and continue negotiating then as if nothing happened.

Finally, is it roleplaying? Well, maybe. It may well be in character for the fighter to suggest this. But for the player to expect it to work, to count as an equal contribution, and to use the character's highest skill (instead of any social skill, which would be way more appropriate) is not roleplaying but straightforward min/maxing.

So yeah, that's a good example of how 4E gives players a strong incentive to always roll their best skill, and make up some vague excuse for why that might help the current situation, with no regards for setting, consistency, or teamwork.

neonchameleon
2015-02-18, 09:22 AM
This deserves a separate quote just to show how silly it is.

Ok, so you're in the duke's throne room convincing him to support you for whatever, and the party members who are good at this are doing their thing. And then the fighter suggests "hey, let's go have a drink tonight".

Yes, in the middle of negotiations or discussion, the fighter suggests to drop everything, have some drinks together, and tomorrow everything will be better.

Wow. So, is this teamwork? Clearly not: the team is doing something, and the fighter is interrupting it to do his own thing (drink) and expects that to help somehow. Does it respect the setting? Clearly not: the party is talking to an authority figure, not an old drinking buddy; in most settings, a duke who make decisions in this way is unlikely to stay duke for long. Is it consistent? Also clearly not: the party is in the duke's castle, and somehow the fighter expects to fade to night, go drinking together, ignore whatever the other players want to do until tomorrow, and continue negotiating then as if nothing happened.

Finally, is it roleplaying? Well, maybe. It may well be in character for the fighter to suggest this. But for the player to expect it to work, to count as an equal contribution, and to use the character's highest skill (instead of any social skill, which would be way more appropriate) is not roleplaying but straightforward min/maxing.

So yeah, that's a good example of how players have a strong incentive to always roll their best skill, and make up some vague excuse for why that might help the current situation, with no regards for setting, consistency, or teamwork.

Yay! A strawman about the way 4e is played! Of course it looks silly. It's a strawman!

When would the drinking come up? Not in the middle of a scene because that makes no sense. Negotiations take time. If you are expecting five minutes of conversation and a skill check to fix things (as you seem to be advocating for) then yes, this won't work. However some negotiations take longer or are done at places other than in a negotiating boardroom. Like in the middle of a feast.

And your invention that a supporting action is the same as a central one is no part of the game rules. Game rules do not magically suspend the laws of cause and effect in most cases. If the wizard is researching then it means nothing unless someone is negotiating with the duke. It just produces a pile of papers. If the fighter is convincing people of competence and that they are good people that won't convince the Duke either. But the Duke is more likely to help with a good strong competent group.

Would it work in all situations? No. Would it work in some? Are you saying there's none where it would work? You base what you are doing on the situation at hand. The rules model the situation, they seldom dictate it.

Kurald Galain
2015-02-18, 09:29 AM
Yay! A strawman about the way 4e is played!
That was the exact example you used of how a fighter might "negotiate" :smallbiggrin:


The rules model the situation, they seldom dictate it.
No, they don't model the situation. The rules state that every character in 4E can roll his highest skill on the flimsiest of excuses, and in practice that's precisely what happens. And that's how you end up with fighters who want to negotiate by going out for a drink, and expect that to work off their highest skill (endurance) instead of one that actually fits.

Jayabalard
2015-02-18, 09:46 AM
I don't know much about 5E and don't expect anyone to recommend 1E, 2E, or 3E, so here are the commonly-accepted pros and cons of 3.5 versus 4E:
I don't post here regularly, but as I recall from the last time I was a regular .... there are generally a few of us who still favor 1E (and some who favor OD&D) lurking about.

neonchameleon
2015-02-18, 09:51 AM
That was the exact example you used of how a fighter might "negotiate" :smallbiggrin:

No. It was an example of how he might help in a negotiation. The bookworm wizard isn't negotiating either. They aren't actually talking to anyone so they aren't actually negotiating. But their knowledge is helping with the negotiation.

Once more I refer you to the American Football example above.


No, they don't model the situation. The rules state that every character in 4E can roll his highest skill on the flimsiest of excuses, and in practice that's precisely what happens. And that's how you end up with fighters who want to negotiate by going out for a drink, and expect that to work off their highest skill (endurance) instead of one that actually fits.

This is your invention out of whole cloth so far as I can tell. Other than that in practice you appear to have a group that doesn't understand the rules and purpose of skill challenges and appears to care more about rules than roleplaying.

The Skill Challenge rules give DCs and measures of success. If the DM thinks that trying to do something is irrelevant to what you are trying to do you do not get to roll - or may even get an automatic failure (as is an example in the PHB). Your claim about how Skill Challenges work literally relies on ignoring both common sense and the example in the PHB.

sakuuya
2015-02-18, 10:34 AM
I don't post here regularly, but as I recall from the last time I was a regular .... there are generally a few of us who still favor 1E (and some who favor OD&D) lurking about.

You should weigh in on why the OP should play that edition, then! More information on the editions that are under-represented on this forum is always helpful.

Sith_Happens
2015-02-18, 01:10 PM
None of what you describe is teamwork. All of it is each player, individually, doing what he does best, with no regards for consistency with what the other players are doing.

It most certainly is teamwork, because each player is doing some single piece of what needs to be done to achieve an overall goal rather than setting on their thumbs while one person does everything.


No, they don't model the situation. The rules state that every character in 4E can roll his highest skill on the flimsiest of excuses, and in practice that's precisely what happens. And that's how you end up with fighters who want to negotiate by going out for a drink, and expect that to work off their highest skill (endurance) instead of one that actually fits.

Neonchameleon's example is not of the fighter trying to negotiate by going out drinking with the duke. It is of the fighter going out drinking with the duke so that when the bard resumes the actual negotiations the next day the duke has on his mind that "these people are both swell and competent."

Kurald Galain
2015-02-18, 02:56 PM
Neonchameleon's example is not of the fighter trying to negotiate by going out drinking with the duke. It is of the fighter going out drinking with the duke so that when the bard resumes the actual negotiations the next day the duke has on his mind that "these people are both swell and competent."

Yes, I get that. That doesn't change the facts that it's (1) very silly to expect a duke to consent to that, (2) running directly against what the rest of the party is trying to accomplish in the scene, and (3) not at all related to the endurance skill in the first place.

And yes, I've commonly seen such silliness at the gaming table, ranging from "I do <task> with a spell" (to roll arcana for literally anything), "I give my teammate a massage to help him accomplish <task>" (to roll heal for literally anything), or "I do <task> quietly" (to roll stealth for literally anything). While any good DM would quickly put a stop to that, it doesn't change the fact that 4E's rules incentivize this behavior, and that it basically turns the game into "how well can you fast talk the DM".

oxybe
2015-02-18, 03:37 PM
And how is that different from 3rd ed, pathfinder or any other skill system?

"I have a thing or two i'm really good at so when a problem occurs I will try to use that thing whenever possible or create a situation where I can use my thing to solve the current problem."

would you prefer the player just sits out and not engage the situation because he doesn't have any training/skill points/whatever in the skill?

Kurald Galain
2015-02-18, 03:50 PM
And how is that different from 3rd ed, pathfinder or any other skill system?

Come now, the difference is glaringly obvious if you read a non-combat encounter in a 3E/PF module and compare it to a non-combat encounter in a 4E module. They are superficially identical, fundamentally different.

If you're not seeing it and are enjoying whichever game you're enjoying, good; be happy and keep it that way. Nevertheless this is one of the leading reasons why one of these games is the best selling RPG ever, and the other is out of print.

oxybe
2015-02-18, 03:55 PM
As someone who never buys modules for any edition as those I was shown were either horridly written or very linear, I really couldn't say.

Ninjadeadbeard
2015-02-18, 04:39 PM
Juuust in case OP comes back, I would actually recommend Trailblazer over Pathfinder. Far better class balance, a lot of different mechanics than Pathfinder used, and if you want Pathfinder stuff you can basically overlay one atop the other.

But if not, just go 5E.

Sith_Happens
2015-02-18, 06:06 PM
it's (1) very silly to expect a duke to consent to that

Noblemen never go out for nights on the town?


(2) running directly against what the rest of the party is trying to accomplish in the scene

Only if you use a very narrow definition of what a "scene" is. Any kind of negotiation more substantial than can be finished in one conversation (and if it can it would be a single check rather than a skill challenge in the first place) I imagine taking place over the course of multiple days.


(3) not at all related to the endurance skill in the first place.

Two words: drinking contest.


Trailblazer

:smallconfused:

Milo v3
2015-02-18, 10:35 PM
Noblemen never go out for nights on the town?

In most of my gaming experience, noblemen don't go out for nights on the town with people they don't know.

Gavran
2015-02-19, 12:40 AM
In most of my gaming experience, noblemen don't go out for nights on the town with people they don't know.

I feel obligated to mention that "or captain of the guard" was part of the original post. Are captains of the guard also never known to have a drink and get to know someone, soldier to soldier?

And you guys can't argue that no nobles would do the same. Norse themed rulers absolutely would, King Richard the Lionheart might, etc. Sure a Pharaoh or stuffy Queen Victoria type wouldn't, but there are many flavors of rulers. Nobody is saying it'd work in every situation, that was an example of a situation where it might help. And for those of you who have played 4E, it should also be obvious that something like that would give one success, or maybe undo one failure - the captain of the guard or ruler has developed a respect for the fighter, and thus is more inclined to deal favorably. That doesn't mean a really smooth Diplomacy roll isn't worth say 2-3 successes. Hell, it's not even stretching the rules at all to say that all the fighter accomplished is a +2-5 to the Bard's Diplomacy roll.

CrusaderJoe
2015-02-19, 01:01 AM
Although not D&D, I have recently found 13 Age to be quite fantastic. One if the designers worked on 3e and another one worked on 4e. There are a lot if great little mechanics and things (backgrounds, escalation dice, icons) that can enhance any other system to boot.

The language in the core book alone is worth a read.

But if you don't want to take a look at that, take a gander at 5e. It really is as if they took 2e/3e and cleaned up the rules. It throws out all the good stuff learned from 4e though :/. 5e is pretty easy to learn and the basic rules are free (which are better than the 3.5 srd).

5e is quite fun, a lot of the fiddly rules are broken up and things are quite loose. However if you want interesting options (or your players do) then play a full caster, a rogue, or a monk. Everyone else revolves around the concept of "I move and attack", yes that includes Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger. Damage is important but I've seen so many people get frustrated with their characters it ain't funny. You are basically playing 3.5 again with these classes (you can even kill yourself as a barbarian with very little return!).

All the interesting basic maneuvers are in the DMG :/ (climb into bigger creatures).... Though there ain't much.

Oh, look at 13th age's DC calculator, pretty nifty tool for a DM.

Ninjadeadbeard
2015-02-19, 01:44 AM
:smallconfused:

Ah. Trailblazer was a 3.X Rebuild similar to Pathfinder, but it wasn't much more than a major overhaul of the core classes and some mechanics. It worked like Pathfinder, and is in fact compatible. There's a discussion of it here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2juq3?Trailblazer-now-up), and in other places. I heartily recommend a look.

As an aside, in Trailblazer my players and I considered the Fighter to seriously outclass everyone else. At level five the damage output could lay waste to anything they would be likely to be fighting (something like 200+ damage unoptimized). The Bard is also pretty good, with a bit more overt Musical stuff than in 5E, and the Action Point system was so successful amongst my players that I'm tempted to just add it to 5E so they'll stop pestering me about it.

As a system, it has nothing like the support of PF, so it's best to take what you like from TB and add it to PF.

etrpgb
2015-02-21, 04:45 AM
I do not play "complex" RPG anymore (we are playing Altar&ARchetypes now), but for few years I had a quite good experience with a "fixed" 3.5:

Essentially we used:
3rd Tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=gkngul818jpqa8191rekh37oo4&topic=5070.0) classes + Complete Divine Shugenja;
Mediocre and Good to Great (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1573.0) prestige classes;

Few changes to the rules:
Iaijutsu Focus works the whole round you extracted the weapon and you got the enemy without dexterity bonus (to avoid nonsenses with the quickrazor);
Everyone has "Able Learner" for free;
The minimum number of Skill Points per level is 4;
Racial and alignment prerequisites of PrC are ignored or changed to "Any alignment/race";
For Magic Items we used the "Complete Gear (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Publication:Complete_Gear)" with a little change: the maximum infusion of an item was limited by its quality;
The "unarmed swordsage" suggestion was perfectly acceptable if you wanted to do monk-like character.

We quickly fixed everything thematically, and we got everything we wanted in sensible rule system:
Shugenja (we used Domains as Schools) for the Cleric;
Bard/Factotum for the Rogue;
Binder for the Wizard;
Swordsage for the Fighter.

Plus other classes to increase the mix, but the "four basic" classes well quite covered. I remember we meet a "druid" once that actually was a Wildshape Ranger as class.