PDA

View Full Version : Can anyone help a newbie group get started with P&P D&D ?



bbgun21
2016-02-19, 09:31 AM
Hello D&D community, I have to say me and my friends have been always being fascinated with D&D and even better the community is great and really helpful.

Now what we wanted to ask you folk is can you help us get started with D&D since we've never played the Pen-and-Paper, our knowledge goes through PC games (Baldurs Gate 1,2 , NWN 1,2, Icewind Dale 1,2 etc...) so we know the basics of both AD&D and 3.0/3.5 edition.

Now I know it's easy for us to just google our question and get started since there are TONS of guides out there which we've read on how to get started and what we need, BUT the thing that is bothering us and which is why we are asking you for our help is simple.

What edition to choose to play with ?

Now what we have seen through web research is only guides for 4th edition and 5th, none for AD&D and 3.0/3.5, the reason is because our local game shop sells AD&D,3.5,4th and 5th player handbooks and monster manual with dungeon masters guide, so we don't know should we go with the ones we are familiar with or with the new editions ?

So far what we have seen is that alot of people say that 4th and 5th edition is newbie friendly, while 3.5 edition gives more 'freedom', any opinions on this ?

Hopefully, you folk can help us get started as we have so far been enjoying the games we've played and seeing the difference between the P&P and video games is what made us to go out there and get started.

Thanks in forward, even if we don't get any answers, I just wish to say again that the community has so far been best for how far we've seen it.

bbgun21
2016-02-20, 08:38 AM
Anyone ?

Any suggestions ?

Comet
2016-02-20, 09:00 AM
If you and the other players like maths, buying source books, planning out character builds and optimizing the mechanics for cool effects you should go for 3.5. It also seems like you're already a bit familiar with that edition's mechanics, which is a plus.

If you want character creation to be quick and most of the fun to be in the situations you get into during play, though, you might want to consider 5e. It's still essentially the same kind of world and characters that you find in Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate and such, but the mechanics are much lighter and the whole thing is more about seeing what comes out of play rather than frontloading a lot of prep and mechanical set up.

My vote would ultimately be for 5e. Most beginning players don't want to spend a lot of time worrying about numbers and builds and mechanics, they just want to adventure and get into hijinks. 3.5 puts a bit too much math between you and the hijinks.

1337 b4k4
2016-02-20, 09:08 AM
If you're just starting out and you have no preconceived notions of how to play the game, i would start with 5e. It's simpler than 3.5 (and IMO ad&d) while retaining the tropes and style of those games. 4e is a good game, it really is, but it is mechanically completely different from any other edition of d&d and has a different mind set to wrap around. As an additional wrinkle there are also the various (and free) retroclones out there like "swords and wizardry" which try (with varrying degrees of accuracy) to play like the pre-ad&d editions. They're fun and certainly interesting but if you're wanting to stick with the modern editions and the benefits those come with, I would start with 5e

TheTeaMustFlow
2016-02-20, 09:25 AM
I'm going to third 5e. It's just much more streamlined than earlier editions.

NRSASD
2016-02-20, 12:44 PM
As someone who plays AD&D and 3.5, I'm going to recommend 5th edition from what I've heard. I grew up playing AD&D and it really has a nice balance to it (every class is effective and important in equal measure), but it has mountains of rules that apply to specific situations. Giant tables of saving throws, armor and dex stacking, weapons dealing different damage depending on the size and class of weapon. It's great and I love it, but it's not really novice friendly. 3.5 streamlines a lot of things, but rapidly spins out of control due to balance issues. Also, it gets bogged down counting bonuses and crunching numbers. 5e seems to be the best of both worlds.

Blue Lantern
2016-02-21, 04:20 AM
I recommend going with 5e as well, I personally just started looking into it and it is simpler and quicker to get into, with two caveat.


If you aim for high powered fantasy games where your character become somewhat godlike 5e is not the best system
There is and SDR for 3.5 where you can have a look at the base rules and use that to have a quick one shot to see if it is your cup of tea before committing to buying the books.


Also maybe you can specify what kind of Role you wish to play (LoTR kind of fantasy, manga-like, sword and sorcery), maybe there is a different system than D&D that would work better.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-02-21, 05:35 AM
I'm very fond of 3.X but, honestly, the learning curve is steep. It's a very deep and complex system that rewards spending time really delving into its depths to learn all the nooks and crannies. It's also horridly unbalanced (though I'd argue that is a feature rather than a bug). If you and your friends (and I mean most of you) are the kind of people that enjoy sitting down and examining things from every angle, it's hard to beat.

It is my understanding that 5E is much more begginer friendly and better balanced by a fair ways, though I can't comment on that from experience.

4E I don't like. WotC seriously overcorrected when they tried to address the constant balance complaints from 3.X. The whole thing just ended up too samey for my taste. The only good thing I can think to say is that it's very beginner friendly.

I can't really speak too much on earlier editions (before my time) but I've been led to believe they were a bit of a mess of poor formatting and arcane rules that are difficult to grasp. On the up side, they were, overall, a bit lighter and left a -lot- more to the imagination of the DM and players. So if that appeals to you, it might be worth a look.

bbgun21
2016-02-21, 07:39 AM
Thank you everyone for your answers, every single one is informative and helpful.

We don't mind going through a lot of stuff from 3.5e, but what is this balance issues everyone speaks of.

So far for how we have researched, everyone also is saying that 3.5e is imbalanced, but what is it that causes it to be like that ?

We are probably going to start with 5e first then maybe later see how 3.5e and AD&D play out.

Once again thanks for the replies.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-02-21, 07:51 AM
Thank you everyone for your answers, every single one is informative and helpful.

We don't mind going through a lot of stuff from 3.5e, but what is this balance issues everyone speaks of.

So far for how we have researched, everyone also is saying that 3.5e is imbalanced, but what is it that causes it to be like that ?

We are probably going to start with 5e first then maybe later see how 3.5e and AD&D play out.

Once again thanks for the replies.

In a nutshell; the depth and breadh of what a caster can do in 3.5 is dramatically greater than anything any non-casting class can do.

Generally it goes Caster > Skillful character > beatstick. More spells equals more power and even skill use is generally more broadly useful than the ability to hit things with a pointy stick or blunt object.

Like I said though, I see this as a feature rather than a bug. The very fact that classes have such wild disparity in ability allows a group to scale the overall difficulty and scale of the campaign without having to change to new system. A group of non-casters plays very differently from a group of casters and both groups handle very differently from a mixed group of both casters and non-casters. As long as everybody's on the same page on what they want from the game, these differences can really carve the uniquness of each class in stark relief.

GrayDeath
2016-02-21, 10:35 AM
I`d suggest anything BUT D&D for a Group of Beginners.
Even 5th is not THAT easy seeing how much they streamlined/made "factually the same in green/Blob/Shiny".

But if you are bent on D&D I`d say: go for what costs you the least, and try if you like it at all.
Which in this case means either 5th, or if you have a Shop that sells older books cheaper, 4th (urgh, dont do it, it is EVIL° ^^).

3.x while my favourite D&D Version, is also very very difficult to master if you are using anything but Base Books, and even then Wizards are ... difficult.

Anonymouswizard
2016-02-21, 01:45 PM
If you can find it at a reasonable price, the old Red Box (Basic D&D) or the Rules Cyclopaedia would be the best to start on. Not as balanced as 5e, but around that, and the games much simpler (you only have one or two class abilities to worry about until level 9ish, just roll ability scores and select your class to be ready to play). It has some oddities, like race as class, which means that my personal favourite class is the Warrior Elf from the Hollow World expansion (it doesn't gain the elf's spellcasting).

AD&D is simpler than 5e, but it's counter-intuitive design (2e's THAC0) and odd layout makes it hard to learn and play. Bare in mind that the rules assume that resources are being tracked.

Avoid 3.X while you can. Mainly because it's just not as easy to pick up as other editions if you want mundanes to be competitive at high levels. It's fun, but in my mind Ars Magica (which does overpowered wizards better) makes it a worthless edition.

4e is a good game, but very different from earlier editions. It's both newbie-friendly and not at the same time, I'd say it's friendly to those new to the edition, but not new to TTRPGs.

5e is also good, and fairly newbie friendly. I personally think that they went overboard with the abilities, as it feels overwhelming, but it's not too hard to keep track of and it runs alright. Plus, backgrounds are a healthy addition, with my next character literally being a half-elf wizard from a savannah tribe (which would be much harder to represent in 3.X).

1337 b4k4
2016-02-21, 10:52 PM
If you can find it at a reasonable price, the old Red Box (Basic D&D) or the Rules Cyclopaedia would be the best to start on. Not as balanced as 5e, but around that, and the games much simpler (you only have one or two class abilities to worry about until level 9ish, just roll ability scores and select your class to be ready to play). It has some oddities, like race as class, which means that my personal favourite class is the Warrior Elf from the Hollow World expansion (it doesn't gain the elf's spellcasting).

If you want to take this route, you can pick up PDFs of the original Red Box and Rules Cyclopedia versions of D&D from WotC's dmsguild.com site. Check under Basic/Expert for the edition filter. Rules Cyclopedia is basically all of Red Box and the later rules books in one big book, so I'd start there. It's also a really great edition of D&D with a lot of interesting bits that got lost over the years (domain management, weapon specialization etc.) If you want to check it out without plunking money down, the Dark Dungeons Retro-Clone (http://www.gratisgames.webspace.virginmedia.com/darkdungeons.html) is a fairly faithful recreation with some cleanup for re-balancing a few numbers and adding more advancement for non-human classes.

Even if you start with a modern edition of D&D, it is worth checking out some of the retro-clone scene to see some of how D&D become what it is. There are also some cool rules that got lost over the years that I personally like to re-import to modern games (like XP for Gold and 1 initiative roll per side rather than per character)

Vitruviansquid
2016-02-21, 11:12 PM
4e is a great game, but you're looking for the DnD experience. 4e doesn't exactly give you the DnD experience. You don't want to sink any money into it and then regret what could've been. Still, if you're not too particular about the DnD experience, 4e is a fine game.

3.5/PF is the grognard's poison of choice, and it isn't so arbitrarily. It does have a lot of strengths, like a ridiculous amount of content for you to dig into. But 5th is the new hotness, and there's a reason it's the new hotness as well.

I would personally choose to play 5e, because part of the reason it's the new hotness is the amount of streamlining that makes it a good game for newbies. But honestly, as others may have said upthread, any of the DnDs would count as rather advanced pen and paper RPGs in the grand scheme of things and are not necessarily the best-designed of games. I would start with something simple that has even further streamlined mechanics than DnD 5th. Savage Worlds I have found easy to learn and play while being extremely fun. Furthermore, it is easy to grasp and customize, and there are plenty of settings based on Savage Worlds that you can buy if homebrewing isn't your thing, but the system itself is too generic for you.

Ewhit
2016-02-21, 11:28 PM
Been playing since 79. I would not bother explaining why not to try any previous edition. Stick with 5th. See if all of u like it and hopefully enjoy

5th will be the last edition for maybe 15 years or longer so it will have tons of material I like it.

BWR
2016-02-22, 11:20 AM
For ease of access and learning, I'd probably go with 5e. I haven't done anything beyond read through the books but it does seem very simple and beginner-friendly compared to the other editions.
3.5/PF are basically the same beast, though I like PF better and it is currently supported. There is also a big online community that can help you with any and every possible aspect of the rules. They are also the systems I play and run these days if I want to do anything D&D-ish.
For nostalgia's sake I would suggest the Rules Cyclopedia, which was the condensed version of BECMI D&D (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal) without the I. It is one of the most comprehensive, concise and easily read rulebooks I have come across for any game. Almost every aspect of the game is treated in some way, the book is easy to navigate, it gives you a brief yet exciting introduction to the Mystara/Known World campaign setting.
AD&D has its faults but it was still fun to play and had a lot of things going for it that I miss in later editions.
I do not consider 4e D&D in anything but name. It may be a good enough system for whatever it was, but it is a different enough beast (especially with what they did with established campaign settings during that period) that it may as well be called something else. It does not help that I dislike the mechanics and the same-y feel everything had there.

People may talk about things being beginner friendly, and amount and intricacy of rules, and difficulty and whatnot but people bought, learned and played all sorts of clunky systems at young ages without any online help for years and most of us turned out all right. Pick a system that sounds fun and don't worry about the rules too much. Also, the much-contested caster-martial disparity issue of 3.x was an issue even before 3.x though many people for some reason forget or ignore this. Class disparity does not need to be as big a deal as some people make it out to be. It is perfectly possible to play the game at all levels with most classes in a group and have a good time.

Airk
2016-02-22, 03:08 PM
Just play 5th; It's supported, it's got lots of people talking about it, it's not the system mastery nightmare that 3X is, it doesn't suffer the needless stigma that 4X does, and it's way more beginner friendly than anything older than that with the possible exception of BECMI Red box.

Rakasta
2016-02-25, 02:20 PM
I would start with ad&d 2e.

JAL_1138
2016-02-25, 04:09 PM
2e's my favorite edition, but I wouldn't start with it for a newbie group. It works very well, very simply, and very quickly once you get over the learning curve, which can be extremely steep if there's nobody there to walk you through it, especially for a DM. It's an edition I recommend learning by playing with experienced players and DMs who've been running it for a while.

To get a group of new players with a new DM off the ground, I'd suggest reading through the (free of charge) 5e Basic Rules online, maybe read through the 5e OGL content that just came out recently (slightly more content than 5e Basic Rules), and consider picking up the 5e Starter Set (which is usually $20-ish), before committing to the core books. That's a pretty good intro to the system without shelling out a lot of money.

CharonsHelper
2016-02-25, 04:22 PM
Thank you everyone for your answers, every single one is informative and helpful.

We don't mind going through a lot of stuff from 3.5e, but what is this balance issues everyone speaks of.

So far for how we have researched, everyone also is saying that 3.5e is imbalanced, but what is it that causes it to be like that ?

We are probably going to start with 5e first then maybe later see how 3.5e and AD&D play out.

Once again thanks for the replies.

I'll throw another vote toward 5e first, but if you do want to go back to 3.5 later for more depth/complexity, I'd suggest going with Pathfinder instead as it's basically a patched version of 3.5.

Basically - the balance issues aren't bad at lower levels (in Pathfinder - 3.5 still had a few balance issues then) but at 8-10+ the casters get more powerful. Especially at 11-12 when they get 6th level spell-casting.

This has to do with legacy issues from porting spells from earlier editions both

1. They didn't port the balance factors those systems used to keep those spells from being OP. By that level characters, especially martials, nearly always passed saves so that save vs death had only a tiny chance of being deadly.

2. In earlier editions, levels 10+ were epic level and weren't really intended for players. So some of those spells were really designed for use by BBEGs rather than by players.

If you keep to levels 1-10ish, the balance in Pathfinder is pretty decent.

Anonymouswizard
2016-02-25, 07:18 PM
To expand on the don't start with 2e trend, there is one thing worth pillaging from 2e no matter what edition you play, and that's the lore for the settings. It's organisation could do with lots of work (heck, I still can't bring myself to read the encounters chapter and I'm planning a Birthright campaign using 2e), but the system is great once you get past that. I picked up my PhB and DMG for £5 in total, which is the only reason I own it.

The only problem is that 5e scooped up most of the speed-advantages of 2e (with a group that understands it 5e is faster), and is much more attractive to modern audiences. I personally loath running 5e, although it doesn't seem so bad as a player (although I'm the only one in the group willing to pay for a legal copy of the PhB), and it's really an assumptions thing that gets me (I like games where planning is important). Unless you particularly like tracking rations and being banned from the Paladin class pick 5e (5e totally dropped the ball on the Paladin though by making it less restrictive, I was looking forward to an Oath of Devotion type Paladin as a Fighter subclass).

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to stat the Bean Sidhe up as an Awnsheghlien.