edition change: forwards or backwards?

[clockwork warrior]

i started dnd some odd years ago with 3.5, and im finding myself wanting to try the different editions, either advancing to 4th edition, or going into 2nd edition. i have friends that play both, but i was wondering what is good and bad about each?

also, i can post some things that i have heard from several friends for people to either agree with, or to debunk.

4th ed:
-i have heard from many of my friends that its fun because its easy, and fast paced, which sounds nice, but a comment from a friend of mine who plays in both a 3.5 and a 4th ed game kinda turned me off. quoth the player "if you have ever played WOW, you have played 4th ed". another person told me that "4th ed is like vista, a little to user friendly"

2nd ed: i was told by another friend who plays (whom i taught 3.5 too) that 2nd ed is also less complicated, and very versatile, but a lot of things are up to the dms call, which in some cases is good, but it removes the streamlined-ness and can slow things down

so what can other people tell me?

[Stupendous_Man]

Might as well ask us to describe to you how an apple tastes, and compare it to a banana without you ever having tried either.

[Kurald Galain]

The correct answer is "sideways".

[kamikasei]

If you have friends already playing both, flip a coin. Or try both. Most of the issues I've heard of with playing 2e will have been solved for you by an already-running group.

Do we actually have anyone here who plays/has played both? Mark Hall?

[Artanis]

"if you have ever played WOW, you have played 4th ed".
This statement has been debunked so many times it's gone beyond old. The long and the short of it is that while some people may say "it's like WoW" and it's understandable that disliking one and disliking the other may have similar basic reasons, the two are about as different as two games can get, especially since they're in an entirely different medium from each other.


Now, down to business.

A lot of people like 4e because compared to 3.5e, it's easier to learn, better balanced, and is more accepting of itself as a game. That is, if it has a choice between something that would make it a better simulation vs. something that would make it a better game, it tends to do the latter.

A lot of people dislike 4e for the exact same reason.

[ericgrau]

1e is the most basic form of 1e-3.5e. Before that was basic D&D, which was somewhat different.

2e was 1e with some sensible updates/fixes. Some people were bummed by staff changes at TSR during the making of 2e, but other than that people seem to say that the fixes were pretty reasonable.

3e built upon 2e, with a lot of clear definitions on just about everything. In many ways that's an improvement, in other ways it can seem overdefined and overcomplicated. It might also open the door to rules lawyers trying to find an excuse to argue with the DM. If you like lots of house rules or a more open and less defined and detailed set of rules (lots of DM fiat), or w/e you might prefer 2e. Otherwise most people see 3e as an improvement.

3.5e was 3e with a bunch of sensible updates/fixes, like 1e to 2e.

Unlike other editions that built on the ones before them, 4e is an almost entirely different game. It was built on experiments from 3e (and the d20 system in general) as released in WotC supplemental books. It also seems to stem from WotC's game experience in general, and is a much more gamey game.

So I would recommend playing 2e, 3.5e or 4e. If you just want a basic framework and would like to customize or make up stuff on the fly, try 2e. If you want a more structured and developed version go with 3.5e and be sure to read *all* the rules and take notes (not essential, but it really helps). If you like the whiz bang 3e/3.5e splatbooks or want something more like a board game or video game, get 4e. This would also avoid the powergaming abuse that tends to happen with 3e splatbooks. And everyone's favorites that they claim "fix" everything about 3.5e were precursors for 4e. So IMO go 3.5e core (or maybe add a book or two) or else go the whole nine yards and get 4e.

I'm biased towards 3.5e myself, the last true D&D IMO. It's fairly well developed if you pay attention to all the complicted rules and stay core. As for 2e and 4e I've mostly read some game material and comments of those who've played. I DMed 2e very briefly and that was a long long time ago. But while I prefer 3.5e, I'd probably play any of the 3.

[LibraryOgre]

If you have friends already playing both, flip a coin. Or try both. Most of the issues I've heard of with playing 2e will have been solved for you by an already-running group.

Do we actually have anyone here who plays/has played both? Mark Hall?

Well, how can I say no to a direct request? I will state at the outset that I prefer 2nd edition, but I'll try to limit my bias in writing things up.

4th edition is not a bad game. I enjoy making characters for it, because you feel like you've got a ton of options in your character, and everything you do links up to making an action hero. Five minutes rest will completely heal you, unless you've gotten into too many fights that day. Your powers seem really cool, and give a very fluid feel the battlefield... you wind up moving all over the place, knocking people down, and throwing out an action point for additional butt-kicking.
In play, however, I find it very often comes down to what you roll on a d20. Because your ability to hit, and the opponent's ability to defend, each goes up at an equal rate (+1/2 levels), your luck with the dice matters a lot more, unless you're consistently facing opponents who are your lessers, either in level or statistics. The same applies to skills... DCs often increase with pace to your level, making your D20s very important.
It also requires keeping track of a lot of fiddly-bits... "This terrain is difficult until X" "What effects am I under?" "Do I save versus this, or does it end at the end of my turn/his turn/the end of the encounter?" This is one of the prime things that annoyed me in 3.x, so I notice it a lot in 4e.
Final verdict: Is 4e a fun game? Definitely. It's got a great mix of tactics and challenge, and really goes with an action-movie feel that can be a hell of a lot of fun. It has some design aspects that I don't particularly like, and moves away from the feeling of "I'm in danger, and so must play smart" that 2e had, but it is still a fun game to play.

2nd edition is fun, but in another way. The game is much lower powered, and if you have a good DM, it's a constant challenge. 1st level characters are fragile, and remain so until about 3rd. Keep in mind that, compared to 3.x, the game will feel somewhat sparse... bonuses tend to start at 15 or 16, instead of at 12, meaning you have a lot fewer modifiers on dice rolls... but everyone is in the same boat, and it makes those bonuses you do get a lot more important. One of the biggest advantages fighters get is the ability to specialize in a weapon... a +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and an extra attack every other round is pretty big. Wizards start off pretty weak, but as they grow in power, they still need fighters to protect them... the Superman wizard doesn't happen until very high levels, and by that time, most of the other classes have hordes of followers.
The big difference, I think, is that the quality of a 2e game depends very much on the quality of your DM. 4e is somewhat like a computer game in that most things are mapped out for you... how I handle situation X is usually covered in the rules. It's hard to go "off the reservation" in a 4e game. 2e, however, requires a DM who knows the system well enough to innovate within it, because it was designed with the idea of customization. A poor DM will customize in such a way as to make some classes irrelevant (frequently done with thieves) or giving way too much power to classes, without thinking about the consequences.
There are a lot of different ways of determining attributes, from my preferred "You have X number of attribute points, arrange them as you like, but I'll veto anything munchkin" to "3d6, straight down, play what you roll" to several variations in between.
There are variations on what rules are available to use... in one group, in high school, we played straight core, sometimes adding stuff from Combat and Tactics. Other groups went whole-hog, allowing things from a myriad of splatbooks and optional supplements. Whereas in 3.x this mostly meant more choices of the same sorts of things, in 2e this could add entire dimensions to the game, such as kits, or self-created character classes, or anything else you choose.
Is 2e fun? Definitely. It's much lower powered... I'd put base, 1st level, 4e characters somewhere around 5th or 7th level in 2e, given the options available to them, whereas 3e characters are about 3rd level in power compared to 2nd edition characters. It's a struggle to advance, and instead of plowing through encounters, you're going to find yourself frequently retreating to regroup and heal. It leads, IME, to a more paranoid style of play... one person dubbed AD&D "subterranean fantasy ****ing Vietnam", which is pretty accurate. Later games made it a point to avoid killing people outright, in a single attack. 2e doesn't do that. The system is harsh, but derives a lot of its fun from that.

If possible, I'd suggest trying both. I have a definite preference for 2e, but 4e is fun.

[clockwork warrior]

from that discription, i think 2nd ed seems more my thing, on the idea that im not so much into the super power gaming, instead im more interested in the old pulp sword and sorcery style

[LibraryOgre]

from that discription, i think 2nd ed seems more my thing, on the idea that im not so much into the super power gaming, instead im more interested in the old pulp sword and sorcery style

In that case, go with 2nd edition. I read Fritz Leiber's "Two Sought Adventure" and thought "This is a D&D adventuring group, forty years before 1st edition."

[Roderick_BR]

quoth the player "if you have ever played WOW, you have played 4th ed"
I call it a pile of bull. Any tabletop game can be compared to any eletronic game.

another person told me that "4th ed is like vista, a little to user friendly"This is correctly. 4E was made to be easier and faster to understand. It's a lot less buggy than Vista, though :smalltongue:

AD&D (2E) is simpler too, and actually good to play, just don't expect good rules for multiclassing/dual classing, as that's a major pain.

I agree with some comments that 4E feels more like an upgrade from AD&D than 3.x

If you have access to all these books, I'd suggest take a look in each set to see what you like more.

[woodenbandman]

I play 2.0, and it's quite a lot harder to fold the system into submission than 3.5 is. I like doing stuff like folding the system into submission. So I play a bunch of 3.5. 2.0 is definitely fun, but it can turtle pretty badly outside combat because you have few hitpoints and few defenses (which have an upper limit, by the way), and falls from great hights and things hiding behind the door can kill you easily. So watch out, and don't start at too low of a level.

[LibraryOgre]

I call it a pile of bull. Any tabletop game can be compared to any eletronic game.

Let's compare Toon to Microsoft Hearts. :smalltongue:



AD&D (2E) is simpler too, and actually good to play, just don't expect good rules for multiclassing/dual classing, as that's a major pain.

4e doesn't have that fantastic of a multi-class system, either; I tend to multiclass every character, simply because it's superior to Skill Training in every way.

[KKL]

I play both 3.5e and 4e.

[clockwork warrior]

I play 2.0, and it's quite a lot harder to fold the system into submission than 3.5 is. I like doing stuff like folding the system into submission. So I play a bunch of 3.5. 2.0 is definitely fun, but it can turtle pretty badly outside combat because you have few hitpoints and few defenses (which have an upper limit, by the way), and falls from great hights and things hiding behind the door can kill you easily. So watch out, and don't start at too low of a level.

see, that actually sounds fun. in my opinion monsters should be fearsome and dangerous, not just pests.

[Matthew]

See, that actually sounds fun. in my opinion monsters should be fearsome and dangerous, not just pests.

It is fun, but as is often pointed out in these "edition" discussions is that you have to approach the different games with different expectations. There have been some good, if lengthy, threads here on the subject in recent weeks, and over the years. A character you roll up for AD&D/2e will get killed if you are not careful, and possibly even if you are careful. You will have a lot more fun if you accept that this is the case, and are ready to roll up a new character at the demise of an old one (or perhaps take over one of his henchmen at higher levels).

I pretty much agree with Mark, but it cannot be stressed too strongly that the quality of the game depends on the quality of the game master, his understanding of the rules and ability to interpret and apply them. It is occasionally suggested that the "advanced" element of the name refers less to the complexity of the rules, and more to the level of skill required on the part of the game master.

On the whole, I would recommend that you give both games a go as the opportunity arises and draw your own conclusions.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Do we actually have anyone here who plays/has played both?

*raises hand*

Actually, I'm in a 2e game and 4e game on these forums :smallbiggrin:

Personally, I think I like 4e a little bit better. There are more options when creating characters. Also its combat system runs a bit more smoothly (no THaC0 confusion or ability check bewilderment).

Some say that in 4e, the monsters are less thrillingly deadly than in 2e. There is some truth to this. I've found, however, that a 4e DM can still emulate the characteristic 2e combat mood of "oh dear lord we're all going to die unless we're very careful" by sending higher-level Solo monsters against the PCs.

Both games are a blast and, assuming you've got a good group, I'm sure that you'll have fun whichever way you go.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Words of warning for 2e:

1) There is no LA, which means, theoretically, you could play literally any intelligent race out of any 2e book from level one and have no compensating disadvantages. This is where the 'play a good drow' idea got started, because they're elves, but they have significant mechanical advantages to all other elves.

2) Each class has a different XP scale. This was intended to balance out more powerful classes (wizard) with less powerful classes (fighter). By the time the Wizard is 6th level, the Fighter was around 9th or 10th, had a castle, and a host of minions to support it. Also, Fighters generally had better saves than anyone else in 2e.

[ken-do-nim]

I just want to point out that there are lots of other options besides 2nd, 3rd, or 4th edition.


1st Edition. I'm running a pbp of this right now. Closer to its wargaming roots than 2nd edition, I find it a little more interesting to use 1E as my base and bring in rulings from 2E when needed rather than vice versa. Few people play one while completely ignoring the other though; it's all AD&D. 1st edition is probably closer to 2nd edition than 3.0 is to 3.5.

The original D&D line, which continued on into the Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters sets which were collated into the Rules Cyclopedia. I'm starting a new campaign of this in 2 weeks.

Castles & Crusades - basically takes 1st edition, the Rules Cyclopedia, and 3.5 and puts them into a blender. I have to say it looks really, really cool (monks finally get 12-sided hit dice and nearly full BAB!) but I haven't played it yet.

Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game (which has a lot of add-ons to allow you to tune it to your sophistication level) - a mix of original D&D and AD&D with some 3.5 sensibilities thrown in.

Hackmaster - I've heard it called AD&D on steroids, but I haven't played it yet.

[Myatar_Panwar]

4e doesn't have that fantastic of a multi-class system, either; I tend to multiclass every character, simply because it's superior to Skill Training in every way.

You really think so? I find that 4E's multiclass system is pretty great. It allows for the near perfect fusing of two character concepts without worrying about things such as being too gimped by taking X number of classes from your main class (I.E. taking levels in anything else while your leveling a casting class in 3.5).

And the original first set of multi-class feats are technically better than skill training, but in actuality you arn't going to be gimped/OP if you go either way. If you don't want to have it be on the record that your character is a multiclassed rogue for no reason other than to get thievery, then just take skill training. And if you absolutely have to make your character as powerful as can be, roleplaying be damned, then 4E definitely isn't your game (not trying to point you out or anything, just saying).

[JadedDM]

...you could play literally any intelligent race out of any 2e book from level one and have no compensating disadvantages.

Assuming the DM allowed it, that is.

[Crow]

2) Each class has a different XP scale. This was intended to balance out more powerful classes (wizard) with less powerful classes (fighter). By the time the Wizard is 6th level, the Fighter was around 9th or 10th, had a castle, and a host of minions to support it. Also, Fighters generally had better saves than anyone else in 2e.

Actually Wizards level very rapidly to begin with, but then the progression slows significantly at high levels.

[Matthew]

Actually Wizards level very rapidly to begin with, but then the progression slows significantly at high levels.

They fluctuate, here's a comparative table:


{table=head]Experience|Class|Level|Attacks|THAC0|Hit Dice|Saving Throws|Abilities

0|
Thief|
1|
1|
20|
1D6 |13/14/12/16/15|Thief Skill Points 60, Back Stab x2

0|
Cleric|
1|
1|
20|
1D8|10/14/13/16/15|Spell Slots 1, Turn Undead 1

0|
Fighter|
1|
1|
20|
1D10|14/16/15/17/17|

0|
Magician|
1|
1|
20|
1D4|14/11/13/15/12|Spell Slots 1

1,250|
Thief|
2|
1|
20|
2D6|13/14/12/16/15|Thief Skill Points 90, Back Stab x2

1,500|
Cleric|
2|
1|
20|
2D8|10/14/13/16/15|Spell Slots 2, Turn Undead 2

2,000|
Fighter|
2|
1|
19|
2D10|14/16/15/17/17|

2,500|
Magician|
2|
1|
20|
2D4|14/11/13/15/12|Spell Slots 2

2,500|
Thief|
3|
1|
19|
3D6|13/14/12/16/15|Thief Skill Points 120, Back Stab x2

3,000|
Cleric|
3|
1|
19|
3D8|10/14/13/16/15|Spell Slots 2/1, Turn Undead 3

4,000|
Fighter|
3|
1|
18|
3D10|13/15/14/16/16|

5,000|
Magician|
3|
1|
20|
3D4|14/11/13/15/12|Spell Slots 2/1

5,000|
Thief|
4|
1|
19|
4D6|13/14/12/16/15|Thief Skill Points 150, Back Stab x2

6,000|
Cleric|
4|
1|
18|
4D8|9/13/12/15/14|Spell Slots 3/2, Turn Undead 4

8,000|
Fighter|
4|
1|
17|
4D10|13/15/14/16/16|

10,000|
Magician|
4|
1|
19|
4D4|14/11/13/15/12|Spell Slots 3/2

10,000|
Thief|
5|
1|
18|
5D6|12/12/11/15/13|Thief Skill Points 180, Back Stab x3

13,000|
Cleric|
5|
1|
18|
5D8|9/13/12/15/14|Spell Slots 3/3/1, Turn Undead 5

16,000|
Fighter|
5|
1|
16|
5D10|11/13/12/13/14|

20,000|
Magician|
5|
1|
19|
5D4|14/11/13/15/12|Spell Slots 4/2/1

20,000|
Thief|
6|
1|
18|
6D6|12/12/11/15/13|Thief Skill Points 210, Back Stab x3

27,500|
Cleric|
6|
1|
18|
6D8|9/13/12/15/14|Spell Slots 3/3/2, Turn Undead 6

32,000|
Fighter|
6|
1|
15|
6D10|11/13/12/13/14|

40,000|
Magician|
6|
1|
19|
6D4|13/9/11/13/10|Spell Slots 4/2/2

40,000|
Thief|
7|
1|
17|
7D6|12/12/11/15/13|Thief Skill Points 240, Back Stab x3

55,000|
Cleric|
7|
1|
16|
7D8|7/11/10/13/12|Spell Slots 3/3/2/1, Turn Undead 7

60,000|
Magician|
7|
1|
18|
7D4|13/9/11/13/10|Spell Slots 4/3/2/1

64,000|
Fighter|
7|
3/2|
14|
7D10|10/12/11/12/13|

70,000|
Thief|
8|
1|
17|
8D6|12/12/11/15/13|Thief Skill Points 270, Back Stab x3

90,000|
Magician|
8|
1|
18|
8D4|13/9/11/13/10|Spell Slots 4/3/3/2

110,000|
Cleric|
8|
1|
16|
8D8|7/11/10/13/12|Spell Slots 3/3/3/2, Turn Undead 8

110,000|
Thief|
9|
1|
16|
9D6|11/10/10/14/11|Thief Skill Points 300, Back Stab x4

125,000|
Fighter|
8|
3/2|
13|
8D10|11/13/12/13/14|

135,000|
Magician|
9|
1|
18|
9D4|13/9/11/13/10|Spell Slots 4/3/3/2/1

160,000|
Thief|
10|
1|
16|
10D6|11/10/10/14/11|Thief Skill Points 330, Back Stab x4

220,000|
Thief|
11|
1|
15|
10D6+2|11/10/10/14/11|Thief Skill Points 360, Back Stab x4

225,000|
Cleric|
9|
1|
16|
9D8|7/11/10/13/12|Spell Slots 4/4/3/2/1, Turn Undead 9

250,000|
Fighter|
9|
3/2|
12|
9D10|8/10/9/9/11|

250,000|
Magician|
10|
1|
17|
10D4|13/9/11/13/10|Spell Slots 4/4/3/2/2
[/table]

They top out at level 20 with 3,750,000 compared to 3,000,000 for fighters, 2,700,000 for clerics, and 2,200,000 for thieves; usually they are one or two levels behind the fighter past level 10.

[LibraryOgre]

Words of warning for 2e:

1) There is no LA, which means, theoretically, you could play literally any intelligent race out of any 2e book from level one and have no compensating disadvantages. This is where the 'play a good drow' idea got started, because they're elves, but they have significant mechanical advantages to all other elves.

Not quite true. Most of the races didn't have rules, to start with. There were some general conversion rules in the DMG, but it's not set up the way it was in 3e to just drop a character of any race from the MM. The Complete Humanoids, Complete Elves, and Skills and Powers included these races, but there were penalties associated with playing them (such as the double XP associated with playing a fremlin, or the 20% penalty associated with playing a drow).


2) Each class has a different XP scale. This was intended to balance out more powerful classes (wizard) with less powerful classes (fighter). By the time the Wizard is 6th level, the Fighter was around 9th or 10th, had a castle, and a host of minions to support it. Also, Fighters generally had better saves than anyone else in 2e.

Again, not true. The system does that in the beginning, but wizards and the like speed up later. Rogues are always fastest, but wizards and priests are not slow later.

[RPGuru1331]

so what can other people tell me?

Try both out yourself. I could tell you all about 4th, and a decent amount about second, but this is the most useful advice I can give you.

well, I'll also say that 4e simply isn't like WoW, and that the differences are rather vast, both conceptually and in the specifics.

[LibraryOgre]

You really think so? I find that 4E's multiclass system is pretty great. It allows for the near perfect fusing of two character concepts without worrying about things such as being too gimped by taking X number of classes from your main class (I.E. taking levels in anything else while your leveling a casting class in 3.5).

It's better than 3e, I'll grant you, but the available options from a single multiclass feat far outstrip any others. I've worked a different system that makes it a less of a pure bonus, more of a give and take.

[silvadel]

Why go with D&D at all then -- it isnt the only show in town. You want something different -- choose something different.

[Charity]

I pretty much agree with Mark, but it cannot be stressed too strongly that the quality of the game depends on the quality of the game master, his understanding of the rules and ability to interpret and apply them. It is occasionally suggested that the "advanced" element of the name refers less to the complexity of the rules, and more to the level of skill required on the part of the game master.

On the whole, I would recommend that you give both games a go as the opportunity arises and draw your own conclusions.

Very much this with the addition that the other players are also tres important, a good mix of good friends and even a poor DM can run a fun game (my players happily glossed over the cracks in my shoddy DMing).

Try them both, and if you like them both then you win2

@V:smallsigh:

[pjackson]

A lot of people like 4e because compared to 3.5e, it's easier to learn, better balanced, and is more accepting of itself as a game. That is, if it has a choice between something that would make it a better simulation vs. something that would make it a better game, it tends to do the latter.


Which is exactly the reason I dislike 4e.
I like to get into to the mind of my characters.
To do that I need to feel that the world they are in makes sense.
What makes 4e a better tactical wargame makes it a worse roleplaying game for me.

[Matthew]

Very much this with the addition that the other players are also tres important, a good mix of good friends and even a poor DM can run a fun game (my players happily glossed over the cracks in my shoddy DMing).

Yes indeed; a good group dynamic will solve most problems.

[Aron Times]

What I really like about 4E is that it was written as a game first, and fantasy simulation second. In most fantasy literature, wizards are much more powerful than fighters, but as 3E proved, it makes for one lousy game.

You can still have a 4E setting where wizards are more powerful than fighters, though. Simply give most wizards higher levels than most fighters. Perhaps a typical wizard would be a paragon character, while the typical fighter would be heroic. The PCs, of course, would be the exception to the rule.

Another nice thing about 4E is that each class is actually able to perform its intended role. The 3E fighter can't protect the party well simply because the monsters can ignore him. One the other hand, the 4E fighter is very dangerous when ignored (he gets extra attacks on enemies who choose not to attack him).

4E is designed to be very low on fluff so that players can add their own fluff to it. One wizard's Magic Missile might be a bolt of energy fired from a wand, while another might be an arrow fired from a conjured bow. Illusionary Ambush can be roleplayed as 3E's Silent Image with a clearly defined effect, as opposed to being completely controlled by DM fiat.

4E takes a lot less time to learn and to play than previous editions, which is very useful for older players like me, who has to juggle college and other stuff along with D&D.

[Stupendous_Man]

What I really like about 4E is that it was written as a game first, and fantasy simulation second. In most fantasy literature, wizards are much more powerful than fighters, but as 3E proved, it makes for one lousy game.


Only if you're the fighter. :smallyuk:

[Frerezar]

Din't waste your time with 4e. If you want the game experience it gives yu playe heroes quest (tabletp game). That should do it. It simplified the game so much that there is no point on trying that much anymore. It's good for a one shot from time to time. But not for an involvig roll orirented campaign

[RPGuru1331]

What I really like about 4E is that it was written as a game first, and fantasy simulation second. In most fantasy literature, wizards are much more powerful than fighters, but as 3E proved, it makes for one lousy game.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over Hercules, King Arthur, and Cu Chulainn squabbling in the background, can you run that back?

[Oslecamo]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over Hercules, King Arthur, and Cu Chulainn squabbling in the background, can you run that back?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over Hercules geting mind controled to kill his own sons and Merlin helping Arthur behind the scenes every other second.


Mind you, one of them is a direct son of a god and the other has an uber magic sword that can pierce any armor. Dunno anything about the third.

[RPGuru1331]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over Hercules geting mind controled to kill his own sons and Merlin helping Arthur behind the scenes every other second.

Hercules had his emotions meddled with by Hera, the Goddess who among other things had vengeance in her portfolio, and meting out divine punishment on.. well, really she was mad at Zeus falls under that. That's only 'magic' in asmuch as anything not 'real' is magic. Merlin helped. Nobody's gonna deny that. Who did all the actual work? Arthur. And Cu Chulainn actually had magic (albeit a gaelic interpretation of it) involved in his story too, of course. Point is, fantasy literature really doesn't say "Wizards are stronger!" It actually pretty much sticks to "Gods are better then mortals, even if they're thaumaturgists and oracles". There's a bit of a tilt in the modern age, but I blame Gandalf. Blood and Sweat is coming back into style a bit, as near as I can tell.

[Frerezar]

Cooooooooooooooonaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnn!!!!!!!!

[Xion_Anistu-san]

Try Pathfinder.

(FTW!)

[Frerezar]

The point is, fantasy doesnt show magic users as being stronger than fighters. It just shows that making the same thing is required less action ro them. For example killign someoneÑ a fighter killing someone wuld involve jmpin in the air while drawign his sword, swong it towards his adversary with all his strenght and cutting the poor bastard in half. For a wizard it'd be more like; he raises his figuer and the thing drops death.
Same thing, only thing that changes is the physical efford. Thats why itight appear magic users are more powerull

[TheEmerged]

Having played every edition in differing amounts, I can honestly say I'm having more fun with 4th than I did with 3rd or 3.5.

The "if you've played WoW you've played 4th" argument, as noted, is so far off-base and debunked I honestly have to wonder if anyone making that argument has played 4th Edition and WoW (I do). The only point of similarity is with the way that all of the classes have "powers" now. I for one happen to LIKE this.

In the pre-release materials, they said that the combat in the game was heavily influenced by their experiences in the miniatures game. So its true that the combat parts seem to be a completely different system -- because they are.

Now, a lot of people are complaining about the fact that the roleplaying elements were removed from the character creation. This is by design: they didn't want players to have to decide between minmaxing their characters for combat and picking up things that involve their role. This ends up freeing you to simply say "my character grew up as a farm boy" instead of "I need to spend points in Profession: Farm Boy".

------------------------

Bottom line? Play both systems a bit and decide which you like yourself.

[Thane of Fife]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over Hercules, King Arthur, and Cu Chulainn squabbling in the background, can you run that back?

You realize that both Heracles and Cu Chulainn are sons of gods, right? And that Arthur and his best knights are fairly routinely befuddled by sorceresses and such, and saved only by the grace of god?

Conan, Fafhrd, and the Grey Mouser aren't much better off - they regularly recognize that wizards are more powerful than they are.


The point is, fantasy doesnt show magic users as being stronger than fighters. It just shows that making the same thing is required less action ro them. For example killign someoneÑ a fighter killing someone wuld involve jmpin in the air while drawign his sword, swong it towards his adversary with all his strenght and cutting the poor bastard in half. For a wizard it'd be more like; he raises his figuer and the thing drops death.
Same thing, only thing that changes is the physical efford. Thats why itight appear magic users are more powerull

I'm going to completely disagree here - fantasy literature usually does show wizards as more powerful, but their magic generally takes more effort than conventional methods. Indeed, the traditional method of slaying a wizard in fantasy literature is to incapacitate them before they manage to cast a spell, because once they do, you're dead.

People like Conan and Odysseus are the best examples of wizard-slaying warriors, and they almost always do it either with the help of another wizard, or by catching the sorcerer by surprise.

[Oslecamo]

Hercules had his emotions meddled with by Hera, the Goddess who among other things had vengeance in her portfolio, and meting out divine punishment on.. well, really she was mad at Zeus falls under that. That's only 'magic' in asmuch as anything not 'real' is magic.
Merlin helped. Nobody's gonna deny that. Who did all the actual work? Arthur. And Cu Chulainn actually had magic (albeit a gaelic interpretation of it) involved in his story too, of course. Point is, fantasy literature really doesn't say "Wizards are stronger!" It actually pretty much sticks to "Gods are better then mortals, even if they're thaumaturgists and oracles".

Well, but last time I checked, Hercules was the son of a god himself, the biggest one actually, so he above everybody should have been able to resist Hera's mind tricks.

However, if we are to find actually magic users in the modern sense of the words, we're pretty screwed, since the flashy powers are reserved for the gods.

So Hercules can walk around safely simply because there aren't any magic users to threaten him! Everybody kills everybody with spears and swords and whatnot. Woot?

As for Artur, it depends on how you read it, I personally see Merlin carefully controling the things behind the scenes, even before Artur was born, and after Artur dies. He uses illusions and mind tricks all the time, whitout wich Artur would have been killed a lot sooner. Who does more is discussable, yes.

However, you can't deny this first caster weakness:
Morgana:Charm person!
Artur: I love Guin-Aaaghhhlll! Yes mistress, I shall give you a son that'll later defeat me.

Merlin plots for Artur's ascendancy for decades, and then the king goes and literally screws his reign in a single night, because of a magic user.



There's a bit of a tilt in the modern age, but I blame Gandalf. Blood and Sweat is coming back into style a bit, as near as I can tell.

Actually, I got the impression that in the latest fantasy books the hero is always some kind of gish who knows a lot of magic and knows how to bash people with pointy sticks at the same time.

Blood and swat was never in style. At best, "being son of someone very powerfull in order to be powerfull" was in style.

This is, point out a greek hero who hadn't got some direct god ascendancy, or hadn't been blessed as a child by some supernatural force.

[caden_varn]

To further derail the thread, you can have a good game where mages are much more powerful than others - you simply have everyone play a mage. This is the basis of Ars Magicka.

It does make a game potentially worse when some characters are significantly more powerful than others, but this really depends on the group. If the cleric routinely uses his buffs on the fighter as much as himself, it isn;t going to appear so much of an issue. If the cleric uses all the buffs on himself, he is likely to make the fighter a bit pointless.

Back to the original point, the best thing is to try both, I agree. Different people will prefer different editions. I prefer 4E myself, for a number of reasons - You don't have the 'one shot kill' potential that an orc with a battleaxe and a couple of good rolls can inflict at first level, and it does have a proper skill system.
I played and DMed 2E a lot in the distant past, and had some good fun with it, but it fell down on a couple things for me: Calculating THAC0 was annoying, and my mental arithmetic is rather poor. Not so much an issue for players, but for DMs it can become a nightmare; and lack of a 'decent' skill system. Proficiencies did not cut it for me, they felt like an afterthought; and finally without a lot of the options like kits, I felt it was forcing you into specific roles without good ways to dip into others. For instance having a Fighter who could be a bit sneaky, but going as far as multiclassing to rogue. I'm a bit more of a fan of skill based systems meself (something like Earthdawn is a fav) which may inform you where I am coming from.

But definitely play it yourself, you may not (probably won't in fact) like exactly the same thing as me :)

[KKL]

Din't waste your time with 4e. If you want the game experience it gives yu playe heroes quest (tabletp game). That should do it. It simplified the game so much that there is no point on trying that much anymore. It's good for a one shot from time to time. But not for an involvig roll orirented campaign

I'll bite.

You are utterly, completely, wrong in enough ways that if I had a dollar for every wrong you've typed, I'd have enough to buy myself five dollar footlongs for a couple of days.

And that's all I'm willing to say.


Cu Chulainn
He got his crap ruined completely by a Geas spell. COMPLETELY.

[ken-do-nim]

Since this is an edition musing thread, let me point out that fighters are much more formidable in 1st and 2nd edition. Their xp table is more advantageous at higher levels and their saving throws are the best. Plus touch armor class didn't exist, even Otto's Irresistible Dance had to hit the fighter's real armor class. Certainly ranged touch didn't exist; most ray spells operated on a saving throw basis. Then you add in the fact that high level spells had a high casting time (except for the power word spells which, with their hit point caps, don't work on uninjured fighters), and you have better balance. It wasn't until 3E came out that the problems started.