Dungeons and hopefully some dragons

[Ashkore]

I was poking around in my parents garage, and i found a set of AD&D books. I think some of the very first that was published(i hope).

so i have an urge to get into D&D, which isnt very surprising considering my parents played it.

Question(s) to follow:3.5 or 4ed. Its a tough choice and i need help with it.
Mostly i'm looking for a way to easily slip into playing D&D and the edition which most likely would instigate the most hilarity.
Price and availability is sort of not an issue what with Christmas around the corner.

So yeah... Im a total newb to D&D, and would like to get into it :D

[Flickerdart]

3.5. Why? Because it's free. Between the SRD, all the articles on the Wizards site and years of homebrew, you can enjoy 3.5 without ever shelling out a dollar. And then if you don't like it you can try 4E I guess.

[Otherworld Odd]

I'd say 3.5 as well. Not trashing 4e or anything, but I always feel like I'm playing a video game designed for....*cringe*... the casual players.


That, and I enjoy the amount of options and flexibility in 3.5.

[Christopher K.]

Personally, I'd recommend 4e to get started if money is no object. 3.5 offers a lot more options but when you're first starting out that isn't necessarily the best thing to have, but you can easily transition to 3.5 after getting your feet wet with 4e.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

If you want to get to know some people who play at your local store, the official games are 4e, at the moment they use specifically the Essentials line. If you're joining a local group, it'll more likely be 3.5, which seems to be more popular than 4e.

I'll do the obligatory Pathfinder plug here. It's a pretty decent upgrade to the more troublesome aspects of 3.5

[Kalaska'Agathas]

If you've got the books already, why not play AD&D? Barring that, I'd have to say 3.5, though it's just personal preference.

[Ashkore]

O.O woah dang. I posted my thread scarcely 5 minutes ago and ive got all this help already ! :)

I was poking around the internet, and the general trend is that people still prefer 3.5.
Also, if i start playing D&D 3.5 , whats a quick and thorough way for me to get to grips with the rules? Barring a photographic memory of course ^^

[Xiander]

As a system 4th edition is easy too learn and as such it is a good place to start.
Personally I grew tired of it quickly, as I find it flavourless and boring once you have played a couple of different characters.

3.5 is fraught with balance issues, it is at times convoluted and hard to understand, and still I find it much more fun than fourth. Fair warning however: it is much harder to get into the rules.



Edit: You posted a new question while i was posting my answer, so here is my answer to that.

Start by making a handful of different characters and trying them out in mock battles. Roll random encounters if you feel like it. The first battles will take time as you look up the rules, but it will help you understand.

[Sipex]

While you still have seem to made your choice nobody has suggested 4.0 from a preferred view. I'd like to take a moment to point out that this forum is very 3.5 preferred so the opinions are a bit skewed. This is fine, each forum has it's own preferred versions.

I'd recommend 4th edition because I too recently started playing (2 years ago but it's still 'recent') and it was very easy for me to get into as a DM without limiting my options. I have touched 3.5 before and it has it's strengths (actually, to be fair, both do and both have weaknesses). I'll just give my summary of each.
4th editon - Easy to learn and has thorough battle rules. Battles tend to be very detailed and strategic, usually making positioning a must (so you usually need a grid and tokens), this also means battles take a while though. Skills are simplified which can be good or bad depending on your opinion. Very out there in terms of power, the players are always going to be ahead of normal people. Think of them as your action heroes. Great if you like running dungeon crawls and don't mind thinking of the game as a game.

3.5 edition - While tougher to learn it has a lot of options and things are more complex and in depth. Battles are more 'I cast this spell' or 'I hit it' and the strategy tends to focus more on countering your opponent than your positioning. Balance is a bit wonky but this is due to the extensive customisable character creation, there are a lot more options to what you can do with yourself. Things tend to feel more realistic and squishy and it's easier to play "You're just an average wizard in a world full of average wizards." Much better suited to free flow gaming.

Also, regardless of what anyone says, both games are the same in terms of roleplaying.

[Xiander]

Also, regardless of what anyone says, both games are the same in terms of roleplaying.

This is true in the sense that roleplaying is strictly something you do apart from the rules. Thus no matter the system you can roleplay.

However I personally have an easier time building character into a build in 3,5 than I do in fourth. Again this is solely my preferance, and might not be true for anyone, but i find it hard to make a unique character in fourth.

[Sipex]

That's personal and that's fine. I'm just tired of the ridiculous arguement that 4e prevents roleplaying. I figured Ash could do without that confusion.

[AstralFire]

I suggest 4E. Will be much, much easier to get into mechanically, has more interesting combats, and easy to get players. But go for AD&D instead since you already have the books if you can get a group - might be one at the local game shop.

[Seerow]

This is true in the sense that roleplaying is strictly something you do apart from the rules. Thus no matter the system you can roleplay.

However I personally have an easier time building character into a build in 3,5 than I do in fourth. Again this is solely my preferance, and might not be true for anyone, but i find it hard to make a unique character in fourth.

It really boils down to how you define unique. Given the sourcebooks available as of a year ago (when I stopped playing, because we swapped over to Shadowrun again), there was a lot of customization potential there.

The difference is, instead of defining yourself via your class, you define yourself via your powers. In 4e, your power selection is very limited, and while class features are powerful, you can't dip in and out of classes to cherry pick which ones you want. Instead, powers are what defines you. Which powers you choose will drastically alter your playstyle.

What I found is that 4e is much more enjoyable overall for a low level adventure. Mages can last almost as long as warriors, and rather than managing spell slots your major limiting factor in terms of how long you can keep adventuring is healing surges. In 3.5 at low levels everyone feels really squishy and most casters can scarcely last 2-3 encounters, and that many only if they're holding back casting 1 spell per encounter. So it's relatively boring for them. In 4e, the at will powers make you feel much more like a member of your class at all times, and low level survivability in general is much higher (due to a narrower hp scale. You start with more hp but gain less over time). Also you have a lot more low level customization potential, especially for warrior classes who now have powers rather than just getting one feat or a set in stone class ability. I also enjoy 4e's group synergies. You have a lot of short term buffing and debuffing going around, which is cool.

On the other hand, as you get higher in level 3.5s customization really shines as a good point. I was active in the wizard's forum during the last year or two of 3.5, and I loved the customization available, the theorycrafting behind new builds, making homebrew that fit into the system while struggling to stay in the realm of balanced (in 4e you can still make homebrew, but since things are much more standardized, it's also much easier to stay within balance while doing so. This is in fact a strong point for 4e, because most DMs are not professional game developers and don't want to be. But a lot of people do enjoy dealing with a more difficult system for the challenge of it). On the other hand, I never played a 3.5 game that actually lasted long enough to get to that level of play where that level of customization mattered. The only way to do so was starting a character at high level, which takes a lot of the fun out of it.




Basically like others have said, both systems have their strengths. 4e is better balanced all the way around. 3.5 is balanced at low levels due to the lack of customization available at that level (and the lower spellcaster power), but its biggest strength is its customization at high level, which leads to imbalance. I found 4e had plenty of customization to make me happy in the level range I played it at, and even looking ahead I saw plenty of interesting choices available (even though multiclassing is limited, its ability to unlock class specific paragon paths leads to a lot of customization potential).

For a starting DM, I'd almost definitely recommend 4e though, because its strength is being well balanced and easily customized without breaking the game accidentally. From there, you can look into 3.5 on your own and decide if that is a style you'd really prefer, once you've gotten used to the game.

[Frosty]

Go with 3.75/Pathfinder. Almost all of their mechanics content is free online at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ and the site is being updated constantly. The entirety of the Core rulebooks are certainly there, although not all of the splats such as the Advanced Player's Guide are 100% inputted yet. Still, it's a good system.

[Oracle_Hunter]

4E is a good place to start.

Spoiler

Show

(1) It is currently supported
It'll be easier to find (legal) copies of the books and, likely, people who want to play it.

(2) It is easy to get the full set of rules
Split a DDI membership amongst your friends and you'll have access to every 4E book produced in one step.

There are two ways to do this:
1 year for $80 = $20 split 4 ways
1 month for $10 = $2.50 split 4 ways

(3) It can be played right out of the box.
Thanks to an aggressive series of patches, 4E works just fine without the use of house rules. "Trap builds" are few and far between and the rules can be used as written without worry.

You may want to try D&D Essentials ("DDE") if you are totally new to RPGs. If you purchase a DDI subscription, you should have full access to both rules-sets.

[oxybe]

step 1) find out what the locals are playing. no matter how much you invest, be it a thousand dollars or zero dollars, committing yourself to learning a system no one uses is a bit of a pain

step 2) if system doesn't matter to the locals, i recommend 4th. less of a hassle on the DM's part to manage and as a player you generally have far more viable options in play, and it's much harder to break the game accidentally (either by making a character that's too strong or too weak).

[stabbitty death]

I personally perfer 3.5, beacause if you want complex, then play a wizard, if you want simple be a fighter. 4th ed is more complex than 3.5 fighter, butless so than wizard.

[Callista]

That depends on how you build your fighter. :)

My experience with 3.5 vs. 4th and role-playing isn't really whether the system encourages role-playing; it's that people who like to RP tend to be drawn to 3.5 over 4th edition. Maybe it has to do with a more extensive skill system and a lot more options for character building. I find that it is just very easy to find mechanical support for any character concept in 3.5. I mean, technically you could role-play that concept without any mechanical support at all; but it's still nice to have it.

[Otherworld Odd]

If you want to get to know some people who play at your local store, the official games are 4e, at the moment they use specifically the Essentials line. If you're joining a local group, it'll more likely be 3.5, which seems to be more popular than 4e.

I'll do the obligatory Pathfinder plug here. It's a pretty decent upgrade to the more troublesome aspects of 3.5

On second thought, I'm going to go ahead and second the Pathfinder suggestion. It completely slipped my mind. There's only a few books of it (not as much as 3.5), it runs off of 3.5, but it's completely backwards compatible with all 3.5 books so you can pull those in if you catch on quickly and feel like you can handle it.

[big teej]

I agree with the 3.5

personally I play 3.x (far more than I realized until recently)

I also concur with the 'video gamey' and 'casual oriented' appraisal, a player in my group before college enjoys it immensely, I do not hold it against him, merely a difference of taste

(I DO hold against him that he holds, whether he admits it or not, that 4th is 'better', whereas I view them as 'different'*)



*different because I find very little similarity between the two, so little that to call one 'better' would be to say that apples are better than oranges... but I digress...


**again, for the record, NOT THRASHING 4th ed, simply not to my taste.

[Dubious Pie]

4e is bad because of DDI and no OGL. This will not make sense to you, but once you have a year or 2 under your belt, you will thank me.

Or play GURPS. The Game of Cyborg Space Cowboys vs Alien Wizards That Shoot Lasers While Riding Zombie Horses.

[doctor_wu]

There are more than three pathfinder books now. Pathfinder has awesome golbins and other things.

[Grelna the Blue]

My preference is for Pathfinder, with 3.5 content as desired. That provides the widest range of character possibilities, both in generation and in actions. At least, the widest range in the D&D-verse. As mentioned above, GURPS is stupendous, although the number of optional rules involved in finetuning it to your liking might be offputting for a beginning GM.

As for 4th Edition, it is fine for what it is. What it is is a very faithful recreation of online MMORPGs and so far as I can tell (and I did give it a try) it shares many of the same strengths and weaknesses of those games. To me, it seemed very stylized and constrictive and I kept looking around for the mousepad while playing, but if you and your players have more experience with online games than tabletop, it is possible you'd find it more to your liking than I did.

[AstralFire]

I'm just going to count to ten over here and not blow up on people about how D&D 4 is not very much like an MMO, and how people laid the exact same accusations at D&D 3 for being like Diablo, and how really lame it is to go "4E's just a video game, not a roleplaying game... not that I'm dissing it or anything!"

Cripes.

Not to say that Harry Potter is bad, but I mean, it's exactly like a stereotypical shonen manga. Boy with destiny hops off to a magical school, gets amazing powers, fights evil, goes on adventures and gets the girl. It's clearly inspired. But you know, if you like that stuff, it's fine. I just don't like manga in my literature, you know?

[Grelna the Blue]

I'm just going to count to ten over here and not blow up on people about how D&D 4 is not very much like an MMO, and how people laid the exact same accusations at D&D 3 for being like Diablo, and how really lame it is to go "4E's just a video game, not a roleplaying game... not that I'm dissing it or anything!"

Cripes.

And I appreciate that, truly, but as I came to that conclusion after looking forward to it for a very long time, excitedly buying all the books, and playing it several times, and ALSO before seeing any other people say the very same thing, I will say that although opinions may decidedly differ on this question, it is not something I say just to be trendy.

[Edit: Besides, I enjoy playing MMORPGs. I just enjoy them in a different way than I do tabletop].

[Otherworld Odd]

There are more than three pathfinder books now. Pathfinder has awesome golbins and other things.

My bad, I meant to say there's only *like* (estimation) three books that you really absolutely positively need. >.>. Not there's only three completely.

And I appreciate that, truly, but as I came to that conclusion after looking forward to it for a very long time, excitedly buying all the books, and playing it several times, and ALSO before seeing any other people say the very same thing, I will say that although opinions may decidedly differ on this question, it is not something I say just to be trendy.

[Edit: Besides, I enjoy playing MMORPGs. I just enjoy them in a different way than I do tabletop].

Also, I agree with you Grelna. While I'm not saying 4E is bad, and I'm sure no one here is saying it's a bad game, it's just different as a post above stated. It's very streamlined and it feels extremely restricted as it tells you builds you may want to consider right in the books.

And I wouldn't be agreeing or saying this without having previously played the game and researched it thoroughly.

Again, Pathfinder with 3.5 optional splashing is probably the best bet for a new GM such as yourself.

[Mando Knight]

Personally, I'd recommend 4e to get started if money is no object. 3.5 offers a lot more options but when you're first starting out that isn't necessarily the best thing to have, but you can easily transition to 3.5 after getting your feet wet with 4e.

No, see, if money is no object, then you can go with 3.5, since its books have the "out of print" thing stuck to them (God help you if you want to get SW SAGA legally nowadays. The core book is "only" less than 50% markup from list on Amazon... it's better now, but back when WotC was announcing that they were dropping SAGA, you had to pay like $100+ for out-of-print SAGA books), or DDI to compile everything ever in a single easy payment.

I also disagree with Dubious Pie on the reason for avoiding 4e. No OGL hurts, but buy the Rules Compendium (and/or DMG 1 & maybe 2, and PHB 1) and an annual subscription to DDI, and you've got everything you need to play anything in 4e. Ever. Well, you might want to buy some of the monster-specific or campaign books and such if you're a DM, but it's all you need to be a player.

Honestly, at $6/month for the annual subscription, it's cheaper than WoW, too. DDI, if you're willing to pay for it, is the best official electronic D&D toolset ever. EVER. Need to whip up character? DDI has a character builder, with every character option from every book. All of them. Need to get a bunch of monsters? DDI lets you search for the monster you want, and they're promising to release a new version of the Monster Builder to let you modify them, too. And it includes subscriptions to both Dungeon and Dragon, the two online D&D magazines for DMs and players (respectively). It is, in my opinion, a darned good deal.

[Seerow]

You mean the monster builder STILL isn't out?

You realized they promised the monster builder, encounter builder, and dungeon builder tools, would all be available as a part of DDI at release. It then was stated it'd be delayed, but at this point it's been what, 2, 3 years? And they still haven't even got a monster builder out?

That's pretty pathetic tbqh.


Not that I have a problem with the system itself, I gave my opinions on that above, but I find it absolutely ridiculous they can't get the tools out that they promised within several years of saying they'd be out.

[B1okHead]

I like 3.5 more. It just wouldn't be D&D if the wizard wasn't winning entire encounters while the fighter was doing 20 points of damage a hit. :)

[Tvtyrant]

AD&D was more balanced then 3.5, you might consider playing that instead. Of course it kinda limits you to older players, but the casters aren't quite as easy to break (and you get SpellJammer!).