Which Edition

[Walk Hard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'd second sakuuya's point. If you want mechanical benefits from your character's background, go for 5E.

[Anonymouswizard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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. 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/Rules Cyclopaedia/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

[1337 b4k4]

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/Rules Cyclopaedia/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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.


(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 (it being a retroclone, the rules are almost the same).

[Walk Hard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You can get some of 5th ed for free. 4 races and 4 classes, and another 3 races on top of that. 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 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.

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]

You can get some of 5th ed for free. 4 races and 4 classes,

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]

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]

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 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]

• 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]

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?