Best DnD/PF edition so start a new player on?

[Kaiwen]

So, I'm looking to teach one of my friends to play TTRPGs with my group, but I'm not really sure which one to start him off on. We're pretty flexible (3.5 mainly with some PF, but some 5e and one of us has even plays mostly 2e), but what's the 'best' system to teach a newbie?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, I'm looking to teach one of my friends to play TTRPGs with my group, but I'm not really sure which one to start him off on. We're pretty flexible (3.5 mainly with some PF, but some 5e and one of us has even plays mostly 2e), but what's the 'best' system to teach a newbie?

In my opinion, 5e. It's much less crunch-heavy than 3e or PF, with more unified mechanics than 2e. It also has the benefit that choosing "what looks appropriate" for an archetype will generally work decently (very few trap options).

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm seconding 5e. It's by far the smoothest edition I've played, with the fewest weird fiddly bits. Low-choice character creation is also a plus for newbies.

[CharonsHelper]

I'll third 5e. It's not my favourite system (GM may I bugs me) but I'll agree that it's newbie friendly.

Really though, while it's the lightest D&D system in some time (since OSR?) it's still not very light from an absolute perspective. There is a lot more complexity in 5e than a lot of other systems.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Really though, while it's the lightest D&D system in some time (since OSR?) it's still not very light from an absolute perspective. There is a lot more complexity in 5e than a lot of other systems.

That's true enough. It's relatively rules light (compared to other D&D editions and especially to 3e or 4e), but it's not absolutely rules light.

Due to the design, most of the rules don't apply--each player only needs to know his own class abilities (and spells) + the basic equipment, ability check, and combat rules. And most of those rules don't come up very often.

In my experience, the key to 5e is following the basic flow:

• DM describes the situation
• Player describes his characters attempted action
• DM decides how the action resolves (possibly with a roll, but often not) and narrates the changed situation.
• Rinse and repeat

That is, the players don't need to get hung up on the details of "I roll a X check"--they say "I'm going to Y" and the DM tells them what to roll. Often that might require a few back-and-forth questions/responses if the intent and approach aren't clear, but usually it just resolves. Rolling for things should be the exception (out of combat, anyway).

[Durzan]

In my experience, the key to 5e is following the basic flow:

• DM describes the situation
• Player describes his characters attempted action
• DM decides how the action resolves (possibly with a roll, but often not) and narrates the changed situation.
• Rinse and repeat

Thats pretty much how all D&D games, regardless of edition, are run. Its the specifics regarding the rolling that varies from edition to edition.

[2D8HP]

My gut instinct is the 48 pages of the 1977 [I]Dungeons & Dragons "bluebook" Basic rules that was my entry into the hobby (PM me if you want to know more!).

I've also heard good things about

Basic Fantasy

which tries to combine the simplicity of the 1980's "B/X" version of D&D with the more streamlined "D20" rules of 3e D&D.

The Lamentations of the Flame Princess rules are good as well, but the art is more appropriate for a GWAR concert than a schoolyard.

An advantage of learning 5e D&D, and Pathfinder, is a wealth of other players, and while I'm not familiar enough with Pathfinder to judge the free content available, the 5e

free Basic rules,

and the

Systems Reference Document

are enough for a great game, read 'em, run Lost Mine of Phandelver from the Starter Set, and your pretty good to go!

[Grod_The_Giant]

Thats pretty much how all D&D games, regardless of edition, are run. Its the specifics regarding the rolling that varies from edition to edition.

More specifically (ha-ha), it's the amount of extra stuff surrounding the roll. 5e at least is pretty consistently "roll a skill, do a thing;" 3.X tends to add in a lot of extra steps like "provoke an AoO unless you have a feat, take this penalty, make this unique roll with that specific bonus, do a thing."

[CharonsHelper]

Due to the design, most of the rules don't apply--each player only needs to know his own class abilities (and spells) + the basic equipment, ability check, and combat rules. And most of those rules don't come up very often.

Oh sure - it's an exception based rules system. Which I greatly prefer. (unlike GURPs or some such which is nearly all up-front complexity)

And even Pathfinder isn't really that bad. I had to tell him what to roll, but my nephew enjoyed it as young as 10ish when I ran a game for them.

[Velaryon]

Thirding, fourthing, or whatever 5e as a starting point.

Reasons:
-they're the easiest books to find for purchase if the player wants to own the PHB
-it's more rules-light than 3.X or (I believe) 4e
-it's not riddled with trap options like 3.X
-5e's relative lack of decisions during character building helps prevent information overload for a newbie

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh sure - it's an exception based rules system. Which I greatly prefer. (unlike GURPs or some such which is nearly all up-front complexity)

And even Pathfinder isn't really that bad. I had to tell him what to roll, but my nephew enjoyed it as young as 10ish when I ran a game for them.

But even among exception-based designs, the exception hierarchy is really (comparatively) shallow. Usually, the exceptions apply to the base rules and exceptions only interact if they say they do (by explicit reference). Each spell, for example, stands alone. Produces lots of repeated verbiage, but reduces the number of cross-references you need to do to parse the rules.

[Honest Tiefling]

Thirding, fourthing, or whatever 5e as a starting point.

Reasons:
-they're the easiest books to find for purchase if the player wants to own the PHB
-it's more rules-light than 3.X or (I believe) 4e
-it's not riddled with trap options like 3.X
-5e's relative lack of decisions during character building helps prevent information overload for a newbie

Fithing or Sixing 5e, and I think these reasons really seal the deal. Character creation is simple and fast, unlike many previous editions. The fact that it is widely available unlike older editions also helps. Like many modern editions, it has (incomplete) quick rules for a newbie for free.

[Kurald Galain]

So, I'm looking to teach one of my friends to play TTRPGs with my group, but I'm not really sure which one to start him off on. We're pretty flexible (3.5 mainly with some PF, but some 5e and one of us has even plays mostly 2e), but what's the 'best' system to teach a newbie?

Usually the game you play most is the game you can explain best. Besides, it's not generally necessary for a novice player to know a lot of rules, regardless of edition.

What kind of newbies are they? Young? Old? Play a lot of computer or board games? Or not? Stuff like that probably impacts the decision.

[Firest Kathon]

I would suggest the system you are most comfortable in. It makes it a lot easier to explain if you do not need to look stuff up yourself all the time. Also, even 3.5/PF is quite easy to start in (roll a D20, add that number that is written on your character sheet). Building characters is the hardest part, and you can take that over for them until they are ready to do it themselves. They can also be shielded from the more complex subsystems (e.g. prepared casters) for the first few sessions.

[CharonsHelper]

But even among exception-based designs, the exception hierarchy is really (comparatively) shallow. Usually, the exceptions apply to the base rules and exceptions only interact if they say they do (by explicit reference).

Yep - I consider that to just make it a solid exception system. If the exceptions interact very much then it's sort of the worst of both worlds (exception & up-front complexity).

Each spell, for example, stands alone. Produces lots of repeated verbiage, but reduces the number of cross-references you need to do to parse the rules.

Yep - definitely worth some repeating to keep the up-front complexity down. Plus it makes looking stuff up easier.

In general I think of there being 3 broad categories of complexity.

1. Structural Complexity - this is the up-front kind which you need to learn before jumping in at all

2. Along the Way (I can't remember the better name) - This is stuff that you learn as you play, learning only what you need at the time. This covers exception based mechanics along with classes & levelling - both of which gate a lot of complexity away from players as they're learning.

3. Emergent Complexity - where seemingly unrelated things interact in interesting ways - not always designed for

D&D generally does a pretty decent job of keeping #1 low (even 3.x) - which is sort of the minimum threshold to play. I'd say that 4e's #1 is actually higher than 3.x's.

Most of the complexity of D&D is in #2, with a chunk of #3. (#3 is where all of 3.x's imbalance comes from too) Frankly - pushing a lot of complexity from #1 to #2 is a great reason for systems to use classes and levels, both of which gate a lot of the rules so that no one has to learn everything (even the GM just needs the broad strokes).

[Koo Rehtorb]

Dungeon World.

[Wasteomana]

I'd honestly say it depends on the player and what style they are going to enjoy as well as what type of character they are likely to enjoy. Also depends on the campaign, speed of progression and background of the player.

5e is a good one for new players. There isn't a lot of mechanical depth and as long as they don't play any form of caster that can go through character creation and get to a reasonable level with a minimal amount of reading. If the newcomer has no idea what to play, no gaming experience at all, the campaign is low level and slowly progresses with a player who wants to play a rogue or fighter it is no contest, 5e wins hands down. It being currently supported also goes a long way.

If you tinker with some of those pieces the answer might change. If the player is someone who enjoys like Eve or simulationism a lot in their games, they may get a bit annoyed with 5e's simplistic design. They might enjoy playing something like Heavy Gears etc. If they have played a lot of wargaming, having a battlemat (which you can do in 5e but its more of an assumed thing in 4e) might make the player feel they have something comfortable to build up from. If the player wants to be a spellcaster and especially if they are looking to start at 3rd level or so or in a campaign that progresses quickly, the spell list can be a bit daunting to read through. Each spell having several paragraphs to read and having a ton of options on what to know / prepare / etc as well as different slots can be a lot for a new player to learn. 5e has very simple martial archetypes with casters having a lot more complexity. 4E tends to have a baseline complexity for everything with Essentials characters (both martial and casters) being much more streamlined and simplified.

Lastly you kinda have to know a little bit about the person, how much free time they are likely to give this and what kind of player of games they are. If they are the type to dive in head first and wants a lot of space to roam around and stretch building characters / learning the game, they might find 5E to be a shallow pool. 4E's feat system and higher level customization is something that I personally really enjoy and one of the chatrooms I'm in that focuses on that sort of thing is the most busy chatroom I'm in (I woke up to 600 messages this morning). PF is always releasing new material and is an ever-expanding mass of splat books that makes a figurative Ocean of things to play around in. Cool, enjoy it if you are that kind of player.

In short, 5e is a good default answer for a lot of reasons, but depending on the player that answer might change. Hope this helped.

[Honest Tiefling]

Another idea is whatever edition you have media to show them with. Any sort of campaign logs, those videos where people play a campaign but I don't know the name of, blog post or webcomic. As you know your players, you will probably be better able to direct them to the media that meshes with their sense of humor.

[2D8HP]

Fithing or Sixing 5e, and I think these reasons really seal the deal. Character creation is simple and fast, unlike many previous editions. The fact that it is widely available unlike older editions also helps. Like many modern editions, it has (incomplete) quick rules for a newbie for free.

Character creation isn't easier than all previous editions (and you didn't say that it was), and I do really think there's easier versions of D&D (and similar games) to learn, but those editions and games are much harder to find tables that play them today, which makes 5e and Pathfinder just more useful to learn to play.

...5e is a good one for new players. There isn't a lot of mechanical depth and as long as they don't play any form of caster that can go through character creation and get to a reasonable level with a minimal amount of reading. If the newcomer has no idea what to play, no gaming experience at all, the campaign is low level and slowly progresses with a player who wants to play a rogue or fighter it is no contest, 5e wins hands down. It being currently supported also goes a long way....

"No mechanical depth"?



Compared to GURPS?

Sure.

Compared to bare-bones old TSR "Basic" D&D, there's lots of depth in 5e!

But to your larger point, 5e does have "training wheels" classes (especially the "Champion" Fighter) that are pretty easy to learn to play, and slowing down "leveling-up" makes it even easier to learn.

[Wasteomana]

Character creation isn't easier than all previous editions (and you didn't say that it was), and I do really think there's easier versions of D&D (and similar games) to learn, but those editions and games are much harder to find tables that play them today, which makes 5e and Pathfinder just more useful to learn to play.

I help run a community of gamers that run 4e something like 8-9 games a week and new players are welcome. If you know where to look, you can find a lot of games. I will agree though if you are planning on introducing them but don't have a gaming group in mind, knowing what is played in your area will be very helpful. My region of the world plays a ton of Vampire, ACKS and a healthy bit of 4e D&D with a small 5e presence. Sorta matters what you are looking for in the group.

"No mechanical depth"?

You might be confused because you took the effort to quote me, and then repeated it in quotation marks by changing the words. Take a second, read what I said, then read what you wrote in those quotation marks. I said "There isn't a lot of mechanical depth and as long as they don't play any form of caster". The fact that you read "there isn't a lot with a clear caveat" as "There is nothing" is not something I can really help you with.

[2D8HP]

I help run a community of gamers that run....

Sounds neat!

...You might be confused....

I fully acknowledge that.

[Ignimortis]

TBH, I started my group on 3.PF and they're doing fine. All it takes is a bit of guidance in the basic things ("don't take Fighter, describe your character's style and there's a better class for it I can probably suggest" sort of thing). The actual gameplay is easy enough.
That being said, 5e is extremely new-player-friendly. Although I'd ask the players first what they expect to play - if it's Aragorn or Legolas, then pick 5e without a doubt.

[Pex]

My honest answer is 5E is easier to learn than Pathfinder. Players get the fun of making choices but aren't overwhelmed in volume of options. It has complexity but not as much as Pathfinder. Because there are no restrictions between a character moving and doing stuff new players can do what they want without be told why they can't due to conditions.

However, Pathfinder is not hard to learn either. Use Core Rulebook only. Ask the player what he envisions his character doing then suggest the options that fit. Let the player choose from among those options. 5 ft step issues won't become a major issue until 6th level when warriors get a second attack. By that time players should understand the game the extra complication shouldn't be a problem.

[oxybe]

My vote goes for whatever game you (or whoever will GM) are most familiar with and excited to run.

I'll admit 5th is easier then 4th to start people on, mechanically speaking, but I have 0 enthusiasm to run that system. The energy and effort I would put in a 4th Ed game would eclipse a 5th Ed one's output by a not insignificant margin.

If you are familiar with a game you know the tricks to running it smoothly (which includes what mechanics to gloss over or ignore for now) and giving those newbies a great first session and if you're excited to run that system, the enthusiasm will trickle down to the rest of the table.

Get them started on your jam. The stuff that makes you roll characters long into the night in a ragged notebook. If that system is 5th ed, then run 5th. If it's GURPS, run GURPS. If it's FATAL, you need help.

[JAL_1138]

X[th/rd]-ing 5e, for reasons already stated by others. Especially the relatively free movement in combat, lower degree of option paralysis/overwhelming amount of material, and especially fewer trap options and greater forgiveness of non-optimal choices. The math is looser and the floor for character effectiveness is generally higher. As long as a character is built even remotely decently, it just about doesn't matter which race, class, subclass, and feats they pick, the character will be at least reasonably effective. Party composition matters more than character optimization, for the most part, which means a new player can generally just pick what looks fun and go with it without worrying too much.

Edit: That said, if 3.PF is what you're more familiar with, and what you enjoy more, you might have an easier time teaching it—and thus a newbie might have an easier time learning it—even if 5e would be easier if all things were equal. For example, I'd have a much easier time teaching 2e AD&D than, say, FATE, even though FATE is unquestionably a heck of a lot simpler and more newbie-friendly on paper. And I've always found 2e easier to play, and to explain to new players, than 3.PF, although given the relative popularity difference and complaints about AD&D's unintuitiveness I hear, I'm apparently in a minority there. So for what to start your friend on, 3.PF might still be the better choice, if you prefer it and can explain it better than 5e. Very few systems are so complex a new player won't be able to get the hang of them with somebody to walk them through it, so go with whatever system you're most comfortable teaching.

[Mendicant]

The best edition to introduce is the one you're most comfortable with.

I can't speak to 5th at all, not having played it, but I've introduced a lot of new players to 3.x, and it wasn't terribly difficult. The biggest barrier for new players is character generation, but that's a surmountable problem as long as you're willing to do a lot of the heavy lifting for them at the start. 3.x's wealth of complexity and option bloat is only really an issue if you dump it on the player right away. A 1st - level barbarian or sorcerer isn't hard to explain the basics of, and if you're the DM you can gate a lot of the emergent complexity with thoughtful monster selection.

For kids I've got a dead simple PF character sheet I found online and I put some of the key numbers, like attack bonuses, in red or blue color pencil.

If you are going to try 3.x, I'd highly recommend larding an extra layer of hp onto 1st level characters. It makes the whole process more forgiving for everyone, including you. I give out the full HD twice before adding in Con, fcb, etc.

[Vitruviansquid]

Of course, the best system to introduce someone to the hobby with is the system you like most.

But since you asked:

D&D editions are all not that great to start a new RPG player on.

D&D's niche has for long been the fact that they have more content than other games. Another game might have a template for how a GM can go about designing monsters, D&D editions will have a Monster Manual that details enough monsters for a few campaigns running the entire breadth of the games' many levels. Where another game might have a book with a few classes to choose from, or even a point-buy system that can create a great diversity of characters with not too many options in the book, D&D editions can have so many classes that its designers can't keep track of them to prevent combinations that break the game.

But since you asked specifically about D&D editions:

I'd say any edition is fine to teach, the real thing is to figure out how not to overload the prospective player with options and considerations and cause paralysis. This is kind of tricky, because different players are looking for different experiences. If I was being introduced to 3.5, for example, I would like to be pointed toward a caster class, because I'm the type to nerd out over all the mechanical options I get and weigh them against each other (or, that is, to powergame). I might even find the game boring and quit if my first experience was with the fighter or rogue classes. Some other players might feel like having to look through spells is raising the floor of entry too high, and not be friendly to the idea of having to do homework for a game. Still other players feel like the idea of acknowledging their tabletop RPG has game mechanics at all, and isn't just a collaborative story generator of sorts, is a betrayal of what they came to the table for (though I think you might need to be deep into RPGs to have such particular tastes to begin with).

Anyways, whatever edition you give them, just start with a limited number of options, don't pull weird tricks on this player. For the first few sessions, you will almost guaranteed not want to do anything with resistances and immunities, no monsters that move in frustrating ways for 4e, nothing that can even remotely be thought of as Tucker's Koboldsish, no puzzles players have to solve in real life, and so on.

[Psyren]

The best one to introduce them to is the one your group plans on playing long term. They're there to hang out with you after all. 5e is very newbie friendly as others have stated, but so is the PF Beginner Box, so don't let PF's higher relative complexity (I would use the term "depth") turn you off introducing new people.

I would also recommend Starfinder since there is a ton of sci-fi a new player can draw on for inspiration.

[PaladinX]

I'm going to chime in and repeat 5th edition or 13th age.

[Knaight]

Were I to introduce a player to RPGs through a D&D edition, I'd use 5e. With that said, D&D in general is very low on my list of preferred introductory systems. Part of that is D&D being very low on my list of preferred systems, part of it is that it's often a heavy system to learn for certain types of players, part of is that it does a bad job introducing a lot of the more unique aspects of RPGs to the types of players who tend to get it quickly.