Guide for Choosing Path? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Guide for Choosing Path?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
sparkomatic
Jan 03, 2013 23:40:29 Greetings All -

Is there a guide available that can help a newbie choose which D&D path to take? (eg. PathFinder, 3.5, Encounters, 4E ....)

In particular, looking for a clear definition of pros and cons for each split of D&D there is available.

Thanks!
#2
Ragnar_Lodbrok
Jan 04, 2013 1:23:17 I really dislike 4E. I find that there's little real variation between different classes in the same "role," the system is less interesting to tweak, skills were almost overcondensed, and the few with combat roles were removed entirely, skill challenges don't work (though I believe a "fixed" mechanic was introduced later in its run,) and every class was made too similar in the means by which it functioned.
It does have some good mechanics and ideas, but they're easy to pilfer for 3.5 or Pathfinder, so I don't find it worth slogging through the gameplay itself for them. Essentials looked slightly better, but I never tried it and have no interest in it.
However, combat can be described as tactics based, and somewhat interesting due to the options possessed by the player characters, though I find that the PCs are less at risk than they should be and that 3.5 requires more tactical and (unlike 4E) strategic thought, while offering classes with even more options.

I have a strong preference for 3.5. Martial adepts, psionics, Incarnum users, and spellcasters all use different, interesting systems, and can each be built to the same tier of optimization without much difficulty. The multiclass system is far superior, and allows you to create a greater variety of character concepts. Yes, the edition is "broken." (Technically, it's not truly broken, as that implies unplayable. Unbalanced is a better term.) But it's enjoyable to mess with the mechanics and try to fix it, and easy to avoid the truly overpowered or underpowered options. Players also benefit from more versatile characters. I'm playing a melee sorcerer right now, for example, who still has ranged firepower to some extent, mobility, and options to help in social situations.
Pathfinder is sufficiently similar to 3.5 that I'm not really going to comment on it.
However, if you don't know what you're doing, it's very easy to make a rather weak character (though inexperienced GMs and players work pretty well with that.)

EDIT: Oh, and technically, we're not supposed to talk about D&D here. Off-topic for the forum, or something.
#3
Doombringer_of_Hoar
Jan 04, 2013 1:34:35 I think Ragnar has done a fine job demostrating why a guide for such thing would be very flawed, everyones biased, obviosly Ragnar likes 3.5, so obviously hes going to tell you thats the way to go, I like 4e so id tell you to go with it, but honestly, the only real way that you would know is to play them all, and hell why limit yourself to D&D, theres lots of other quality role playing games out there,
#4
Ragnar_Lodbrok
Jan 04, 2013 1:37:35 Pretty much, yeah. I freely admit to bias. The best way to decide is to play both main editions still talked about long enough to decide whether you like them or not. If neither, Fantasy Flight Games has some very solid systems too.
#5
ADHadh
Jan 04, 2013 2:07:39 Not only is he biased, he's wrong; 4e is awesome with it's clear definitions and streamlined encounter creation and managment, they just take a tad too long
#6
pigknight
Jan 04, 2013 2:17:38 I started with an love 3.5 but have done a bit of 4e and played a bit of Pathfinder.

3.5 has option. Metric pig-tons of options. But, even in core only, there is tons of difference in balance between classes. 1-3 fighters, clerics, barbarians, and paladins are supreme. 4-8 is pretty evenly balanced. 9+ prepared spellcasters beat everyone and don't even have to try. Wizards, Clerics, DRUIDS, and Archivists are rediculous late game and noncaster classes are useless. Look up the tier lists and reasoning behind placement to see why. Also, it is the easist to pirate. It might be harder to pick up physical books. Furthermore, there's a spell or mechanic for everything.

4e is very tactics based and focuses less on the mechanics for roleplay. "How does the necromancer raise dead?" "'Cause he can." This is both a pro and con. Also, the classes are more balanced, but individual roles all play the same in the end: defender, melee striker, tanky striker, ranged striker, aoe controller, debuff controller, and leader. Combat is very tactical, if abit safe using core (I increase monster HP and damage. Monsters don't hit hard enough.). Books are rather easy to come by physically but I haven't seen pirate copies yet. Oh and the monsters are cool.

Pathfinder is a more "patched" 3.5. More options for classes, less "dead levels" and simplified mechanics. Wizards, Clerics, and DRUIDS (just remove druids from 3.5 and Pf they're rediculous) are gods at high level as per usual. It s easiest to find the core book and beastiary at any bookstore and you can find all the information from every Pathfinder book online (legally) at their own SRD wiki thingy.

D&D Next can be downloaded from WotC and looks legit. Haven't played it yet but I've heard it said to be a more streamline, balanced 3.5. with 3.5 characters and4e monsters

Overall, I like 3.5 as it has the most stuff and it's easy enough to go "Yeah, that's degenerate let's remove that." 4e is pretty balanced, but has fewer options and makes a close second in my book.

Also on a tangent, the 4e Empire won the first and second Edition Wars and wiped out the 3.5 survivors during the last war (although I think only one person on the 4e side actually liked 4e).
#7
Ragnar_Lodbrok
Jan 04, 2013 2:26:57
Not only is he biased, he's wrong; 4e is awesome with it's clear definitions and streamlined encounter creation and managment, they just take a tad too long

Well, this isn't the D&D Next playtest forum, so I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree.
#8
ADHadh
Jan 04, 2013 4:42:42
Well, this isn't the D&D Next playtest forum, so I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree.

#9
The_Silversword
Jan 05, 2013 16:48:55 Id say start off with 1e and work your way up from there. Just skip over the BECMI crap.
#10
bone_naga
Jan 05, 2013 17:03:59
Id say start off with 1e and work your way up from there. Just skip over the BECMI crap.

Don't listen to him, BECMI was better than 1e.
#11
The_Silversword
Jan 05, 2013 18:57:51 Elves as a class!? no way man!
#12
The_Silversword
Jan 05, 2013 19:58:06 Shut Up!
#13
homicidal_squirrel
Jan 05, 2013 20:56:01 I wish someone had said that to the person who suggested 4E.
#14
The_Silversword
Jan 05, 2013 21:21:34 Its better than 3.75e
#15
homicidal_squirrel
Jan 05, 2013 22:26:46
Its better than 3.75e

Want to try again? ;)

#16
The_Silversword
Jan 06, 2013 0:44:34 If you insist, Its better than 3.75e
#17
homicidal_squirrel
Jan 06, 2013 0:51:54
If you insist, Its better than 3.75e

Your grammar, much like your assumption, is still wrong.

#18
The_Silversword
Jan 06, 2013 0:55:26 your the last person who should be complaining about grammar, mr. I let my cat type my posts for me.
#19
EscherEnigma
Jan 06, 2013 1:09:04 The best game to start with is whatever the GM wants to run.
#20
homicidal_squirrel
Jan 06, 2013 1:17:06
your the last person who should be complaining about grammar, mr. I let my cat type my posts for me.

I tell them they have terrible grammar as well. I don't think they care. Still, the fact remaind that your post was incorrect... in more than just grammar.

#21
The_Silversword
Jan 06, 2013 1:23:08 Its a proven scientific fact that 4e is better than D&D 3.75 aka Pathfinder.
#22
sfdragon
Jan 06, 2013 1:24:05 oh I dunno scientists have been proven full of it before.......
#23
homicidal_squirrel
Jan 06, 2013 1:30:00
Its a proven scientific fact that 4e is better than D&D 3.75 aka Pathfinder.

Were those Alex Jones approved scientist?

#24
sfdragon
Jan 06, 2013 1:34:18 I bet they were the ones that J Edgar Hoover payed off
#25
The_Silversword
Jan 06, 2013 2:01:43
Its a proven scientific fact that 4e is better than D&D 3.75 aka Pathfinder.

Were those Alex Jones approved scientist?

Alex Jones approved scientists all play Pathfinder, I thought everyone knew that.
#26
homicidal_squirrel
Jan 06, 2013 2:23:49
Its a proven scientific fact that 4e is better than D&D 3.75 aka Pathfinder.

Were those Alex Jones approved scientist?

Alex Jones approved scientists all play Pathfinder, I thought everyone knew that.

So even they don't like 4E, huh?
#27
ADHadh
Jan 06, 2013 17:44:56 They don't because they're not right in the head
#28
xladyfayre
Jan 06, 2013 22:16:27 You can't really have a guide for that...
Personally, I think 4E is boring but that's my opinion. If you are just starting out and do not want to shell out money for something you are unsure about I'd start playtesting DDN or using PF since both are available free right now. PF through their legal srd and DDN through this site. Then if you enjoy it- you can buy it.
#29
sfdragon
Jan 06, 2013 22:47:50
They don't because they're not right in the head

but are anyof us right in the head
#30
Klirshon
Jan 06, 2013 23:16:40 There is only one method to answer that inquiry.
#31
zombie_babies
Jan 07, 2013 8:50:14
You can't really have a guide for that...
Personally, I think 4E is boring but that's my opinion. If you are just starting out and do not want to shell out money for something you are unsure about I'd start playtesting DDN or using PF since both are available free right now. PF through their legal srd and DDN through this site. Then if you enjoy it- you can buy it.

You can also get D&D 3.5 for free via its online SRD. It's missing some stuff (like beholders) but all you need to play is there.

And everyone knows 4e is boring. Some people just like boring for whatever reason. The rest of us play stuff that isn't D&D Bore E. Cuz we like games that aren't boring. ;)
#32
ADHadh
Jan 07, 2013 9:04:46
They don't because they're not right in the head

but are anyof us right in the head

Seeing how many people here claim 3.x is superior to 4e, I'd say most aren't
#33
xladyfayre
Jan 07, 2013 9:15:31
You can't really have a guide for that...
Personally, I think 4E is boring but that's my opinion. If you are just starting out and do not want to shell out money for something you are unsure about I'd start playtesting DDN or using PF since both are available free right now. PF through their legal srd and DDN through this site. Then if you enjoy it- you can buy it.

You can also get D&D 3.5 for free via its online SRD. It's missing some stuff (like beholders) but all you need to play is there.

And everyone knows 4e is boring. Some people just like boring for whatever reason. The rest of us play stuff that isn't D&D Bore E. Cuz we like games that aren't boring. ;)

I didn't mention it because I am not sure if it is a legal source or not.... lol.
#34
zombie_babies
Jan 07, 2013 9:19:59
I didn't mention it because I am not sure if it is a legal source or not.... lol.

Heh. I assure you it's legal. Wizards put it out there. It's part of the OGL. What's there is really the basics of the d20 system but with some D&D flavah. It's legal because it's supposed to be used by anyone who wants it. To play, to develop, to whatever. Wizards ain't like that no mo'. ;)
#35
xladyfayre
Jan 07, 2013 21:28:36
I didn't mention it because I am not sure if it is a legal source or not.... lol.

Heh. I assure you it's legal. Wizards put it out there. It's part of the OGL. What's there is really the basics of the d20 system but with some D&D flavah. It's legal because it's supposed to be used by anyone who wants it. To play, to develop, to whatever. Wizards ain't like that no mo'. ;)

Ah. I wasn't sure since I only used it once or twice, lol.
#36
pigknight
Jan 07, 2013 21:45:19 I love 3.5.
I like 4e.
I'm "eh" on Pathfinder.
D&DN looks ok.
#37
xladyfayre
Jan 07, 2013 21:48:19
I love 3.5.
I like 4e.
I'm "eh" on Pathfinder.
D&DN looks ok.

I haven't played D&DN but I've played 3.5, 4e and PF. Out of those I've liked PF the best, honestly. I'd like my group to playtest but no one seems interested until its completed.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 sparkomatic Jan 03, 2013 23:40:29	Greetings All - Is there a guide available that can help a newbie choose which D&D path to take? (eg. PathFinder, 3.5, Encounters, 4E ....) In particular, looking for a clear definition of pros and cons for each split of D&D there is available. Thanks!
#2 Ragnar_Lodbrok Jan 04, 2013 1:23:17	I really dislike 4E. I find that there's little real variation between different classes in the same "role," the system is less interesting to tweak, skills were almost overcondensed, and the few with combat roles were removed entirely, skill challenges don't work (though I believe a "fixed" mechanic was introduced later in its run,) and every class was made too similar in the means by which it functioned. It does have some good mechanics and ideas, but they're easy to pilfer for 3.5 or Pathfinder, so I don't find it worth slogging through the gameplay itself for them. Essentials looked slightly better, but I never tried it and have no interest in it. However, combat can be described as tactics based, and somewhat interesting due to the options possessed by the player characters, though I find that the PCs are less at risk than they should be and that 3.5 requires more tactical and (unlike 4E) strategic thought, while offering classes with even more options. I have a strong preference for 3.5. Martial adepts, psionics, Incarnum users, and spellcasters all use different, interesting systems, and can each be built to the same tier of optimization without much difficulty. The multiclass system is far superior, and allows you to create a greater variety of character concepts. Yes, the edition is "broken." (Technically, it's not truly broken, as that implies unplayable. Unbalanced is a better term.) But it's enjoyable to mess with the mechanics and try to fix it, and easy to avoid the truly overpowered or underpowered options. Players also benefit from more versatile characters. I'm playing a melee sorcerer right now, for example, who still has ranged firepower to some extent, mobility, and options to help in social situations. Pathfinder is sufficiently similar to 3.5 that I'm not really going to comment on it. However, if you don't know what you're doing, it's very easy to make a rather weak character (though inexperienced GMs and players work pretty well with that.) EDIT: Oh, and technically, we're not supposed to talk about D&D here. Off-topic for the forum, or something.
#3 Doombringer_of_Hoar Jan 04, 2013 1:34:35	I think Ragnar has done a fine job demostrating why a guide for such thing would be very flawed, everyones biased, obviosly Ragnar likes 3.5, so obviously hes going to tell you thats the way to go, I like 4e so id tell you to go with it, but honestly, the only real way that you would know is to play them all, and hell why limit yourself to D&D, theres lots of other quality role playing games out there,
#4 Ragnar_Lodbrok Jan 04, 2013 1:37:35	Pretty much, yeah. I freely admit to bias. The best way to decide is to play both main editions still talked about long enough to decide whether you like them or not. If neither, Fantasy Flight Games has some very solid systems too.
#5 ADHadh Jan 04, 2013 2:07:39	Not only is he biased, he's wrong; 4e is awesome with it's clear definitions and streamlined encounter creation and managment, they just take a tad too long
#6 pigknight Jan 04, 2013 2:17:38	I started with an love 3.5 but have done a bit of 4e and played a bit of Pathfinder. 3.5 has option. Metric pig-tons of options. But, even in core only, there is tons of difference in balance between classes. 1-3 fighters, clerics, barbarians, and paladins are supreme. 4-8 is pretty evenly balanced. 9+ prepared spellcasters beat everyone and don't even have to try. Wizards, Clerics, DRUIDS, and Archivists are rediculous late game and noncaster classes are useless. Look up the tier lists and reasoning behind placement to see why. Also, it is the easist to pirate. It might be harder to pick up physical books. Furthermore, there's a spell or mechanic for everything. 4e is very tactics based and focuses less on the mechanics for roleplay. "How does the necromancer raise dead?" "'Cause he can." This is both a pro and con. Also, the classes are more balanced, but individual roles all play the same in the end: defender, melee striker, tanky striker, ranged striker, aoe controller, debuff controller, and leader. Combat is very tactical, if abit safe using core (I increase monster HP and damage. Monsters don't hit hard enough.). Books are rather easy to come by physically but I haven't seen pirate copies yet. Oh and the monsters are cool. Pathfinder is a more "patched" 3.5. More options for classes, less "dead levels" and simplified mechanics. Wizards, Clerics, and DRUIDS (just remove druids from 3.5 and Pf they're rediculous) are gods at high level as per usual. It s easiest to find the core book and beastiary at any bookstore and you can find all the information from every Pathfinder book online (legally) at their own SRD wiki thingy. D&D Next can be downloaded from WotC and looks legit. Haven't played it yet but I've heard it said to be a more streamline, balanced 3.5. with 3.5 characters and4e monsters Overall, I like 3.5 as it has the most stuff and it's easy enough to go "Yeah, that's degenerate let's remove that." 4e is pretty balanced, but has fewer options and makes a close second in my book. Also on a tangent, the 4e Empire won the first and second Edition Wars and wiped out the 3.5 survivors during the last war (although I think only one person on the 4e side actually liked 4e).
#7 Ragnar_Lodbrok Jan 04, 2013 2:26:57	Not only is he biased, he's wrong; 4e is awesome with it's clear definitions and streamlined encounter creation and managment, they just take a tad too long Well, this isn't the D&D Next playtest forum, so I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree.
#8 ADHadh Jan 04, 2013 4:42:42	Well, this isn't the D&D Next playtest forum, so I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree.
#9 The_Silversword Jan 05, 2013 16:48:55	Id say start off with 1e and work your way up from there. Just skip over the BECMI crap.
#10 bone_naga Jan 05, 2013 17:03:59	Id say start off with 1e and work your way up from there. Just skip over the BECMI crap. Don't listen to him, BECMI was better than 1e.
#11 The_Silversword Jan 05, 2013 18:57:51	Elves as a class!? no way man!
#12 The_Silversword Jan 05, 2013 19:58:06	Shut Up!
#13 homicidal_squirrel Jan 05, 2013 20:56:01	I wish someone had said that to the person who suggested 4E.
#14 The_Silversword Jan 05, 2013 21:21:34	Its better than 3.75e
#15 homicidal_squirrel Jan 05, 2013 22:26:46	Its better than 3.75e Want to try again? ;)
#16 The_Silversword Jan 06, 2013 0:44:34	If you insist, Its better than 3.75e
#17 homicidal_squirrel Jan 06, 2013 0:51:54	If you insist, Its better than 3.75e Your grammar, much like your assumption, is still wrong.
#18 The_Silversword Jan 06, 2013 0:55:26	your the last person who should be complaining about grammar, mr. I let my cat type my posts for me.
#19 EscherEnigma Jan 06, 2013 1:09:04	The best game to start with is whatever the GM wants to run.
#20 homicidal_squirrel Jan 06, 2013 1:17:06	your the last person who should be complaining about grammar, mr. I let my cat type my posts for me. I tell them they have terrible grammar as well. I don't think they care. Still, the fact remaind that your post was incorrect... in more than just grammar.
#21 The_Silversword Jan 06, 2013 1:23:08	Its a proven scientific fact that 4e is better than D&D 3.75 aka Pathfinder.
#22 sfdragon Jan 06, 2013 1:24:05	oh I dunno scientists have been proven full of it before.......
#23 homicidal_squirrel Jan 06, 2013 1:30:00	Its a proven scientific fact that 4e is better than D&D 3.75 aka Pathfinder. Were those Alex Jones approved scientist?
#24 sfdragon Jan 06, 2013 1:34:18	I bet they were the ones that J Edgar Hoover payed off
#25 The_Silversword Jan 06, 2013 2:01:43	Its a proven scientific fact that 4e is better than D&D 3.75 aka Pathfinder. Were those Alex Jones approved scientist? Alex Jones approved scientists all play Pathfinder, I thought everyone knew that.
#26 homicidal_squirrel Jan 06, 2013 2:23:49	Its a proven scientific fact that 4e is better than D&D 3.75 aka Pathfinder. Were those Alex Jones approved scientist? Alex Jones approved scientists all play Pathfinder, I thought everyone knew that. So even they don't like 4E, huh?
#27 ADHadh Jan 06, 2013 17:44:56	They don't because they're not right in the head
#28 xladyfayre Jan 06, 2013 22:16:27	You can't really have a guide for that... Personally, I think 4E is boring but that's my opinion. If you are just starting out and do not want to shell out money for something you are unsure about I'd start playtesting DDN or using PF since both are available free right now. PF through their legal srd and DDN through this site. Then if you enjoy it- you can buy it.
#29 sfdragon Jan 06, 2013 22:47:50	They don't because they're not right in the head but are anyof us right in the head
#30 Klirshon Jan 06, 2013 23:16:40	There is only one method to answer that inquiry.
#31 zombie_babies Jan 07, 2013 8:50:14	You can't really have a guide for that... Personally, I think 4E is boring but that's my opinion. If you are just starting out and do not want to shell out money for something you are unsure about I'd start playtesting DDN or using PF since both are available free right now. PF through their legal srd and DDN through this site. Then if you enjoy it- you can buy it. You can also get D&D 3.5 for free via its online SRD. It's missing some stuff (like beholders) but all you need to play is there. And everyone knows 4e is boring. Some people just like boring for whatever reason. The rest of us play stuff that isn't D&D Bore E. Cuz we like games that aren't boring. ;)
#32 ADHadh Jan 07, 2013 9:04:46	They don't because they're not right in the head but are anyof us right in the head Seeing how many people here claim 3.x is superior to 4e, I'd say most aren't
#33 xladyfayre Jan 07, 2013 9:15:31	You can't really have a guide for that... Personally, I think 4E is boring but that's my opinion. If you are just starting out and do not want to shell out money for something you are unsure about I'd start playtesting DDN or using PF since both are available free right now. PF through their legal srd and DDN through this site. Then if you enjoy it- you can buy it. You can also get D&D 3.5 for free via its online SRD. It's missing some stuff (like beholders) but all you need to play is there. And everyone knows 4e is boring. Some people just like boring for whatever reason. The rest of us play stuff that isn't D&D Bore E. Cuz we like games that aren't boring. ;) I didn't mention it because I am not sure if it is a legal source or not.... lol.
#34 zombie_babies Jan 07, 2013 9:19:59	I didn't mention it because I am not sure if it is a legal source or not.... lol. Heh. I assure you it's legal. Wizards put it out there. It's part of the OGL. What's there is really the basics of the d20 system but with some D&D flavah. It's legal because it's supposed to be used by anyone who wants it. To play, to develop, to whatever. Wizards ain't like that no mo'. ;)
#35 xladyfayre Jan 07, 2013 21:28:36	I didn't mention it because I am not sure if it is a legal source or not.... lol. Heh. I assure you it's legal. Wizards put it out there. It's part of the OGL. What's there is really the basics of the d20 system but with some D&D flavah. It's legal because it's supposed to be used by anyone who wants it. To play, to develop, to whatever. Wizards ain't like that no mo'. ;) Ah. I wasn't sure since I only used it once or twice, lol.
#36 pigknight Jan 07, 2013 21:45:19	I love 3.5. I like 4e. I'm "eh" on Pathfinder. D&DN looks ok.
#37 xladyfayre Jan 07, 2013 21:48:19	I love 3.5. I like 4e. I'm "eh" on Pathfinder. D&DN looks ok. I haven't played D&DN but I've played 3.5, 4e and PF. Out of those I've liked PF the best, honestly. I'd like my group to playtest but no one seems interested until its completed.