Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Methen Sep 06, 2014 17:55:36	Would you say each new edition of D&D that comes out is getting better or worse ?
#2 Seth_Ulrik Sep 06, 2014 19:22:58	Well, I would have to say that the question is VERY subjective. I, for one, have only played a few sessions of 3, some Pathfinder, and a good bit of 4. Through all of that, I would have to say from 3 to Pathfinder I felt ZERO changes happened (whether by design or lack of gameplay), however from Pathfinder to 4, there were numerous changes. Now, to say that one of them is better or worse than another is not something I can actually say, because each of them is a different style.   It's like asking if Wrangler boot cut, Faded Glory cargo pocket, or Jordache slacks are the best. It's all subject to the taste of the person.   We have one person in our group who swears Pathfinder is the be all end all, and another who cannot stand it and prefers 4th.
#3 ORC_Koph Sep 07, 2014 23:49:12	I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct   A reminder that this thread can promote constructive conversation as long as people are willing to give it a chance. Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully.   If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
#4 AaronOfBarbaria Sep 08, 2014 4:13:41	I would say that the answer is simple: Yes.   Each edition has gotten better at something. Each edition has gotten worse at something.
#5 CCS Sep 08, 2014 16:11:31	OD&D: awesome. Based upon their being nothing else like it at the time. Late 70s through 80s BECMI: generally improved on OD&D. Inferior though to AD&D 1e. AD&D1e: (imo) a marked improvement over OD&D/BECMI due simply to common sense options - like race & class being seperate things. lots of fluff that's lasted decades. Even though it does have some.....quirks. AD&D2e: a general improvement to 1e. 3x/PF: I'd rate it as a wash because it's actual hallmarks - feats/skill points/multi-classing - both add & subtract at the same time. Yay for options, boo for fiddliness & min/maxing. 4e: IMO this was NOT an improvement of anything..... 5e: I'm not sure yet overall, though I do consider it better than 4e. My FAVORITE edition is still AD&D1e.
#6 Krusk Sep 13, 2014 12:52:01	I'd say its a wave. It went up for a bit. Then down, then back up, but not as high as it was previously at the peak.
#7 Kazadvorn Sep 19, 2014 6:55:02	I'd say that D&D has changed... but better or worse? Too subjective.   Like Aaron said... each release had it's pluses and minuses. I certainly think the change from THAC0 to d20 was an improvment... but it came at a cost... less weapon to armor type variable effects.
#8 swiftimmortal Sep 19, 2014 9:32:40	well ive only played mostly 5th but it is almost as good As 3.5
#9 Zathris Sep 19, 2014 22:30:53	The best part about 5e coming out is that I no longer have to play with the despicable type of human being that believes half of the classes should struggle to be useful.
#10 SamVDW Oct 08, 2014 14:42:45	It is definitely subjective, but in my opinion, YES.  I've enjoyed each edition more than the previous for different reasons.
#11 Tsulia Oct 09, 2014 22:44:45	Mathematically, tactically (during combat) and the fluidity (is that a word?) of 4th I find myself enjoying. The character sheet is easily read, the powers can be easily understood and you know where you stand 90% of the time. Some of the mechanics can be annoying. But overall I was introduced to 4th just last year and I'm still learning the system. I consider it to be "my" version of true D&D just because of the fact it was my first. - Before that I had played WoD(Old, 20th and Req) and WFRP 1st & 2nd edition (3rd looks like ass)   Pathfinder - or 3.75 - I find myself learning the game all over again. The roleplay potential pre-combat and the trolling and complex options during combat do add to all the immersion and risk factor. You can't just run into a room, take 3-10 random attacks and survive. The game itself is risk incarnate - and from what I've gathered it's tame when compared to the problems of 3.5... of which I've found glimpses of when looking at 3.5 racial information. I imagine it only gets worse from that.   As for 5th. I've not played it, but from what I have gathered from the forums - it's a partial revival of old methods with some new thrown into the mix. Since most players have experience with 3.5 or are completely new - as 4th edition players are the smallest group - it'll prove ultimately popular overall. Does this make it better? No. Unless the mixes of old into the new prove to be the right kind.     At the end of the day, it's all based on who you play with, how the players and DM take the rules, how they deal with problems and if they can understand the version they are playing. Even if you're personal favourite is 3.5/3.75, if others have never played or simply don't understand it... it's not the best for that group. Unless they learn quickly.    Best is subjective to the person and the group. I imagine each version has it's place for various people; times; and campaigns.
#12 Krusk Oct 10, 2014 18:01:02	Tsulia wrote:
(Reply to #12) CCS	Krusk wrote:
#14 Krusk Oct 12, 2014 6:15:34	CCS wrote:
(Reply to #14) AaronOfBarbaria	Krusk wrote:
#16 Zathris Oct 13, 2014 1:13:25	There is better free stuff online than Pathfinder. There's also worse free stuff online, there's worse stuff that people want to charge you money for online, you probably can also purchase 5e online, which is morally worse than Pathfinder.
#17 Zardnaar Oct 13, 2014 18:49:08	Hard to say. BECMI had less options than 1st ed and came along later but I think BECMI is better form a rules PoV.   2E cleaned up the rules and was better as a coherent rules set but a lot of the feeling and flavour was sucked out IMHO.At the time I thought 3.0 was better than 2E but most of that is duer to things like ascending ACs. 3.5 was better than 3.0, PF is better than 3.5 IMHO.    4E cleaned up the rules but took a sharp turn into la la land for me so it is better as a rules set but is to different for me to enjoy it or consider it D&D. 5E is better than 4E and probably better than 3.5 but loses a bit in the translation as well. 5E is better mechanically and in looks, 3.5 is better as a D&D edition.     If I got stuck on an island for the rest of eternity though with a group I think I would pick BECMI or 2E to play though so go figure.
#18 SamVDW Oct 15, 2014 10:35:50	I think they are doing a good job at reading what the market needs/wants.   Fourth edition was basically an MMO converted into a tabletop game.  MMOs have at least hit a plateau (some say are even on the decline).  They stepped away from that format and created something easier for people to enter the hobby in.    How they built Fifth edition was a good choice in creating a game that could easily bring more people into the hobby.
#19 Zathris Oct 15, 2014 23:24:00	SamVDW wrote:
#20 Zardnaar Nov 04, 2014 19:39:54	Zathris wrote:
#21 Zathris Nov 04, 2014 22:02:58	I play Neverwinter extensively and used to play WoW extensively, even in Neverwinter the difference between their 'encounter powers' and what 4e has is radically different. You don't use powers with cooldowns "once per fight" except on fights short enough that you don't touch at-will powers. It's basically an entirely unique mechanic (beyond a small handful of other RPGs)   It is "more like a MMO" than 3.x, but it's also more like 3.x than it is like MMOs.   Most people, fyi, use "like a MMO" because of the defined Roles, maps being necessary, and false beliefs that there's no roleplaying in addition to not understanding how powers work. Most of these people haven't really played MMOs either though, so the misconceptions are slightly understandable, they're just spouting anti-4e propoganda
#22 Gunthar Nov 14, 2014 7:04:45	They were getting better, until 5E. We don't know what 5E really is just yet. So far, it's relatively awful with potential to be very good. It either takes many of the worst bits from previous editions or mangles the good bits in to drek. But it does have some flexibility.   But it's also too early to know what options we'll have once it opens up. There's a lot of room to grow. I still can't create viable versions of my favorite character concepts.
#23 Seth_Ulrik Nov 14, 2014 20:49:50	I just wished they'd not dropped 4E as solidly as they had, and perhaps updated and refined it and the Builder before taking it to an offline version again. (Hopes and dreams is all that is)
#24 Imaculata Dec 08, 2014 18:00:08	I played 2nd edition for a while, and have never played first edition. From what I've seen of it, I think I would probably not have liked it (too basic). At first I had my reservations regarding third edition. But there was such a wealth of books for it (due to the open D20 license), plus the rules really simplified a lot of things that were overly complicated in 2nd. So in that regard, they definitely improved. Then 4th edition came along, and I didn't lke what I saw of it. I never played it myself, but it looked too much like it was trying to turn a tabletop roleplaying game into a computer game. I can't really comment on 5th, haven't played it yet.
#25 baldhermit Dec 08, 2014 21:31:46	Wow, nice. You have not yet played first or fourth, but feel free to comment on those, while you are reserving your opinion on 5th.
#26 Imaculata Dec 09, 2014 1:23:45	Well one of the things that I really appreciated in 2nd edition, were the details in the fighting. The way it incorporated positioning and various tactics. All the different saves. But the negative armor class system was absolutely horendous, and I think at a subconscious level I realized just how stupid it was, but for the longest time I refused to admit it. When I first started with 3rd edition, I liked that it kept a lot of things I was familiar with, and I instantly liked the more logical approach to armor class. Having to calculate Tac0 was stupid, and good riddens. At first I disliked how 3rd edition simplified all of the various saves into just three saves, fortitude, reflex and willpower. But as I grew more accustomed to it, I realized that all of the different saves in 2nd edition really didn't serve any purpose. There were so many variables to take into account, that it was really difficult to build defensively and close every gap. In a way, there were just too many holes with all the different saves, so you'd always get hit by something. I'm thankful that it isn't just one save though, because that would be oversimplifying it too much. I also like the flanking rules, and attacks of opportunity. Although the rules for the latter can sometimes be a bit confusing. I think the rules for siege battles, naval combat and mass combat are rather lacking in 3rd edition though. But then again, previous editions never ventured into that territory either.   In regards with 4th edition, I think I'll echo the opinion of one of my former dnd buddies. What it did was make everything balanced, and that is not a good thing. At least, not always. Imbalance is part of what makes DnD fun. If you make every class equally effective, you strip away a lot of their uniqueness. Thats one of the major flaws in my opinion. It made the classes too much alike. It introduced all sorts of special powers, kind of like playing an online roleplaying game. It focused really on the combat, and having that holy trinity from popular MMO's. But one of the reasons I play DnD is because it ISN'T any of those computer games. DnD has something that computergames don't have: Roleplaying. Fourth Edition tried too hard to turn a roleplaying game into a mainstream tabletop war game. And while you can of course build great stories around such a system, it seemed too much of a departure from what made DnD great. At least to me it did. Recently one of the players in my group has started to plan a conversion of his current 2nd edition campaign to 3rd edition. He was in the same boat as me I think. But after playing in 3rd edition for a while, he really doesn't want to go back to 2nd any more.   But I think we should also discuss the open format of the D20 system. Third edition allowed external companies to release their own books for the same system. This was a great decission, and I hope Wizards goes back to that. It created such a wealth of books for 3,5. I have so many 3.5 books now, that I'm seriously wondering why I would want to switch to a new system and buy all those bloody books again. The amount of books that are available under the open gaming license is so huge, that I really don't see any reason to switch.
#27 Reius Dec 15, 2014 22:50:42	Nobody should ever let a lack of actual experience stop them from taking a dump on 4e. What do you think of all other games that you've never played?
#28 Imaculata Dec 17, 2014 1:08:53	Reius wrote:
#29 Reius Dec 17, 2014 1:36:33	Good answer. Sorry for coming across as a dick. 4e just seems to get a lot of gripe online from people who admit they've never played it or only played it a couple times. I didn't mean to personally bash you like that. In honour of your great response, I'll name my next major villian Doomdark D Bloodhell.
#30 Krusk Dec 17, 2014 8:17:33	Reius wrote:
(Reply to #30) Reius	Krusk wrote:
#32 Zathris Dec 17, 2014 23:35:50	I see 4 types of gripes about 4e, the first two of which really bother me. Anything complaint that comes from not actually giving the system a chance and just wanting to hate it, generally "it's like a MMO" and "there's no roleplay, only rollplay". Mostly hate this because I have not seen a single person that complains about "rollplay" do anything other than play characters completely ripped from some show or book and are closer to "I use intimidate" than "Ah, but you see, while you may think that you have the upper hand ..." Entirely too specific complaints like not liking the artwork, not wanting to buy a battle-mat, or not being able to exactly create their character from a different game with absurd specifications (2-weapon fighter using phb only and it can't be a ranger because the fluff doesn't match and no I can't refluff because there's still the nature skill and I am an uncreative lout) Disliking a major mechanic and likely selling point that most people would consider a good thing, like class balance. It's a fair argument, I just usually assume the person is a bigot since they're taking such a major issue with equality. "It's not really D&D, it's an entirely different game that put a lot of effort into combat encounter design and balanced mechanics to make it more a TRPG than FRPG, and that's not really what I want"
#33 Alduran Dec 18, 2014 17:52:30	Little bit from column A...little bit from column B... Seriously though, having played 3e, 3.5, PF, 4e and now 5e (all with varying amounts of success) I can only say that 4e combat took longer to complete than any other edition, 3.5 was so big it began to collapse upon itself (meaning that even with 5 of us all reflexively purchasing every 3.5 add-on available we still couldn't keep up), PF was...not a good fit for our group(s) and 5e seems like a 2e (one edition we only read about) revamp... Where does this lead us in terms of the OP's question? Back to the beginning!
#34 Zathris Dec 19, 2014 0:37:09	Alduran wrote:
(Reply to #34) AaronOfBarbaria	Zathris wrote:
#36 Beoric Dec 19, 2014 12:55:02	If Zathris is right and they are doing it wrong, that is a real accessibility problem.  The game should not require significant system mastery to build characters - and Zathris, given the noob builds you see over at CharOp, don't tell me that they don't need at least some system mastery or luck to build even mid-op characters.   I think Zathris is wrong, I think the system was designed with an expectation of low-op characters and is meant to go 4-5 rounds of combat.  I can still make that go pretty quick because I, as a DM, do have decent system mastery, and because we play on a VTT that automates nearly all of the tracking.  I love my 4e, but if I had to play on a deserted island without my digital tools, I would probably rather make the switch to 5e.   To bring it back to the original topic, I think comparing 4e to 5e is comparing apples to oranges.  Its not a progression, its just different.  I think its a shame they felt they had to drop one to start the other.
#37 Zathris Dec 19, 2014 21:32:09	You'll notice that nearly every one of the noob builds that ask for help on CharOp either contains "no Dragon/Essential content" or is someone trying to build their special snowflake fanfic persona that anyone not in love with the concept would realize is terrible....   Anyway, the game was designed with the anticipation that combats would take under 1 hour, and last 4 to 5 rounds each without significant optimization. Simply, the designers failed.
#38 Ogiwan Dec 21, 2014 5:45:44	I had quick combats in 4e because I had a group that was....I hesitate to use the word, "competent" because it means that anybody who had trouble with 4e is, by definition, incompetent, but that is the best term I can think of. My players knew what they were going to do before their turn came up, and knew to ask for the Rules Compendium (or ask questions, in general) if they had something that was wonky. I mean, sure, having a group that is on the ball will make anything flow smoother, but I simply didn't have boring, slow combats.   With that said, I think the trend of D&D is to get better. Granted, I haven't played any 5th outside of 1st level convention games (which left a bad taste in my mouth), but I have friends who love it, and it looks like it should just be treated like 3rd edition, and start everybody at 3rd level. With that said, every edition has a different approach to some things, and the same approach to other things. Since it would be foolish to deliberately change for the worse, we can only assume that the devs are trying to make the game better, by incorporating a different design philosophy. For example, despite how much I loathe 3e now, I think it is a tremendous improvement on 2nd.
#39 Lemurion Dec 22, 2014 9:43:13	No, I wouldn't say it's a natural progression in either direction.   I started with Red Box Basic. It was fun but limited.   I found AD&D (1e) to be a marked improvement over the Red Box I started with, but the later BECMI release was really good albeit different. Still, I didn't play much BECMI, and I played a lot of AD&D, so I'd have to go with it as a preference.   I wasn't as impressed with 2E. It was fun, but it didn't connect with me the way 1e did. It didn't help that I absolutely despised kits. The one thing 2E did have going for itself was the support. To this day I think 2E has the best overall setting support of any edition, with Birthright, Planescape, and so many others.   3.0/3.5/PF - I played all of these and for the most part it was another wash. I liked the ubiquity, but the number of splat books and options became ridiculous. There were just too many to fit into any one campaign and any time a DM wanted to limit things enough to get a mental handle on the game there'd be at least one player wanting something that would completely revise the DM's basic setting assumptions. There wrea also lots of balance issues and other problems, but the basic mechanics were easy to follow. Most of my recent games have been 3.5 because that's what the people I know are most willing to play.   4E is another story. I've played less of it than previous editions (though more than Pathfinder) so these are more surface impressions. I found the tone very different than previous editions; it didn't feel like D&D to me, largely because it seemed to be incorporating different basic assumptions. I also didn't care for the focus on tactical roles for classes rather than archetypes. It's a valid approach, and very useful for building a cohesive group, but it's not the focus I want. As a tactical tabletop game I think it's the best version of D&D, but it does the worst job of scratching my personal "I want to play D&D" itch.   I haven't done much with 5E, but so far I'm feeling positive. It feels like D&D to me.
#40 Panartias Dec 23, 2014 4:01:25	I’m going to take a little look at the change from 2nd ed to 3rd ed. That seemed all very good and logical at the time, because much was streamlined and made easier.   However I often find myself thinking, that many of the inconsistencies in 2nd had a reason balance wise: High strength scores (18%) and high constitution bonuses were reserved for the warrior /fighter. A mage didn’t receive bonus spells for high intelligence (so they kind of sucked at low levels) and priest spells did top out at 7th level. And last but not least multiple attacks were for warriors/fighters not for everyone with a high enough base attack bonus… and meta-magic feats were unheard of.   I bring up theses points, because most people complain about the superiority of casters in 3rd ed and I think those well meant changes were a big part of that.   One last point: I dislike that a high d20 roll is always good and a low roll always bad. (You had to roll low for skill challenges and attribute checks in 2nd ed) That way players are tempted to choose “good” (or loaded) dice over fair ones.
#41 Krusk Dec 23, 2014 8:09:24	Reius wrote:
#42 Imaculata Dec 23, 2014 10:28:31	Reius wrote:
#43 Zathris Dec 24, 2014 0:35:47	Krusk wrote:
#44 EzechielDantan Dec 24, 2014 2:43:15	I had alot of fun playing AD&D 2nd edition but it got a bit bland after a while with too few real options to build your character, the mechanics were often a bit cluncky but they grew on you. We used alot of houserules to patch some holes and spice things up, it was part of the fun.   3.x was a much better game from a mechanics point of view and there were a whole lot of options, the down side was it all came down to some mechanical +x benefit and really encouraged you to come up with a 'character build'  rather than a character. The endless stacking, looking for loopholes and combos got tedious and really bogged down the game much at higher levels.   4th edition I never played, I just didnt like the looks of it. though I did play a few board / tactical games which used (partial) 4th edition mechanics for which it was a very suitable game in my opinion, it just felt like another game and I didnt feel inclined to roll into it just because it happened to be called D&D.   5th edition, a bit early to judge just played a few sessions, but it feels like AD&D 2d edition which got an update with some of the better stuff from 3rd and 4th edition and with streamlined mechanics, sofar we all enjoy it. I particulary enjoy the vibe that magic has more, it is powerful but rare and limited resource. In general it feels less like a number game than 3rd edition or even 2nd edition and that seems to be a good thing sofar.
#45 Alduran Jan 04, 2015 11:21:12	Zathris wrote:
#46 Zathris Jan 05, 2015 11:06:40	Alduran wrote:
#47 Slagathore Jan 05, 2015 11:42:13	You made my day, Zathris! (And yes, I did not contribute meaningfully to this dialogue, but you just "called out" one of the most knowledgeable 4e gurus on the forum -- a guy who has corrected me before when I was wrong).
#48 Beoric Jan 05, 2015 15:26:58	He wasn't calling Zathris out for his system mastery, he was calling him out (rightly or wrongly) for discourtesy.  In this instance I think he was overreacting to a statement that was tactless but not deliberately insulting.  I debated whether I was going to say anything, but (a) Zathris has been deliberately insulting often enough that I'm not too worried about his bruised feelings in this instance, and (b) I don't think that sort of behaviour should be enabled just because Zathris has a fan base.   I have a great deal of respect for Zathris' system mastery, and I think the amount of time he spends helping people in the CharOp forums more than makes up for a bit of tactlessness there.  Outside of CharOp, however, when it comes to issues of how we choose to play, he is no more knowledgeable than any of the rest of us, and he in unlikely to get the same latitude.    Outside of CharOp I don't think there are any gurus who post here regularly.  Iserith also has fanboys, but I'm not one of them.
#49 Slagathore Jan 06, 2015 9:54:10	A very fair post, Beoric. I must confess, I mistakenly thought the post was made in Char Op. As it was not, I can see I should have held back on commenting as well. There is no doubt that Zathris can defend himself and that he has very thick skin. I personally feel that Alduran over-reacted and went into attack mode, but that is just one cat's opinion.
#50 Zathris Jan 06, 2015 22:27:14	Beoric wrote:
#51 bob_goes_up Feb 05, 2015 11:38:18	Fifteen years ago 3.5ed was the perfect game for me, but my group has grown older and some of us have less time to play than we used to have. Therefore we are ready for an edition with faster and simpler rules.
#52 MrCustomer Feb 07, 2015 18:01:40	Methen wrote:
#53 miados Feb 15, 2015 11:53:07	they are just different and it is up to personal taste. Like i am used to 4th as it is what i was taught on and like it   I have tried 5th and like it to, but personally if I ever dmd it i would start them at 2nd level since i would fear killing them by mistake at level one.
#54 Krusk Feb 21, 2015 9:24:53	MrCustomer wrote: