Questions about versions. - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Questions about versions.

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
spartan8412
Jun 03, 2008 1:07:44 Lately, I've been looking at things about dnd, and figured I might as well try it. My questions (for now) are what version is the basic game from 2006, what I was starting with. And is there a major difference between 3.0 and 3.5?
#2
Zherog
Jun 03, 2008 6:29:35 The basic game is sort of a "3.5 lite" version.

There aren't major differences between 3.0 and 3.5 -- but there's a lot of little differences.
#3
drmorganes
Jun 03, 2008 7:27:13 If you're getting into D&D, it may be prudent to wait a bit.

The 4th Edition of the rules launches this Saturday, and almost, but not quite, changes everything...
#4
chaosepoch
Jun 03, 2008 10:09:20 *dodging the background flames*
Yes, 4e is coming out but it's best to read through both. 4e looks easier to learn but it's not to a lot of people's tastes.
#5
jage
Jun 03, 2008 12:49:57 I like 4e. I've run the Demo twice and will be running H1-H3 in July. (H1 is already out and the core books are preordered, I just have other obligations until then)

I've been playing 3.5 since January and it's really, really, really hard for a new to the game player to pick up. You'll never have enough books or knowledge to compete with people who have been playing since 2.0, and if you find a game that's like the Sunday game I play, they'll be using abridged rules that pick and choose from 2e, 3.0 and 3.5 as they see fit - which often flys in the face of anything I've read (Having only the 3.5 PHB) and most of the stuff on these boards.

The benefit of 4e is you can pick it up from scratch along with everyone else. My wife is learning D&D for the first time and 4e seems to be really easy to teach.

I'm also playing a Pathfinder game which is Paizo's answer to 4e. I find it a lot better than 3.5, more fun and easier to learn, however it is built on 3.5 so I still suffer at the table from not having nearly as much knowledge or books as my fellow players.

That said, look for a game first. If you can't find, say, a 4e game that you want to play then the choice of system is moot. The best game in your area could be 2e.

Unless you're like me and are going to take up DMing just to have the option of a 4e game you might not have a choice.

PS. Paizo offers the Pathfinder Alpha version for free. If you're looking for something to read to give an idea of how the game works that might be a good place to start.
#6
chaosepoch
Jun 04, 2008 13:20:28
*SNIP*

I think this is a valid point but it is just a matter of time before houserules add the previous content or it is simply re-released/expanded.
#7
jage
Jun 04, 2008 19:24:25
I think this is a valid point but it is just a matter of time before houserules add the previous content or it is simply re-released/expanded.

Yeah, actually to jump tracks, I foresee this as one of the reasons 4.0 will be hated. They really don't go together. Sure things can be converted, but you can't just use something out of the box (from what I've seen & played).

However, I think people are going to do exactly that and then say "Broken!" and "4.0 Sucks" because of the outcome.

3.5 you could just apply new rules to existing games and campaigns, 4.0 the basic framework has been changed and shifted with no indication of compatiblity (AFIK)- whereas Pathfinder actually gives advice about conversions methods from 3.5.
#8
MrCelsius
Jun 04, 2008 21:26:19
3.5 you could just apply new rules to existing games and campaigns, 4.0 the basic framework has been changed and shifted with no indication of compatiblity

Actually, I always counted that in the 'con' column for 3.5. It's sufficiently similar to 3rd edition (and they claimed it was all backwards compatible) that one will try to bring something from 3e into 3.5 and find it grotesquely unbalanced. Better for it to be like 4e, where it's sufficiently different that people won't be tempted (or able) to port straight across.

4e honestly admits that it isn't compatible, whereas 3.5 falsely claimed that it was.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 spartan8412 Jun 03, 2008 1:07:44	Lately, I've been looking at things about dnd, and figured I might as well try it. My questions (for now) are what version is the basic game from 2006, what I was starting with. And is there a major difference between 3.0 and 3.5?
#2 Zherog Jun 03, 2008 6:29:35	The basic game is sort of a "3.5 lite" version. There aren't major differences between 3.0 and 3.5 -- but there's a lot of little differences.
#3 drmorganes Jun 03, 2008 7:27:13	If you're getting into D&D, it may be prudent to wait a bit. The 4th Edition of the rules launches this Saturday, and almost, but not quite, changes everything...
#4 chaosepoch Jun 03, 2008 10:09:20	dodging the background flames Yes, 4e is coming out but it's best to read through both. 4e looks easier to learn but it's not to a lot of people's tastes.
#5 jage Jun 03, 2008 12:49:57	I like 4e. I've run the Demo twice and will be running H1-H3 in July. (H1 is already out and the core books are preordered, I just have other obligations until then) I've been playing 3.5 since January and it's really, really, really hard for a new to the game player to pick up. You'll never have enough books or knowledge to compete with people who have been playing since 2.0, and if you find a game that's like the Sunday game I play, they'll be using abridged rules that pick and choose from 2e, 3.0 and 3.5 as they see fit - which often flys in the face of anything I've read (Having only the 3.5 PHB) and most of the stuff on these boards. The benefit of 4e is you can pick it up from scratch along with everyone else. My wife is learning D&D for the first time and 4e seems to be really easy to teach. I'm also playing a Pathfinder game which is Paizo's answer to 4e. I find it a lot better than 3.5, more fun and easier to learn, however it is built on 3.5 so I still suffer at the table from not having nearly as much knowledge or books as my fellow players. That said, look for a game first. If you can't find, say, a 4e game that you want to play then the choice of system is moot. The best game in your area could be 2e. Unless you're like me and are going to take up DMing just to have the option of a 4e game you might not have a choice. PS. Paizo offers the Pathfinder Alpha version for free. If you're looking for something to read to give an idea of how the game works that might be a good place to start.
#6 chaosepoch Jun 04, 2008 13:20:28	SNIP I think this is a valid point but it is just a matter of time before houserules add the previous content or it is simply re-released/expanded.
#7 jage Jun 04, 2008 19:24:25	I think this is a valid point but it is just a matter of time before houserules add the previous content or it is simply re-released/expanded. Yeah, actually to jump tracks, I foresee this as one of the reasons 4.0 will be hated. They really don't go together. Sure things can be converted, but you can't just use something out of the box (from what I've seen & played). However, I think people are going to do exactly that and then say "Broken!" and "4.0 Sucks" because of the outcome. 3.5 you could just apply new rules to existing games and campaigns, 4.0 the basic framework has been changed and shifted with no indication of compatiblity (AFIK)- whereas Pathfinder actually gives advice about conversions methods from 3.5.
#8 MrCelsius Jun 04, 2008 21:26:19	3.5 you could just apply new rules to existing games and campaigns, 4.0 the basic framework has been changed and shifted with no indication of compatiblity Actually, I always counted that in the 'con' column for 3.5. It's sufficiently similar to 3rd edition (and they claimed it was all backwards compatible) that one will try to bring something from 3e into 3.5 and find it grotesquely unbalanced. Better for it to be like 4e, where it's sufficiently different that people won't be tempted (or able) to port straight across. 4e honestly admits that it isn't compatible, whereas 3.5 falsely claimed that it was.