|
Generic Octopus posted:Some people want a class with few(er) moving parts, so they don't have to engage in a lot of min-maxy dissection of chargen to come out the other side with a certain baseline effectiveness relative to the rest of the party. Personally I don't mind (and sometimes prefer) having a character that boils down to a basic attack machine since it keeps turns quick and the game moving. Cutting some players off from them tends to lead to players disengaging from the game when those subsystems come up in play. Plus, yeah, other people already pointed out that it's actually traditionally the low power/engagement options that need the tightest optimization to be relevant.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
I feel like I shouldn't have to say "don't make a Simple Class that's poo poo." 4e already succeeded with a few of the essentials classes (Slayer, Knight, Thief, Elementalist are the ones that most readily come to mind). It can be done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I feel like I shouldn't have to say "don't make a Simple Class that's poo poo." 4e already succeeded with a few of the essentials classes (Slayer, Knight, Thief, Elementalist are the ones that most readily come to mind). It can be done. e: Plus none of the Essentials classes are completely cut off from the main subsystems. They're not even significantly simpler. They still have powers (stance changes, move actions, etc), they still choose feats that interact with their abilities, they have all the same access to rituals that most others do, and they still have a lot to do in the combat minigame. Compare that to a 3x/5e fighter, where you have zero access to spells, which cuts you off from most mechanical decisions in both the exploration and combat portions of the game (since both are often decided by the use of spells). ImpactVector fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
The elementalist is strong only because it's got an insanely good RBA and gear/feats that support it. It's just that instead of having stances you've got a selection of different basic attacks... which is probably better? But since your encounter power is just a "HIT MORE BETTER" button, and you lack any native dalies, being the Warlord's hit stick is all you really can have going for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Most of those fall behind outside of heroic tier without heavy optimization though (like a thief with a light blade charging package). Not zero access - the magic item system in 3.5 is essentially a bolted-on pointbuy chargen, and a well-geared commoner can deal with level-appropriate challenges quite effectively.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Not zero access - the magic item system in 3.5 is essentially a bolted-on pointbuy chargen, and a well-geared commoner can deal with level-appropriate challenges quite effectively. But it is pretty campaign dependent. If you don't have access to a wizard that's willing and able to craft that stuff, or your DM restricts what you can buy you're possibly sunk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:e: Plus none of the Essentials classes are completely cut off from the main subsystems. They're not even significantly simpler. I'm not arguing that 3.x or 5e fighters/martials don't suck hard, for the reasons you state among others. All I was initially saying was that some people, like me, appreciate a class that doesn't have to look through a spell list that takes up a third of a book, with the caveat that said class is as useful as the more complex one. This does not equate to me wanting to play checkers at chess club or whatever. And yea eclasses had some scaling issues, but I always found them workable in paragon. Epic is just kinda it's own shitshow imo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Unsure if this is the best place to ask this but I was wondering what edition of D&D would be best to start a new group off on. I mostly have experience with the 40k systems and limited GMing and while I haven't actually played D&D I think I have a pretty decent idea of how it runs from watching Critical Role and playing D&D based games. I was tempted to run this edition but looking through the thread people seem pretty down on it in general. I've heard 4E is simpler (?) which may be better seeing as most people who want to play don't have actual tabletop experience. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
I'm being unironic and giving this as the most sincere, useful advice I can give to people who want to start playing D&D:Splicer posted:Play Dungeon World and tell them it's D&D
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Captain No-mates posted:Unsure if this is the best place to ask this but I was wondering what edition of D&D would be best to start a new group off on. I mostly have experience with the 40k systems and limited GMing and while I haven't actually played D&D I think I have a pretty decent idea of how it runs from watching Critical Role and playing D&D based games. I was tempted to run this edition but looking through the thread people seem pretty down on it in general. I've heard 4E is simpler (?) which may be better seeing as most people who want to play don't have actual tabletop experience. Any thoughts would be appreciated. If everyone is new, I think the general recommendation is a basic set of some sort. I think Gradenko linked it in this or the general TG industry thread recently. It is much simpler to learn for completely new players than any of the versions released in the last 15 years. I just don't remember exactly what it is called. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Captain No-mates posted:Unsure if this is the best place to ask this but I was wondering what edition of D&D would be best to start a new group off on. I mostly have experience with the 40k systems and limited GMing and while I haven't actually played D&D I think I have a pretty decent idea of how it runs from watching Critical Role and playing D&D based games. I was tempted to run this edition but looking through the thread people seem pretty down on it in general. I've heard 4E is simpler (?) which may be better seeing as most people who want to play don't have actual tabletop experience. Any thoughts would be appreciated. For simplicity, I'd look at Basic. Roll stats, pick a class, and go. 4e is more mechanically sound from a game perspective, but there's a lot of moving parts. That said, no edition of D&D is exactly "simple". As said, maybe try Dungeon World, and if the table wants more crunch then maybe look into something like 13th Age (made by lead designers of 3e and 4e D&D).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:I'm not arguing that 3.x or 5e fighters/martials don't suck hard, for the reasons you state among others. All I was initially saying was that some people, like me, appreciate a class that doesn't have to look through a spell list that takes up a third of a book, with the caveat that said class is as useful as the more complex one. This does not equate to me wanting to play checkers at chess club or whatever. But you're implying that complex = have a third of the book dedicated to it. There's a huge amount of ground between 'I roll to attack' and 'let me look through my list of 400+ spells'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Are there any free "quests" that take about 4 hours or so. My friends and I (Including me 4 usual people + whoever else happens to show up.) just started playing a couple months ago, but to give the DM a break so he can play, I'm willing to DM a short game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Cheers for the recommendations boys, Dungeon World looks like a good starting point and I'll definitely try at least a session!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Boing posted:I'm being unironic and giving this as the most sincere, useful advice I can give to people who want to start playing D&D: Care to post an explanation of the two versus each other? I barely know D&D and made a character for DW once so I can hardly explain the differences or pros/cons goodness fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
goodness posted:I need a post explaining why so I can convince someone. I barely know D&D and made a character for DW once so I can hardly explain the differences or pros/cons By comparison, D&D is an extremely rules-heavy game in most iterations. To make a character you need to have some understanding of how stats work and potentially several different subsystems (spells, feats, etc). And combat is its own thing with a ton of different rules. DW does put a lot of overhead on the DM, but it also does a pretty good job of teaching best practices for running a more rules-light game with a lot of player input into world building. So you actually can offload a lot of that work once you get your feet under you. Running D&D just keeps getting more complicated as you go. The spell list in the PHB is arranged alphabetically because there are references to it in everything from NPC stat blocks to poisons. e: That was pretty one-sided, and that's not what was asked for. DW isn't perfect by any stretch. The base classes that come with the game are very much geared towards a standard dungeon crawl game. The thief finds traps, the fighter bends bars, and the ranger tracks. And a few of the basic moves are geared with that in mind as well (Discern Realities being the biggest offender). And if everyone's on board, sometimes what you want is a heavy tactical game with lots of rules interactions. I just know that every new-to-RPGs player I've introduced to the hobby with DW has taken to it like a fish to water. I've had less luck with any D&D edition. ImpactVector fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:For simplicity, I'd look at Basic. Roll stats, pick a class, and go. 4e is more mechanically sound from a game perspective, but there's a lot of moving parts. 4e, though... I hadn't looked at an RPG since the 80s until I took an interest again in 2012 (the reason? The 'Obama as DM for the Republican candidates' GIFs someone on SA did). I read the then-current D&D thread to see what the game was like now, and did not have a loving clue what any of it meant. Eventually picked up the 4e books cheap on eBay... and still did not have a loving clue what any of it meant. I do now, more or less, but on first reading it seemed like the repair manual for the Space Shuttle or an advanced calculus textbook, an impenetrably complex nest of things that it felt like I'd been off sick the day the basic concepts were explained. (Maybe because I never played 3e, so was completely unfamiliar with the entire d20 ethos.) So I guess what I'm saying is that I probably wouldn't choose 4e for a new group. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Payndz posted:So I guess what I'm saying is that I probably wouldn't choose 4e for a new group. 4e is my personal favorite edition... and yeah, it wouldn't be my choice for a new group either. (Although I am a player in a group of otherwise completely new players, so it's not as if it can't be done.) 4e was built to eliminate certain problems and enforce certain outcomes, such as balanced characters. These are mostly concepts that won't make much sense to rookies. [e: well the general concept might make sense but the specifics won't.] It's kind of ironic but 4e might be the only D&D I'd actually describe as "advanced". As in, not what you start out with, but very good to those who know how to handle it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:4e is my personal favorite edition... and yeah, it wouldn't be my choice for a new group either. (Although I am a player in a group of otherwise completely new players, so it's not as if it can't be done.) DnD 4e is one of those games that, as a new player at least, you either look at and say, "Man this is so complex!  "or "Man this is so complicated! "There are subset of people actively aroused by complex mechanics and I am one of them. What makes 4e so good is that, for the most part, the system doesn't crumple like a paper car once you start actually using it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Captain No-mates posted:Unsure if this is the best place to ask this but I was wondering what edition of D&D would be best to start a new group off on. I mostly have experience with the 40k systems and limited GMing and while I haven't actually played D&D I think I have a pretty decent idea of how it runs from watching Critical Role and playing D&D based games. I was tempted to run this edition but looking through the thread people seem pretty down on it in general. I've heard 4E is simpler (?) which may be better seeing as most people who want to play don't have actual tabletop experience. Any thoughts would be appreciated. In my opinion, the 1983 Basic boxed set ("Red Box" or "Mentzer Basic") is the best introduction to D&D you'll find. It's available as 2 PDFs for  total. http://www.dmsguild.com/product/116578/DD-Basic-Set--Players-Manual-BECMI-ed-Basic http://www.dmsguild.com/product/116619/DD-Basic-Set--DMs-Rulebook-BECMI-ed-Basic The player's book introduces you to the game via a choose-your-own-adventure style single player short dungeon crawl which gradually introduces you to different game concepts. The DM's book includes a short adventure with one complete level of a dungeon (and it holds your hand through that whole part), a map for the second level with advice about how to fill it up with interesting things, and advice about what to do for a third level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
The game that got RPGs to click for me was GURPS, because "roll three six-sided dice, and succeed when the result is equal to or less than your skill value" made perfect sense. Before that I had no conception of what rolling dice in TRPGs was for. This was reinforced by the fact that even if I had played through the Infinity Engine games, those things did nothing to explain to you how any of that poo poo worked. AD&D doesn't even have a skill system! And then you have a bunch of design conventions that are so far removed from computer RPGs as to be almost alien. Where's my mana? Why are lower numbers better? Where's my damage reduction from armor? Why is my HP so low? Why don't my stats go up with every level? Why do you need different XP levels to level up per class? Why do I need to click "level-up" to level-up, and especially with the Fighter when it doesn't do anything except give me more HP? This was further reinforced by watching my dad play through Neverwinter Nights as a Fighter and never do anything except auto-attack harder and harder. He had a quickbar all right, but it was mostly for potions. So for the longest time I had the impression that D&D was just a bunch of arcane mumbo-jumbo that was beyond my ken. I could have described to you how my WoW character worked, top-to-bottom, especially since tanking meant you needed to be in tune with the math and mechanics, but the D&D video games almost acted like they actively hid that information from you, and it was in a way a turn-off for me. I've used Basic D&D to introduce newbies to D&D, but even then I had to bastardize a bunch of it, notably spellcasting because I really didn't want the Magic-User to be padding around with just 1 spell for a 3-4 hour game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
I made a thing if anyone wants to use it. Please pick it to pieces. COMMANDER (Fighter Archetype) The archetypal Commander is the fearless leader of a small team of expert soldiers. Those who follow this path are excellent warriors in personal combat, but their real strength lies in using superior tactics to control the ebb and flow of battle. A GREAT LEADER When you choose this archetype at level 3, you gain SOLDIERS as your personal troops, who you can command using special dice called COMMAND DICE. SOLDIERS You gain the loyalty of two Soldiers. They wear suitable armor, carry a variety of weapons, are completely loyal to you, and do not need to be paid. You attract an extra soldier at level 7, 10, and 18. Each soldier loyal to you has an artisan's tool skill of your choice, which you may use as if you knew the skill. FORMATIONS Your soldiers fight in Formations. You may change the Formation once per round. ORDERS You may issue orders to your Soldiers. The available Orders depend on which Formation they are in. Orders expend Command Dice. COMMAND DICE You start with 4 Command Dice, which are d8s. Gain an extra Command Die when you gain an extra soldier (you will have 5 Command Dice at level 7, 6 at level 10, and 7 at level 18). You regain all your expended Command Dice when you finish taking a short or long rest. A PERFECT TEAM You and your soldiers fight in harmony - you are a perfect team. Attacks made using your soldiers use your attack and damage numbers. Attacks against your soldiers target your defences and reduce your hit points. You and your soldiers still can't be affected twice by any one attack, even if an Area of Effect attack hits 2 or more of your team. HIGH COMMAND At 10th level, your Command Dice turn into d10s. At 18th level, they turn into d12s. UNSTOPPABLE Starting at 15th level, when you roll initiative and have no command dice remaining, you regain 1 command die. FORMATIONS and ORDERS SHIELD WALL (formation): You and your soldiers remain adjacent. You and your soldiers are a contiguous unit, no other creature can move "through" you. You may make any of your Attacks or Opportunity Attacks as if you were in the position of yourself or any of your soldiers. This is the default formation. If you haven't commanded your soldiers to take up another formation, they stay in this one. When you spend your last Command Die, you may also order soldiers to return to this formation, which they do on the next round. RETALIATION (order, Shield Wall) Whenever you could make an Opportunity Attack from the position of any of your soldiers, expend a Command Die and roll it to deal that much damage to the target. This does not consume your reaction. FALL BACK (order, Shield Wall) Expend a Command Die, roll it once, and divide that amount of damage among opponents adjacent to your soldiers. Your soldiers then simultaneously disengage and move back from melee combat. They move up to their movement speed and end adjacent to each other. They do not provoke opportunity attacks while doing so. At the end of this order, change the formation to Support. SUPPORT (formation): Your Soldiers stay back from melee combat, but remain close. They stay adjacent to each other, but don't have to stay adjacent to you. You save with Advantage on any Area Of Effect attack that targets your soldiers (but not you) in this formation. Each round, you may make ONE of your attacks as if you were in the position of any of your soldiers. FIGHT IN THE SHADE (order, support) Use an Attack Action to expend a Command Die and designate a number of creatures (squares) equal to the number of soldiers you command, as targets. Roll the Command Die. Those targets take that amount of damage. You may target the same creature (square) more than once. TO ME! (order, support) Use an Attack Action to expend a Command Die. Your Soldiers move up to twice their movement, ending adjacent to you. Roll the Command Die once, each soldier deals that much damage to an adjacent opponent. At the end of this order, change the formation to Shield Wall. BODYGUARD (formation): Pick a number of allies (including yourself) equal to the number of Soldiers you command. Each of your soldiers stays adjacent to their ally, guarding them. The soldier and ally form a contiguous unit, no other creature may move "through" them. An ally adjacent to a soldier gains a +1 bonus to their AC while you use this formation. You may make any of your attacks or opportunity attacks as if you occupied the position of a soldier adjacent to you. You may make ONE of your attacks each round (but not an opportunity attack) as though you occupied the position of any of your soldiers. NOOOOOOOOO! (order, Bodyguard) Expend a Command Die. Every ally adjacent to a soldier (this can include yourself) has Advantage on all saving throws until the start of your next turn. COMBAT MEDICS (order, Bodyguard) Expend a Command Die and roll it. Any ally next to a soldier (this can include yourself) is healed that many hit points. THE BEST DEFENCE... (order, Bodyguard) Expend a Command Die and roll it. Any enemy adjacent to a soldier or adjacent to an ally with an adjacent soldier takes that much damage if they attack a soldier or an ally with an adjacent soldier until the start of your next turn. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Dungeon World is unironically the best introduction to tabletop RPGs right now. People play it. It's fantasy. The rules are clearly explained. It teaches good player habits. It teaches great GMing habits. Creating a character takes five minutes maximum. You don't need the book at the table once you start playing unless you need a monster reference or something, because all the player facing rules that aren't on the character sheet fit on a double-sided sheet you can hand out to every player, and you can do the exact same thing with the GM moves. The rules are clear enough so that if someone doesn't like Dungeon World, they can say "This is why" and clearly point to what they didn't like, and have something else recommended to them. It's a worse game mechanically than its parent Apocalypse World, but it has clearer archetypes and the language is a little less aggressive. It's also more kid-appropriate. bewilderment fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:It's a worse game mechanically than its parent Apocalypse World, but it has clearer archetypes and the language is a little less aggressive. It's also more kid-appropriate. And the award for understatement of the month goes to...
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:And the award for understatement of the month goes to... Yeah, I kind of threw that in as an afterthought, but it's a pretty compelling argument for DW being a better intro to RPGs than ApocWorld too! Like, I've read through Apocalypse World and actually had to think for a couple of seconds because I wasn't familiar with what a particular playbook was really meant to be or represent. With Dungeon World I've literally dumped all the playbooks on a tabletop for a table and gone "Have you played any fantasy computer games? No? That's OK too. Which character from Lord of the Rings or Star Wars do you want to be most like?" and gotten a whole session going, which is more than I can say for any recent edition of DnD. Which isn't saying crunchy games are bad - just that there are better options for beginners who are asking "So how do I start this whole DnD thing?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
I maintain Basic is better then Dungeon World for bringing in new players, if just because it's more focused. Every ability of every class is built for dungeoneering. Basic also has a really good steady upgrade in complication too; as you level up and go to the next book, you add new variant rules, so fighters can gain weapon focus and the like. But the first part I feel is the more important one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:In my opinion, the 1983 Basic boxed set ("Red Box" or "Mentzer Basic") is the best introduction to D&D you'll find. It's available as 2 PDFs for
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
If you only have a vague idea of what D&D is that you've garnered from other media, what you're picturing is probably closer to Basic than anything else. Also, if a group of people who've never touched a TTRPG sit down, follow along with the books, and play through the adventure in the Basic Set, then they're going to have a similat experience to everyone else who's ever done that. I have no idea what a group consisting solely of non-RPG-players would make of Dungeon World, but I'm guessing the experience would vary wildly between groups. Babylon Astronaut posted:I'm not even sure that's an opinion. Nothing I can think of comes close, except maybe if you stretch it, I couldn't get 4e until I played and ran gamma world. Gamma World is good game, for sure. I'm not sure it does that good a job at teaching you to play, but it's been a while since I looked in the book, let alone got to play it. Basic though... the second paragraph is "You can start playing the game right now - without learning any rules, and without anyone else to play with! Just start reading and you will discover the basics of the game within a matter of minutes" and it's true. It will take you less than 5 minutes to get from that paragraph to "roll to attack", even if you pause to crayon the numbers on the included d20 like it says to. Edit to be clear: That's not "roll to attack" as in a section of rules about how to roll to attack, that's "the goblin waves his sword and charges at you, roll to attack" and then it guides you through fighting the goblin. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
It doesn't. I came in with experience playing D&D, so Gamma World helped me understand the 4e rules. Basic gets you to understand all the jargon that established players take for granted and usually do a piss poor job explaining.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Why not start with 13th Age? You've got clear Rules, easy to understand back stories, numbers that are a bit arcane like DND, and it has a distinct crunchy feel. BUT! Classes are still balanced, the game works really well, no falling off, and you give players something every game whether it's a magic item, a relationship point, a feat, whatever it's constantly re-inforced to make the characters the star of the show. I run it with miniatures and it works great. Hell, I've recently printed out a bunch of power decks and then stuffed them in card sleeves, so it's even easier "At level 1 you can take 3 of these 4 level cards. If they say at will, you can play them every turn, if they say per battle, you can play it, and get it back after a short rest, if it says daily you can play it and get it back after a long rest." players have their options in front of them. 13th Age is pretty chill, and what 5e should have been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Why not start with 13th Age? 13th Age is a pretty good game, but it's not a good introduction to gaming. It's page 29 before the first section that has anything to do with what you need to do to play the game (character generation), and that section begins with "Many elements of character creation in 13th Age will be familiar to d20 players", followed by a paragraph of how 13th Age is different. Just after character generation, on page 159, you get to the rules for playing the game, which begins with Combat. That section begins with "Combat works about the way you’d expect an indie version of a d20 game to work."
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Yeah I was going to say that 13th Age specifically calls itself out as "we're writing this with the assumption that you've played a d20 game before", which isn't good if you want the book itself to be an intro to the hobby.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
I don't know about you guys, but unless I've missed a post, I thought it was a DM introducing new players to Roleplaying. The book is for GM's, and in my experience it's normally 1 book for everyone. It's really easy as a GM to write up a quick "Intro to Roleplaying" or find one online and explain D20 in general. Most of the Character Generation is autonomous with the only choices the players REALLY need to make are meaningful ones. (Do I want to go all-in on my main stat or be more rounded? Who was my character before he was a lvl 1 Cleric? What's my unique thing?) Not to mention the fact that everyone gets to swap around powers at level 1. Hell I let players pick Talents and feats mid-game to try them out on the first couple of sessions. I don't know if you could introduce stuff like that in DND where it's hard to tell when Character Creation takes a couple of hours for new people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:I don't know about you guys, but unless I've missed a post, I thought it was a DM introducing new players to Roleplaying. The question "what's the best D&D to start on for players who mostly have no TTRPG experience" was from someone who wanted to DM, had played and (rarely) GMed some 40K stuff, and had never played D&D. Captain No-mates posted:Unsure if this is the best place to ask this but I was wondering what edition of D&D would be best to start a new group off on. I mostly have experience with the 40k systems and limited GMing and while I haven't actually played D&D I think I have a pretty decent idea of how it runs from watching Critical Role and playing D&D based games. I was tempted to run this edition but looking through the thread people seem pretty down on it in general. I've heard 4E is simpler (?) which may be better seeing as most people who want to play don't have actual tabletop experience. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:The question "what's the best D&D to start on for players who mostly have no TTRPG experience" was from someone who wanted to DM, had played and (rarely) GMed some 40K stuff, and had never played D&D. Ah, I must have openned the page on my phone, which marked it as read. That's dumb. I'll 2nd and 3rd what everyone else is saying. DungeonWorld is best if you're brand new. Once you're familiar enough with it, or your players start wanting more crunch. I'd learn 13th Age, or read the 5e quick start rules and use that as a primer for 13th age.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Ah, I must have openned the page on my phone, which marked it as read. I keep doing exactly the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
I have frankly become disenchanted with 13A's boring classes, really boring magic items, and just general expectation that you will breathe life into all of its sagging, hackneyed parts. That's probably not a real popular opinion here, but my group has had a lot of problems getting into it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I have frankly become disenchanted with 13A's boring classes, really boring magic items, and just general expectation that you will breathe life into all of its sagging, hackneyed parts. That's probably not a real popular opinion here, but my group has had a lot of problems getting into it. Ignoring boring classes, since that's kind of subjective... What makes the Magic Items boring? Aren't you literally inventing the magic items?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I have frankly become disenchanted with 13A's boring classes, really boring magic items, and just general expectation that you will breathe life into all of its sagging, hackneyed parts. That's probably not a real popular opinion here, but my group has had a lot of problems getting into it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Ignoring boring classes, since that's kind of subjective... There are a stack of magic items in the book. My main gripe with the magic items as presented is the weirdo quirks only trigger once you have more magic items than your level - my group (just ticked over 13 months of play) has never reached that point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 09:32
|
|
