|
Colonel Cool posted:What is each edition of D&D good at anyway? OD&D, Basic, AD&D, 2nd Edition - Nostalgia, really. If you didn't play these games back in the day you don't need to now. Even those of us who did play them and loved them then have a hard time dealing with '70s, '80s, and '90s game design. 2nd Edition was around so long that it had some neat game settings, but you can pinch the settings without playing the underlying game easily enough. 3rd Edition, 3.5, Pathfinder - Fiddly, detailed game mechanics. This can be a great thing if you're into that sort of thing, or a lovely thing if you're not. The various versions of 3E were around for a long rear end time as well, indeed Pathfinder is still around, but the legacy of 3rd is more in expanded mechanics than in settings, Eberron and some of the Pathfinder stuff aside. This means that there's a feat or spell for just about anything, but good luck finding it among dozens of books or hundreds of entries on the online resources. 4th Edition - A revolutionary game as far as D&D goes. Does away with a lot of sacred cows that had been in place since the '70s in favor of extreme game balance. Pretty much any class is balanced with every other class. The problem it has is 4E sacrifices a certain amount of verisimilitude to achieve that balance. What the gently caress is the Martial Power Source? How does it allow my Fighter to grunt and heal a sword wound, and why only once a day? Game balance.  (To keep this OOtS related, go check out the Order of the Stick vs Order of the Stick 3E vs 4E story in Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tails for more on 3rd vs 4th.) 5th Edition - The counter-revolution. Ditching almost everything new from 4th, 5th is a compromise edition that brings back a lot of what was lost in the transition from 3rd to 4th in a looser structure that doesn't have a rule for everything. Despite being marketed as a simpler game for everyone, 5th Edition actually rewards a veteran Dungeon Master who can better judge how to fill in the gaps not covered by the rules, while punishing new DMs who can't find the rule they're looking for because said rule doesn't exist. 5E's unofficial tagline is "Ask your DM", for better or worse. Manages to annoy 3/3.5/Pathfinder fans with the loose rules and 4E fans for not being at all like 4E.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Colonel Cool posted:What is each edition of D&D good at anyway? jng2058 posted:OD&D, Basic, AD&D, 2nd Edition - Nostalgia, really. If you didn't play these games back in the day you don't need to now. Even those of us who did play them and loved them then have a hard time dealing with '70s, '80s, and '90s game design. 2nd Edition was around so long that it had some neat game settings, but you can pinch the settings without playing the underlying game easily enough. In other words they are all bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
I would kill for Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment remade with Divinity: Original Sin gameplay
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:This means that there's a feat or spell for just about anything, but good luck finding it among dozens of books or hundreds of entries on the online resources. Hell, this is half the fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
I've been listening to Heroes And Halfwits on my bike commute to work (hour and a half bike ride each way), which is Roosterteeth's Dungeons and Dragons show and they use 5th Edition and it seems mostly consistent with what I know of and like of 3.5e/3.75e, so I'd be happy playing it at some point, I'm sold.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
And that's not even getting into OSRIC retroclones, and Strike! and spin-off D20 games. The most spectacularly bullshit of theseis BESM d20. BESM stands for Big Eyes Small Mouth. It's anime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:I would kill for Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment remade with Divinity: Original Sin gameplay There was never a 4th ed turn based tactical game like Final Fantasy Tactics, was there? Because that would have owned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Fourth Ed managed to make spellcasting classes superior lame, IMO, so I played like one or two short lived games and never sought out another
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Fourth Ed managed to make spellcasting classes superior lame, IMO, so I played like one or two short lived games and never sought out another I'll cop to being a bit of a grognard in that this was a major reason for never picking up 4e. Also I *just* got the core set just before 4e set and I wasn't spending the money twice. I paid money for the core set, by god I was going to play it. From there it's trivial for me to justify it further along mechanics, I really do feel that spellcasters and magic users should feel mechanically different from melee classes (Spell Lists) as a "difference in kind".
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:There was never a 4th ed turn based tactical game like Final Fantasy Tactics, was there? The fact that there was never one is a crime, and I demand to know who's responsible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:The fact that there was never one is a crime, and I demand to know who's responsible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
4th Edition had some problems, but it was genuinely revolutionary not just for D&D but for pen and paper games in general. It brought the idea of divorcing mechanics from direct, physical simulation into the mainstream. Stuff like your fighter using a second wind and recovering hit points, or being able to perform their most powerful attack 1/day, was there for game balance - but also, significantly, it moved away from the ramshackle idea previous editions had had that the rules were somehow a simulation of the physical properties of this fantasy world. The game put it in writing that the reason your fighter could summon their inner strength and do something remarkable on a limited basis was because doing so was dramatic, and that to a degree, you were rewriting the story and saying, "actually, Krognor was merely grazed by the pike!", rather than invoking some power of your medieval knight to knit their wounds shut on a limited basis. There are a lot of modern, narrative-focused RPGs that draw at least some inspiration from this kind of action being present in a mainstream game. That said - it really wasn't perfect. But as a creature of its time, it was pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Of course, OotS's entire central joke is taking the absurd proposition that D&D 3.5 realistically simulates a fantasy world to its logical conclusion. So I would argue that it is perhaps the ideal use of that storied system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:The fact that there was never one is a crime, and I demand to know who's responsible. The lead programmer killed his partner and maybe himself IIRC, so yeah I guess it was a crime. I wouldn't discount the old versions of d and d, metzger basic in particular is actually kind of amazing in how spare and elegant it is. 1st ed is a ridiculous gormenghast of retarded edge case rules and terrible writing, but has an amazing set of magic items, and a classic array of modules. Fourth ed is important, and pretty good fun, but definitely flawed in how the solid SRPG style combat engine interacts with the loose but effective out of combat play. Also, its modules were crap. 13th age is a better game that also has Eyes of the Stone Thief which is basically the best megadungeon ever written. sebmojo fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Sep 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:The one your friends enjoy with you. What makes you single out second edition? I thought it held up better than third edition, personally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
A thing you missed from 4e: it is now super easy to build an encounter that will challenge a party without demolishing them. A 3e GM building an encounter has to take into account all sorts of things to do with enemy level and know the system inside out to build an encounter; a 4e gm (barring a few things to do with high-level solos) just spends their encounter budget on enemies and goes hog wild.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:The fact that there was never one is a crime, and I demand to know who's responsible. Probably the fact that there were only 4 years between 4e's release and the announcement that 5e was being made. Not much of a development window there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Colonel Cool posted:What is each edition of D&D good at anyway? 3.5 is good at being why haven't you switched to pathfinder ffs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
And Pathfinder is good at being "Oops sorry I rolled that wrong, I was thinking of 3.5 rules"
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:What the gently caress is the Martial Power Source? How does it allow my Fighter to grunt and heal a sword wound, and why only once a day? Game balance. The healing thing depends kind of on your understanding of what it means to lose HP. If you see them as a strict measure of how physically wounded you are, and therefore each healing effect is the healing of a physical wound, then sure it's not gonna seem realistic, but there are a few things at play here. First, you ignored the actual definition of HP as a generalized measure of endurance, luck and resolve, all rolled into one value. Second, the main method of healing in 3.5 was cleric magic, which thanks to the way the game was set up was actual magic in the fiction as well (and the fact that the spells were all called Cure ___ Wounds only reinforced the notion that HP loss = physical wound). 4E introduced, perhaps a bit too stealthily, the idea that healing could come in many different forms, and wasn't limited by one man's magical ability, but by your own physical and mental reserves (healing surges). Maybe a cleric casts a spell that knits your flesh back together, but maybe they just pray and you find the power to carry on with their god's blessing so obviously upon you. You may be bleeding badly but in the face of the warlord's encouraging words - or his bellow of "get up and fight, maggot, you can die when the king is safe!" - you somehow pull yourself back together. And the fighter may be able to tap into those reserves himself, but not as often or as reliably as the warlord who keeps his soldiers alive for a living. The daily power thing is totally game balance. But so is everything. Why can a wizard only cast X spells a day? Game balance. quote:Manages to annoy 3/3.5/Pathfinder fans with the loose rules and 4E fans for not being at all like 4E. e: all that being said 4E is excellent at being Tabletop Final Fantasy Tactics With Friends, but its outside combat stuff needs some work to say the very least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
What are the main non-D&D systems to consider if you want to play in a D&D setting?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:What are the main non-D&D systems to consider if you want to play in a D&D setting? Fellowship is really good at capturing that LOTR-style game, while Beyond The Wall is great for that more storybook feel. Torchbearer is great for "oppressive and deadly dungeon crawl where you're tracking torches and rope and food and hoping at least some of you survive". Mouse Guard is... hard to describe without making it sound terrible. Best description I can think of, it's like Redwall, except everybody's Aragorn but also a mailman. Alternatively: "Fantasy Pony Express, except you're mice and everything wants to eat you."
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
13th Age is essentially two former D&D designers' idea of D&D if you weren't bound to D&D's product identity and could completely throw out and introduce elements at will. And I guess you have to mention Pathfinder but you knew about that one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:What are the main non-D&D systems to consider if you want to play in a D&D setting? Let me tell you about Dungeon World my friend
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Whybird posted:Let me tell you about Dungeon World my friend
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:What are the main non-D&D systems to consider if you want to play in a D&D setting? GURPS is my favorite, but I know lots of people don't like it. Warhammer Fantasy RP is really great if you understand you will die, but it has the best critical hit table in the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:GURPS is my favorite, but I know lots of people don't like it. Warhammer Fantasy RP is really great if you understand you will die, but it has the best critical hit table in the world. i'd never heard of this and decided to look it up http://wfrp1e.wikia.com/wiki/Critical_Hits quote:Your blow cleaves open your opponent's skull, causing them to collapse instantly. Your opponent will die in D4 rounds unless medical attention is received and must make a successful T test at a -20 penalty or lose D3x10 points from each percentage characteristic as a result of permanent brain damage. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Sorry, but there's only one critical hit table for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
quote:The victim erupts in a ball of flame, staggering D3 years in a random direction before falling to the ground dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:What are the main non-D&D systems to consider if you want to play in a D&D setting? FATE, Strike! and 13th age, really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Anybody else ever play Amber Diceless RPG?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:FATE, Strike! and 13th age, really. This except please don't play DnD in Fate if you are doing a combat heavy game. Combat heavy Fate games have several problems, including scaling and skill allocation. The Amber diceless RPG is cool but very rough. Check out Nobilis for a much more refined look at the same kind of idea, albeit a poorly laid out one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Glory of Arioch posted:i'd never heard of this and decided to look it up I remember a magazine made a table like that for Werewolf: the Apocalypse. One of the result for a hit to the head was "brain turned into pulp, instant death unless the character is a Get of Fenris, in which case no vital organ is damaged."
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Anybody else ever play Amber Diceless RPG? Yeah. Remember what I said about D&D 5E rewarding experienced GMs but punishing new ones? That x100. With a great GM you can have a great game, with a new one or a bad one, a terrible time full of arbitrariness. Even a good GM can have things go out of control quickly if they're not careful jng2058 fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Sep 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
From my own experience running PF (basically 3.7) vs 5E. gently caress Pathfinder so much. It was AWFUL. Every session was an exercise in pain and frustration, quarter because I wasn't good at DMing it, a quarter because my player base was awful and half because it's so unfun on the combat end of things. There was never an encounter that was fun for the players, they either crushed it or it simply wasn't enjoyable, and it wasn't enjoyable if they crushed it. We went through every class, players being angry at other players for "trivializing everything" and minute arguments over what could be done when where and why. In comparison, 5E was a breath of fresh air. Combat was always fun because it never scaled ridiculously with number inflation, There was no questions about the who, what, where, why. No one felt overpowered. And, my personal like, when I was in the player group, my DM gave me a Stand. And it didn't require gripping our hair wondering how it worked. "It extends your range by 10 feet and acts as a physical body tethered to you, if it's hit you're hit." Great, simple, if I wanted to do something unique with it, I'd get a "Yes/No" and it would be the end of it. This same game group, going to play Star Wars Saga's was incredibly depressed, nearly ganked by the starting enemies in every encounter, and never once started to have anything remotely approaching fun until around session 7 when we finally hit level 3. Onmi fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Sep 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
What is a Stand? I've seen lots of people using it as a proper noun lately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Glory of Arioch posted:i'd never heard of this and decided to look it up Your name reminds me: is/was there an Elric rpg? e: ohh right   : Stormbringer by chaosium
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
greatn posted:What is a Stand? I've seen lots of people using it as a proper noun lately. Most probably they're using it as a reference to JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, where a Stand is a spirit that "stands" by you and helps you fight in your time of need.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Onmi posted:This same game group, going to play Star Wars Saga's was incredibly depressed, nearly ganked by the starting enemies in every encounter, and never once started to have anything remotely approaching fun until around session 7 when we finally hit level 3. Probably the greatest innovation 4e offered, in my opinion, was front-loaded hit points. Starting with enough hit points to survive more than one or two attacks makes combat way more fun at 1st level. There's nothing more depressing than going up into a combat with like four skeletons or something and you hit one and it dies, and it's like "yeah, badass," and then their initiative comes up and you go down in one hit. 3.x 1st level was rocket tag - you get hit, you explode. (Actually, the greatest innovation 4e offered was making non-magic classes interesting to play.) Whybird posted:Sorry, but there's only one critical hit table for me. Okay, so, I'm irrationally angry at (1d100)%. What the gently caress does that mean? Do you roll d100 to determine the percentage, then roll another d100 and see if that's below the percentage (as normal for % rolls)? If so, that's actually a 50% chance - that's the odds that one d100 roll will be lower than another. Well, actually, it's 50.5% because they could tie. Why not just say "50%"? My other question is whether getting your dick hacked, as a male character, also reduces "bodily attractiveness". Where's this table from? Hackmaster? That's my guess because I am desperately hoping that this is a parody.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:Probably the greatest innovation 4e offered, in my opinion, was front-loaded hit points. Starting with enough hit points to survive more than one or two attacks makes combat way more fun at 1st level. There's nothing more depressing than going up into a combat with like four skeletons or something and you hit one and it dies, and it's like "yeah, badass," and then their initiative comes up and you go down in one hit. 3.x 1st level was rocket tag - you get hit, you explode. I love that entry you're mad at because the war I read it there's a (d100%) chance your baby grabs the weapon that just hit its momma in the crotch and jumps out ready to throw down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 18:03
|
|