Which edition to play

[GuJiaXian]

This is not an edition war thread. It's an opportunity for others to toss advice my way as I try to figure out what I like (and dislike) about various editions of D&D.

I own tons of 3.x books. I own tons of 4e books (I also hold an active DDI subscription). I've played 3.x since it was released. I've played 4e on and off (almost always as the DM) since it was released.

Here's the quandary: I just cannot decide which edition I'd rather play. Both seem to have such glaring negatives: 4e is (mechanically) so combat-centric, homogenizes the classes, drops the ability to build "non-heroes" (compare a 1st-level 3.x character to his or her 4e counterpart). 4e also requires miniatures; I have tons, but I like keeping my options open.

On the other hand, 3.x is math-heavy, the mechanics start to crumble at high levels, combat takes forever, and there's no Character Builder (man, I love that program). While it encourages minis and battlemats, it's flexible enough for pure imagination (the way I learned to roleplay).

So, I'm rather torn as to what to do. Perhaps the only advice boils down to "do what you want"; I'm not sure what I want. I have the product to support either game. I like the tightness of 4e, but I feel like it lost a lot of the wonder that earlier editions had. I enjoyed many years of 3.x, but playing 4e has really made that system's flaws obvious to me.

Any suggestions?

[Crothian]

Go back to 1e

[GuJiaXian]

I've actually considered it, though I really never played it (started with 2e). Also, I don't own any product from before 3.x, and I'd really like to not have to re-spend to play.

[DaveMage]

Um, something other than D&D maybe?

Have you looked at Pathfinder? It gives 3.5 a shot in the arm - including some speed increase (although it certainly is still combat based on 3.5).

The Pathfinder SRD is online and free, so check it out if you haven't already.

[jbear]

Can't you play both versions in two seperate campaigns and make the most of each systems strengths to scratch both itches?

[Dragonhelm]

My first question would normally be to identify what you like, but you sound a little uncertain on that. Be thinking along those lines, though.

Some other questions to consider:

1. Why must there be a choice? Why not play 3.5 for some games, then 4e for others? Maybe DM one, then play the other.

2. What about the other players in the game? What do they like?

3. Have you considered a hybrid? Consider maybe looking at a system like Castles & Crusades, then importing in the elements of each game that you like. Or taking the game you like best, then modifying it with elements of the other game.

4. Does continued support matter?

These are just some random thoughts, and there are many other questions you can come up with too.

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello GuJiaXian,

Why haven't you tried bending 4e to your style of play? What isn't it offering you that you cannot try and address? Our group plays both 3.x/4E (and Pathfinder) and we have managed to bend 4e style somewhat to our playstyle (not perfectly though).

As for 3.x, a lot of its problems are at higher levels 12+. Why not stick to a lower level game, possibly slowing the advancement down a little?

Alternatively, have a look at Pathfinder. If 3.x scratched your itch in the past, this treatment really does give it some new legs and energy, addressing some issues (but not others). Again, if you stick to lower levels (under 13) and a slow advancement, it could very well be exactly what you want (for minimal investment as it does not invalidate any of your significant 3.x materials). Check out the Pathfinder Reference Document.

Alternatively again, have a look at Fantasycraft if you did want to spend a little for what looks to be a really nice system. I purchased the pdf and boy does it get some creative juices flowing. Fun stuff!

Anyway, hope you enjoy whatever you do.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[GuJiaXian]

Those are some good thoughts. I really do like D&D, but I'd like to devote my attention to one edition/system. I've always been (in all aspects--computer software, gaming, you name it) a big fan of "the newest version." I was this way with 4e when it first came out, but having played it for a while, I find that it's not doing what I want it to do. Specifically, while it's much quicker and more concise, I feel that it loses that sense of wonder that older systems had (for that matter, 3.x lost some compared to AD&D).

However, given the sheer amount of 3.x stuff I own (and the amount of free stuff available), continued support doesn't really matter. Heck, I can always mine the fluff from my 4e books for even more stuff.

As for Pathfinder, that's another option I've looked into. I flipped through the book at the FLGS. $50 is a lot to swallow, and some of the reviews I've read boil down to "it's a nice improvement, but many of 3.x's flaws are still there."

[Grimstaff]

Originally Posted by GuJiaXian

I've actually considered it, though I really never played it (started with 2e). Also, I don't own any product from before 3.x, and I'd really like to not have to re-spend to play.

No re-spending necessary, just download OSRIC for your 1E fix, its free. If you decide you like it, its available as cheap as $10.00 in print from LuLu.

If you're looking for rules-lighter, take a gander at Swords & Wizardry (OD&D) or Labyrinth Lord (B/X).

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by GuJiaXian

As for Pathfinder, that's another option I've looked into. I flipped through the book at the FLGS. $50 is a lot to swallow, and some of the reviews I've read boil down to "it's a nice improvement, but many of 3.x's flaws are still there."

I don't think we'll get a true sense of the fixes until about a year's play under the belt. As such I would take most reviews (be they good or bad) on this issue as just speculation at this point. The changes could be more pervasive at higher levels in play than in reading.

Do you homebrew, use published adventures or do you have more stuff at the moment than what you will ever need?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[keterys]

My preferred system is 4e at the moment. After that, I'd look at OD&D via D&D Cyclopedia. After that I'd look at Warriors & Warlocks (Mutants and Masterminds variant).

As a player, I'd push for Pathfinder after that, or possibly an E6 variant of 3rd edition. As a DM I have no particular interest in running any 3e or variant thereof, though if forced to it I would just make things from scratch while largely ignoring the system, or perhaps handle E6.

I consider all of the other options an improvement over 1e/2e, though I'm sure I could survive as a player if I were forced to, for some reason. It is easier to ignore the system in many ways at least.

That's if I confined to d20/D&D options, anyhow.

[JoeGKushner]

4e.

Much less prep time for many people than 3e. The split between the functions of the GM and the player with the reduced monster stat blocks and easier encounter building options have played better than 3e in my own exeprience.

[ppaladin123]

You could try the epic 6 modification of 3.x. if you prefer to use 3.x as your base. It gets rid of many of the time-consuming, annoying aspects of 3.x high-level play.

You could also houserule 4e until it fits your needs better. For example, I like that they are introducing "skill powers" in the PHB3 but not that a player has to trade out a combat utility power to gain one. I'm considering allowing players to take one free skill power associated with a trained skill at each level where they normally receive a utility power.

You can also make skill challenges more fun and interesting with Stalker0's Obsidian Skill Challenge System.

I'm pretty sure you could also tweak the multi-class rules to add more flexibility into the system.

[Aus_Snow]

You might want to try something different - and decidedly less heavy on the rules side of things - like Dragon Warriors, Swords & Wizardry, Basic Fantasy, or Labyrinth Lord. Just for example. Most of those are 'retro-clones' and the other is a reprint, redux kinda thing (DW). Some are still available free in PDF format, I believe, and all should have previews at their respective sites, at the very least. Plus, they're all in print, which might make life easier (than, say, trying to hunt down all the older D&D books you might want).

Plenty of other games out there too, but those are just (part of) one area to start looking, if you felt so inclined.

Good luck finding what you're after!

[GuJiaXian]

Originally Posted by JoeGKushner

4e.

Much less prep time for many people than 3e. The split between the functions of the GM and the player with the reduced monster stat blocks and easier encounter building options have played better than 3e in my own exeprience.

This is one of the biggest plusses for 4e for me. Prep time is a luxury (kids, work, life, etc.), so the ability to boot up the Compendium and toss something easy together is really nice.

I suppose that I have to major gripes/issues with 4e:

1) It's heavily, heavily combat-centric. Everything is about combat. Every player ability is about combat. The mechanics are all about combat. Granted, roleplaying is largely verbal and "winged," but I want a mechanical system that at least acknowledges it.

2) There's no sense of wonder during character growth. Unlike earlier editions, you start at 1st level as an established hero (power-wise, at least). When you hit 30th level, you're really powerful...but only really powerful. In 3.x, 1st-level characters are squishy and genuinely need to be afraid of the scary world out there. 20th-level characters, however, are nearly godlike in their power (very unlike their 30th-level 4e counterparts).

The first issue can be addressed somewhat simply through DM and player involvement. The second cannot be fixed without mechanical changes to the system, it seems.

[delericho]

Originally Posted by GuJiaXian

On the other hand, 3.x is math-heavy, the mechanics start to crumble at high levels, combat takes forever...

I would probably suggest going with 3.5e, but playing exclusively in the lower levels. Many of the problems with the game are most apparent (sometimes only apparent) at high levels, so this would eliminate them.

I would also suggest trimming the list of available supplements severely - I have found that this also helps matters.

Originally Posted by GuJiaXian

This is one of the biggest plusses for 4e for me. Prep time is a luxury (kids, work, life, etc.),

If prep time is a big issue, that would strongly suggest 4e as the way to go. That said, using pre-gen adventures can take a lot of the hassle of prep out of the game, and for my money 3.5e is much better supported here. Paizo, in particular, have produced a lot of really solid stuff.

Originally Posted by GuJiaXian

(Re: 1e)

I've actually considered it, though I really never played it (started with 2e). Also, I don't own any product from before 3.x, and I'd really like to not have to re-spend to play.

This might actually be the best possible way to go. Sure, you would have to respent to get the 'official' rules (although OSRIC helps here), but the books are generally available cheaply. And there's something to be said for going old-school to recapture a sense of wonder. For a little while, at least...

Alternately, you could give Star Wars Saga Edition a try (excellent game, IMO), or Wheel of Time d20, or something that isn't d20-based at all - Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is also excellent.

[delericho]

Originally Posted by GuJiaXian

1) It's heavily, heavily combat-centric. Everything is about combat. Every player ability is about combat. The mechanics are all about combat. Granted, roleplaying is largely verbal and "winged," but I want a mechanical system that at least acknowledges it.

Emphasise Skill Challenges. The concept behind these is one of the best innovations of 4e (although the implementation doesn't work out of the box).

2) There's no sense of wonder during character growth.

The truth is, you'll always do better building a sense of wonder through your settings and the adventures you present, rather than hoping the rules will do it for you. Sure, 4e PCs don't get to become demi-gods, as they did in previous editions, but let's face it... very few characters ever reached those levels, often because the campaigns just collapsed under their own weight long before that point.

IMO, of course.

[Ariosto]

Given all those negatives, what's the big appeal of 3e or 4e for you? Do their strengths and weaknesses in some ways compliment each other, or 2e? If you like the simpler foundation of old D & D, then either 2e or one of the "retro-clones" could serve as a starting point for building your own version with selected additions. You could have the best (as you judge it) of all the editions.

[MerricB]

Originally Posted by GuJiaXian

1) It's heavily, heavily combat-centric. Everything is about combat. Every player ability is about combat. The mechanics are all about combat. Granted, roleplaying is largely verbal and "winged," but I want a mechanical system that at least acknowledges it.

Rituals and Skill Challenges. There are also a number of utility powers that are directly only useful in non-combat senses, or make great use out-of-combat.

(e.g. Grasshopper Leap - Rog16; Astral Speech - Pal2; and Divine Skill - Clr2).

2) There's no sense of wonder during character growth. Unlike earlier editions, you start at 1st level as an established hero (power-wise, at least). When you hit 30th level, you're really powerful...but only really powerful.

Actually, that hasn't been our experience at all. A 1st level PC might not be squishy, but they are decidedly limited in their options and effectiveness. Fifth level, with the first extra daily, is a major milestone in their development. When you reach Paragon levels, suddenly there is a great jump in what they can do - the Paragon Paths are extremely significant.

I can't comment on the Epic levels yet.

For us, the early (11th-14th) Paragon levels have sung. They've been really fun - it'll be interesting to see what occurs once the group reaches the Epic levels.

Cheers!

[Theroc]

Originally Posted by delericho

The truth is, you'll always do better building a sense of wonder through your settings and the adventures you present, rather than hoping the rules will do it for you.

I agree. The assumption in 4E's fluff is that you're an established hero. You can rework the fluff assumptions. At least, that's the feeling I've gotten (I'll admit I haven't thoroughly read everything, but the settings I've looked into don't make any sort of big deal out of my character's uniqueness in the sense of, "OMG! HERO!".

Originally Posted by Delericho

Sure, 4e PCs don't get to become demi-gods, as they did in previous editions, but let's face it...

Well, technically they do, as there's the Demi-God Epic Destiny, but ascension to Demigodhood ends your characters career as an adventurer. >.>