POLL: What edition of D&D did you most recently play/run?

oreofox said:

I run 5e, but am using a module from Basic D&D (B7 Rahasia). It's... different

Click to expand...

In what way? I frequently convert early modules, and I don't find them much different to what I would do anyway.

And Rahasia is by Hickman, so is emerging from the first phase of module design.

Monayuris said:

I love it. I actually prefer it to 5E, and I would run it exclusively if I didn't have a lot of people who want to play 5E.

It is basically a clone of B/X but using base to hit and ascending armor class as well as separate race and class (with limitations - forex. no dwarf magic users).

The change from to hit tables makes it a little more intuitive for newer players but it is still completely compatible with all the material out there for Basic, OD&D and AD&D (I can just flip AC on the fly and to hit is just +HD).

There are some other minor differences in spells and some rules between it and B/X, but they aren't deal breakers for me.

BFRPG is also produced as an open source RPG and you can it free as a PDF and you can buy the rule book for $5 on Amazon. The website has tons of resources to expand on the game with the central conceit that all additional rules beyond the core book are optional.

https://www.basicfantasy.org/

Click to expand...

Already own it, dead tree version on Amazon was $5. Just wondering what you thought of it. The free Adventures are also good.

JonnyP71 said:

In the example of my game, these are PCs that have been lovingly developed for a couple of years

But at level 9-11 in AD&D, the Clerics are able to cast Raise Dead, so it's rarely permanent... (at -1 CON each time a PC is raised, their CON stats are suffering though, the G series has been brutal)

Click to expand...

Never mind that their odds of making that resurrection survival roll keep dropping along with their Con scores...

It takes a poll to make me realize I haven't played D&D in a year! Years, actually. But if I did, it would likely be 4th edition. Or maybe PF2 if its as good as I hope (it is still D&D).

Paul Farquhar said:

In what way? I frequently convert early modules, and I don't find them much different to what I would do anyway.

And Rahasia is by Hickman, so is emerging from the first phase of module design.

Click to expand...

Mostly due to how different various things were back then. One of the first creatures the party came up against was that gargoyle. Rahasia is for characters level 1-3, but the gargoyle has AC 5, 4 attacks, and can only be hit by magical weapons. Oh, and 16 hp. Open up the 5e MM, and you have a creature with AC 15 (about the same), 2 attacks, 52 hp, and it only has resistance to BPS from nonmagical nonadamantine weapons. So that is hugely different, and makes the fight much easier. Also, the playstyle nowadays is rather different from the days of Basic D&D. The adventure suggests the players toss some meat to the hungry gargoyle to keep it from following them. That may have been something easily thought of back then, but now? We'll just brute force through it. It might effectively have 104 hp (due to half damage to anything except spells), but it is easily taken care of. Oh, and the PCs are level 3, and there's only 3 players.

Then there's the bone golem. There's no such creature in 5e, and looking up "bone golem rahasia 5e" brings up a tweet from either Crawford, Mearls, or Perkins saying to substitute the minotaur skeleton for the bone golem. The minotaur skeleton is laughably weaker in comparison to the bone golem as written for Basic. I even gave it max HP and it only managed to take down 1 person, who was up the next round anyway.

The story is good so far, but the power difference between Basic and 5e is massive. The PCs are stronger, and the monsters are arguably weaker, especially those who had the defense of "can only be hit by magical weapons", which doesn't exist in 5e.

Edit: I also have the "classic modules today" version of Rahasia, which helps, kinda. Would have been nice if the author of that would have added in a conversion of the Bone Golem (which they list as a nonrandom encounter), but only put in the witches. My players seem to be enjoying the module so far, so that's always a good thing.

Ran Swords and Wizardry (OD&D clone) Sunday afternoon and again tonight.

Jacob Lewis said:

It takes a poll to make me realize I haven't played D&D in a year! Years, actually. But if I did, it would likely be 4th edition.

Click to expand...

I hope you're getting to play something. Or, if not, that whatever's consuming your time is positive.

Tony Vargas said:

I hope you're getting to play something. Or, if not, that whatever's consuming your time is positive.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! I'm currently running a Star Wars RPG on a message board (or trying to get it up and running, anyway).

I have two games of Pathfinder Adventure Card Game (Mummy's Mask and Skull & Shackles) trying to wrap up so we can jump into the new edition.

Also on deck are the new Star Wars Outer Rim board game, and recently got Lords of Waterdeep, which my wife seems to enjoy.

Just completely an upgrade in my office with new desk furniture and extra shelving so I can finally unpack EVERYTHING and store/display it someplace. (My youngest cat loves the new layout, giving her more room for us to play!)

Also enjoying Pillars of Eternity 2 immensely in my solo downtime.

Working on some foamboard inserts for a few board games/Pathfinder pawns.

And revisiting some ideas to create a unique RPG for a Dark Sun game. Because it deserves one!

Thanks for asking, btw! Hope things are going well with you, too.

I have a 3.5 campaign going which has been running since the beginning of 2018. Even though we only manage to meet every 6 weeks or so, it's still going strong. Like another poster, I'm comfortable enough with the system and have enough material that it's unlikely I'll switch to anything else in the near future. Frankly, I don't like some of the direction that 5e went (although some of it is awesome).

I will say, I'm pretty interested in PF2.