Hey, I'm just getting into table top RPGs. Wanted to for a long time, but I'm now finally getting it together. I always wanted to GM and I have at least 3 players waiting for me to get this started.
Whatever system you go with, I'm sure you'll have fun. Every version of D&D is a blast, especially when played with good friends.
My only problem though is which edition should I choose.
I tried to do my own research into things (enough to know I might be hitting upon a touchy subject), but some help from some more experianced players would be appreciated.
Now I'm not trying to turn this into some kind of one version sucks and the other rules kinda things. I'm assuming that both have their pros and cons depending on the people playing.
From what I've gathered 3e has much more flexibility with PCs and adds more depth to non combat adventures. And that I could, with enough understanding of the rules, pretty much create anything I wanted. While the downsides of 3e are some somewhat unbalanced character classes and a system which some find tedious.
This is a fairly good assessment, but I'll caution that the only reason 3e has more flexibility with PCs is its age. 4e will have hybrid classes next year, and already has 16 core classes available in the two player's handbooks. 4e is catching up in this dept.
I've also gathered that 4e is simpler, more streamlined, and easier to understand. And evens out the classes in combat. But it sacrifices flexibility for a more rigid structure, and less depth in non-combat adventures.
4e is simpler to DM. Setup time is much less. It actually has more rules for non-combat encounters like the rules for traps, diseases, rituals, and skill challenges. Skills are better implemented, and since you don't need rules to role play, I'm not sure why people think 4e is worse in these areas.
As far as playing, there are no simple classes, so in this respect, 4e is more complex. The fighter has powers just like a wizard, and while his powers aren't magical, it means that if a player wants a simpler class in 4e, I'm not sure which I'd recommend.
The Character Builder software helps with that, however. It makes creating and managing player characters easy, so even my 8 year old plays. Without it, there's no way he could, and my 11 year old could barely cope with leveling up.
At least this is how it seems to me (I've studied through 3.5 PHB so far, and am looking into the 4e one now), but I'm a newbie so if I'm way off please let me know.
So far I'm actaully leaning toward 3e, because I'm looking for a game where I can have a PC werewolf/Bard fighting against a Necormancer and his legion of dead and the only thing stopping me is how much time I feel like figuring it all out. And even though I'm a 'newb' the game being simpler in 4th doesn't really entice me becasue if I'm gonna do this I'm gonna go all in anyway, I just want to come out with no limits but my imagination.
The odd thing here is that it's easier to build a PC werewolf/bard in 3e, but easier to do the necromancer with his legions of dead in 4e. For the werewolf/bard in 4e, I'd consider a shifter bard instead, because I'm lazy, and let him take shifter feats to enhance his werewolf-ness.
I don't think it'd be too hard to make a real werewolf PC though, it's just that it might take a little work, while in 3e the monsters are pretty much the same as player characters already and there are rules exactly for that. For the necromancer with legions of dead (or undead) I know I could create that much faster in 4e and that it would be more fun to play.
But of course maybe I'm missing something. Is 3rd the game I'm looking for? And if it is are there any ways you guys suggest at hiding it's flaws (balance issues, ect.)? Or am I underrating some of 4e's attributes?
4e combat is very fun. The player character classes complement each other quite well, and I like how rituals are out of combat. I think if you spend a significant time in combat, you'll have more fun with 4e.
The only problem I have with 4e is that it has not matured yet. It's better now that the PHB2 is out...before I really missed the bard, barbarian, and druid. And I like the splatbooks...they aren't too powerful and they add cool options like the beastmaster ranger. But I still think it has some balance issues at high levels and there is more errata than I'd like.
Pathfinder has the benefit of longevity. There are tons of material supporting it, and almost every problem with the system has been fixed. It's a solid system, and fun.
Not that I'd feel commited. I'd like to try both at some point. But at the moment, am I right in thinking 3e is the game I want to play?
My advice (and this might surprise some) is to go Pathfinder. I prefer 4e, but that's because I have the perspective of playing all the previous incarnations (except the very first) of D&D. I think since you have a very specific idea of what you want (werewolf bard), you should go with the system that best supports that.
Also it seems you are leaning in the 3e direction, so it seems to me that if you don't try it, you will always wonder what you missed.
Plus, going with Pathfinder will probably be cheaper, since you are planning to go "all in".
After 4e matures a bit you won't have a problem converting your campaign to it when and if you decide you want to. Waiting for 4e to mature a little might also let you buy books that are revised, and you won't have to worry about printing out errata.
On the other hand, if you think you might want to convert to 4e in the next year or so, I'd just go 4e now. Learning new systems is not always fun, and at best slows down gameplay.
Good luck with whatever you choose.
