Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7569144" data-attributes="member: 996">3.5/PF is a much richer and more detailed system, there's also a lot more material out for either of them than for 5e, and they're fairly adaptable to eachother (and to 3.0), so 5e's relative dearth of support is in competition with the vast pool of stuff available for those systems, combined.&nbsp; As a player, you can get a lot closer to playing /exactly/ the character you envision in 3.x/PF than in 5e.&nbsp; It may or may not be viable along side what everyone else is playing, but you can do it.&nbsp; Conversely, as a DM, 3.x/PF can be a bit of a nightmare.&nbsp;The original D&amp;D, pre-Greyhawk 'Oe' or '0D&amp;D,' is not played that much, AFAIK.&nbsp; But, nostalgia or authenticity or whatever you want to call that fetish for the old, is a major part of people choosing AD&amp;D or other 20th-century/TSR-era editions/variations over more modern ones. &nbsp;No, the terrible things that 5e does can generally also be done in past editions - sometimes even more terribly.&nbsp;Probably not.&nbsp; The appeal of TSR era D&amp;D is mainly nostalgia, if you didn't experience it in the 20th century, you won't get it, now - at most it'll be bemusing, like listening to a gramophone or watching a silent movie.&nbsp; The learning curve of 3.x/PF is quite steep, and part of the reason people have stuck with it through two easier/'better' subsequent editions is in part the investment sunk into learning it (and the payoff it offers said system mastery).&nbsp; Even if you wanted the payoff of mastering 3.x/PF, the existing community will always be ahead of you on that curve.Retreater has made a case for 4e actually being better for new D&amp;Ders, even those who have already started with 5e. (It does have a gentler learning curve, is easier to DM, and is the best-balanced edition of a very badly-balanced game.) Edit: Actually, I see he's already weighed in on this thread: But, if you really want to play a game that's better than 5e D&amp;D, you might as well go all the way and play a game that doesn't even purport to be D&amp;D.&nbsp; There are lots of games that are /much/ better than any edition of D&amp;D has been, or even tried to be.&nbsp; Most games, really.&nbsp; The problem is picking one, and finding 5 other gamers who agree with that choice.&nbsp; ;P&nbsp;TL;DR - no, but the current one is not superior to the older ones, either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7569144, member: 996"] 3.5/PF is a much richer and more detailed system, there's also a lot more material out for either of them than for 5e, and they're fairly adaptable to eachother (and to 3.0), so 5e's relative dearth of support is in competition with the vast pool of stuff available for those systems, combined. As a player, you can get a lot closer to playing /exactly/ the character you envision in 3.x/PF than in 5e. It may or may not be viable along side what everyone else is playing, but you can do it. Conversely, as a DM, 3.x/PF can be a bit of a nightmare. The original D&D, pre-Greyhawk 'Oe' or '0D&D,' is not played that much, AFAIK. But, nostalgia or authenticity or whatever you want to call that fetish for the old, is a major part of people choosing AD&D or other 20th-century/TSR-era editions/variations over more modern ones. No, the terrible things that 5e does can generally also be done in past editions - sometimes even more terribly. Probably not. The appeal of TSR era D&D is mainly nostalgia, if you didn't experience it in the 20th century, you won't get it, now - at most it'll be bemusing, like listening to a gramophone or watching a silent movie. The learning curve of 3.x/PF is quite steep, and part of the reason people have stuck with it through two easier/'better' subsequent editions is in part the investment sunk into learning it (and the payoff it offers said system mastery). Even if you wanted the payoff of mastering 3.x/PF, the existing community will always be ahead of you on that curve. Retreater has made a case for 4e actually being better for new D&Ders, even those who have already started with 5e. (It does have a gentler learning curve, is easier to DM, and is the best-balanced edition of a very badly-balanced game.) [i]Edit: Actually, I see he's already weighed in on this thread:[/i] But, if you really want to play a game that's better than 5e D&D, you might as well go all the way and play a game that doesn't even purport to be D&D. There are lots of games that are /much/ better than any edition of D&D has been, or even tried to be. Most games, really. The problem is picking one, and finding 5 other gamers who agree with that choice. ;P TL;DR - no, but the current one is not superior to the older ones, either. [/QUOTE]

Verification