addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

The San Diego Dungeons & Dragons Meetup Group Message Board The San Diego Dungeons & Dragons Meetup Group Discussion Forum › DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, ADVANCED DUNGEONS &

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 2E, SKILLS & POWERS, 3E, 3.5, and 4E

A former member
Post #: 104
Wow, D&D has come a very long way since Gary Gygax was first involved. (god rest his soul).

My personal love was AD&D 2E but now there are so many more out there. Which Edition is your favorite, which do you prefer, and why?

Josh
user 8939887
San Diego, CA
Post #: 6
2E for me. It was pretty much what we house ruled AD&D into. I liked 3E/3.5 but all the classes and power builds was just a little crazy for my tastes. Haven't played 4E. Looks fun, but I have a lot of problems with it as a D&D game...
A former member
Post #: 100
I agree.

I actually bought the 3E when it first came out, read through some of the material, played in a couple of games, then turned around and just gave it to someone else. I was not impressed and did not like it in the least.

Truth is, it all reminds me of "Alternity". Do you remember that? I think that's where it all actually got started at.

I will be staying with Storytelling System for World of Darkness but AD&D 2E is my favorite thus far. (eve if it does need house ruled to death in some areas)
A former member
Post #: 909
First edition tables made me feel stupid.

THAC0 never made any sense to me.

I like 3.5 because it seems mathematically balanced and I like the prestige class branch off's.

There is some things I don't like about 3.5 but it is the only version I can tolerate.
Ryan
user 3074045
San Diego, CA
Post #: 158
Having played in AD&D 2E with Skills and Powers for several years, I was pulled in by the simplicity of the 3E rules. By then, 2E was falling apart from too many different rules; it seemed like every book that came out had a different way of doing things such that most rules were mutually exclusive (if you use kits then you can't use character points, and that kind of thing).

Third edition was written to be compatible with itself, and 3.5 was really just a clarification to make 3E more consistent and get rid of a few gamebreakers.

The thing that really put me off of 3.5 was how there were so many different classes and prestige classes. If I want to play a fighter-wizard, then you can't possibly do that at first level, unless you have an obscure book that came out several years after the rest of the system (but which was mutually exclusive with the dozen or so different fighter-wizard prestige classes, which themselves meant you couldn't play the character you wanted to play until level 10 or so). Instead of having a character idea (magic swordsman, in this case) and finding the rules to support it, it became a lengthy exercise in finding which interpretation of the rules seemed most fun/interesting/powerful to you. Power creep didn't help. Prepare to be laughed at if you actually multi-class fighter/wizard.

I guess not being able to play the character you want to play is kind of endemic to class- and level- based systems.

In retrospect, among all of the various incarnations of D&D, I have to say that I had most fun playing 3E core, before prestige classes and all of the additional core classes were introduced.
A former member
Post #: 910
If I want to play a fighter-wizard, then you can't possibly do that at first level, unless you have an obscure book...

My general counter argument has always been "Of course you can't!"

At first level (IMO) you should be playing characters between 15-18 years old that is just starting their adventuring and finding their path.

I always preferred starting my games at 4th level where you can have some basic competence and start an efficient multiclass prerequisites path.

-john
Ryan
user 3074045
San Diego, CA
Post #: 160

At first level (IMO) you should be playing characters between 15-18 years old that is just starting their adventuring and finding their path.

I know there were suggested starting ages in 3E, but for some reason I never really associated age with level. Maybe I've just been in too many campaigns where we gain a level after 10-15 encounters and get from level 1 to level 10 within a few months of game time. It's not as though you can actually gain levels by studying magic for thirty years or anything.

The freedom to decide how to progress at every level should be one of the biggest strengths of the system, but it seems like everyone gets caught up in "builds" and "optimal progression" and they don't let it just flow naturally. Why does your fighter level go up after you spend a week ambushing guards and skulking through the shadows? So you can qualify for the Shining Knight Exemplar prestige class, of course! It doesn't help that there is such a wide difference in power between an "organic" character and one that is planned out ahead of time.
A former member
Post #: 1,117
First edition tables made me feel stupid.

THAC0 never made any sense to me.

I like 3.5 because it seems mathematically balanced and I like the prestige class branch off's.

There is some things I don't like about 3.5 but it is the only version I can tolerate.
Personally I prefer Pathfinder 3.75 to all except 1st Edition ( Nostalgic) I expect as Pathfinder continues to grow and the final version comes out this year . I will mostly play Pathfinder RPG I like the fixes and ideas they are coming up with. But then again who knows right now I've got my Battletech bug back. So RPG's are kinda on the back burner for me right now.
A former member
Post #: 19
I agree with Chris, Pathfinder has the potential to become a much improved choice over 4.0 it take into account some of the problems 3.5 had. I understand it is a work still in progress. But the modules and supplements are well written. The Pathfinder Society runs some really well organized events. When I consider the choice of 4.0 and Pathfinder it's easy one for me.
A former member
Post #: 20
There is some things I don't like about 3.5 but it is the only version I can tolerate.
Then why not try 3.75 I did I think you will like it over being only option 4.0
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy