d&d 3rd vs 4th for beginners
- Thread starter me48072
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As someone who plays 3.5 every week I'd say that having to make a perception check every 10 minutes sounds like crap GMing rather than bad rules. If you're saddled with a GM that is that blinkered and anal about their interpretation of the rules then it doesn't matter what version you play, you're not gonna have a good experience.migo said:
I've never done much with 4th, but, what little I skimmed supports your assessment. You are right about 3rd and 3.5. I wouldn't even approach introducing a new player to those systems unless they're already familiar with roleplaying in general.joemu362 said:
I'd honestly recommend something with White Wolf's Storyteller (d10) system, because (usually) it's a lot more elegant for getting into roleplaying, as opposed to D&D, which (even in 4th edition) is more in line with tabletop wargaming.
I've played 1st and 4th, and hands down I recommend 1st. The mechanics are easy, fighting is simpler, hey, it's the basis for a lot of stories used in later DnD versions.
They say that 2nd is an ironed-out veersion of 1st, so maybe that's good. I dunno, nonetheless I recomment sticking with the earlier stuff.
They say that 2nd is an ironed-out veersion of 1st, so maybe that's good. I dunno, nonetheless I recomment sticking with the earlier stuff.
It's sad, when I got to this I started cackling manically.RAKtheUndead said:
I knew a player who was in dire need of this scenario. He'd ***** and whine about us not being realistic in the games he was running, but then try to fake it out in other players campaigns.
In fact, said player is probably the reason I can't look at RIFTS or GURPS without wanting to vomit on someone.
That is one of the most awesome things I have ever read. Now if only there was some way to get some of the more annoying players I've had the pleasure to game with together so we can play a nice little WWI scenario.RAKtheUndead said:
At least for me, 4th is much simpler although character creation is more limiting. Part of the goal with 4e was to streamline 3.5, and they more or less gutted 90% of it in the process. I did enjoy 3.5, it's just that 4e was much easier to get into for a game. Character creation, while still a bit difficult for someone as easily distractable as me, was much easier in 4e than 3.5 mostly due to all the information being readily available whereas in 3.5 you have to go on a manhunt just to determine your armor class. Gameplay is mostly similar, with the only difference I personally noticed between them being attacks of opportunity. Where the biggest difference by far is is the roleplaying. Unfortunately, 4e seems to have done everything it can to elminate roleplaying for the game. Most skills do very little in combat, and have only minor effects out of combat. The makers seemed to have forgotten that there was once more to D&D than killing shit. While you can still roleplay freely, there is little mechanical support for it.
Bad experiences are more common among the 3.5 holdouts though, or rather 3.5 exclusive players. I've played with 3.5 players who like familiarity but also play extreme indie games, so it's just one of the games they play. I'd do 3.5 for a game of Ptolus too, but for the most part, there's a better system than 3.5 for almost anything, even if 4e won't do, 3.5 isn't the better option.Grouchy Imp said:
I'll agree that 3.5 has holes in it's system, and I'd be lying if I were to say that there aren't discussions into one rule or another during almost all of our sessions, but I think that's just where common sense comes in - in part to prevent bad experiences and in part to help the narrative flow of the session. No system can be governed entirely by the book, and that's where the judgement of the GM is key - although I concede the point that new players are less likely to be playing with experienced GMs and so beginners might be better off with a different system.migo said:
4E is really easy to pick up, much more so than 3.5E. It's also pretty well balanced so it's easy for a newbie to jump on a concept he likes ("Brawling fighter!" for instance) and manage to make a good, viable character. You pretty have to try to make a bad character to end up worthless.
I'm a rpg systems junkie myself. I collect and absorb systems from all manner of games just for personal amusement. I was also on the 4th edition is lame train until I stopped to really take it in. It's actually a pretty great system full of lots of neat twists on ideas and good character customization.
That said?
Call of Cthulhu or Shadowrun.
That said?
Call of Cthulhu or Shadowrun.
Go with anything that does not require a lot of min maxing. My friends played 3.5 and got overwhelmed by all sorts of legal broken characters.
My choice would be 4th. Sure has the potential to be broken, but as soon as the players get a few games under their belts, you can move on to something more challenging.
My choice would be 4th. Sure has the potential to be broken, but as soon as the players get a few games under their belts, you can move on to something more challenging.
Im playing 4E, mostly because i like homebrewing races/classes. Lots of fun, as long as you stay within the "No god-powers or 9W+ without side effects" Rulings.
Funny enough, I'd say that's its distinct advantage over something like 3.5 D&D. It always annoyed me that you had to waste points in taking Craft (whatever) to justify your character being some sort of profession. Just what about crafting swords is heroic in any way, shape or form? It's a day job, that's it! If I want to say my dwarf was a blacksmith and constructs his own weapons because of it, why should I have to waste skill points that could go into something useful for actual adventuring?kwagamon said:
4.0 frees up roleplaying by making all the mechanics central to what needs to be regulated the most: combat. Why should Wizards of the Coast have any say as to how I roleplay in my game? They don't and they finally recognized that they were trying to regulate it. So, they decided to make all spells and abilities combat oriented and then put in rituals for out of combat functionality and roleplaying if you so choose. Heck, they even said that when purchasing equipment, you can make up how you got it (self-constructed vs buying it from a shop owner) so long as the same amount of GP is subtracted. (for either materials needed, labour or just a flat out price tag) I think this flows better with roleplaying, leaving it a completely seperate part to the rules of combat as it should be. Granted, they still leave holes in combat to allow for roleplaying, but it is still, for the most part, completely seperate.