Saelune said:
altnameJag said:
Had to vote 2e because I've never actually gotten to play games of 4 or 5 e.
My friend group tended to go the Pathfinder route, which I hate with a burning passion.
Ive played 3.5 and 5th. I do want to play 4th atleast once just to justify hating it. Ive looked through it, but never actually played it.
I also want to play the old editions to say I did, and because with how Wed DM talk about it, seems alot more deadly and I am curious to try that.
I really like 5e though cause it streamlines alot without restricting complexity.
D&D is in a weird position because it's 6 completely different games with different underlying assumptions about what kind of game it is, all bundled together under one brand. 4e's greatest "sin", at least in the eyes of the edition warriors, was flattening the mechanical complexity. Or in other words, fighter types got more complex, and magic types got less complex. That also flattened out the power curve, and a lot of people tend to believe whole heartedly in caster supremacy.
Of course, a lot of the failiure point in the next editions of D&D were from trying to appease the old grognards. A lot of the save-or-die/take massive damage spells in 3rd came from 2nd, but while 2nd had some of the same problems in that regard they weren't as pronounced. Why? In 2nd edition, the Fighter had the best saving throws, bar none. You just couldn't count on that Command or Hold Person to land on a Fighter, and there wasn't a feat chain you could take to make that easier. Also, monsters tended to have higher saves, fewer HP, and did less raw damage, making fighters generally more useful than they ended up being in 3rd.
Go back further, and in the original D&D, 4th level fighters were described as "superheroes" under the quasi-wargaming combat rules they had, able to effectively challage entire squads of troops with little risk. 'Course, fighting monsters was always a tricky proposition, but you got XP from loot, not killing. Dungeon Crawls were heists instead of action set pieces.
3rd edition, in a lot of ways, went the
Sim Dungeon route, where everything about the guys who could rip holes in reality was so very realistic. I actually have a lot of disdain for this system due to, well, making everybody who didn't have magic conform to some sort of low-magic "realistic" hell, and they're expected to partner up with said realty-hole-rippers and everybody pretends that's a thing that makes sense. Also, there's a billion and a half feats and a billion and a quarter of them are useless.
4e works on the assumption that your party is a group of heroes with a penchant for getting into action set piece battles and are the folks who call out the names of their attacks. Sword slinging is as exactly as mechanically engaging, complex, and powerful as casting spells. That's not to say their aren't problems, but the problems are all math related. Hell, it was finely tuned enough that, if you followed the rules regarding encounter creation, the GM could be actively adversarial towards the players and everything would shake out fine.
Also, it feels like a cross between Final Fantasy Tactics and the (as yet unrealeased) Overwatch as far as it's roles go, so that's pretty fantastic. If you end up in a game of it, I recommend cutting the monster HP in half. Bloated HP totally made the combat feel grindy after the first half dozen rounds.
EDIT: I recommend
this guy for talk about D&D in particular and rpg's in general. Tumblr link.