Planescape changed SO much mechanically and stylistically i wouldn't hardly call it D&D. Any more than I would call D20 modern or Gamma world 'd&d' they're based on the same system but they're not really the same.PaulH said:
Question of the Day, December 9, 2010
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Started with 3.5, and while some people say it limits role-playing, I have found that the vast array of abilities allows you to customize your character, and the role-playing can stem from that. Playing 1e and 2e, I've found that combat can get into a grind, since spellcasters have very few spells, and other classes are pretty much restricted to basic combat.
On the flip side, I have found that because 4e has limited abilities by making them 1-a-day or 1-an-encounter, you lose some freedom that you had in 3e and 3.5. As a result you don't get as many of the 'epic battles', since a spellcaster may only have 5 or 6 spells, whereas they might have 15 or 20 at a similar level in 3.5.
Since it is easy to roleplay and be creative outside of combat, I enjoy a system where the rules encourage creativity in combat. All four do so in different way, but my preference is toward 3.5.
On the flip side, I have found that because 4e has limited abilities by making them 1-a-day or 1-an-encounter, you lose some freedom that you had in 3e and 3.5. As a result you don't get as many of the 'epic battles', since a spellcaster may only have 5 or 6 spells, whereas they might have 15 or 20 at a similar level in 3.5.
Since it is easy to roleplay and be creative outside of combat, I enjoy a system where the rules encourage creativity in combat. All four do so in different way, but my preference is toward 3.5.
I had to go with Other: I've played every edition (except Basic) and I can't in all fairness elevate one above the others. Every succeeding edition did solve a lot of the problems of the previous one, but introduced new problems instead. I played 2nd the most, since it came out soon after I started playing, but 3e and 3.5 fixed a lot of the problems it had. I only wish I could have played it more, but my friends and I were all hardcore into White Wolf at the time.
I've been in my friend's 4th ed game for over a year and a half now, and it's a lot more fun than I thought it'd be. But for the campaign I'm planning to start next month, I don't think it's appropriate. I'm really impressed with Pathfinder and am eager to run it.
I've been in my friend's 4th ed game for over a year and a half now, and it's a lot more fun than I thought it'd be. But for the campaign I'm planning to start next month, I don't think it's appropriate. I'm really impressed with Pathfinder and am eager to run it.
I think it was the perception that "Advanced" D&D was the "real" system while Basic was some sort of training-wheels version. It wasn't--it was just rules-light compared to AD&D--but that was the perception. Not that TSR did much to dissuade it: AD&D got all the interesting campaign settings and supplements and tie-in novels while Basic D&D was more like an afterthought. When Wizards bought TSR they decided the "Basic" and "Advanced" labels just confused people (ie, new gamers) who thought they needed to play one before the other, so they just rolled everything into a single game for 3e.j0frenzy said:
I'm not sure why you've got 'Advanced' up there, unless you mean to include 1st and 2nd edition in one result, since those both included the 'Advanced' moniker, then they dropped it from 3e going forward. You could also have included basic D&D as an option, like the various colored boxes and the rules cyclopedia.
I've played them all, and I generally just play whatever is current, though I put a pretty definite dividing line between 4e and all the others. I very much enjoy 4e, but 3.x is what I've played the most of.
I've played them all, and I generally just play whatever is current, though I put a pretty definite dividing line between 4e and all the others. I very much enjoy 4e, but 3.x is what I've played the most of.
I have a little experience with AD&D and 3e, but mostly I've played 4e, and I love it. I like a lot of the changes made, especially that all the classes are viable at all levels (as opposed to magic classes being almost useless at low levels and fighter-like classes being completely out-shined at higher levels). The system definitely isn't perfect (it could use more skills), but its nowhere near as bad as many make it sound.
The one thing is Dungeons and Discourse [http://dndis.wikidot.com/], but since I'm also part of the development team, that is kind of a given. But on the less traditional side of things, I've had my share of Shock: Social Science Fiction [http://glyphpress.com/shock/]. Also a bit of Paranoia over a forum, but that hardly counts.Explorator Vimes said:
Agreed. I have some experience with 2nd edition, some with 4th, and a lot with 3rd and 3.5. I have to say I enjoy Pathfinder the most. Paizo made base classes useful, skills easier to manage, experience and encounters easier to judge, and cut down the list of crit and sneak attack immune enemies that could easily make rogues worthless. 3.5 was a huge mess and they've made sense of it in Pathfinder.MagusVulpes said:
Spirit is still there ... besides ... Planescape kicked so much rear it wasn't funny.ace_of_something said:
Gotta remember that the setting of Planescape was fairly late, not only this but it gave expansive rules and rules sets (Even relating to just single adventures such as 'Something Wild' I believe) given that the setting itself and it's dimensions were *massive* ... it sought to bring to life the planes like nothing before it (and nothing yet still ... I won't touch 'Manual of the Planes' garbage given I have a treasure trove of planescape stuff still) and i still use Planescape cosmology in FR 3rd ed despite what had change in it.
I'm sure if you posted a topic or something about it with a general location, you could find a bunch of people up here or elsewhere who would be willing to teach you/play with you and if all else fails, find your local comic shop and try and join one of the local groups.dex-dex said:I have never played
but would like to but i don't know anyone who would want to play with me
Third.
I love the speed but not MMO-ish ness of d20 system.
Best blend of old and new as long as you are creative.
I love the speed but not MMO-ish ness of d20 system.
Best blend of old and new as long as you are creative.
Haven't actually played yet, but I've been trying to get started, and have found 4th Edition just much easier to understand than 3.5
OFF I GO TO THE COMIC STORE!dfcrackhead said:I'm sure if you posted a topic or something about it with a general location, you could find a bunch of people up here or elsewhere who would be willing to teach you/play with you and if all else fails, find your local comic shop and try and join one of the local groups.dex-dex said:I have never played
but would like to but i don't know anyone who would want to play with me
*WOOSH* but not right now because I have class soon.
I started with Basic D&D, and stopped with AD&D. (Voted AD&D in the poll.) I also played other role-playing systems (particularly Villains and Vigilantes, Twilight: 2000, and Traveller) alongside it, but eventually abandoned tabletop role-play and moved on to other game types entirely.
As I stopped at AD&D I'm not qualified to express opinions on the later versions.
-- Steve
As I stopped at AD&D I'm not qualified to express opinions on the later versions.
-- Steve
Im suprised they didnt put any "homegrown" or "house" rules option (or whatever you call ur own special blend of D&D)
Especially since they did include a "i dont play" option, whatever i guess "other" works fine
(in case u didnt guess my favorite verson is a homegrown rule set my buddies and i play with, epic as hell if i do say so myself)
Especially since they did include a "i dont play" option, whatever i guess "other" works fine
(in case u didnt guess my favorite verson is a homegrown rule set my buddies and i play with, epic as hell if i do say so myself)