What edition of dungeons and dragons is better for what?

1st Ed - No, just nothing.
2nd Ed - A good challenge and not made for players to be OP.
3.0/3.5 - Min-Max up the ass, made for players to be powerful.
4E - If you like video games and non-traditional D&D this is for you.
5E - Good new players and actual role-playing.

Are players less powerful in 5th that 3rd and 4th? The whole 'adventurers are just naturally better' shit really put me off 3.5, would rather play someone who started out relatively average but eventually got slightly above average through luck and perseverance.

>actual role-playing

Fuck off. 5e does no more, and no less, to support roleplaying than any other edition.

Three lvl1 players in 5e can be put in difficulty by 5 bandits if terrain works against them.

Pathfinder or fantasy craft which one haves more OP players?

1e - old-school dungeon crawling
AD&D1 - medium-fantasy roleplaying (Middle-earth power level stuff; it breaks down past "name" level)
AD&D2 - epic fantasy roleplaying ("save the multiverse" stuff) and Planescape
3.x - toilet paper
4e - slighly nicer toilet paper you don't necessarily want to be the first to shit on, but still remembering its purpose is shit-related
5e - introducing new players to RPGs though a well-known brand name before moving on to a better system

What do you guys hate about 3.X?

You mean aside from being intentionally designed to be unbalanced and to actually and deliberately *punish* people who took the classes that the author didn't like (Monte Cook got bullied in school; jocks/martials have to get owned by the nerds/casters to make him feel better)?

>What do you guys hate about 3.X?
When I was first introduced to 3.X (when it was 3.0), I wanted to make a fighter. The first thing I didn't like was how the DM assured me that I wanted to take this very specific set of feats and how the stuff I thought would be fun would make me less "useful" than the other characters. The second was the grid-based combat.

Or just luck. Hell, my party got TPK'd by some wolves

Git gud

Yes it does.

Personality and background force players to give a little thought as to their character's past, personality and motivations.

This helps new players solidify their characters in their minds and makes them realise that they are more than just a bunch of numbers on a sheet of paper.

Backgrounds were in previous editions

If you need mechanics to 'force' your players to roleplay, either your players are shitty or your dm is shitty.

i feel that 5e haves less options than other editions

D&D Tiers

God Tier
BECMI
B/X

Good Tier
AD&D 1e
AD&D 2e

Okay Tier
OD&D
4e
5e

Shit Tier
Dragon Strike (the shitty version played with VHS tapes)

Lower than Whaleshit Tier
3.0
3.x

Wannabe Tier
Palladium Fantasy
FantasyCraft

Wannabe Whaleshit Tier
Pathfinder

Oh Shit, Naga, What Are You Doing Tier Tier
FATAL

They were never an essential part of the character creation process as they are now. They were an optional thing that a lot of new players just ignored.

We're talking about new players who've never played D&D or maybe any tabletop RPG before. They're not experienced roleplayers so something like 5e backgrounds is helpful to them.

In what way?

I don't think it's mechanics forcing the characters to roleplay, but rather to use the character's background to translate into mechanics. Even if you don't think your character really fits anything, like a recent example where a PFfriend of mine couldn't choose between Charlatan or something else, I just suggested taking what proficiencies/languages his character would have from those two.

>We're talking about new players who've never played D&D or maybe any tabletop RPG before. They're not experienced roleplayers so something like 5e backgrounds is helpful to them.

Ah, well, that's the problem, then. If they're new they shouldn't be playing in the first place.

REAL roleplayers don't need mechanical background advantages.

They are as ignorable now as they were before. Most people I've played with do little more with backgrounds than look for the one with the best skills. I don't think they even realize you can customize them. If your players don't want to roleplay, they won't. Nothing will "force" them to.

It does mechanically by a fair amount, but I think it's also a lot less restrictive with actual character concepts which more than makes up for it for what I want

...

Depends on exactly which OSR game you played. OSRIC is 1e, For Gold and Glory is 2e, S&W White Box and some others are OD&D, and most of them are B/X.

>Race-as-Class editions
>anything but garbage

It sounds like the people you play with are just powergaming twats.

You'd probably be more comfortable with 3.PF than 5e.

You mean the fact that you can't choose from 150+ pointless feats and powers?

That's a good thing. 3.5 and 4e just gave you the ILLUSION of choice.

In 3.5 you had hundreds of options but a handful were just objectively better than the others.

In 4e you had hundreds of options but they were all virtually identical with minute differences (pic related)

>choice
2e
Kits

>that pic

Good bait.

>You'd probably be more comfortable with 3.PF than 5e.
Personally I prefer 4e over either. Everything was rather flavorful in that edition, from backgrounds to paragon paths to epic destinies to the classes and powers themselves, despite your misleading example.

3.5 is for if you want the option to build your own game world from the ground up
4 is for people who don't want that option and want a simple system that is easy to understand and play and keeps the game moving quickly
5 is for everyone because it is the perfect edition of dungeons and dragons and if you say otherwise I will write you a wall of text explaining why you are wrong

>If they're new they shouldn't be playing in the first place.

Write it in the sky in gossamer tear drops.
At least you're an honest retard.

>I prefer 4e

So you don't really like D&D then.

You probably play LoL or DotA as well don't you?

>4 is for people who don't want that option and want a simple system that is easy to understand and play and keeps the game moving quickly

Are you memeing me?

4e combat is as slow as molasses. I've literally spent entire sessions on one fucking encounter.

I guess I don't.

Never liked MOBAs, MMOs, or anything 4e has been equated with. Weird huh?

Simple.

>1E: Nostalgia (feel) and satanism :^)
>2E: Nostalgia (design)
>3.X: Interesting characters (mechanically)
>4E: Combat
>5E: New/casual players

Each of these are worthwhile qualities; no edition is better or worse that the other, they simply do different things.

Strange indeed.

You should try MMOs and MOBAs. If you like 4e you'll probably enjoy them.

In 5e, XP values for monsters are comparable to 2e. Unfortunately, the XP curve is not.

1e and 2e have a fairly similar feel if you enable GP=XP in 2e. You just lose Gary's ornate writing.

Hey dumbass, why did you use the same colors multiple times?

But why would you want to get rid of Gary's ornate writing?

I didn't, that's LibreOffice's automatic coloration. I don't care enough to adjust them, because the graph isn't really readable anyway.

"Never liked" implies I have and did not.

>OD&D
Fantasy conquistadors, expedition style games with lots of resource management. Combat is heavily abstract. Meant for lots of wacky house-rules. Classes determine party role and some vague flavour while leave most basic adventuring tasks up to roleplay.
(Hobbit/Pulp-horror power level base)
>AD&D
As OD&D but more spot rules for both combat and adventuring. Opens up more options for demihumans which carry over to all further additions.
>2e
Proper adventure style games with a mix of fighting, journeying and role-playing. Combat is less abstract. Still quite bit of resource management but less so than 1e. Classes determine role but have more specific options for determining flavour. Lots more opportunities for mechanical customization with proficiencies.
(LotR/Pulp-adventure power level base)
>3e
High adventure style quests with more focus on direct challenges, combat and game mechanics. Combat is much more intricate. Focus on ability use as well as management. Classes determine general character power-level and are more specific in terms of flavour while being less specific in role. Many basic adventuring tasks are covered with rules and character abilities. Many many options for mechanical customization with feats and multiclassing. Less houserule friendly but features lots of wacky splatbooks.
(Pulp-adventure scaling to Action movie PLB)
>4e
High adventure style quests with wuxia or diablo style tight tactical combat. Combat is both intricate and abstracted though powers. Focused more on moment to moment ability use and roleplaying with little resource management. Despite role titles all classes are combat capable and mostly determine flavour and combat style. None combat challenges are left up to very general mechanics and role-playing. Neither splatbooks or houserules feature greatly
(Pulp-adventure scaling to Hobbit-movie/action-movies scaling to wuxia PLB)

Because it's not really that good.

MOBAs and MMOs both precede 3.x, so I'm not sure why you'd need to like 4e to enjoy-

Oh. Right. They're not REAL Aeon of Strifes or Ultima Onlines or something. I just got that.

>You just lose Gary's ornate writing
So you lose the feel, is what you're saying?

Fair enough

Of course they preceeded 4e. They were the inspiration for it. The D&D devs were playing a lot of WoW at the time 4e was being designed.

>the way the book is written
>related to the way the system feels in play

Shouldn't "feel" be determined by dm playstyle?

OD&D, best for playing a fun game with friends.
Basic D&D, best for playing a fun game with friends who have no wargaming experience.
AD&D, best for playing a game with friends who demands some munchkinism and hundreds of pages of rules they can cite that the actual designers didn't use themselves.
Wizards of the Coast's games that aren't all that related to D&D, best for theorycrafting ideas that would never fly in an actual game on the worst forums created since the birth of the internet and shouting over angrily when it's left by the wayside by everyone involved the second the eponymous "New Edition" hits the next Gencon. (because everyone knows what's important isn't to play the game you enjoy, but the game that's popular with the in-crowd right now)

>5e
Mix of 3e and 4e style questing with more open tactical combat. Combat is intricate but not as rule focused as 3e or 4e. Mechanics permeate most activities but are generally pretty loose. Some resource management but more ability focused. Classes still greatly determine flavour and most are heavily combat capable but have more out of combat effects. Like in 3e characters tend to get a large toolbox of abilities. Even more customisation is added with subclasses and backgrounds.
Houserules are encourage and supported by the system but not necessary, few splatbooks yet to be released.
(Pulp-adventure with little direct scaling)

This is a dumb misreading of the Ivory Tower essay, and Monte Cooke did Numenera/The Strange and it's pretty cool so stfu faglet.

>To sum up and add some additional thoughts
>A&OD&D
Heaviest focus on roleplaying and houseruling. Tightly dedicated to dungeon expedition style. It's more a collection of mechanics than an actual system.
>2e
Focus on roleplaying and slightly on light mechanical customisation. Split focus on expedition and heroism
>3e
Heaviest focus on mechanics and mechanical customisation with a very vague idea of the intended style of play. Heavier power scaling than any previous addion which falls apart at high levels.
>4e
Still a vague sense in terms of style of play but mechnically tight in terms of combat. Best I could imagine is groups prefered adventure style with Final Fantasy fight transitions. Mechanics mostly focus on combat and leave everything else to the party. By far the best support for high level party adventuring of any game.
>5e
Vary vague in terms of mechanical focus and theme, sort of a 3e light with 2e power scaling. Much more focus is put into representing character personality with mechanical choices. Probably the most houserule friendly since 2e.

Buttsensitive caster player detected

It should, but it ain't.

Ivory Tower game design. Trap options. Massive disparity in character class power/ability.

If rules pundits are putting the various character classes into 'power tiers' (which is most definitely a thing), then there's a problem with the game.

If the GM has to make a concerted effort, and I mean serious mental gymnastics, to make all the characters feel useful at some time, there's a problem with the game.

If one class can perform the main focus of a second class (which is far outside the intended realm of the first), that’s probably an issue.
If that one class can outperform the second at its’ (the second’s) main focus, that’s a big issue.
If that one class can outperform almost any other class at their varying main foci (and still do plenty of other things none of those other classes can do), then the rules should never have left the drawing board.

>inb4 "herp derp, wizards are masters of the arcane arts, fights swing a stick! It's realistic"

Will martialfags ever stop whining about 3.5?

Just move on you cucks. That was 2 editions ago.

>Will martialfags ever stop whining about 3.5?

No. Deal with it.

Especially in a discussion about things that were wrong with that edition, which is SPECIFICALLY a discussion in which "martial vs caster" disparity should fucking arise.

>person asks why people dislike game
>people give reasons
>retard goes "lol y u mad?"

Dude, settle. I haven't played 3.5 in over 10 years, and don't give a shit about it. If someone asks what's wrong with it though, i'm going to answer.

It's always the same thing though

>waaaaah my muscleman isn't as powerful as the wizard ;_;

Do you have any legitimate criticism of the system instead of bitching about your shitty fightercucks?

You are being so fucking stupid right now, I'm beginning to think you secretly hate 3.5, and are trying to make the playerbase sound (even more) retarded.

Please stop with your obvious bait.

That IS legitimate criticism.

See also:

It's not though.

Explain to me why you feel that a fighter should every be as powerful as a wizard.

>Do you have any legitimate criticism of the system instead of bitching about your shitty fightercucks?

Yes, I do. My complaints are:

-Ivory Tower game design. Trap options. Massive disparity in character class power/ability.

-If rules pundits are putting the various character classes into 'power tiers' (which is most definitely a thing), then there's a problem with the game.

-If the GM has to make a concerted effort, and I mean serious mental gymnastics, to make all the characters feel useful at some time, there's a problem with the game.

-If one class can perform the main focus of a second class (which is far outside the intended realm of the first), that’s probably an issue.
If that one class can outperform the second at its’ (the second’s) main focus, that’s a big issue.
If that one class can outperform almost any other class at their varying main foci (and still do plenty of other things none of those other classes can do), then the rules should never have left the drawing board.

Did you not understand that those are complaints? Besides, it's not about "waah, my fighter isn't as powerful as a wizard", it's the idea that wizards make all other classes entirely obsolete, and thus pointless. Why bother playing anything else? And why make it a massive headache for DMs to make other classes useful, without making a challenge that can still just as easily be solved by the wizard?

Like I said - it's about rules design, not whether a wizard *should* or *shouldn't* be more powerful than a fighter.

>inb4 "you're a shit GM / you have no creativity"

because game balance > realism.

Pic related, idiot.

The fighter does not have to be as *powerful* as a wizard, but he should be as *useful* as a wizard.

Otherwise, you are punishing the player for making the *wrong* choice of class. Why even put a *wrong* character class in there? Why punish people for wanting to play the game?

Do you get it now? Or are you going to continue to meander around the point like a simpleton?

A "level" in terms of player characters denotes approximate capability. A level 20 warrior should be as capable as a level 20 wizard. It is blindingly obvious this is not true. The question then shouldn't be "how do we strengthen the warrior up to be on par?" it's "Why is the caster so ridiclously powerful compared to everything else?"

Also ypur argument indirectly relies on realism (why should man with stick be as strong as man who twists reality?!) and has no place in a discussion about game balance.

I disagree.

Same level doesn't mean similar power fucktard.

Level indicates power relative to members of the SAME class.

Fighters are shit because the class is only good at one thing: hitting things with a stick and maybe occasionally bending bars.

It really is a class for mindless morons that requires absolutely no tactical thought beyond "which monster should I hit in the face now?"

SeeSame level != same power

Martialfags need to be gassed.

>it's the idea that wizards make all other classes entirely obsolete, and thus pointless. Why bother playing anything else?

If the game designers saw fit to include a wizard that can do all that, then you SHOULDN'T play anything else. If you choose to be useless, then that's entirely your fault. Not the game's. Nobody's forcing you to be a mundane sword-swinger in a game about hyper-powerful magical beings.

>3.5E "muh Wizards"
Go over onto the OSR thread and ask how many first level parties have killed the 13th level Wizard in Tower of the Stargazer.

>a discussion about game balance.

This isn't a discussion about game balance you cuck.

It's a discussion about which is the best edition of D&D.

D&D was never balanced. It will never be balanced. It wasn't MEANT to be balanced. It's a fucking tabletop RPG not Starcraft.

You martialcucks always bring your bullshit about how your gay Conan wannabes should be able to hold their own against Elminster even though it makes no fucking sense.

Just fuck off with your class balance bullshit. Go play fucking WoW or something where you can bitch about class balance on the forums all day long.

3.5 is incredibly unbalanced out of the box, but if you're aware that its unbalanced, and aren't a huge knob like (like and and and ), it's very easy to balance your character to the rest of the party.

Example: Whenever I play 3.5 with inexperienced players, and the party comp isn't lacking in anything, I play bad but flavorful classes. Even if the class is unbalanced, I know enough of the system to balance it. Hell, in one of my most memorable canpaigns, I ended up playing a half-decent Truenamer of all things.

This, by the way, touches on the single strongest suit of 3.5 that never gets mentioned: although the options may be unbalanced, almost all of them are unique.
What other edition lets you play an Ogre, or a Mindflayer? Where else will you find classes as mechanically diverse as the Binder, Totemist, or Warblade?
Hell, even all those underpowered and forgettable prestige classes that 3.5 is full of usually have some unique 1/day or 3/day ability that's unique or interesting.

Now, I'm not saying that this makes up for 3.5 being a clunky and unbalanced system. All I'm saying is that 3.5 has its strengths in its character creation in a way very few other RPGs match; I've played 3.5 over 10 years, and I've never played the same character twice!

Also, 3.5 is free, which is a huge plus

>deny that 5e doesn't support roleplay
>accept that 5e has mechanics that support roleplay but disregard it anyway
How do people make it past elementary school?

>If you choose to be useless, then that's entirely your fault. Not the game's. Nobody's forcing you to be a mundane sword-swinger in a game about hyper-powerful magical beings.

So why are they both presented as equally valid options?

Nevermind - you don't actually want to engage in any sort of thought.
Congrats on being an autismal moron, and a pretty crap troll too - we can all see it from a mile off. At least it vaguely approaches some form of entertainment.

Fine, then: Why is a warblade more powerful than a fighter, when they both swing swords at stuff? How is that 'realistic?'

our argument is literally "Well if you dont like it then just play wizard". Well, what if someone doesn't want to play as wizard? What about people who just really like role play and want to play a warrior type? Should they be punished to a life of complete uselessness after a few levels?

>So why are they both presented as equally valid options?
They are equally valid options.

Just not in terms of power.

Some people want to roleplay a fighter or a barbarian and that's fine.

Just don't expect to be as powerful or versatile as a wizard.

I can't answer that question as I no longer play 3.5 and I don't even know what a warblade is.

>Well, what if someone doesn't want to play as wizard?

Play a different game that isn't about casters then. You chose to play D&D, and you chose to play a class that the game rules and fluff don't support. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

I actually want to see what happens on this one.

No but they should just play a Warblade.

Warblades were one of the better classes in pic related

Why is warblade > fighter? how is that realistic?

Conversely, this is one of the things I most LIKE about 3.X. I actively dislike the idea that characters actually have to be competent in a field that they wouldn't be. A lifelong Expert chef who lives in a cushy city and gets roped into an adventure throughout the cosmos wouldn't be expected to handle a sword as well as a veteran duelist (at least not initially).

The idea that characters HAVE to be mechanically useful (particularly in combat) is just so constraining.

Now, obviously, not everyone will be happy with this arrangement and appeal to "fairness" or the idea that levels should be comparable between classes as well as within. But, at the very least, a system should be flexible enough to handle disparities. That was my problem with 4e and equal level-based attack bonuses for everyone.

You can still play a fighter but just don't expect to be as powerful as a wizard when you reach high levels unless you have some seriously badass artifact weapon or some shit.

Really how fucking hard is this to understand?

You are a man with a stick and you expect to be able to compete with someone who can manipulate cosmic forces? Just fuck off.

>warblade > fighter?
Because undefined source of powers. A fighter has his physical form, experience, and training. A warblade has that, plus Weaboo fightan magiks. Duh.

Because they have different media inspirations that are simply thematically different.

>two level 20 characters
>Well clearly they shouldn't be considered equal
...

>cuck
...
Ahem, anyway, from where I jumped in it was most definitely a discussion about balance, imbecile, and as balance is an important factor of gameplay it should be considered, you dullard, especially when trying to decide which edition to play, you assinine twit.

Oh right, I forgot how in the handbook it mentions wizards rule the kingdoms. Also all the DnD worlds share that. Also DnD stands for Wizards and Dungeons. My mistake, I tend to have narcaleptically cancerous alzheimer's lupus.

A Warblade has 12 HD, +4 Skill Points, better action economy, and is Int based. This means your fighter can have skills and professions outside of Perception.

You know all that cool creative shit, like knocking an enemies over with a blow to the legs. Warblades can do that out of the box thanks to maneuvers, which provide lots of in-combat utility and you don't pay out the ass in feats just to do your basic job. You have more options than just "I move I attack, and next turn I full attack".

Thematically speaking they're the same thing, it's just that a Warblade knows how to use his knowledge of fighting and tactics to hit his enemy where it hurts. His class features reflect this instead of making him a glorified NPC.

>Someone asks for criticism of 3.5
>criticism of 3.5 delivered, focused on lack of balance
>attacks critic, ignores point of argument
>point of argument restated and reiterated
>shifts goalposts, argues "realism" versus "balance", presents strawman argument
>Realises it's not an argument he can win
>Shifts the goalposts again to argument of "roleplaying" versus "balance"

How many more times would you like to dance around the topic at hand, present strawmen, and shift the goalposts? Would you like to actually address the concerns of the original criticism, i.e., the DM needing to perform mental gymnastics to make any non-wizard class useful/trap options/poor balance?

Please, do the world a favour and rid us of your lack of intelligence.

Imma ask this question a third time, because you seem to be ignoring it.

>Warblades his people hard with sticks, learning different and better ways to hit people (maneuvers) with sticks as experience is gained.
>Fighters hit people hard with sticks, learning different and better ways to hit people (combat feats) with sticks as experience is gained.
>Warblade is unequivocally better than a Fighter of equal level

How is this realistic?

they very clearly say that the weaboo figtan magiks are not actually magic, but purely mundane techniques gained from experience. Yes, even the ones with fire. Why is a Warblade's experience so much better than a Fighter's?

the media that inspired D&D had fighters wielding artifact swords and killing gods; they should absolutely be more powerful than they are now

It's obvious bait Veeky Forums, stop biting