What is the best bersion of D&D and why is it AD&D 2E?

While I do prefer it,
I did port over multiclass rules, and class kits for my setting.

I'm fairly hard to please though.

2e is a shit game with incredible writing. Take the settings you enjoy and use a better system of your choice.

It has great settings. I lOVE Ravenloft

but fuck Lorraine Willams and 2e's boner for making PCs glorified side characters for NPC mary sues.

more of a Basic kind of guy for retro stuff anyway

Because it set the foundations on which 5e would eventually be built.

Every edition sans 3.PF has their reasons for why you should play them.

OD&D has amazing settings.

4e has well written tactical combat and balance.

5e streamlines the experience for newcomers and features some of the best aspects of 2-4e.

I mean, there's something for everyone.

That's not red box basic

Yeah, between the two they pretty much cover what people would want out of D&D, unless you just really want 1e or 3.PF's specific formula (which a good number of people do).

>sans 3.PF
Depends--do you fold Fantasy Craft in with that?
I mean, there's something to be said for how characters are composed from a broad array of variables in 3.PF, even if 3.X and Pathfinder suck major league dick and were/are managed with 0 restraint (which just ruins the whole thing). And, at least at this point now that we're past the glut of 'use it for everything, ever', if someone favors 3.PF it's because they really dig that angle.

I feel like Fantasy Craft maintains that variance but manages to cut away the baggage, even if it's not my favorite system.

There are plenty of legitimately good D20 systems. Fantasy Craft, Mutants and Masterminds, 13th Age, all of merits which give them actual worth. I believe that he meant actual 3.5 and PF which doesn't stray far from it's targeted audience (3.5 fans).

I meant 3.PF specifically, not necessarily its derivatives.

Bard kit book blew my flute

Then you'd be wrong and just being salty.

The best version of D&D is Pathfinder because I'm a gigantic faggot

>mfw

motherfucking this, though

While I know you're not actually a Pathfinder fan and are merely poking fun at them, Pathfinder is undoubtedly the most faggot-friendly game I've seen. Their setting might as well be painted with rainbows, there's so much pro-LGBT stuff in it.

This

I'll use Dark Sun in damn near any system but a DnD edition.

>u mad

3.PFfags, everyone.

Huh, may I have an example? This is interesting.

Don't get me wrong, d20 is a cancer that brought forth the idea that 3.PF can be used for everything when it can't even sell the basic idea of heroic fantasy without the legwork of its legion of fanboys homebrewing away most of the bugs like a Bethesda drone but at the same time, there are in fact good games that were based around the d20 system, as mentioned by this user In truth, the reason why most 3.PF players are shit is the same concept that makes TCG players such a pain to be around, the sort of neckbeards who spend their every waking moment looking up deck coming up with builds while squeezing every advantage out of the vague and poorly written rules while taking their cheese build to their LGS just to show off how awesome they are.

It's not wrong but christ alive, having been on both ends of the screen with a power gamer and a rules lawyer in the party, the game turns from a fun romp through a collection of dungeons to a game where either the power gamer is ending encounters in one turn or the ends in a TPK because you put too many roadblocks to the power gamer's bullshit and it ended up spilling out to the rest of the party who aren't nearly as optimized.

And I know people are going to give me shit for it but seriously, it's downright impossible to construct encounters around a guy who can end them in one turn with the right spell and a guy who needs 3-4 turns, at least, just to kill one especially power creature that's around CR5+ while giving both guys shit to do that makes them feel equally powerful.

And no, anti-magic field doesn't work because martials depend on magic items just to remain relevant and anything that has access to AMF will likely just stomp them without much effort since all their bonuses would go bye-bye and the monster is likely stronger than them, even if they had access to their magic items.

3.5e because We are still on the same campaign as million years ago

Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch-user.

Hackmaster is a better version of AD&D 2e.

If only I could find someone to play it with.

Are you the "arguing in bad faith" guy?

Huh, may I have an example? This seems interesting.

I'd rather play Dark Sun using fucking Lasers & Feelings than any DnD ruleset.

>In truth, the reason why most 3.PF players are shit is the same concept that makes TCG players such a pain to be around, the sort of neckbeards who spend their every waking moment looking up deck coming up with builds while squeezing every advantage out of the vague and poorly written rules while taking their cheese build to their LGS just to show off how awesome they are.
Nah, powergaming has always been a thing. Yeah, 3.pf did amp that up and make it more annoying, but a lot of the hate for 3.pf adherents were the sepcial snowflake attitudes that railed against any and every restriction in the rules even existing (good drow, nonLG pally, racial restrictions, etc.), and the problem wasn't so much even that they didn't want to play with any restrictions, but that they wanted the rules to codify the lack of restrictions -- it was kind of the death of Rule Zero. Kind of tied up in this, you have people start describing characters as interesting or boring based solely on the character's abilities instead of what the character does...eh
tl;dr it was the beginning of a paradigm shift that annoyed a lot of people.

>Don't get me wrong, d20 is a cancer that brought forth the idea that 3.PF can be used for everything when it can't even sell the basic idea of heroic fantasy

See, here's how I know you're stupid.

This isn't something exclusive to 3rd edition.

Do you forget how people took 2e and used it for everything from space travel to post-apocalyptic desert survival to gothic horror? Do you remember the various tournaments held that included modules designed specifically to kill unoptimized players?

Please. You're trying to blame a system for problem players, and there's problem players (or really, just people who play differently than you do) in every single system you can find.

What's worse, is that you are so stupid, so ass-backwards, that you are willing to try and pretend the myth of "You can't use a system for anything outside of what's drawn in the books" has any relevance or meaning to people who actually play games.

I get it, you're a moron who thinks it's hard to work with a system or that it's somehow wrong to work with a system, and that's why you get frustrated when people easily find themselves enjoying as system beyond your limited understanding. That's entirely your fault, and nothing to do with your exaggerations.

Do us all a favor, adopt a trip, and stop pretending your endless shitposting is in anyway justified.

It's just someone buttmad who doesn't have an argument. Might even be a reverse troll trying to make D&D players look bad.

Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch-user.

>using the possibility of house ruling to defend the core system

That's like using mods to defend a buggy game.

And there's why you are are so stupid, so ass-backwards.

Pathfinder features furries, trannies, a succubus made of shit, and other forms of degeneracy.

It's like the writers started taking their ideas from furaffinity and deviantart, which makes sense considering the atrocious art, the inability to handle criticism, and the fact that most of the new shit is blatantly stolen from other popular tabletop games.

For christ sakes, there are augmentations now, as in ShadowRun augmentations, and they didn't even bother to change most of the names or the prices either.

>See, here's how I know you're stupid.
>This isn't something exclusive to 3rd edition.
Not him, but you do know about how 3rd caused and blew up d20 because of its copyright, right?

Oh look, it's eternally triggered bitch-user.

Oh look, it's a recursive butt-mad duo!

/pol/ pls go

A game with bugs isn't necessarily a bad game.

Would you rather play a great game that needs a few patches, or a mediocre game that runs smoothly right out of the box?

I'd reject your example as even remotely resembling 3.PF.

Bugs-wise, 3.PF is more like Superman 64: just about playable, but fucked.

And that's why I can call you out as being silly and a hyperbolic whiner.

What's next? The old lines about how all the people who played and still play 3.PF are somehow crazy while you are so sane?

What is it that you always say? Stockholm and sunk-cost?

Get over yourself.

Don't forget stuff like this.

>Do you forget how people took 2e and used it for everything from space travel to post-apocalyptic desert survival to gothic horror? Do you remember the various tournaments held that included modules designed specifically to kill unoptimized players?

I remember and rarely do they all take place within the same world.

IIRC, dark sun was a setting where wizards caused the end of the world through magic fuckery, ravenloft took place on a demi-plane where you weren't allowed to leave until you managed to kill Strahd, and the space travel setting, IIRC, was just a random shit crashing in the middle of a deserted mountain and wisking the party away to mars where you can breathe or some shit.

The point is, those settings never really took place within the greater D&D setting and were self-contained stories that didn't really affect the main story to a great extent.

It's not like Pathfinder where it expects you to accept not!Godzilla or Cthulhu being potential creatures to throw at the party without raising an eyebrow at how they all fit in with creatures like the Terrasque or fucking Beholders.

Also, isn't the necessity to use homebrews kinda missing the point of even having a system in the first place?

I mean, I could make up random rules that give context to the arbitrary numbers of our die rolls but at that point, am I really playing the game or am I just finishing what the devs were too incompetent to finish?

It's the same reason why I refuse to play Bethesda games, yeah I can mod it but I'd rather just play a game that's already finished and had most of its bugs removed before it hit retail.

Technically, isn't the NPC mary sue more of a setting problem than a system problem?
Though, I totally agree - many awesome settings that are bogged down with adventure modules and novels that make NPCs the stars. Best Dark Sun campaign I ever played in began with us as other gladiators in the pit in Tyr during the attempt to assassinate Kalak - which fails utterly, the book heroes all die, and we escape in the confusion.

Most people who bring up 3.PF only do so for three reasons.

1) To talk about their builds or some exploit in the rules.
2) To talk about how shitty it and its fanbase is
3) To talk about their homebrews which are mostly unbalanced, poorly written, or both.

If you deny this then you haven't been on the 9th circle of hell that is Paizo's forums.

I started with 2nd Edition. I mean, yeah, I *owned* the Red Box, and read it first, but by the time I was actually running games, I had ADnD, because it was ADVANCED! (I was, like 12.)
It was...okay.
When I talk about 5E, one of the positive things I say about it its 'this feels like what I thought I was doing with 2E'. Don't get me wrong, 3 and 4 are both fine, and they're both still DnD, but my experiences with them were very different, while 5th feels a lot closer to 2nd. To me, at least.

I'd rather have a game where I don't have to download a dozen or so mods just to get an enjoyable experience out of it.

I mean, can you really call something "great" when its so poorly optimized that the fun comes to a screeching halt anytime you accidentally trigger an event where your character gets launched into the air just for touching a boulder?

Especially if you boot up the game and find out that it deleted your save file after 100 hours of gameplay.

Oops.

Anyways, I'll take a smooth running mediocre game than a poorly optimized game that might be great later.

>or a single horse
Friend lost half a tit to a horse bite. Breastfeeding adult horse sounds like particularly bad idea.

That's like, your opinion, man.

An opinion not shared by most people.
When will you comprehend that your tastes are not objective truth?

People have shit taste, news at 11.

Behold, the Hypocrite, in his full splendor and regalia.

Hail ye, hail ye.

What does its apparent popularity have to do with anything I said in my post?

I mean, CoD's popularity doesn't make its fanbase any less shitty or its gameplay any less mediocre with each subsequent title.

And apparently people are starting to get wise to 3.PF's bullshit considering how 5e seems to have more than twice the number of games as Pathfinder and four times the number of 3.5 while also boasting the most players by far.

What you seem to think is that the game is inexcusably broken and terrible and that only idiots would play it.

That puts you on a plane where we can't even talk about the game anymore. You don't see it for what it is, or understand what made it popular, or why people played it, continued to play it, or returned to it.

It's "apparent popularity" is to remind you that it's nowhere near as bad as you have convinced yourself it is. If you're willing to say that the 2nd largest fanbase is entirely composed of idiots all because you don't agree with their tastes, then you're simply so set in your opinion that you honestly believe your subjectivity borders or encompasses objectivity.

You don't like it. That's nice. But, you don't want to actually discuss the game, all you want to do is complain about it, and that makes you a hyperbolic baby not fit to be conversed with.

What merits does 3.PF feature that makes it a good game, in your opinion?

Because popularity is not enough to call a game good, especially in an age where "Twilight" and "50 shades of Gray" is mentioned in the same breath as Harry Potter as one of the best books of all time.

It is good because it is good because fun things are fun. If you disagree you are contrarian hipster trash that is not fit to be conversed with.

Why is it good and fun?

What qualities make it enjoyable to you?

I found it to be an excellent successor to 2e, with a firmer foundation for its mechanics and a wealth of material that could be readily adapted to an incredible diversity of games.

While I can agree that it's dated and that there's other games I prefer playing now, that doesn't stop me from recognizing that it was a mechanical step up from a great game and laid the foundation for other games to develop from it.

I feel that it was a step backwards from 2e but I think that has more to do with WoTC not being as experienced as they are now.

I still consider 5e to be the best in terms of the modern D&D editions and that's mainly because WoTC had years to sit back, consider their options, and take the best aspects from 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition to create a system that's streamlined while simultaneously featuring content that pays homage to D&D's history.

If you need to add mods to make the game enjoyable, then it's no better than the mediocre game.

Besides that, patches are not mods. Patches are more akin to errata while mods are more akin to homebrew.

If your homebrew has to fix the flaws in the game (a fan-made bugfix, for example) rather than add stuff that you think would be fun or suiting it to fit your tastes (a hunger sub-system, for example), you're playing a bad system.

It updated an increduble amount of archaic mechanics, helped establish many of the conventions we now take for granted, and while it also included some neccesary (and unneccessary) complexity and strictness that's not quite everyone's taste, it formed the bulk of the rules that 5e was carved out of.

If you need to add mods to make the game enjoyable, then it's no better than the mediocre game.

Besides that, patches are not mods. Patches are more akin to errata while mods are more akin to homebrew.

If your homebrew has to fix the flaws in the game (a fan-made bugfix, for example) rather than add stuff that you think would be fun or suiting it to fit your tastes (a hunger sub-system, for example), you're playing a bad system.

Such as?

3.5, at best, had some good ideas (d20 + modifiers vs AC instead of d20 +/- enemy AC + modifiers vs THAC0), but the design of monsters, character creation options, and combat were all very poor (especially combat maneuvers). It was on the right track and with more playtesting and work put into it (say, if 3.0 came out in 2002 instead of 2000), it probably would've been a lot better.

I think part of the reason why 3.5 is still shit is because it had to keep a modicum of compatibility with 3.0, otherwise it would've become 4e and everyone would've flipped their shit.

Every Pathfinder game I've encountered has been the biggest fuckfest you can imagine. In the last game, three players were vying for the glory of TPKing the entire party and Henderson'ing the game at the same time. The guy who succeeded got the turniphead DM to allow him to play as a medusa with an illusionary disguise and anxiety problems. As soon as the party opened the door of the inn, the player had his character have a panic attack, dropping the disguise and forcing everyone to save or be turned to stone. Some of the party made their difficult saves, but it didn't matter because the DM's important plot device critically failed the save, fell over, and shattered into a million pieces. And the DM thought this was the best, and told us to make sure to roll up well thought out characters to join the party with robust backstories so we could get turned into this guy's statue fuck fetish.

Classes leveled up in a uniform fashion and were expanded, saves became more sensible and more natural, monsters were dramatically improved and combat in general was given more mechanical support with a lot of old wargame holdovers removed, dice notation, spells were updated and given more rulings to prevent certain exploits, less reliance on charts, and the obligatory nod towards THACO, for starters.

>Henderson'ing

The fact that you use that as a phrase makes it clear that you are easily the worst player in that group, and it's no surprise you can't find better players because you're just a sack of shit wondering why he gets flies.

Absolutely beautiful yet simplistic splatbooks. I used to have one of the supplemental spell books in hardcopy, and I fondly recall how it just looked "right". Gorgeous cover, interior dedicated to rules and shit.

Can't find an image of it, for some raisin.

>Classes leveled up in a uniform fashion and were expanded

Yet it caused a problem due to the fact that a level 20 wizard leveled up at the same rate as a level 20 Fighter even though they are much more powerful and have much more options available to them.

>saves became more sensible and more natural

Yet most saves attached to the most devastating effects required Will saves, assuming the effect even allowed you to make a saving throw at all.

>monsters were dramatically improved

Not really, the CR system was garbage and the monster scaling far outstripped the attack bonus of most PCs.

There's a reason why straight damage is considered the worst way to deal with an encounter.

>combat in general was given more mechanical support with a lot of old wargame holdovers removed

Quantifying every single aspect of what your character could do is part of the reason why martials ended up losing their niche.

In OD&D, a Fighter was expected to fight a hoard of enemies on a rooftop in the middle of a rainstorm and reasonably hold their own because they were heroes and heroes can perform admirably well even in the most trying of circumstances.

Nowadays, the fighter would be taking penalties for fighting in the dark, the rooftop would be considered difficult terrain, and he'd only be able to make one hit if he moved more than 5 ft. beforehand while his opponents can just gank him thanks to flanking and the way the action economy works now.

Meanwhile, wizard man can cast a spell and suddenly the enemy is either losing the battle or just outright dead.

>spells were updated and given more rulings to prevent certain exploits

Yet at the same time were also buffed due to most of the bullshit that plagued OD&D casters like anti-magic and losing spells due to damage were either removed or nerfed so that they were a minor inconvenience that could be sidestepped with a simple feat or two.

>less reliance on charts

Charts>Flowcharts

Anyways, that's my refutation.

I'd rather play this
And bolt on bits from Advanced as needed.

Though 2e was certainly a high water mark for art and fluff, and always triggers a huge nostalgiaboner. I only realized about 20 years later that I'd been hacking rules off 2e to make something like B/X.

Yeah, the emergence of digital layout made a lot of game books into ugly horrors for a few years.

And 2e's campaign settings were usually written to spark your imagination rather than act as a vast encyclopedia.

I hate PF but your story has nothing to do with the game system.

>The fact that you use that as a phrase makes it clear that you are easily the worst player in that group

I think the morons intigating TPK's and derailing the campaign on purpose are infinitely worse than the guy who referenced an old meme from back when Veeky Forums didn't get butthurt over every little greentext story being "unrealistic."

I mean, who hasn't heard of fucking Old Man Henderson at this point?

That's not refutation, that's you offering your opinions. Do you not yet understand the difference?

You can literally shitpost about ANYTHING. Your entire post is basically just nitpicking, exaggeration, and off-handed complaining, like someone offering you a Ferrari and you need to comment about how it only sits two people.

Most of your complaints are really just the same old oft-repeated myths that rarely inconvenience people who actually played the game, applied tangentially because you are so firmly set on proving that you can complain about anything.

That's why it's pointless to discuss things with you, and tedious as well.

>These objective facts are myths!
>STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT MY WAIFU SYSTEM!

One time I was playing PF with friends, I got accused of meta-gaming because my character wanted to perform research on a megalodon that almost sank our ship.

Like excuse the fuck outta me for wanting to learn more about the monster that almost killed us and shit.

Not every THAT GUY is necessarily linked to 3.PF but a disturbing percentage of them do exclusively play 3.PF.

What parts did you consider "myths"?

He gave a you a couple objective facts about what had changed to tell you why it's actually not better than 2e. Chill the fuck out.

>Not every THAT GUY is necessarily linked to 3.PF but a disturbing percentage of them do exclusively play 3.PF.
The problem is, PF as a system promotes too many bad habits that end up breeding power gamers, rules-lawyers, and other forms of THAT GUY because of the way the game is designed.

If it was simply a matter of taste then there wouldn't be that much of a problem, there are equally bad systems that one could play that don't have any basis on me or my group's enjoyment.

it's just that so much cancer has been spawned from 3.PF as a whole, from the idea that only casters can be relevant, to the idea that each system requires months of study to "master," to the idea that you can only do what's written on your sheet and only perform it as it's written, to the idea that alignments are something that's not only objective but something that governs every aspect of how your character interacts with the world around them.

I've run games with hardcore 3.PF faggots and been in games with hardcore 3.PF faggots and the result are the same, no matter what system they're invited to play.

They build outrageous characters that are practically invincible for the level they're at, incite squabbles because of a combination of "invincibility" and alignment, force the GM to choose between challenging him and challenging the rest of the party, and if they're ever put in a difficult spot, they bitch and moan and cry because you had the nerve to actually find a hole in their flawless character build.

There's a reason why people don't bother going to /pfg/ anymore, and there's a reason why people have developed a hatred to players who only exclusively play 3.PF.

Not every THAT GUY started with it but damn if a large majority can be traced back to it.

I'm happy that my copypasta is making rounds.

It's all just retarded whining though, relying on a variety of myths perpetuated by people who really are nothing but shitposters who earnestly think there's something wrong with playing 3.5.

These are the same people who would have complained about 2e when it was past its height, and these will be the same kind of people who will complain about 5e once its past its height, if they're not already complaining about it now despite the tide being currently against them.

It's all just the mindless whining of the loser dogs in the kennel, licking each other's wounds.

It's good, solid, and unlike a lot of copypasta's, not just trolling nonsense. It's actually true, and sums up a lot of the issues quickly and succinctly.

Ok, then, enjoy playing the Monk in a party of a Wizard, Druid and Cleric.

Do you understand what "objective" means?
Objective does not mean "based on opinion", which is largely all that he offered.

You can go down the list and say either "no, that's not an issue" or "that's just your opinion" or even just "what did you go off on a tangent instead of addressing the actual point that was brought up?"

You act like that's difficult.

Have you honestly never actually played the game, and simply decided to live your life regurgitating the same shit the other haters have been spewing back and forth between each other?

It's just a myth you shitposters try to cling to justify your shitposting.

If you're really so noble, do us a favor and wear a tripcode to show how proud you are. Let us shower you with the praise you deserve.

Calling something you disagree with an opinion doesn't work when it can easily be proven true or false based on the rules of the system being discussed.

For example,

>rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/13/optimizing-a-dd-3-5-monk

Until you adopt a trip yourself, I'm just going to call you "argues in bad faith" since all you're doing now is calling things you don't like "trolling" like a teenager on deviantart.

Nah. I'm going to keep posting like this, so you, my brain damaged little retard, can't lock yourself in your 3.PF hugbox.

> can easily be proven true or false based on the rules of the system being discussed.

Really? You think you can prove those opinions?

What's that? A link to a character optimization forum? What does that prove?
Really. Go on. Tell me something. Tell me about your opinion, and how you think your opinion is somehow fact.

Please, you retarded shitposter. Explain to me what you're trying to prove objectively, how you plan to prove it, and how it has any relevance to what we're talking about.

I might as well help you out now, and explain that whatever you're going to offer, I'm just going to explain why it's an opinion and not a fact, and watch as the air leaks out of your tires, because we are deep, deep in the realm of subjectivity, a place you are apparently unfamiliar with despite having been drowning in it.

You know, your father still will never love you, no matter how much you shitpost.

And no matter how much you defend it, 3.PF will never marry you.

>I'm so fucking stupid, I legitimately think the monk is a good class

Okay "argues in bad faith," I'll bite.

The character optimization forum has several reasons for why Monk is a poorly designed class.

In a nutshell, nothing about the monk class synergizes with itself.

It has a speed boost that it can't use because FoB can only be used if you're already standing still.

It has improved unarmed damage but it improves too slowly to really be useful.

Most of the monk weapons are either poor or are outclassed by better martial weapons.

Its unarmed AC doesn't scale well due to the fact that it's much easier and affordable to just buy armor than to buy an item that increases your DEX and/or WIS.

And that's really the tip of the iceberg.

Keep in mind, Monks used to be one of the best classes in the game but now?

Literally the worst class you could hope to play, even Rogues get more action, and this can be proven objectively due to the rules itself stating what a Rogue can and cannot do.

Are you telling me that I can't have fun playing a monk?

Go on. Do it. Tell me I can't have fun playing a monk.

Tell me that, objectively, I need to care about anything you wrote. Go on. Tell me I need to care about your little grievances as if they're gameshattering.

"Argues in bad faith," here's the thing, they are game-shattering if you are someone who to play an unarmed character modeled after Jackie Chan or Goku.

I'm not going to say that you can't have fun playing a monk but I will say that the monk has a shitload of mechanical issues that prevents him from contributing equally to the party in comparison to the casters or even other martials.

I also love how you downplay objective flaws as "opinions" while trying to throw your own opinion into the argument as if that has any basis on what's happening.

God, what a fucking faggot you are.

How do you have fun when you are objectively worth less then a class feature? When there's nothing you can do to actually matter?