Edition Wars

This. If an ice cream joint manages to fuck up chocolate, then you really can't trust them with any other flavor.

Chocolate chip cookie dough master race. All others are inferior

YOU ALL ARE USELESS SHEEPLE.

SHERBERT IS BEST.

nah
sherbet is OK with chocolate syrup
otherwise fuck off

Can't anybody appreciate some good vanilla with chocholate chips spread throughout?

You must lead an exciting life.

Pig disgusting

Coffee is by far the best flavor

Cookies and cream master race.

More exciting than the people who think single-flavour chocolate is exciting.

Yoghurt is best

i play rune quest scaling hit points and class based systems are s%*T

Vanilla, because I like my shakes to taste like cake

GLASS OF WATER

CELERY STICK

>uncondimented celery

Mah nigga

fish scale ice cream, because i like my ice cream to taste like pussy

...

only one way to solve this. remake/finish Racial Holy War but with Ice Cream Flavors.

Milk, Vanilla Ice Cream, a relatively small amount of chocholate nesquick, and a raw egg makes a fantastic milkshake.

>Taking RPGs other than D&D seriously

LOL you must be lonely.

Operating under the assumption that everything from the LBBs and Holmes through the Rules Cyclopedia and the Challenger Series all belong under the broad umbrella of "OD&D" (because that's we actually called it before a bunch of ankle-biting munchkins decided they were going to finetooth everything and invented terms like "B/X" and "BECMI"), then of course OD&D is the superior edition. All of it—there's merit in each revision.

The late 70s booklets have a simpler form of AD&D material that's basically forward-compatible with the colored boxed sets, so you can pick and choose what you need. The Holmes set from '79 offers some cool alternate rules that were kind of lost with later iterations, but they really help to make clear what the '74 booklets mean. The '81 sets by Moldvay, Cook, and Marsh have the best presentation (to this day I use an '81 Basic Set at my table to start most campaigns). The sets from '83–'86 by Mentzer, Blume, &al. are perfect for that long-term, tiered campaign that you expect to go epic, and the Rules Cyclopedia is there as a reference lookup along the way. And the '90s OD&D boxed sets have some great one-session dungeon crawls with beautiful maps (Zanzer Tem, Haunted Tower, and Dragons Den are great… Goblins Lair not so much, but still useful).

2nd ed is the distant runner-up, only because splat-free, option-free 2e is almost as simple as OD&D.

0e > 2e > 1e > > > 5e > > > 3.0 > 3.5 > PF > > > 4e

was with you until raw egg. going along just fine until boom, completely stupid. i think we've spotted a 5e kiddie.

good man. though i actually like 3e just fine, too many people in the hobby are too autistic to not instinctively metagame and munchkin with all of its moving parts.

much more functional to have a simpler system that encourage good DM cultivation. the strength of TTRPGs over any other medium, (especially video games, as WotC forgot when making 4e) is that the DM can react to any situation that arises in real time.

The chocolate and ice-cream overpowers the egg, the egg makes a nice consistency though.

Really? In a fun joke thread, you couldn't help but spam your dumb meme?

Have you tried not being a shit?

Well, my ranking up there is kind of based on the way most players play each edition in my experience. But if we throw in a caveat, "core only, no splats", 3.0 at least does indeed jump way, way up in the ranking (it becomes better than 5e, even); sadly,3.5 has too much cancer baked in to enjoy the same benefit.

So allow me to revise:

= Core Only, No Splats: =

0e = 2e > 1e = 3.0 > > 5e > > 3.5 > > > PF > > > 4e

Of course arguing is pointless!
Because Mint chocolate chip is clearly the best.

Gold Ribbon. I can never fucking find it but it's my favourite hands down.

Add in cookie dough and you've solved the puzzle senpai

This guy gets it.

>Core only 3.0 jumps up
Is this the same Caster edition I love to hate, or is 3.0 redeemable?

>Posting rpg shit in an ice cream thread

Ben & Jerry's Americone Dream.

I don't even like Stephen Colbert or Ben & Jerry's, but my cat and I can't stop eating it. We're addicted.

Honestly, the Breyers port of reese's peanut butter cups is the best thing on the planet.

3.0 is as Caster Edition as anything else, especially because of the 3.0 version of Haste. You didn't get an extra attack. You got an extra standard action. Most spells take a standard action to cast. Cast Haste on yourself, and now you can cast two spells a turn.

And the only possible reason to list 3.0 as better than 3.5 is if you hate the bloated library of 3.5 - 3.0 just wasn't around long enough to get the overwhelming library of stuff to wade through.

>4e is from a different dimension entirely from the preceding games which up till 2008 could be seen as a mechanical evolution from one to another. hate the focus on miniatures. hate the standard array default stat gen. hate that they made casters and martials mechanically near identical.

Looks like somebody has never played 2e or 4e even.

Especially the last part. "Martials and Casters are identical". Lemme tell you what you sound like OP as you say this:

"Because Starship Troopers and Lord of the Rings are both stories that involve war, battles, a faceless enemy we are meant to hate and are written primarily in english these two stories are obviously exactly the same."

Content is always 100% more important that structure OP. Always. You should never judge something based soeley on how they chose to structure it but rather on how the content of each power works.

Also "one guy gets something they can do infinitely with increment improvements while another guy has resources they can spend for instant effects that scale in scope and magnitude as levels progress" is a really shitty way of dividing things up under the pretense that it makes them 'unique' when it really doesn't.

Where all the Mint chocolate chip lovers at

>search "bunny tracks"
>0 results

...

And my axe

Only correct answer.

4E sucks because the powers are boring and samey both within your class and without, but had potential if they pared things down and/or expanded on things without the need for 12 class books and a subscription to keep things going.

>never played 2e

see the pic. eat shit. die.

>never played 4e

no shithead. differing fluff in abilities only matters if its reinforced by and reinforced a difference mechanically. most classes have some single die damage power, a way to move pieces out of turn, and or a minor buff/debuff.

at will, encounter, and dailies work the same for everyone. there is no meainingful difference between swinging a sword to deal damage and casting magic missile to get a ranged int attack.

ive played 4e with my old dm, we agreed it was fucking stupid. it was stupid that people could heal themselves through sheer force of will. it was stupid that you had an arbitrary number of times you could be healed by magic, even if it was the divine fucking power of the gods.

Bitch, strawberry is the best goddamned flavor.

Unless there's actual strawberry bits in there, I only want the fucking flavor.

>at will, encounter, and dailies work the same for everyone. there is no meainingful difference between swinging a sword to deal damage and casting magic missile to get a ranged int attack.

I never played DnD in my life, but I'm going to stop to ask this.

Why does it matter? If a Magic Missile spell does 3d4 for a wizard or a Rogue backstabs for 1d4+2d6+Modifier and both attacks deplete a foe's HP, why does it matter?

I have trouble with edition wars, because every edition I've played ended up significantly house-ruled. Stuff like the Oberoni Fallacy gets thrown around sometimes, but at my table "it can be house-ruled" is a perfectly legitimate answer, so long as the way to house-rule it is clear and easy. As a result, when I argue about editions on Veeky Forums neither side can meaningfully communicate with the other, because we're viewing games using different metrics. For me what is most important is not which rules are most usable out-of-the-box, but rather which system's core principles best capture the experience.

As for ice cream... Mango. Best ice cream ever.

Nah man, the objective best icecream flavour is a tie between Violet (the little purple flowers) and Pistachio Kulfi; which is an Indian icecream variant made with clarified butter.

If you have tried neither of these you cannot possibly hope to understand the sheer dimensions of icecream that exist beyond the run of the mill Ben and Jerry's dreck.

if everything is so mechanically similar to the point where the way they get used becomes identical, then you remove any sense of distinction between characters and abilities both at the table and in the game world.

why would anyone go off and spend a decade of hellish effort if becoming a wizard wont grant any more long term capability than spending a few summers learning to swing a sword?

this kind of stuff is why the variable xp for each level of earlier editions was so vital to the game balance.

leveling as a thief was super easy but you only had situational abilities and long term weren't that powerful.

playing a cleric was pretty easy short term and had long term strength, and was still kind of easy to level. but there were some restrictions on your weapons and what spells you had access to based on god.

playing a fighter was moderately difficult to level up, but you had an early advantage in equipment choices and more hp for survivability.

playing a wizard was hard mode. you were basically stepping up to the challenge of taking a chemistry major into a combat zone, but if you managed to get by on your shitty few spells and near zero hp to higher levels, you became unmatched.

you had to earn it, and each broad type of character had distinct abilities and differing goals and strategies both for the players and for the characters.

whoever put the bits in there needs to be drawn and quartered.

orange creamcicle ice cream is best ice cream

god damn you, now I want some.

There are so many good flavours user, why would you go for the three standards? You could get mint choc chip, coffee or a nut flavour. Those three are the best.

The wizard being shit at low levels and a god at high levels is fine if you're writing a story or playing a video game but I never liked it as part of a tabletop game that I was actually playing with other human beings.

>at will, encounter, and dailies work the same for everyone. there is no meainingful difference between swinging a sword to deal damage and casting magic missile to get a ranged int attack.

In that you roll to attack and hit a defense usually? Sure.

But like that's ignoring the hundreds of different subsystems and effects that work within the confines of those rules.

Fighters for instance have marking abilities that allow them to shift and attack opponents as well as abilities that mostly position themselves and enemies while dealing direct physical damage. They fight! They fight opponents head on.

Wizards meanwhile attack multiple opponents at a time in large bursts and area effects while also dealing status conditions. There are level 1 wizard abilities that let them make enemies attack other enemies, or turn enemies into useless frogs for a short duration. While also having traditional staples like magic missile (which fyi just deals automatic force damage and doesn't attack) and also fireball.

Arguing these classes are "the same" because they both have 2 at-wills, 1 encounter and 1 daily at level 1 is completely assanine. It's like arguing Mages in World of Darkness are the same because they each start out with 2 dots in arcana. They operate almost entirely differently.

To elaborate on this by your logic op all characters in Mutants and Masterminds operate the exact same way because all powers boil down to "hit someone and they make a saving throw".

Which if you were to actually argue that to anyone who'd actually played that game they'd laugh at you.

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that you've probably played 4e but I feel like the moment you realized there's a standardized form of attacking instead of an arbitrary divide your autism kicked in and you failed to comprehend anything beyond that.

Rainbow Sherbet.
Any mother fucker that says different should be hanged for heresy.

Coffee is my creamfu. That or spiced.

not him, but fuck it, I'll bite- if 4e is good, and that's the point you're defending here, I have a simple challenge for you.

Explain to me, without using a single meta reason, why Fighters have abilities that only work once per day. Explain why martial classes have abilities that are arbitrarily limited by the number of times per day, without turning this into a fucking anime where being physically strong BECOMES magic.

I got your back, egg bro. If your too much of a pussy to buy fresh eggs without salmonella use pasteurized whites.

Mint chocolate is tolerable.

I don't.

Just like I don't have an explaination for why Barbaians can only get really angry once per day in 3.5

If this is just such a HEINOUS CRIME that a game would limit martial abilities on a once per day basis that you can't let it pass under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE then well too bad I guess? You're entitled to your opinion even if I think it's a stupid one.

...

As underrated as cotton candy ice cream.

2e Grognard who hated 3e, but eventually settled on 4e as my hands-down favorite edition.

The reasons I hate 3e don't really need to be outlined, as everybody has already heard all of them. Just insert all those complaints, and then don't add the nostalgia that most players have from having started with either 3e or another OGLd20 game, and you get the gyst of why I hate it.

However, I LOATHE 5e. Basically, as far as I can see, they took every flaw from 3e, wattered it down just enough for it not to even be OTT funny, and streamlined character generation to the point that making a character (the one objectively fun part of 3e) was no longer a satisfying puzzle game. It's barely different from 5e, and I can honestly see any appeal it from the hypothetical perspective of someone who liked 3e, and since 3e was nothing I ever wanted anything to do with again, it just fell so flat as to not even be worth space on my HD.

I also think that's stupid, raging really should have been built as something with a cost/benefit analysis where using it is a tactical choice, rather than a "will I need it again later" choice.

As for the rest...

>roleplaying games shouldn't have functional fluff

This is a game built entirely on one concept- FUCKING ROLEPLAYING. If the game comes with rules that constantly take me out of the experience, forcing me to think about it in abstract terms like that, it's failing as a ROLEPLAYING game. You can enjoy your rollplaying all you want- I'll be back here, creating characters with histories and personalities, and actually engaging in the world.

man I don't see the appeal and I like 3e just fine. I mean, I'd prefer to play something else, but 3e is fine with me. But 5e... jesus, your first actual choice beyond where to put your stats and what class/race to choose comes at level three. Who the fuck does that? Never mind the pants-on-head retarded advantage system.

I like the fact that you can clearly see who the biggest faggots on this board are.

People like this.
or this
or this
and so on and so forth, who are being idiotic queermos in a goddamn ice cream thread.

The same reason the barbarian can only rage a certain amount of times per day in every edition.
The same reason the fighter can only Action Surge once a day in 5e.
The same reason the Monk can only Stunning Fist a few times a day in 3.5
The same reason athletes irl can only pull off amazing physical stunts in short bursts before resting.

Because when you take the body and push it above and beyond its limits, that shit is exhausting and doing it twice is beyond you.

>roleplaying games shouldn't have functional fluff

I never said that. I never once said that.

I'm saying that 4e like all editions abstracts things. It just does it slightly more than other editions. But that's a meta reason and thus would trigger you user so sorry for that.

>This is a game built entirely on one concept- FUCKING ROLEPLAYING. If the game comes with rules that constantly take me out of the experience, forcing me to think about it in abstract terms like that, it's failing as a ROLEPLAYING game. You can enjoy your rollplaying all you want- I'll be back here, creating characters with histories and personalities, and actually engaging in the world.

This is so fucking stupid that I don't even know where to begin. That fact that you're arguing that a fucking SYSTEM has to cater to every single niggling personal detail except for the ones that don't meet your arbitrary limits before you can "fucking roleplay" as you put it is baffling to me.

Roleplaying is the fucking easiest goddamn thing in the world. And you're ALWAYS thinking about things in the abstract terms of game mechanics. Even in 3.5. Even in fucking FATE. You put any amount of autismal focus on what you're ACTUALLY DOING and the whole "experience" falls apart because now you're not even thinking about roleplaying, you're thinking about all the ways the system fucking bothers you.

Fucking relax bro and just play the game and the roleplaying happens naturally. You don't need the system to be 1:1 analogous with everything in setting for you to just fucking think about things in the context of your character and act accordingly.

I like how you took
>roleplaying games sometimes have mechanics that don't simulate reality
and took it straight to
>If I have to think abstractly then its a rollplaying game and anyone who plays it can't give a character backstory

You might have actual autism.

5e still is and will always be closer to either AD&D or Essentials than 3.5.

>but... HP bloat!
AC and DCs don't scale as fast as to-hit by a long shot and you start with higher modifiers to hit, you deal a lot of damage each round as a party.

>5e is nothing like 4e!
Almost all the class abilities could be broken down and presented as cards: at will, encounter (short rest), and daily (long rest). No, you don't have the quality of content 4e eventually had but you have a variety of ways to build characters effective at a few things with a few combat tricks. 3.5 has literally none of that.

It's more accurate to say what 5e took from 4e you didn't like than trying to say 5e shares with 3.5. The combat is entirely different, the exploration and skill use is entirely different, the DCs are universally lower, there are things characters just can't do, magic items are not baked into the system, and magic casting is entirely different with only superficial similarities.

>Not appreciating the flavor of vanilla or French vanilla, which can be enhanced as the taste buds demand
Some of you guys are all right. Don't go to the local Amy's tomorrow.

>in every edition.
2e Berserkers don't have a daily limit, they just collapse in exhaustion for 1 round per round they were berserk.

Ravagers, however, have to make a save vs death magic or become penalised until they get an hour of rest.

>monk
>ki powers and shit

I'm pretty sure anything with monk can be fluffed away by that. Already said I don't like the barbarian rage thing though.

now, your argument. Let's look at some examples of Fighter dailies.

"Comeback Strike: A timely strike against a hated foe invigorates you, giving you the strength and resolve to fight on."
Hmm. Litterally gives you BACK strength. Nevermind that this is more about picking your time to attack.

"Villain’s Menace: You strike your enemy hard and hound him with skilled parries and stern reprisals."

Hmm, again, it's not about pushing yourself to physical extremes but about... skill? Huh, apparently being able to parry a few times and chastise someone is something you can only do a few times a day because of "physical strain". Besides, that would be covered under exhaustion rules. Or are you just a magical level of tired where you can't do that again today, but you can fight on normally without any negative effects whatsoever?

it's not abstracting things, it's adding limitations that don't have any relationship to what happens in the game world. Abstracting things is rolling a die to hit because you won't hit every time you attack and need a system to determine how likely you are to hit. If there isn't something for the concept to be abstracted FROM, it's not an abstraction. Or else you would have been able to point to the thing being abstracted in the first place. Moron. Now either point to what in the game world is being abstracted to create the dailies system, or admit you're fucking wrong.

also, I'm not demanding a game be 1:1 analogous, I'm demanding the game not put mechanics in front of me that have no actual relationship to how the world of the game works. You might as well have fucking invisible walls at that point.

There are many great flavors of icecream, but some are objectively terrible and should be purged.

>Or else you would have been able to point to the thing being abstracted in the first place. Moron. Now either point to what in the game world is being abstracted to create the dailies system, or admit you're fucking wrong.

The martial power source.

What is it? I dunno but it seems to give fighters some kinda supernatural ability.

And if you're gonna call that "magic" analogous to wizards despite the fact it operates differently and isn't giving fighters the ability to shoot fire from their hands and just enhanced strength, reflexes and power then well that's not my problem.

>Hmm, again, it's not about pushing yourself to physical extremes but about... skill?

Except every martial manuever is explained as reserves of physical might, openings, and stamina in Martial Power.

>Besides, that would be covered under exhaustion rules

Except exhaustion rules work by taking away healing surges because if you get too exhausted you die.

>you can fight on normally without any negative effects whatsoever?

...Except you're not fighting normally, you're fighting without being to do X power because you're too tired to do that same power again.

>I'm pretty sure anything with monk can be fluffed away by that

Fair enough. Knight's Challenge in 3.5 PHB2.

>"Comeback Strike: A timely strike against a hated foe invigorates you, giving you the strength and resolve to fight on."
Hmm. Litterally gives you BACK strength. Nevermind that this is more about picking your time to attack.

Getting your second wind is different from magically being able to to exert yourself to your fullest again. And since fighters aren't magic...

Like again, this models how actual athletes work. Now it's of course abstracted into powers to fit with the ADEU system, but encounter powers are short bursts that martials can pull off after resting while dailies are those Olympic level sprints. You don't see people doing that shit all day every day, do you?

>it's not abstracting things, it's adding limitations that don't have any relationship to what happens in the game world.
>If the game comes with rules that constantly take me out of the experience, forcing me to think about it in abstract terms like that, it's failing as a ROLEPLAYING game

So is it abstract only when it fits your argument?

Ah, so it's an anime, and not a swords-and-spells fantasy. Excellent. Then I can discard it because I have better games for playing an anime.

>so it's an anime

Yes it is. Now fuck off because nobody gives a shit about your opinion.

Okay, as a HUGE fan of AD&D 2e and 4e, I just have to disagree that there is anything but the barest pretense of a facade and a few shared terms in common with 5e and those games. The market wanted more 3e, wizards gave them more 3e.

>The combat is entirely different
The only difference, though it is signifigant, is a reduction in ensured OHK's. This changes the meta, for the better admittedly, but only slightly.

>magic casting is entirely different with only superficial similarities.
Did you honestly just say that the copy-pasted magic system from 5e is entirely different from 3e? Seriously,l did that just happen? Are you high?

>Anything involving supernatural martial prowess is an anime

Shit I need to get caught up on Boku no Odyssey and My Little Karsa Orlong Can't Be This Tsundere.

abstract != abstraction.

Abstract: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

Abstraction: the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events.

In other words, we're dealing with the IDEA of attacking, instead of the action of attacking(or, if you will, the EVENT of a person attacking or being attacked). How the fuck are you on the internet if you don't understand that different words have different meanings? If something is an abstraction, it is necessarily abstract, but not the other way around, just like all birds are not ducks but all ducks are birds.

Gilgamesh-kun is so bishie /)^_^(\

Right, so you are actually autistic.

As a 1e grognard, I didn't even like 2e. But what I really don't like is that they've never come up with a good way to provide a solo experience. Their red box solo adventure and gamebooks teased us, and then they never generated anything after that. To think that they have had an internet presence for twenty years now, and haven't made any meaningful attempt during that time to deliver any solo adventuring experience, is just ridiculous. When they launched 4e at the LGS, there were all these neckbeards standing around and no one would play the adventure with the guy, because they had -never- played the game with others. They bought the books and just imagined a game where they could play solo, and that's all they could do was imagine it, because this stupid fool company never did dick about it.

proof 2e had its shit together. if only the she bitch hadnt stripped out half orcs and assassins and started renaming demons and devils.

Ah, I see. Knowing how the english language works makes me autistic. Well, why don't you come back when you pass eighth grade and we can try again.

>2e Berserkers don't have a daily limit, they just collapse in exhaustion for 1 round per round they were berserk.

So what was stopping one from berserking the entire combat, collapsing for 5 minutes then getting back up and continuing the crawl?

>copy-pasted magic system from 5e is entirely different from 3e
They also kept at-wills and added slot-based spell scaling, so it's not 100% identical. 'Entirely different' is a stupid claim, though.

5e is still 3e version 3. After so many iterations, it would HAVE to be better.

nothing, in theory, but in 2e the random encounter tables were stronk, and sitting in one place for 5 minutes would almost certainly come with a new encounter.