What is the best dnd edition?
I would like to run a campaign with a group that just wants to build a fort, paid for by adventuring exploring tombs/ruins.
>inb4 don't play dnd
[Spoiler]Sleep tight porker[/spoiler]
>>48162643
3rd edition has an entire sourcebook devoted to that. Stronghold Builder's Guidebook
>>48162643
focusing on the build a fort bit,
3rd edition had leadership as a feat that gave you an army of goons.
Second edition had it as a class feature for fighters.
pathfinder has ultimate campaign a sourcebook specifically for dealing with base construction that would easily work in 3rd or 5th edition, opinions on it are mixed.
4th edition made everyone mostly self sustaining and really didn't feel like you needed a party to do things.
5th edition is stripped down and simplistic, on it's own I would consider it the best edition.sleep tight porker
I hear 3e is not good though?
Hence why 3.5 came out.
Has to be some old school dungeoneering as well as fort building.
Adventurer Conquerer King is a D&D retroclone that has stuff like this built into the rules.
>>48162762
when people say 3rd edition they mean 3.5
also consider pathfinder, if your looking for something that's still supported and has some changes.
also also consider castles and crusaders if your looking for something more old fashioned but simpler
>>48162660
I /think/ 2nd edition had a Stronghold Builder's guide too, but I'm not 100% sure.
the older editions seemed to be based on the idea that around 9th or so level the game would kinda "zoom out" as the PC's become landed lords and whatnot, probaly from it's wargaming roots, but there never seemed to be that much actual support for that beyond fighters getting the equivilant of 3.x's leadership feat and attracting small armies.
>>48162643
Play one of the first two.
Third edition and beyond is for near-invincible superpowered fantasy superheroes flying across the world and performing hijinks.
If you want to explore tombs and build a fort you need to go oldschool.
>>48162643
>What is the best dnd edition?
No such thing.
If it is a fort you want, you should probably swing by /osrg/.
>>48162762
The rules in the stronghold builder's book is simple enough to adapt to any game.
>>48162643
I'd alos suggest /osrg/ and specifically Adventurer Conqueror King as a sysem. It focuses on every class creating a stronghold built in at level 9, as well as indepth rules for ruling a realm, mass combat, and well, advancing from an adventurer to conquering to ruling a kingdom, as the name implies.
>>48162643
>a group that just wants to build a fort, paid for by adventuring exploring tombs/ruins.
OD&D or AD&D 1e, possibly using Birthright too.
>>48162643
Pathfinder's Ultimate Campaign is their less bad book and does what you wish.
>>48162643
Addendum:
While there is no best edition of D&D, there is a worst.
Avoid 3.PF. Anything you might want from that system, another edition does it better.
>>48162762
I kind of think 3.0 is better than 3.5, 3.5 added some stupid shit like square horses.
>>48162643
Rules Cyclopedia
REIGN is way better for what you want to do, but you're dead set on d&d I guess.
>>48162643
The best D&D edition is Moldvay basic. All others are clunky shit, especially 3.x and Pathfinder.
The best system for base building, IMO, is Labyrinth Lord, a cleaned up version of Moldvay, with the sourcebook An Echo, Resounding. Labyrinth Lord also has the Advanced Edition companion, which lets you add back in some of the stuff from the Advanced line if your players want it, but without turning Basic fully into AD&D.
>>48162791
ACKS is also excellent, but its domain system is waaay more number-crunchy. It takes a lot more work to use than AER, so take that under consideration.
>>48163228
so much this.
No edition is "best", but 3 and it's derivatives are definitely "worst".
>>48162745
>really didn't feel like you needed a party to do things
4e was probably the most teamwork-dependent edition. What with the leader-defender-striker-controller thing and monster tactics.
>>48162643
1e and 2e are best for specifically fort-building, since it's a big part of how the game was made to work. Like, that's just the thing you do, you get to a high enough level and you get yourself a stronghold.
However, 1e and 2e have a lot of bizarre and arcanenot that wayrules. They're generally pretty functional, it can just be hard to get a grasp on them. Like, there's separate rules for if you want to lift a portcullis vs. if you want to open a door.
5e is a lot more streamlined, since everything's unified with the d20 mechanic that's standard to later editions, and it includes rules for building and maintaining a stronghold in the DMG, but the rules are very simplistic and just generally not fantastic. It feels less like you're building a kingdom than just having a place to dump your extra money since there aren't magic item markets.
Those are the editions where fort-building is covered in the core rulebooks. There's a supplement for 4e that includes hirelings and henchmen but I can't remember if it includes strongholds as well.
3e is awful.
3rd ed a shit
>>48162643
There is no best edition, because some of them are so different that a straight up comparison isn't really valid, and which one you prefer comes down to personal preference.
That said, it basically comes down to three: Moldvay Basic, 4E or 5E. In brief, Moldvay Basic is simple, 5E is more complex, and 4E is more tactical/gamey.
In regards to fort building, I don't think anything like that was ever covered in 4E, I think 5e has some simple rules for the costs of building and maintaining a fort in the DMG, but there's not much more to it than that, but Basic did have the PCs becoming leaders at higher levels as a built in assumption. As other have noted there are retroclones like Adventurer, Conqueror,King and Labyrinth Lord/An Echo Resounding that also do this.
>>48162643
What a cute dog
