Hey there /tg/. I've been playing CoC, Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, nWoD and Eclipse Phase for the past 3 years or so now, and I'm thinking about finally actually getting into D&D. Problem is, I don't know which edition to start investing in. 5e is the newest but I've heard it isn't as well made as the older editions, but I don't want to get into an edition that is so old that no one really plays it. Is 4e too limited like the owner of my local FLGS told me? What is pathfinder and 3.5e? Which should I choose?
>>44063555
4e's only sin was that it was different. It has no rules for roleplaying, because that shit should be logical and decided by the DM and the group. It does, however, have the most balanced combat that gives everyone a role and makes them good at it. You never have problems of the Wizard solving every encounter with a third level spell.
5e is new, and is at the very beginning of its production cycle. I like what I see so far, and some classes massive power in 3.x and earlier editions have been divided among subclasses to make them less all-powerful.
3.x is what most people will play because it was the edition that was out when they started playing. Pathfinder is the newest version of it. If you play with randoms or a public group or whatever, you will get lots of people who only want to play Pathfinder.
4e isn't that limited provided you have a good gm and the adventures aren't shit tier.
I'd recommend 5e though as it's the same basic chassis as 3.5 and pathfinder except strictly superior and more well designed. 3.5 and pathfinder are in many ways much more limited than 4e when it comes to how improv and the feat system interact.
The starter set for 5e is also a pretty damn fine adventure.
>>44063555
If your players enjoy tactical combat and deep character building, 4e. You can basically have all the material for PCs you could ever want through the offline builder, and has some of the best DM tools.
If you just want to get into the game as fast as possible, and just roll some dice at monsters, 5e.
>>44063555
>Is 4e too limited like the owner of my local FLGS told me
Not in the slightest. RP, skills, and the like are on par with older editions, and combat is a bit more engaging.
>>44063555
don't get into d&d the other systems are superior anyway.
>>44063555
>5e is the newest but I've heard it isn't as well made as the older editions
Are you kidding? 5E is the best edition since 1E. It's pretty much a no-brainer, get it.
>>44066038
>5E is the second-best edition. It's pretty much a no-brainer, get 4E.
Fixed that for ya.
>5e is the newest but I've heard it isn't as well made as the older editions
Did you hear that from retards? 5E is the best the game has been in ages.
My personal favorites :
1) 2E homeruled with a competent DM
2) 5E
3) 3.5
If your friends are wrinkling up their nose and want to play "the Dungeons and Dragons", they're probably talking about what is basically Pathfinder now.
>>44063555
5e is the best designed DND so far, in large part because it focused on streamlining instead of inovating.
Is this bait?
>>44066235
>5E is the second-best the game has been
Sorry, had to fix that one too. 4E is still best.
>>44066234
>>44066318
People like you are the reason 4E is shit and dead.
>>44063555
If you really want to know what sets the systems apart:
1st edition:
Quite silly although lovably oldschool. Weapons all do the same damage, but have different speeds. A lot of shit is illogical, and most monsters are crazy deadly and you will experience random deaths.
2nd Edition:
Still lovably oldschool, but it has a lot of nice additions, the classes feel different, and they are very well balanced around doing what they need to do. Campaigns from Level 1 to 10 are usually meaningful. And although the monsters are still crazy deadly, the combat is fun and survivable.
3rd Edition: The system is hugely imbalanced, and some classes feel incredibly weak, the monsters are still less deadly, although some of them have access to retarded shit. There are decent skills so a less persuasive player can play a persuasive character. The rules have a bunch of silly interactions that make min/maxing this system retarded. Combat from 3rd to 10th level is fun and engaging, after that it becomes a hugely complicated fuckfest of rules.
4th Edition: The system is balanced between the classes, when you choose your class, your role in combat is set. Combat is long and tedious, but incredibly simple rules-wise. Monsters aren't really a big threat so long as you don't fuck up hugely.
5th Edition:
I haven't played 5th edition a lot, so it's kindda hard to say a lot about it. The rules are streamlined, the monsters seem somewhat deadly, and there's interaction stats and character-building.
All in all I guess I suggest 2nd edition, but it's mostly because of the nostalgic feels I have towards it.
But better yet is to play a different system like Runequest, WFRP, Dark Heresy or somesuch.
>>44063555
If you need to find other players already familiar with the game, I'd suggest 5e. It's current, lots of people are playing it, and it's not the unbalanced, needlessly complicated clusterfuck that 3e/3.5/Pathfinder is. 4e is atypical for D&D and doesn't have the same sort of following the other modern editions do, so I wouldn't suggest it unless you're specifically looking for something a bit closer to a tactical wargame.
>>44066552
>Weapons all do the same damage, but have different speeds
What? No they don't. I think you're conflating OD&D and 1st edition AD&D.
Pic is old and doesn't cover 5e.
>>44066797
I've always considered 1st edition to be oD&D and 2nd to be AD&D, not realising the basic D&D in between.
>>44067471
>not realising the basic D&D in between.
Basic is more off to the side.
>>44066351
Man, someone sure is butthurt. Not to mention wrong.
Besides, I had to throw in my own subjective opinion since others were tossing out some very subjective comments about their own preferred editions. If you don't like me doing it, don't do it yourself- or at least spread your hate around evenly.
>>44066552
They fixed the math for 4E so combat is a bit more comparable to other editions now.
As for 5E, I've played and DM'd it a fair bit and it's not so much that the monsters are more deadly- well, I guess they are- but more that they scaled back on HP and Survivability from 4E to someting a bit closer to 3.5. It makes for a bit grittier experience, which a lot of people like, especially the first few levels. If you can survive long enough to gain a few levels, things seem to go a bit more smoothly for most characters.
>>44067524
I appreciate the chart!
>>44066797
Actually, there still is a pretty big following for 4E.
>All week long /tg/ has exactly one "I somehow managed to avoid knowing anything about any D&D edition. Tell me which one is the best teeg!" topics.
>Every time one rolls off another gets created almost immediately
>/tg/ never figures it out but never descends into the vitriolic hatefest that OP so desperately wants
Just give up OP. We're too good at this for your weak trolling skills.
