Forums Home Forum Rules Achaea.com Lore Wiki Vote for Achaea! IronRealms.com
Home› Everything Achaea› North of Thera

Do you DnD?

245

Comments

  • AegothAegoth
    Nazihk said:
    4e is the best e.
    Yea.. best at being absolute shit, and the worst itteration of D&D ever. 5e is pretty solid, and fixes a lot of what made 3.5e broke. 
  • ShirszaeShirszae Santo Domingo
    edited October 2016
    I've always wanted to DnD online (DnD is not at all popular in my country, alas) , but people usually insist on using voice for these things, which results in me being unable to follow half the shit that is going down since english is not my first language, so I end up giving up most of the time because I can't understand anyone or need people to repeat stuff 25235 times.

    And you won't understand the cause of your grief...


    ...But you'll always follow the voices beneath.

  • SzanthaxSzanthax San Diego
    Shirszae said:
    I've always wanted to DnD online (DnD is not at all popular in my country, alas) , but people usually insist on using voice for these things, which results in me being unable to follow half the shit that is going down since english is not my first language, so I end up giving up most of the time because I can't understand anyone or need people to repeat stuff 25235 times.
    your grasp of the typed language is amazing... I feel you could pick up the spoken quickly.



  • TreyTrey
    Aegoth said:
    Nazihk said:
    4e is the best e.
    Yea.. best at being absolute shit, and the worst itteration of D&D ever. 5e is pretty solid, and fixes a lot of what made 3.5e broke. 
    You're wrong, but ok. We can all agree that 3.5 was mostly trash, though.

  • SzanthaxSzanthax San Diego
    whatever was around in 97 is probably what i played... i might still have a book or 2.



  • AegothAegoth
    Trey said:
    Aegoth said:
    Nazihk said:
    4e is the best e.
    Yea.. best at being absolute shit, and the worst itteration of D&D ever. 5e is pretty solid, and fixes a lot of what made 3.5e broke. 
    You're wrong, but ok. We can all agree that 3.5 was mostly trash, though.
    If you think 4e was good, I want some of what you're smoking. It is the most boring, uncreative hack and slash version of the game. But hey, to each their own
  • JukilianJukilian
    Pathfinder, anyone? :anguished: Technically not D&D but it has a freely accessible SRD etc.
  • SenaSena
    Trey said:
    Aegoth said:
    Nazihk said:
    4e is the best e.
    Yea.. best at being absolute shit, and the worst itteration of D&D ever. 5e is pretty solid, and fixes a lot of what made 3.5e broke. 
    You're wrong, but ok. We can all agree that 3.5 was mostly trash, though.
    As someone who's never played any edition, I liked 3.5e the best overall (haven't seen much of 5e though).
  • SarathaiSarathai
    Jukilian said:
    Pathfinder, anyone? :anguished: Technically not D&D but it has a freely accessible SRD etc.
    At this point, PF is as bloated as 3.5e, if not moreso, and has far more trap options.
    - (Eleusis): Ellodin says, "The Fissure of Echoes is Sarathai's happy place."
    - With sharp, crackling tones, Kyrra tells you, "The ladies must love you immensely."
    - (Eleusian Ranger Techs): Savira says, "Most of the hard stuff seem to have this built in code like: If adventurer_hitting_me = "Sarathai" then send("terminate and selfdestruct")."
    - Makarios says, "Serve well and perish."
    - Xaden says, "Xaden confirmed scrub 2017."



  • PuxiPuxi
    My only chance to play DnD was in junior high and my Bible thumping step mom found out and squashed it. Then I never got a chance to experience it. I feel like I missed out on it!
  • NazihkNazihk
    Aegoth said:
    If you think 4e was good, I want some of what you're smoking. It is the most boring, uncreative hack and slash version of the game. But hey, to each their own
    4e is, by far, the best at hack and slash combat and let's be honest here: combat is pretty much all you really need the system to handle though. Everything else can be handled by that "RP" stuff. 

    And on top of that 4e has all kinds of great things that other versions don't, like "Interesting things for Fighters to do" and "rogues that aren't just skillmonkeys" and "possibility of caster-less parties".
  • AegothAegoth
    Nazihk said:
    Aegoth said:
    If you think 4e was good, I want some of what you're smoking. It is the most boring, uncreative hack and slash version of the game. But hey, to each their own
    4e is, by far, the best at hack and slash combat and let's be honest here: combat is pretty much all you really need the system to handle though. Everything else can be handled by that "RP" stuff. 

    And on top of that 4e has all kinds of great things that other versions don't, like "Interesting things for Fighters to do" and "rogues that aren't just skillmonkeys" and "possibility of caster-less parties".
    All lies and brainwashing. 4e is ridiculously inflexible and boring. Your choices for skills ate insanely limited, plus the whole "you can only use this once per day/encounter" cripples gameplay. All creative outlets are destroyed by having to choose cookie cutter skills... the list goes on. I swear to god if I hear another rogue go "I'm gonna use Sly Flourish" again, I will shove a 3.5e maximized delay blast fireball down their throat
  • TreyTrey
    Nazihk said:
    Aegoth said:
    If you think 4e was good, I want some of what you're smoking. It is the most boring, uncreative hack and slash version of the game. But hey, to each their own
    4e is, by far, the best at hack and slash combat and let's be honest here: combat is pretty much all you really need the system to handle though. Everything else can be handled by that "RP" stuff. 

    And on top of that 4e has all kinds of great things that other versions don't, like "Interesting things for Fighters to do" and "rogues that aren't just skillmonkeys" and "possibility of caster-less parties".
    Everything here, basically. I'm sorry if you need mechanics to handle a conversation or RP.

  • JukilianJukilian
    edited October 2016
    Sarathai said:
    Jukilian said:
    Pathfinder, anyone? :anguished: Technically not D&D but it has a freely accessible SRD etc.
    At this point, PF is as bloated as 3.5e, if not moreso, and has far more trap options.
    Fixes a bunch of problems that 3.5e has though, from what I've heard.

    I like that it is openly available on the SRD and has so many options.

    Happy to change my mind if someone can introduce me to a D&D that's better!
  • SarathaiSarathai
    Jukilian said:
    Sarathai said:
    Jukilian said:
    Pathfinder, anyone? :anguished: Technically not D&D but it has a freely accessible SRD etc.
    At this point, PF is as bloated as 3.5e, if not moreso, and has far more trap options.
    Fixes a bunch of problems that 3.5e has though, from what I've heard.
    It... kind of doesn't. It purports to, but the problems are still there. Unchained was a step in the right direction, but they weren't really unchained that much.
    - (Eleusis): Ellodin says, "The Fissure of Echoes is Sarathai's happy place."
    - With sharp, crackling tones, Kyrra tells you, "The ladies must love you immensely."
    - (Eleusian Ranger Techs): Savira says, "Most of the hard stuff seem to have this built in code like: If adventurer_hitting_me = "Sarathai" then send("terminate and selfdestruct")."
    - Makarios says, "Serve well and perish."
    - Xaden says, "Xaden confirmed scrub 2017."



  • JukilianJukilian
    I've been enjoying it in any case. I've not played any of the mainstream D&D editions yet.
  • NazihkNazihk
    Aegoth said:
    All lies and brainwashing. 4e is ridiculously inflexible and boring. Your choices for skills ate insanely limited, plus the whole "you can only use this once per day/encounter" cripples gameplay. All creative outlets are destroyed by having to choose cookie cutter skills... the list goes on. I swear to god if I hear another rogue go "I'm gonna use Sly Flourish" again, I will shove a 3.5e maximized delay blast fireball down their throat
    What? How are "cookie cutter skills" any less creative than "I full-attack" or "I move and then attack once" or all the other 'exciting' options that you get in the other versions?

    And per-day abilities are both how the other versions handle the casters and why those casters are so ridiculously overpowered: since you only got X spells per day those spells had to be ridiculously powerful. So for most of the game the only job the fighter/rogue/paladin/ranger/monk/etc had was to mop up after the wizard save-or-sucked/save-or-died the fight into oblivion. And it didn't even take very long for that to happen; Sleep and Color Spray were owning fights from the very start and it only got worse from there. 

    Maybe none of this stuff mattered if you either didn't have casters or if your casters were playing suboptimally, but pretty much every 3-3.5 game I ever played fell apart after about L5 or so once the casters got going and everybody else said "Why am I even bothering to show up?"
  • KorbenKorben
    Nazihk said:

    So for most of the game the only job the fighter/rogue/paladin/ranger/monk/etc had was to mop up after the wizard save-or-sucked/save-or-died the fight into oblivion. And it didn't even take very long for that to happen; Sleep and Color Spray were owning fights from the very start and it only got worse from there.
    And that's why the early adventures were -long-, the early encounters were supposed to sap away limited use abilities (mostly spells, potions and scrolls) and punish players who used them up too liberally. The dynamic I experienced (in earlier editions, mind you) was the front-line fighter types doing all the work while the casters held on to their spells or used them very sparingly, all the time being grumbled at by said fighters.
  • NazihkNazihk
    That just reverses the problem; your casters flail with their miserable thac0/BAB while everybody else does things.

    4e is pretty much the only edition that tried to solve that problem and it did it by giving (almost) everybody abilities that work on the same system, so that nobody is ever left with nothing to do in a fight and everybody can participate. And the BEST thing it did, imo, is open up the character themes more. There are no mandatory classes in 4e. Want to run a group of soldiers that have zero magical abilities? Not only is it easy to do that, the group will actually be really strong all on its own without any need for the DM to keep dropping cases of healing potions around. 
  • AegothAegoth
    edited October 2016
    Nazihk said:
    Aegoth said:
    All lies and brainwashing. 4e is ridiculously inflexible and boring. Your choices for skills ate insanely limited, plus the whole "you can only use this once per day/encounter" cripples gameplay. All creative outlets are destroyed by having to choose cookie cutter skills... the list goes on. I swear to god if I hear another rogue go "I'm gonna use Sly Flourish" again, I will shove a 3.5e maximized delay blast fireball down their throat
    What? How are "cookie cutter skills" any less creative than "I full-attack" or "I move and then attack once" or all the other 'exciting' options that you get in the other versions?

    And per-day abilities are both how the other versions handle the casters and why those casters are so ridiculously overpowered: since you only got X spells per day those spells had to be ridiculously powerful. So for most of the game the only job the fighter/rogue/paladin/ranger/monk/etc had was to mop up after the wizard save-or-sucked/save-or-died the fight into oblivion. And it didn't even take very long for that to happen; Sleep and Color Spray were owning fights from the very start and it only got worse from there. 

    Maybe none of this stuff mattered if you either didn't have casters or if your casters were playing suboptimally, but pretty much every 3-3.5 game I ever played fell apart after about L5 or so once the casters got going and everybody else said "Why am I even bothering to show up?"
    Cookie cutter skills limit you to those skills alone, and in a lot of cases you can only use "awesome" abilities 1/day, which dramatically lowers options, especially since you can kick yourself in the foot by using a daily. By contrast, 3.5 and 5e allow players to use their skills in more creative ways not by limiting the amount of times they can use specific spells/abilities, and also allowing for a much more diverse pool of skills as well (classes in 4e get the shaft, because you can only have X amount of abilities available to you ever). As well, 4e skills are solely combat focused. There's no such thing as illusion spells, or any form of utility ability, which makes the RP and tone of 4e settings much less robust and vibrant. If I wanted to play a hack and slash, I'd load up Gauntlet Legends... when I play D&D, I expect more. 4e fails to deliver on many many fronts, and I'm glad that 5e came out to dig us all out of that miserable hole. But hey, some people enjoy mindless, boring campaign, I guess.

    Also, who plays campaigns without casters? That seems so dull :/
  • HoushiHoushi
    4E wasn't the best, but it did have diverse builds and it did actually have utility, illusion, and RP spells once a few splatbooks were released. The problem was feats were the thing everyone would most usually have the same of making it an illusion of choice, and there were way too many splatbooks by the time it was over. Monster health bloat in the early monster manuals was also an issue, but a DM could easily solve that.

    4E had a whole lot going for it if you loved min-maxing, and that alone will forever scar its name. The only stories someone who skipped it will hear about it is "Hey someone made a rebreather build dragonborn shaman/sorcerer hybrid sensate that could do X amount of damage per round consistently" or about the eternal arguments of RAW or RAI.

    5E is pretty much a full upgrade however, with the exception that it won't take long into a campaign before the pure warrior gets bored of how awesome the mages are if they are the type that already complained about that in 3.5E.

  • KadenKaden
    edited October 2016
    I played 4e and 5e but my gaming time is limited and I haven't been able to grab a DnD game in about a year or two or so, especially since my group is having tons of fun with the myriad Powered by the Apocalypse games being produced.

    I can also DM but am not my group's go to guy for that.
  • SzanthaxSzanthax San Diego
    I'm in love



  • SirrionSirrion
    @Siduri I wanna play...
  • DakloreDaklore
    None of that made any sense to me. Go figure. :-3
    image
    When Canada rules the world,
    things will be... nii~ice.
  • SenoskeSenoske
    edited October 2016
    Trey said:
    Achaea probably easier to do in something like Mutants and Masterminds to allow closer approximations of classes in. Also 5E is gross.
    I actually kind of disagree. 5e has made it leagues easier for people who have never played DnD to get into it and learn and enjoy it. Half of my current crew either hasn't played for ages, or never at all. The previous versions were a lot of more complicated mechanics that would have taken longer to explain.

    5e streamlined quite a few things and made some things less punishing. Which while for some older players make be a little irksome, for others, it has made it a little more enjoyable.
  • ReilochReiloch
    Nazihk said:

    And per-day abilities are both how the other versions handle the casters and why those casters are so ridiculously overpowered: since you only got X spells per day those spells had to be ridiculously powerful. So for most of the game the only job the fighter/rogue/paladin/ranger/monk/etc had was to mop up after the wizard save-or-sucked/save-or-died the fight into oblivion. And it didn't even take very long for that to happen; Sleep and Color Spray were owning fights from the very start and it only got worse from there. 

    Maybe none of this stuff mattered if you either didn't have casters or if your casters were playing suboptimally, but pretty much every 3-3.5 game I ever played fell apart after about L5 or so once the casters got going and everybody else said "Why am I even bothering to show up?"
    This is a huge problem with 3.x and the d20 system in general, but gets neatly avoided by other editions of D&D. 4th and 5th edition get around this by making casters and non-casters more-or-less equal in combat ability. 1e and 2e make up for the power gap by changing focus late-game to managing larger-scale stuff. Wizards might get to faceroll most encounters later on, but fighters get armies to lead and thieves get cartels to run and stuff. Which suited me just fine, since Birthright is objectively the best published setting :tongue: .

    [spoiler]Not that I run published settings. But I'll gladly take some kingdom management rules to cannibalize for my own stuff.[/spoiler]
  • JukilianJukilian
    This thread is doing wonders for my desire to play more Tabletop role-playing games :anguished: 
  • GarisGaris Ohio
    Reiloch said:


    This is a huge problem with 3.x and the d20 system in general, but gets neatly avoided by other editions of D&D. 4th and 5th edition get around this by making casters and non-casters more-or-less equal in combat ability. 1e and 2e make up for the power gap by changing focus late-game to managing larger-scale stuff. Wizards might get to faceroll most encounters later on, but fighters get armies to lead and thieves get cartels to run and stuff. Which suited me just fine, since Birthright is objectively the best published setting :tongue: .

    [spoiler]Not that I run published settings. But I'll gladly take some kingdom management rules to cannibalize for my own stuff.[/spoiler]
    Man I LOVED Birthright and Red Steel.
Sign In or Register to comment.