Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Recent Dungeons & Dragons editions: Why all the hate?

Why many AD&D fans are so butthurt about the newer editions? I understand 4th since i dislike it too, but third and fifth editions are pretty good in my opinion.

«1

Comments

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    Partly because new editions means new content for your favourite edition is no longer being produced.

    But mostly it's just because a large portion of RPG players are nerds and nerds love to get hung up on and argue about stupid shit and/or have trouble understanding that just because somebody else likes another thing better that doesn't make the thing you like worth less.

    sarevok57DragonKingNonnahswriter
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited September 2015
    There isn't all that much hate for 3rd and 5th editions. There is some nostalgic attachment for 2nd edition, but that's not the same as the hate for 4th edition. The reason for which is simple: 4th edition was awful.

    The transition from 1st to 2nd edition was fairly painless because there wasn't much change in the core rules. It was more like the 3.0 -> 3.5 -> Pathfinder transition.

    I think the concern with 5th edition is it isn't well resourced at the moment, and is very difficult to get hold of outside the USA, leading people to fear for the financial viability of the publisher, and hence future support.

  • ShapiroKeatsDarkMageShapiroKeatsDarkMage Member Posts: 2,428
    I think is partly because of the multi-classing in 3rd edition that allows you to create overpowered characters. Not to mention the fact that some creatures from the monster manuals can become player characters.(this is absent in 5th edition though)

    Squire
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    Fardragon said:

    , but that's not the same as the hate for 4th edition. The reason for which is simple: 4th edition was awful.

    It wasn't, though. It was different.

    Well, the changes to the settings were terrible, but the game mechanics themselves were sound. It's main problems seem to have been that 1, all the classes were too samey, and 2, that it lacked the DnD atmosphere.

  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,769
    I'm an old school player from the 1st edition day and 3.5 is my hands-down favorite. It simplified the rules without dumbing them down, brought a much better dual-class system and had rules for adding class levels to any intelligent being.

    I can't say anything about 4th and 5th editions, I never looked at them.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    scriver said:

    Fardragon said:

    , but that's not the same as the hate for 4th edition. The reason for which is simple: 4th edition was awful.

    It wasn't, though. It was different.

    Well, the changes to the settings were terrible, but the game mechanics themselves were sound. It's main problems seem to have been that 1, all the classes were too samey, and 2, that it lacked the DnD atmosphere.
    It was neadlessly and pointlessly different, to the extent that is was no longer recognisable as DnD. The rules may well have been perfectly viable as a PnP RPG, but there was no more reason for experienced players to adopt them than to switch to GURPs, Runequest, Tunnels and Trolls, or any other completly different different fantasy RPG system.

    Combining that with the perfect storm slaughtering the campaign setting, a pissed-off Paizo and the open source D20 licence and it was a recipe for corparate sucide.

    Wandering_MinstrelShapiroKeatsDarkMage
  • BelanosBelanos Member Posts: 968
    BillyYank said:

    I'm an old school player from the 1st edition day and 3.5 is my hands-down favorite. It simplified the rules without dumbing them down, brought a much better dual-class system and had rules for adding class levels to any intelligent being.

    I'm in the same boat as you. I prefer 3.5 over the previous versions, but haven't tried 4th or 5th yet. Mainly because I'm not a table top player, so if a system is not incorporated into a computer game I don't get to try it out. I don't believe there was any cRPG made using 4th edition, and the only 5th edition game I know of hasn't been released yet.

  • AlmateriaAlmateria Member Posts: 257
    Nerds are really, really bad at coping with change.

    ShapiroKeatsDarkMagescriverNonnahswritermeagloth
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    I can't speak for all geeks, but I think that the 70's and 80's had the best Fantasy movies/settings/concepts. Anything that is too far away from that makes me a little judgemental.

  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512

    I think is partly because of the multi-classing in 3rd edition that allows you to create overpowered characters.

    Yep, that's my biggest beef with 3rd edition...not just the multiclassing but some of the feats/prestige classes encourage that. The whole of 3rd edition seems to be designed with powerbuilding in mind, and someone who knows what they're doing can create some ridiculously powerful characters that can easily steamroll over large numbers of monsters several levels above themselves. The other side of that is someone who doesn't know what they're doing can end up with a horribly weak character that can't stand against a single monster of their own level. It makes powerbuilding necessary.

    I haven't played enough 5e to really comment, but tbh, I'm going off D&D in general. I don't think it's a very good system, and I think it's only the brand itself that makes it te most popular. Give me Warhammer FRP 2e over any version of D&D any day.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    Yes, I noticed a lot of the tweeks in Pathfinder seemed to be aimed at stearing players back to single class characters.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    I'm an old school 1-Advanced/2E player myself. I eventually got to like 3.5E, but it was a long haul. To this day, the biggest complaint I have with 3.5E is HiPS, but that's an argument for a different time. I am also not fond of the ADHD approach to classes and the fact that EVERYONE and their grandmother was a spell caster of some description, but that too is for another discussion.

    I never played 4E, but everything I heard and everything I read suggested that the changes were mainly in aid of the belief that CRPG gaming was the future. The system was altered so that it was more easily translatable into computer gaming (I am merely reporting what I read, not what I know to be the case). In that, I think they ended up changing it beyond what players were willing to accept (for good or evil).

    I don't know much about 5th edition, so I won't comment on it. I've heard people like it, but do not know if they like it 'in comparison with 4th edition' or simply because it is a good game.

    Given my choice, I'll play 2E first and then 3.5E.

    SquireHaHaCharadeLadyRhian
  • HaHaCharadeHaHaCharade Member Posts: 1,593
    edited September 2015



    Given my choice, I'll play 2E first and then 3.5E.

    Its always been my hope that BG and IWD would get people into 2E again! Yeah some stuff in 2E is broken (many of the kits, a lot of specialty priests) but the core system is sound... and specialty priests are just fun, let's be honest. You add in Non-Weapon Proficiencies, to go with Weps, you got a great system that lasted for many years and is still very playable.

    dunbarLadyRhianthe_spyderAerakar
  • ShapiroKeatsDarkMageShapiroKeatsDarkMage Member Posts: 2,428

    I'm an old school 1-Advanced/2E player myself. I eventually got to like 3.5E, but it was a long haul. To this day, the biggest complaint I have with 3.5E is HiPS, but that's an argument for a different time. I am also not fond of the ADHD approach to classes and the fact that EVERYONE and their grandmother was a spell caster of some description, but that too is for another discussion.

    I never played 4E, but everything I heard and everything I read suggested that the changes were mainly in aid of the belief that CRPG gaming was the future. The system was altered so that it was more easily translatable into computer gaming (I am merely reporting what I read, not what I know to be the case). In that, I think they ended up changing it beyond what players were willing to accept (for good or evil).

    I don't know much about 5th edition, so I won't comment on it. I've heard people like it, but do not know if they like it 'in comparison with 4th edition' or simply because it is a good game.

    Given my choice, I'll play 2E first and then 3.5E.

    5th edition its pretty good in its own right. Its like a mixture of 3e band AD&D, without the annoying strict rules.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018



    Given my choice, I'll play 2E first and then 3.5E.

    Its always been my hope that BG and IWD would get people into 2E again! Yeah some stuff in 2E is broken (many of the kits, a lot of specialty priests) but the core system is sound... and specialty priests are just fun, let's be honest. You add in Non-Weapon Proficiencies, to go with Weps, you got a great system that lasted for many years and is still very playable.
    I think the reason I don't see as much "Broken" about 2E (other than an admitted predilection towards seeing the system through rose colored glasses) was that most of the players in our group were not power gamers. What's more, our DM new how to balance the game play such that even if one player got "An advantage", the role play adventure pretty much evened things out.

    I played a 5th level Wizard in a party that was predominantly 8-9th level and never thought twice about it.

    It all comes down to (in my subjective view) who the DM is and how they handle the game. Unfortunately, enter the age of computer gaming (which I thoroughly LOVE) and all of the sudden "Balance" becomes an issue. Ah, well. Such is life. But I do share your hope that games like BG and IWD would bring back some of the classic D&D as I remember it.

    KurumiatcDave
  • ShapiroKeatsDarkMageShapiroKeatsDarkMage Member Posts: 2,428
    edited September 2015



    Given my choice, I'll play 2E first and then 3.5E.

    Its always been my hope that BG and IWD would get people into 2E again! Yeah some stuff in 2E is broken (many of the kits, a lot of specialty priests) but the core system is sound... and specialty priests are just fun, let's be honest. You add in Non-Weapon Proficiencies, to go with Weps, you got a great system that lasted for many years and is still very playable.
    I think the reason I don't see as much "Broken" about 2E (other than an admitted predilection towards seeing the system through rose colored glasses) was that most of the players in our group were not power gamers. What's more, our DM new how to balance the game play such that even if one player got "An advantage", the role play adventure pretty much evened things out.

    I played a 5th level Wizard in a party that was predominantly 8-9th level and never thought twice about it.

    It all comes down to (in my subjective view) who the DM is and how they handle the game. Unfortunately, enter the age of computer gaming (which I thoroughly LOVE) and all of the sudden "Balance" becomes an issue. Ah, well. Such is life. But I do share your hope that games like BG and IWD would bring back some of the classic D&D as I remember it.

    I HOPE NOT! I don't want to be forced to be a human in order to be a paladin or not be able of playing as a monstruos humanoid or not be able of multi-classing without some ridiculously high stats.

    Also BG e IWD are too old to reach a great popularity these days.

    Also is highly unlikely that WOTC will suddendly create a carbon copy of 2nd edition AD&D.

  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    @the_spyder I'm the same, I like how 2e wasn't designed with powergaming in mind. It was harder to do so, apart from certain kit/class combinations that worked in Baldur's Gate *cough* kensai mage *cough*, which I think is harder to do in 2e anyway, because certain classes had a little more involved than just their mechanical abilities. 3e, however, is all about optimising your power by clever combination of classes, prestige classes, and feats. It kind of works up to level 8, but once you get beyond level 8, it gets ridiculous.

    But again, I don't really like D&D anymore anyway. I have quite a few problems with a few of the underlying mechanics. My ideal version would be 2nd edition, with some of 3rd edition's extra classes, some feats (which would take the place of proficiencies), a reduced HP progression, slightly expanded race/class restrictions (e.g. I'd have hill dwarves and sun elves able to be paladins, but not wood elves) and a change in the combat system to a DR based model...or at least one where your combat skill has some effect on your AC, because it doesn't make sense that, no matter how skillful a swordsman you are, you're just as easy to hit as an amateur with the same dexterity and wearing the same armour.

    ShapiroKeatsDarkMage
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    I just change the rules to fit. If I want dwarven paladins in a 2nd edition game, or want to ban dwarves from casting arcane spells in 3rd edition, the DM is the final arbiter, not the rulebooks.

    ShapiroKeatsDarkMage
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited September 2015



    I never played 4E, but everything I heard and everything I read suggested that the changes were mainly in aid of the belief that CRPG gaming was the future. The system was altered so that it was more easily translatable into computer gaming (I am merely reporting what I read, not what I know to be the case). In that, I think they ended up changing it beyond what players were willing to accept (for good or evil).

    I think it was more a case of making the 4th edition rules easy to pick up for new players coming FROM crpgs, especially WoW.

    The problem was, without the experienced players using the system to induct new players, there was no reason for youngsters to switch from WoW to PnP.

    Even so, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have flopped so hard if it hadn't been for the earlier decision to make the D20 licence open. This made it easier for 3rd party publishers to continue to support the old system than adopt the new one. This is an problem that persists for the 5th edition.

  • ShapiroKeatsDarkMageShapiroKeatsDarkMage Member Posts: 2,428
    Squire said:

    @the_spyder I'm the same, I like how 2e wasn't designed with powergaming in mind. It was harder to do so, apart from certain kit/class combinations that worked in Baldur's Gate *cough* kensai mage *cough*, which I think is harder to do in 2e anyway, because certain classes had a little more involved than just their mechanical abilities. 3e, however, is all about optimising your power by clever combination of classes, prestige classes, and feats. It kind of works up to level 8, but once you get beyond level 8, it gets ridiculous.

    But again, I don't really like D&D anymore anyway. I have quite a few problems with a few of the underlying mechanics. My ideal version would be 2nd edition, with some of 3rd edition's extra classes, some feats (which would take the place of proficiencies), a reduced HP progression, slightly expanded race/class restrictions (e.g. I'd have hill dwarves and sun elves able to be paladins, but not wood elves) and a change in the combat system to a DR based model...or at least one where your combat skill has some effect on your AC, because it doesn't make sense that, no matter how skillful a swordsman you are, you're just as easy to hit as an amateur with the same dexterity and wearing the same armour.

    5e is kinda like that, minus the race restriction and AC.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    Fardragon said:


    I think it was more a case of making the 4th edition rules easy to pick up for new players coming FROM crpgs, especially WoW.

    While that is a distinct possibility, at the time I remember reading several articles by publishers all talking about how CRPG was the next iteration of role playing.

    And I really hope that the current generation of Role Players aren't coming FROM WoW. That would be depressing.

    KurumiLadyRhian
  • ShapiroKeatsDarkMageShapiroKeatsDarkMage Member Posts: 2,428
    Whats wrong with WOW? I'm not very familiar with that game.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    edited September 2015
    There's nothing "Wrong" per say in my subjective view of WoW. They are fun games and I've spent more than my fair share playing them (though not WoW for some reason).

    I just don't see a lot of 'Role playing' that goes on in your traditional MMO. This isn't to say that people "Can't", but I think that the game style has 'Evolved' to the point where it is as much social media with better graphics as it is any sort of role playing. Certainly, the Role Play elements are not the only reason that people play them.

    Before people get out the torches and pitchforks here, yes role players play MMO style games. Yes, there can be a thriving role playing presence in the game. No, I am not looking down my nose at anyone who plays them for any reason what so ever. I just don't think that the main 'hook' to draw people in is 'Role playing' anymore; certainly not 'Exclusively' at any rate.

  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 1,933
    I don't so much hate newer editions of the game, I just don't care.

    I've played AD&D for so many years (over 35) it simply IS the game to me. I've played some of the other rule sets with other DMs. Enough to say the story and game management by a good DM matter far more than which rule set is chosen.
    Which comes back to; when I'm running the game its going to be 2E. More or less. I own all the books. Multiple copies even; and including some of the recent re-issues from WotC. I can run whichever variation of the rules I want; 2E is what I know best, so its going to be the starting point. "Newer" is a meaningless term, I OWN all I need.

    Because of how strongly I relate to it, CRPGs based on AD&D will always get my attention. CRPGs based on other fantasy games including later rules for D&D simply don't interest me. I have so many hobbies and interests, far more than I have time available, so learning the intricacies of more rules just isn't a priority or interest. So no hostility, I just don't care about other rule sets.

    the_spyder
  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512



    5e is kinda like that, minus the race restriction and AC.

    Ironically, 4e does actually have the AC thing...sort of, since you add half-your-level to all of your defences (including AC). In fact, 4e did have one or two concepts that I did actually like...I just hated the rest of it too much. I can see the whole idea that they were going for, but it just didn't work for me.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    Everyone always complains about AC. Maybe it is just because I grew up with 2E, but I've never had a problem with it. Once you get past that plus to armor actually lowers your armor class, it actually makes perfect sense.

    Something I never got used to about 3E was the whole plus to STATS as you progress.

    atcDave
  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    @the_spyder I don't mean the 2e version (which, IMO, is no worse than the modern version), I mean the whole concept in general. The idea that armour either does "everything or nothing" to stop you getting hit, and the fact that your defensive ability is based on two things only: your armour/shields, and your natural dexterity, doesn't work for me. Your skill as a armsman does not affect your defence in any way, and a level 20 fighter is just as easy to hit as a level 1 fighter with the same armour. I know, I know, hitpoints act as high level defence and all that, but...nah, sorry. I'm just not buying that.

    Increases to stats as you progress actually makes sense to me...you work out a lot, you're going to get stronger. You keep training your dexterity, you're going to get better at things that require it. You keep exercising your brain, you're going to get better at doing intelligence related things.

    But that's just a difference of opinion, I guess. Like I said, I'm going off D&D for several reasons, some of which include the whole hitpoints/AC system, which is the foundation of all D&D games.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @Squire - as you yourself mention, Hit points. The concept behind hit points is not that you can physically take more damage, but that you have various skills that allow you to better deal with the damage that you take. So it is just as easy to hit a 20th level fighter, but that same fighter uses their 'skill as armsman' to turn such that the damage is only a cut or a nick instead of a skewer through the gut.

    My problem with Stat bonuses as you level up is that it precludes someone from starting out as a prodigy. So creating a character such as Wulfgar or Raistlin is precluded entirely from the equation. There is no scenario wherein a 1st level fighter is 'The strongest guy around'. She will ALWAYS be trumped by a 12th level or 20th level fighter (or other character focused on the same stat).

    What's worse, in 2E, 19 STR and above were beyond human max. 20 and above were relegated to Giants. Not anymore. Want a 30 STR (or whatever the adjusted max is in 3E)? Take a few levels in Barbarian/Frienzied Berzerker, and dump CHA stat, and hey presto. You are stronger than a Titan. Makes very little sense.

    I could see 1-2 points max increase over the life time of adventuring, with a cap of 18 (short of magical influence). But this almost unlimited increase guaranteed? makes no sense to me.

    But this is merely my subjective view (and quite probably bias based on growing up on 2E). I should say that I don't like it, not that it makes no sense. That's more accurate.

    atcDave
  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    edited October 2015
    @the_spyder but my point is that a highly skilled fighter should be more likely to not take any damage at all. How many martial arts styles have their trainees learn all the attacks, but no defences? I'm not suggesting crazy increases but a small one...say, +1 for every +5 of attack bonus you have, to reflect that you're a bit better at parrying blows. Of course, you'd also need to reduce the number of HP, otherwise fights would last forever. :D

    I agree wrt stat increases...a cap of 18 would be better, because, as you say, 19 and above should be beyond the scope of a human. 18 was always meant to be the very peak of human fitness/agility/intelligence/whatever, so having a human able to advance beyond 18 is just silly.

    Speaking of stats, that's another thing, actually...3e's massive strength bonuses to attack rolls don't make sense to me either, because swordfighting isn't all about big "raaagh!" attacks...you fight like that, you'll miss more often than not. Even the "clumsy and unskilled" European knights, or the vikings who "got drunk and went crazy",* didn't fight with just big "raaagh" attacks. ;) That's why I prefer the 2e strength table.

    Also, saying that something "makes no sense to me" is, IMO, a perfectly acceptable way of stating one's opinion...but then, I'm an old fogie who grew up without the internet (and even saw the beginnings of the internet with dial up modems and AOL accounts in my late-teenage years), so what do I know about forum etiquette? ;)

    * - none of those are true, but it is what popular history would have us believe, for some reason!

    the_spyderKilivitz
Sign In or Register to comment.