Dungeons and Dragons

[SpaceYeti]

I've made no effort to hide the fact that my favorite hobby is D&D. You may have even noticed that second link in my signature which links to my D&D blog, which has a total of four posts at the moment. Go read it now!

Anyhow, who else plays, and are you one of those jerks who doesn't like fourth edition? I find it humorous how there were people who refused to go on to the next edition every time a new edition came out. "When things are different from the things I'm used to, I hate them!"

 

[Glordag]

I love D&D, but never manage to stick with a group for very long. 4th edition is very much different than 3/3.5, just as 3/3.5 was very different from 2nd. I think it's fair for someone to prefer one over the other considering their vast differences in playability. I enjoy 2nd and 4th, but not so much 3rd. I didn't play much of 3.5. I tend to enjoy playing out the odd quirks in characters. As such, you can often find my characters dabbling in alchemy, illusions, or zealous personality traits that I can run with.

 

[TheHmmmm]

I try playing with my friends, but the DM and I don't really have "gamer" chemistry. He tries to get our party to follow a scenario the way he would follow it and discourages any thinking "out of the box" in exchange for preserving "realism"...in a fantasy game.

And damn is he prescriptive with that realism. Makes the game really uninteresting, kinda like a more violent Sims game.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I try playing with my friends, but the DM and I don't really have "gamer" chemistry. He tries to get our party to follow a scenario the way he would follow it and discourages any thinking "out of the box" in exchange for preserving "realism"...in a fantasy game.

And damn is he prescriptive with that realism. Makes the game really uninteresting, kinda like a more violent Sims game.

Railroading sucks balls.

 

[Jesse]

I've always wanted to play after an awesome experience as a kid but never had a chance.

 

[Melllvar]

I also have never played, and also have really wanted to. I'd hoped to get a big group together that was really committed to the experience (preferably with alcohol involved), and have a game that would go on and on forever, the way it was meant to be. Or that I imagine it was meant to be, at least.

Unfortunately everyone I know IRL sucks.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I've always wanted to play after an awesome experience as a kid but never had a chance.

I'm sure you could find a group if you looked for one.

 

[Adymus]

I'm that jerk!

It's not my fault 4th ed sucks.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I'm that jerk!

It's not my fault 4th ed sucks.

Joke, or for cereal?

 

[Adymus]

Joke, or for cereal?

Super cereal.

I really hate how Multiclassing got nerfed. That is one of things I love about D&D, how you can different classes just to build one perfect concept. There are no Fighters, or wizards, there is just your character concept and all that you dip into to create that.

Edit: even though I haven't switched over to it, actually like the changes made in Pathfinder and would sooner switch to that then 4th.

 

[SpaceYeti]

... So you like 3.5 more than 4th because 3.5 requires multiclassing and level dipping to make a character worth his salt? Well, it's better than the jerks who say they hate it because it's pen and paper WoW (which is horrendously NOT the case). I don't understand your complaint, but at least it's not based on a straw man.

 

[Jesse]

I'm sure you could find a group if you looked for one.

Maybe if I didn't dislike meeting strangers and I don't go shouting my need to play some D&D.

 

[Oblivious]

Perhaps we could do it on the forum then?

 

[The Gopher]

I have never played wouldn't mind it though.

 

[notrightnow]

I don't hate 4th ed but I do prefer 3.5. I've gone the Pathfinder OGL to expand on 3.5 and rather enjoy it. Unfortunately, I have no gaming group as the estranged husband got to keep them in the split.

 

[ElvenVeil]

4th edition.. it hits me I am not even sure I know of the 4th edition.. But I sometimes enjoy(ed) the old dungeons and dragons pc games like Baldurs gate, Icewind dale and Planescape torment

 

[SpaceYeti]

Perhaps we could do it on the forum then?

I'm not sure how we would accomplish that. We could, perhaps, set up a skype game, or something, if enough people were seriously interested. Before anyone gets too excited, I have just enough time for the campaign I'm running now and getting ready for deployment. I couldn't DM.

 

[Jennywocky]

I've made no effort to hide the fact that my favorite hobby is D&D. You may have even noticed that second link in my signature which links to my D&D blog, which has a total of four posts at the moment. Go read it now!

Anyhow, who else plays, and are you one of those jerks who doesn't like fourth edition? I find it humorous how there were people who refused to go on to the next edition every time a new edition came out. "When things are different from the things I'm used to, I hate them!"

I started with 1st Edition (and still have my books), as well as 2nd ed and some of the 3rd ed.

Then I didn't touch D&D for years. I just recently am joining a campaign and they are using 3.5, so I've bought some of them books on the 'net. Hard to find some of them.

I don't really have much to say about 4th ed, since I've never looked at it yet. I like most of the shifts I saw in 3/3.5 since they corrected flaws (IMO) from the earlier two editions. Still, playing old school would be fun once in awhile. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the G (Against the Giants) campaigns, + White Plume Mountain and Tomb of Horrors (original).

My biggest gripe is with all the material out, it's kind of hard to know everything in all the books in one coherent picture without a lot of reading and use as far as skills, feats, spells, etc.

I decided to make a monk for this campaign (starting at 6th level) and it took me about 3-4 weeks of reading book PDFs before I could get a sense of what the best build for my char would be, based on how I like to play, simply due to all the material being scattered around. And some of the books, I couldn't order online or were expensive... so I'm stuck with the PDFs.

Edit: even though I haven't switched over to it, actually like the changes made in Pathfinder and would sooner switch to that then 4th.

I'm still learning core 3.5, but the game-store guy said that Pathfinder is basically 3.5. From skimming through it, at least in the generalities, that seemed correct. What do they add that differentiates it?

 

[Dr. Freeman]

I'm not sure how we would accomplish that. We could, perhaps, set up a skype game, or something, if enough people were seriously interested. Before anyone gets too excited, I have just enough time for the campaign I'm running now and getting ready for deployment. I couldn't DM.

I would be interested in that, although I would be unable to be DM.

 

[Adymus]

I couldn't order online or were expensive... so I'm stuck with the PDFs.

Go here:

http://chet.kindredcircle.org/

And download all of the indexes. Seriously download them, not just open off the side, they were removed do to copyright issues from Crystalkeep, so you will want to get them while they are hot. The Indexes have a much more streamlined inventory of all information you will need for character creation, and it includes material from almost all books (it mainly leaves out the campaign setting books, like eberron.) and even dragon magazines.

I'm still learning core 3.5, but the game-store guy said that Pathfinder is basically 3.5. From skimming through it, at least in the generalities, that seemed correct. What do they add that differentiates it?

As for pathfinder, it basically is like a version 3.75, that is what I hear people calling it anyway. They made many slight tweaks and adjustments to the core rules, as well as character classes, and in the simplest of terms, in pathfinder you get more stuff.

• There are around 50% more feats to choose from, all characters gain a feat every other level instead of every 3rd, and classes with "bonus feats" have a wider selection of them.
• Core features of most classes have more uses, or are usable more often. For example, 0-level spells (arcane "cantrips" and divine "orisons") are not expended when cast; barbarians gain special abilities while raging; cleric domains gain a second power at 4th, 6th or 8th level; druids who do not select an animal companion are instead entitled to one nature or element based domain, the paladin's lay on hands can cure various conditions; the rogue's sneak attack works against constructs, plants and undead; and wizards gain abilities based on their specialization (including the universal "specialization").
• The cleric's turn or rebuke undead is replaced with the ability to channel positive or negative energy, which is used to heal creatures or harm living or undead creatures depending on your alignment. This reduces the need for spontaneous casting of heal or inflict spells, effectively giving clerics more spells per day. Turn and command undead are still available through feats. Bards, paladins and rangers also get more spells per day.
• Every character gains something at every level beyond base attack bonus and save progressions. For example, fighters get bravery and armor and weapon training, and rogues get "talents", like the 3.5 special rogue abilities but even before 10th level.
• Some classes have entirely new features. For example the ranger has favored terrains, and the sorcerer chooses a bloodline that grants bonus spells, feats, and abilities.
• Classes that get a creature cohort (such as a familiar or animal companion) can choose something else instead; for example druids can choose a nature-themed cleric domain, and wizards can have a focus object that allows them to cast a spell spontaneously.
• Most classes have a "capstone ability" at 20th level to encourage players to reach 20th level in one class, for example bards can kill with their performance and paladins' smite evil can act like a banishment spell.

Also various game mechanics have been altered from 3.5 to be less clunky (like combat maneuvers that take like 3 checks just to use) and more streamlined when used.
Unfortunately most campaigns start at low levels, and end at low levels, and I like that pathfinder makes the game more interesting even when only at levels 1-5

 

[SpaceYeti]

I started with 1st Edition (and still have my books), as well as 2nd ed and some of the 3rd ed.

Then I didn't touch D&D for years. I just recently am joining a campaign and they are using 3.5, so I've bought some of them books on the 'net. Hard to find some of them.

I don't really have much to say about 4th ed, since I've never looked at it yet. I like most of the shifts I saw in 3/3.5 since they corrected flaws (IMO) from the earlier two editions. Still, playing old school would be fun once in awhile. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the G (Against the Giants) campaigns, + White Plume Mountain and Tomb of Horrors (original).

My biggest gripe is with all the material out, it's kind of hard to know everything in all the books in one coherent picture without a lot of reading and use as far as skills, feats, spells, etc.

I decided to make a monk for this campaign (starting at 6th level) and it took me about 3-4 weeks of reading book PDFs before I could get a sense of what the best build for my char would be, based on how I like to play, simply due to all the material being scattered around. And some of the books, I couldn't order online or were expensive... so I'm stuck with the PDFs.

How old are you, woman?! I'm, 28 and I started with 2nd edition in middle school.

And about the knowing things, 4th edition has eased that problem with the Character Builder. It comes with all the source book material right there.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

1st edition was amazing. We had to calculate the radius of Fireball based on the given area and distance from the ground at the point of detonation. It was awesome, but it took time. Also, you could turn undead as many times per day as you had encounters. It was awesome!

 

[Dr. Freeman]

I just found out why it is a good idea to choose the people you play with wisely. (bad player, bad expierence)

 

[TheHmmmm]

Just bought three D&D based games off GOG for $30, granted it is AD&D which is way not as awesome as 3.5.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Don't sell AD&D short, it is incredibly fun, and far better than 4.0

 

[TheHmmmm]

Don't sell AD&D short, it is amazing, and far better than 4.0

Sorry, but it can't hold a candle to 3.5, but I do like it better than 4.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

I do prefer 3.5, but AD&D is still fun.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Don't sell AD&D short, it is incredibly fun, and far better than 4.0

AD&D is where I started, but I'm baffled how anyone could have come to the conclusion it's better than 4th edition.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

After playing both AD&D and 3.5, playing 4.0 felt like removing my fingernails with rusty plyers. It might have just been my group, but I disliked everything about it.

 

[Jennywocky]

How old are you, woman?! I'm, 28 and I started with 2nd edition in middle school.

Heh. wouldn't ya like to know?
I'm 42, but people tell me I scan to be about 30.

When I was in middle school, I bought the red Basic & blue Expert boxed set versions of D&D (not AD&D, which was in hardback at that point -- 1st edition, with the crappy cover art). I also bought Dragon magazine, I think they were on issue #56 at the time.

So I never played "Chainmail" but I was into RPGs within a few years after TSR really started. I played Top Secret and Gamma World as well, the original editions.

(Actually, I did less playing and more analyzing the rules... the systematic mind found all of it fascinating.)

@Adymus: Thanks so much for taking time to offer the Pathfinder overview and the linky. I wasn't expecting all that, but it's much appreciated.

 

[SpaceYeti]

After playing both AD&D and 3.5, playing 4.0 felt like removing my fingernails with rusty plyers. It might have just been my group, but I disliked everything about it.

What a well thought out and valid complaint.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Heh. wouldn't ya like to know?
I'm 42, but people tell me I scan to be about 30.

When I was in middle school, I bought the red Basic & blue Expert boxed set versions of D&D (not AD&D, which was in hardback at that point -- 1st edition, with the crappy cover art). I also bought Dragon magazine, I think they were on issue #56 at the time.

So I never played "Chainmail" but I was into RPGs within a few years after TSR really started. I played Top Secret and Gamma World as well, the original editions.

(Actually, I did less playing and more analyzing the rules... the systematic mind found all of it fascinating.)

@Adymus: Thanks so much for taking time to offer the Pathfinder overview and the linky. I wasn't expecting all that, but it's much appreciated.

I was fortunate enough to do a bunch of playing and rules analyzing.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

I hope that I will be able to try pathfinder in the near future, it looks amazing.

 

[Jennywocky]

I was fortunate enough to do a bunch of playing and rules analyzing.

My first "real" campaign (rather than with just one or two friends) was in college, and I never looked back. It's just a wonderful thing to be weaving a narrative of characters together with other players, not just for the depth of the story but also because of just how much fun it is... and how I never really know what will happen next, except it will be delightful.

I don't think I've ever laughed so hard as I have at some of the things that have happened during an adventure. Just some very crazy stuff.

 

[kantor1003]

I have never gotten the chance to try it. Have always wanted to though.

 

[SpaceYeti]

My first "real" campaign (rather than with just one or two friends) was in college, and I never looked back. It's just a wonderful thing to be weaving a narrative of characters together with other players, not just for the depth of the story but also because of just how much fun it is... and how I never really know what will happen next, except it will be delightful.

I don't think I've ever laughed so hard as I have at some of the things that have happened during an adventure. Just some very crazy stuff.

Hell yeah. Hanging with my friends is awesome and hilarious, but while playing D&D the jokes are magnified as they take place in two different worlds. In-jokes are never as either "good" or "in" otherwise. Multiple dimensions of funny.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I have never gotten the chance to try it. Have always wanted to though.

It'd be awesome if one of us took the initiative to start an online game, but we're INTPs.

 

[kantor1003]

It'd be awesome if one of us took the initiative to start an online game, but we're INTPs.

How do online games match up to the real thing?
I think I'd be up for it. I would just have to check out some rules first so I at least have some clue.

 

[SpaceYeti]

How do online games match up to the real thing?
I think I'd be up for it. I would just have to check out some rules first so I at least have some clue.

I don't know. Never done one.

 

[Jesse]

I would be interested in it.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Who's willing to organize one? Anyone?

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Where is everyone?

 

[Question Authority]

I might be willing to play in one, but I'm not that knowledgeable about 3.x (I tried to pick it up, but without someone to help me play through a few games, it's hard to understand). I've got the books for 4e, but have never played, since my friends don't want to be the "D&D guys," so it's hard to get to play.

 

[Konrad13]

I love D&D. I started in 2005 with some buddies from the Anime club, but the group fell apart after the third game session. Laid dormant for a few weeks and found a group at a store called the Tin Soldier. I was the youngest player there, but that group was awesome. We played other games like Call of Cthulhu and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Shit was so cash. Then that group finally fell apart and I stopped gaming until I was out of high school (mid-2007). The next group lasted a session (very creepy dudes). Then in 2008, found a store that sold D&D stuff and allowed people to rent tables for a few bucks an hour. Fell in with a group of 4 other (of which I'm close to 3 still, but only game with one). Current group though has more or less been the same since mid-2009. We switched to 4E, but I'm not a fan. Glad to hear a new edition is coming out actually. I personally ran a Pathfider game for about 3 months, and love it. I just wish the group would go to it rather than back to 4E. One of the regular members (nicknamed Cool-Seth) has been taking a break for a bit, but is interested in getting back in and running a 2E game. I have every book on a PDF so I'm all like, "HELLS YEAH!"

 

[Jennywocky]

I have the books on PDF too, plus some of the hardbacks. Haven't played Pathfinder, but it seems to just be 3.5.

I'm going to be moving into the metro area in a few months and hope to hook up with a new gaming group there, if I can find one. I tried to join one up here last summer, but the group was mostly on hold, and me and the DM and my other friend who were playing just couldn't sync up times.

I'm curious to see where they'll go with the next verison of the rules. I signed up for testplaying/feedback, so....

 

[SpaceYeti]

I have the books on PDF too, plus some of the hardbacks. Haven't played Pathfinder, but it seems to just be 3.5.

I'm going to be moving into the metro area in a few months and hope to hook up with a new gaming group there, if I can find one. I tried to join one up here last summer, but the group was mostly on hold, and me and the DM and my other friend who were playing just couldn't sync up times.

I'm curious to see where they'll go with the next verison of the rules. I signed up for testplaying/feedback, so....

I played a little Pathfinder, and, yeah, it's 3.75.

I'm scared they're going to take a step backwards with this newest edition. Most of the things I hear about it make it seem like a mishmash of third and second edition with a few new rules tossed in. Vancian casting is back, balance isn't important... All I'm hearing is from some leaks and hearsay, but I don't like what I hear. Catering to grognards won't bring in new players, it'll only, perhaps, bring in some old ones. Not a good business strategy, not a good method of designing a game.

But I'm still listening and hoping it's not what I think.

What metro area? Though, I guess I can't help, I usually simply ask around until I find fellow nerds and I usually wind up being the DM, too.

 

[Jennywocky]

I played a little Pathfinder, and, yeah, it's 3.75.

I'm scared they're going to take a step backwards with this newest edition. Most of the things I hear about it make it seem like a mishmash of third and second edition with a few new rules tossed in. Vancian casting is back, balance isn't important... All I'm hearing is from some leaks and hearsay, but I don't like what I hear. Catering to grognards won't bring in new players, it'll only, perhaps, bring in some old ones. Not a good business strategy, not a good method of designing a game.

But I'm still listening and hoping it's not what I think.

You might know more about it than I do. I just know that a lot of people bailed on 4.0, and so they wanted player input for the next iteration, which would likely spell a return to older systems... which seems to be what you're suggesting. I mostly had played 1.0 and 2.0 before moving on to some homespun games (utilizing skill-based systems rather than utilizing rigid classes -- a concept that D&D finally absorbed part of what, ten years ago or so? I was out of gaming for a number of years.)

What metro area? Though, I guess I can't help, I usually simply ask around until I find fellow nerds and I usually wind up being the DM, too.

I'm moving to Baltimore, which would put me also within proximity of some of Wash DC since I hope to live with 5-10 miles of 95. I tried finding a gamer group up in PA where I currently live and just had no luck, even canvassing the local comics/gaming stores (of which we only had maybe 2).

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Well, I was DM for the first time. It was less work and more fun than I had initially expected.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I find the "rigid classes" comment kind of bothersome, but only kind of. I mean, characters should be customizable to a point, and classes without options obviously prohibits that. However, if there were no classes, there would still be character archetypes and, within the rules, certain ways to fill those roles. If you have one super-customizable character platform, you're still forced to take certain options in order to be good at what you want to be good at. With classes, you simply take a class that's good at that thing and then you branch out from that role with customizations.