7 replies to this topic

[Ascaloth]

WARNING - The following lines are all about PERSONAL TASTE AND EXPERIENCE /bar/ ONLY.

Get the "Board" (it's called tabletop or pencil and paper) Game.

I used to play DDO years ago and it was the best MMORPG imho (even better than WoW for my tastes). Then it got messed. No more Free to Play content was ever released, while tons over tons of real-money-paid stuff is/was added weekly, meaning you need to empty your wallet to build an ultimate munchkin like every other player, or getting stuck on a very basic and nearly useless character. Also, without spending big money, you won't have access to the majority of areas on the game and the best quests are paid.
You will never find role playing, neither nicely good-looking made characters with backgrounds or even basic role-played behaviors. Just people grinding around in characters with crazy-colored hairs and wearing the best-status items they found.
There is no tactical components anymore, just gather all the buffs you can (and there are TONS), build the best combo you can find and go whack things in munchkin groups, 'til you step on a godly trap that does some thousands of damage -to add immersion-...pfft.

Stopped playing it like 2 years ago and I have no intentions on coming back.

About the tabletop, I've been playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition since 2001 (Dungeon master since 2003) and never found a better medieval fantasy RPG. D&D3(.5) was nice, but i don't like the skill system at all. AD&D2 motivates roleplay and had a Tolkien feel, D&D3.5 motivates more hack'n'slash i think.
D&D4 is the worst, it was like they were trying to bring an japanese MMO to the tabletop and did it the worst way possible. I don't want to play along a half-dragon-half-orc-spellweaver-gladiator-masterofshadows, i don't want to tell a story about a half-angel-half-halfling-barbarian-enchanter. I don't want to throw hordes of enemies just to test their multi-combos-of-doom.
I don't have a personal opinion about D&D5, yet, but i heard some good things about it. Might give a try, soon, but won't risk spending money on the books until I try it.
So...
If you like adventures with the Lord of The Rings / The Hobbit (the book, for god's sake!) feel, go for AD&D2.
If you prefer a mix between Lord of the Rings and Diablo 2, go for D&D3.5,
If you like Diablo 3, japanese MMOs where everybody has wings and combos everywhere, D&D4.
If you think that only newer things are better, go for D&D5

[Kalimaster]

Been a long time since I've done any table top. Ravenloft was my area of enjoyment. Fog comes up some night in any D&D game and well, lets see how far they make it....BWAH HA HA HA.

[Ascaloth]

Marack Drock, on 10 March 2015 - 06:33 AM, said:

I own all but 4 books by Tolkien..... I love LotR a little to much methinks.
I will probably go for 3.5 then because I am a huge an of LotR and of Diablo 2 (I thought Diablo 3 kind of sucked actually). And newer things are usually worse IMO (i.e. MWO, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, Nicki Minaj, Kim Kardashian, Obamacare -all my opinion though).

Thanks for the info. I just found a really good TT shop in a nearby city that has almost everything listed so I will be checking it out.

Good choice!
D&D3.5 has some nice tweaks over AD&D2 and is less punishing for new players. In example: Mages of AD&D2 are nearly dead weight in combat on the early levels, it cannot use armor of any kind without losing their very few (just ONE or two on the first level) spells, and also can drop nearly dead if hit by a dagger. On D&D3.5, mages are split between Wizards and Sorcerers and can use armor but suffers some penalties (Sorcerers suffer less), also they have a small but useful arsenal of very weak spells for general things in the very first level and some more efficient ones.
Also, they removed the class restriction for races and attributes (paladins were almost prohibitive for that). The "new" Talent system included in this version gives lots of options to players, but be aware of the possible game-breaking combos and, if needed, try restricting some Talents a little bit.
As I told before, the only thing I don't like is the Skills system. While, in AD&D2, if the character doesn't know how to cook he/she would automatically cook a very bad meal, in D&D3.5 the DM has to keep thinking all the time on the difficulty of the actions that require skill and converting it to a number to the players roll against, and the majority of skills are not so specific like those on AD&D2. It's not really *BAD*, through.

D&D3 books are BEAUTIFUL. Excellent paper and printing, replete of astonishing pictures. The Monster's Handbook is a piece of art. They are VERY well worth the money!

[RedDragon]

Having played (A)D&D since my childhood, I'd like to give some further input.
D&D 3 and later iterations simplified the game mechanics and threw out some bizarre things like THAC0 or the weak wizards Ascaloth mentioned. But in hindsight I always missed playing AD&D because it didn't yet have that power creep later editions had. After you reach level 10 or so in 3.X, battles and campaigns become... well... "epic". You have absolutely nothing to fear from common people and can take on a whole city guard on your own, which becomes quite silly after some time IMO, but that is subjective. So if you want to feel like an unbeatable hero, it may be the system for you.
We also tried D&D 4, but that one plays like a video game (or board game) turned into a P&P RPG. If you enjoy playing with miniatures and thinking tactically with maps etc., it's a good game for you. But to me it never felt like a good P&P because it is way too "arcade".

If you narrow your choice down to the 3.x editions, you should definitely check out Pathfinder. It basically took the (discontinued) 3.5 system and enhanced it when D&D 4 took over. There you will find some neat little tweaks that make the 3.x system a lot more enjoyable and "round", and it is mostly compatible with 3.x source books.