Dungeons and Dragons

[Viktyr Korimir]

My LGS has a pathfinder night every week. What's the difference between that and DnD?

Okay. Pathfinder is mechanically superior to 3.5 D&D. Classes are closer to balanced (though nowhere near actually

being

balanced) and are more fun to advance in overall-- single-classing is encouraged and you don't have to have as much system mastery to get the most out of it. D&D, on the other hand, had many many more books published for it and thus a massive advantage in the kinds of characters you can play.

Otherwise, if you know how to play one you know how to play the other well enough to get by-- though there are dozens of stupid little rules that are different between the two games, that aren't important enough to actually remember.

If you are new to Pathfinder, play a Fighter. They're simple, they have fewer daily resources to worry about, and they can bring the pain.

If you are new to D&D 3.5, play a Warlock. It's like playing a spellcaster but you have less to keep track of. You're not nearly as powerful as a well-played Wizard or even a Sorcerer, but you have a reliable repertoire of tricks that will allow you to contribute most of the time.

A lot of groups treat D&D 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder as one contiguous cross-compatible game. I encourage this as much as I can.

If you're new to D&D 4e, it doesn't matter what class you play-- basically, pick the party role you want, pick the power source you like best, and play the class that combines the two. If you bottled up all of the hatred I felt toward 4e, it would probably be considered a Weapon of Mass Destruction... but one thing they did right is they made it

very

difficult to screw up your character. Just pay attention to what ability scores your class says it needs and make sure to put your highest abilities in them.

[Viktyr Korimir]

If you ever find yourself asking what version of D&D is right for you, the answer is whichever version the people you like play. There are versions I like (Rules Compendium, 2e Player's Option, Pathfinder) and versions I don't like (4e, 4e, and 4e Essentials), but they are all rollicking good fun with people whose company you enjoy.

[Viktyr Korimir]

You would have to be a Hell of a lot more specific than that, because there have been multiple versions of that for every version of D&D prior to Fourth-- and for Fourth, Wizards has been maintaining their own version for DDI subscribers.

[Viktyr Korimir]

Okay. You'd probably have to get the name of it from him.

[Viktyr Korimir]

Huh. Well, I know there was some cheesy way to get level 9 spells in both arcane and divine but damned if I can remember it. But it used a lot of silly multiclassing.

Most straightforward way, if you're Evil, is Wizard 8/Mindbender 1/Ur-Priest 2/Mystic Theurge 8.

[Viktyr Korimir]

I also like Rainbow Servant on a Sorc, though then you only get to level 8 spells in arcane and divine.

Text trumps table and the errata never fixed it: Rainbow Servant doesn't lose caster levels.

Of course, it's better on a Beguiler or a Warmage than on a Sorcerer.

[Viktyr Korimir]

Yeah, I sympathize. A lot of Prestige Classes seemed to have been designed by people who didn't understand the kind of class abilities that would be worth the loss of ninth level spells... which is to say,

absolutely nothing

.

Of course, this only leads back into my general rant about how 3.X completely ruined multiclassing.

[Viktyr Korimir]

They're all pretty much balanced in 4e-- every class has a role, every class is good at its role, and each role is really important. It's just boring, in my opinion. There aren't enough out-of-combat powers, for the mages or for any other class.

[Viktyr Korimir]

I'm reading through the D&D Next playtest. It looks like a combination of Essentials and Basic D&D, but without the power system.

[Viktyr Korimir]

I guess I'm not as familiar with Essentials because I really got a 3.x vibe from it. You know enough to detail it out a bit better than I can?

Well, the reason I said Essentials rather than standard 4E is because of the inclusion of Background and Theme. (Which also makes me think of Rolemaster.) It's clear that your Theme is an important part of your character concept and that it continues adding benefits over the course of your career. Also, the fact that you get class powers and theme powers without the AEDU power structure is what led me to think more of Essentials.

I'd also say that it is greatly simplified over 3.X, with the lack of class-based attack bonuses and the inclusion of training bonuses for weapons and magical attacks.

Looks like we're back to wonkus power curves. The fighter being a single page is back to the boring melee without the "benefit" of full attacks.

Playtest only goes up to 3rd level. Fighters didn't normally get multiple attacks until 6th level, whether we're talking about AD&D or 3.X. What we know for certain is that Fighters get damage scaling for weapon attacks and that spellcasters are seriously inconvenienced by taking damage-- not to the extent of AD&D, but certainly more so than in 3.X.

[Viktyr Korimir]

I'd be in for something like that, totally.

[Viktyr Korimir]

FATE is not a rules-light system. Its core is comparable in complexity to something like OD&D or maybe AD&D without all the optional rules. A game like

Dresden Files RPG

has to have additional rules to cover its magic system and all of the other supernatural stuff going on.

[Viktyr Korimir]

Um...are we talking about the same game? I mean, I'm playing the core FATE rules in a campaign and it is EXTREMELY simple. You only roll one thing, all the time, ever. Skills are simple, aspects are fairly easy to understand...where's the complexity?

Well, there's rolling a Maneuver to place a temporary Aspect on the target, and then you invoke-- or is that tag?-- that Aspect once for free. And then there's scene aspects and how they work. Not to mention all of the different Stunts and their effects, which are like feats or class features in d20. Then there's the fact that being a skill-based system with so few skills, it's hard to get used to just how

broad

those skills are, and how the specific trappings of each skill work. Especially as modified by the Stunts.

The stress track and consequence system is also somewhat complicated and counter-intuitive for anyone who is accustomed to traditional RPGs.

I'm not saying it's a bad game-- it's my

favorite

game, after all-- but that as rules weight goes it's more in the 'medium' camp than the 'light' camp.

Spirit of the Century

is likely the simplest implementation of the core rules, and it's still difficult for a lot of veterans of other games to understand.

[Viktyr Korimir]

EDIT: Skills being broad was a feature not a bug, to me ^-^;.

Oh, it's a feature. Definitely a feature. But in any other game, try rolling your

Fists

as a

knowledge

skill to

declare

that your attacker is using a specific form of ninjutsu only taught in the sewers of Montreal. In any other game, using your Fists skill (or any skill) in this fashion would be incomprehensible. It creates a higher learning curve for people accustomed to more simulationist style play.