D&D Edition Wars

[Rand]

Disagreed. Pick the "old" games heavily criticized. Like Gothic 3, they are a masterpiece compared to Forspoken, Concord, Concord 2(Highguard), Concord 3(Marathon), 1348 ex voto, ArcaniA, Diablo immortal, etc. Hell, if we pick the most generic diablo clone from 00s, it is a masterpiece compared to Diablo 3/4 and Immortal.

Oops. I meant old tabletop games with ****** rules.

[sheet]

I get up the effort to gather my cool dice, my player books, my garb. I get real in the mood. I'm going to role play!
I meet with my friends, we share a meal, we start discussing characters, we gather and sit. The DM approaches...
"Welcome adventurers, prepare for your journey! To inform you of your quest, let me consult the rulebook."

He pulls out his smartphone.

► Show Spoiler

I've never played a tabletop RPG.

[J1M]

Would you accept that a virtual tabletop serves different needs as well, and that using a ruleset created for a physical tabletop with a VTT also is in the position of trying to serve two masters with the same set of rules? And since we already have several rulesets that focus on physical tabletop, it would be best to have a ruleset that is designed for a VTT given how common it is for people to use a VTT these days?

Since I don't and won't use a VTT, the answer is an unqualified: "No, I won't accept that".
I don't want my tabletop or computer games to be constrained by something I'll never use.

I want computer games to use systems that leverage computer power to do complex calculations for greater realism and such that is too time-consuming and complex for humans to do.
I want table top games to use systems that encourage the type of games I like, which are not 5th edition D&D.
And I want Critical Role and VTTs to cease to exist.

Of course, you may feel differently and that's fine.
But you asked me what I wanted and would accept.

There has been an explosion of D&D adjacent games. I think if you looked into something like Herioc Deeds or other less known games you would find something built for the tabletop experience that you want.

Even if you personally don't want a VTT-focused D&D ruleset, you have to see the utility of such a thing acting as a containment zone so that everything you are interested in isn't being bent towards a VTT experience in a half-hearted attempt to address an unsolved problem.

[Killagain665]

Just play GURPS








shhhhh don't hit me.

[UltraFan123]

As much as I like the concept of a flexible "universal" tabletop system, my main gripe with a system as old as GURPS is that I have no idea which edition is the best one.

In the case of 3.5 Dungeons & Dragons, the way I became familiarized with it was through the PC games that used it as the system, similar to how I learned Pathfinder 1e through the Owlcat games and 2e AD&D through the OG Baldur's Gate and Torment games.

Likewise, I'm certain that I could warm up to GURPS if I play a PC game that implemented its system properly.

[Trickster]

Just play Old-school Essential or OSRIC.

[Nemesis]

Just play Old-school Essential or OSRIC.

Or Basic Fantasy.

[Killagain665]

https://garysentus.blogspot.com/2026/04 ... eally.html

Very interesting. Just from the comparative of 2.0 to 3.0 here it seems OSRIC is to AD&D what Pathfinder is to D&D 3.5.
And you can download the PDFs for free from DrivethruRPG.

[Old One]

Play KNAVE 2.0.

[rusty_shackleford]

https://garysentus.blogspot.com/2026/04 ... eally.html

Very interesting. Just from the comparative of 2.0 to 3.0 here it seems OSRIC is to AD&D what Pathfinder is to D&D 3.5.
And you can download the PDFs for free from DrivethruRPG.

16. The monk class is now present

[Rand]

As much as I like the concept of a flexible "universal" tabletop system, my main gripe with a system as old as GURPS is that I have no idea which edition is the best one.

While Third Edition has its charms to a grognard like me, Fourth Edition is generally somewhat better and a bit more polished.

That being said, it's not a game for the stupid or casual. AT MINIMUM, the GM must be an expert and have a good recall of the rules, which are advanced in difficulty from most systems.
The play is even better with players that have a firm grasp of the system as well.

[Killagain665]

Wow rusty hate Monk class that much?

[WaterMage]

Fourth Edition is generally somewhat better if you want to play wow on tabletop

Fixed

[J1M]

Fourth Edition is generally somewhat better if you want to play wow on tabletop

Fixed

WoW is a tactical miniatures game?

[WaterMage]

It is made with "muh balance" in mind and zero concern about mechanics and lore being in line.

Honestly, balance cultism destroys RPGs as much as equality cultism destroys IRL societies.

[rusty_shackleford]

I'll end this early by stating he was referring to gurps

[WaterMage]

Thanks. GURPS 4e is good. But is very hard to DM, I agree with that. Is just that this is a D&D Thread.

Anyway, discuss psionics in AD&D, in 3.5e, in 4e and 5e.

[Acrux]

Wow rusty hate Monk class that much?

As is right

[Rand]

Wow rusty hate Monk class that much?

I hate them even more.
And bards.

[Rand]

It is made with "muh balance" in mind and zero concern about mechanics and lore being in line.

Honestly, balance cultism destroys RPGs as much as equality cultism destroys IRL societies.

Thanks. GURPS 4e is good. But is very hard to DM, I agree with that. Is just that this is a D&D Thread.

That's why I quoted the original in my reply to the implied question.

[SiMtRy]

2e is the beginning of the downfall of the DnD Brand.

Stick to ODND,BX/BECMI, and 1e.

[Cipher]

Fourth Edition is generally somewhat better if you want to play wow on tabletop

Fixed

Actual World of Warcraft tabletop: Uses 3.5 rules.

Actual D&D Online MMO: Uses 3.5 rules.

[rusty_shackleford]

Actual D&D Online MMO: Uses 3.5 rules.

Being a bit generous there, but it's a decent houseruled version (with tons of additions over the years) adapted for real-time combat

[Cipher]

Actual D&D Online MMO: Uses 3.5 rules.

Being a bit generous there, but it's a decent houseruled version (with tons of additions over the years) adapted for real-time combat

Yes, but its not using anything remotely 4e. I understand the hate, as I said in the past many times, WotC's dragon game has never been D&D. It has always been "fantasy superheroes". 4E at least committed to that and made it so martial characters could also be superheroes like the rest.

I just find the whole "MMO" thing disingenuous. There's never been an MMO even like it, and specially with all the reactions and such, making it a videogame is also hard. How can they say that about 4E but then glaze 3E and all the same build faggotry? 3E had powers as well, it was just all "Daily" powers instead of also having "Encounter" powers. Most of the hate also comes in the format. Instead of saying the barbarian rage is a "daily power" is just "usable X amount of times per day".

WotC's Dragon game has always been a videogame about superheroes with a "fantasy kitchen sink" coat of paint.

[WaterMage]

4E at least committed to that and made it so martial characters could also be superheroes like the rest.

In the worst way possible.

By making the game revolving around cooldown managing and low lethality "raid boss" fight.

And is not only the AEDU system. Pick the spell dominate person. In AD&D and in 3.5e, it allows you to dominate person. It has N applications in and outside combat. In 4e it just forces the enemy into a walk in the park.

WotC's Dragon game has always been a videogame about superheroes with a "fantasy kitchen sink" coat of paint.

Wrong. In a superhero movie, when a hero has the power to become invisible or mind control someone, he does that. In 4e he doesn't.

[Cipher]

4E at least committed to that and made it so martial characters could also be superheroes like the rest.

In the worst way possible.

By making the game revolving around cooldown managing and low lethality "raid boss" fight.

And is not only the AEDU system. Pick the spell dominate person. In AD&D and in 3.5e, it allows you to dominate person. It has N applications in and outside combat. In 4e it just forces the enemy into a walk in the park.

WotC's Dragon game has always been a videogame about superheroes with a "fantasy kitchen sink" coat of paint.

Wrong. In a superhero movie, when a hero has the power to become invisible or mind control someone, he does that. In 4e he doesn't.

Are upset at all about the nerfs to the caster classes? I ask because it is clear, and you have also expressed this yourself, that you love mages (duh).

Also, is 3E/3.5 your favorite version of WotC's Dragon game? And if not, do you prefer actual D&D or even some newer spiritual successors such a ACKS II?

[Rand]

I understand the hate, as I said in the past many times, WotC's dragon game has never been D&D. It has always been "fantasy superheroes". 4E at least committed to that and made it so martial characters could also be superheroes like the rest

That's due to table-rules power creep.
Wizards were NOT supposed to be able to easily cast spells in combat. It was supposed to be very risky. One point of damage spoils the spell. They were supposed to depend on wands and consumables, but generally not even scrolls (too fragile, same issue with loss, but a lot quicker to cast than natural spells so less exposure).
If you read Gygax's stuff from early D&D and even a bit in his DMG, being a wizard is TOUGH. The fighters and clerics have a much easier time.
Thieves are also given a rough time with poor attacks and low health, especially originally. It was supposed to be the "failure" class when you rolled bad stats.
Gary loved to punish people for bad luck. He denied it, but if you read what he wrote, that was his style. Just look at Tomb of Horrors. Even perfect play had a bunch of be lucky or die instantly spots.

[Cipher]

I understand the hate, as I said in the past many times, WotC's dragon game has never been D&D. It has always been "fantasy superheroes". 4E at least committed to that and made it so martial characters could also be superheroes like the rest

That's due to table-rules power creep.
Wizards were NOT supposed to be able to easily cast spells in combat. It was supposed to be very risky. One point of damage spoils the spell. They were supposed to depend on wands and consumables, but generally not even scrolls (too fragile, same issue witth loss, but quicker to cast so less exposure).
If you read Gygax's stuff from early D&D and even a bit in his DMG, being a wizard is TOUGH. The fighters and clerics have a much easier time.
Thieves are also given a rough time with poor attacks and low health, especially originally. It was supposed to be the "failure" class when you rolled bad stats.
Gary loved to punish people for bad luck. He denied it, but if you read what he wrote, that was his style. Just look at Tomb of Horrors. Even perfect play had a bunch of be lucky or die instantly spots.

Yes, that was the thing. Sure, D&D casters had a lot of power, we can see that in BG2, but it came with risks, first of all just surviving to get there, requiring more Exp. than others so they would level slower, and also material components and such, no bonus spells either.

They were artillery. Limited nukes meant to reward careful foresight and planning.

Then came WotC and casters now have everything. They can do it all and most of the downsides are mitigated fairly easily, specially because now they use the same Exp. tables and multiclassing is broken wide open and available to all the races.

In 3E/3.5 if you don't have at least half caster ability, you are doing it "wrong". 4E tried to rectify that and level the playing field for everyone. Now all the classes get superpowers to be fantasy superheroes.

[WaterMage]

Are upset at all about the nerfs to the caster classes? I ask because it is clear, and you have also expressed this yourself, that you love mages (duh)(...)4E tried to rectify that and level the playing field for everyone.

It is not simple "nerfing casters." 3.5e does have much stronger casters than AD&D and other TT games; a single firebolt could deal 999.999 million damage. Would still be a **** system.

Because mechanics and lore should be in line. You don't see World of Darkness (Tremere in VTM or MTA), Warhammer Fantasy, GURPS, or other TTRPGs getting as much hate as 4e gets. Meanwhile, the Shadow Wizard (kit) in AD&D - Dark Sun can literally die while preparing spells. Everyone hates casters, and you must be very cautious about "masquerading" your spells as psionics or other powers to not be purged. It is amazing. Because mechanics and lore are in line.

How powerful casters should be is dependent on stupid things like balance. Is based upon the setting. I do expect to suffer as a Dark Sun preserver. I do expect an easy time in Glantri-Mystara. Balance cultism destroys RPGs as much as equality cultism destroys societies IRL.

[rusty_shackleford]

The main differences in the older works I did and 3E are style of writing, reliance on archetypes, limitatations on character advancement, availability of and creation of magic items, and general single-class play for human characters.

Additionally, I find no soul in the new D&D game, no archetypes, just seek and destroy play and too much of the comic book superhero in characters.