So, which is the better...

[Rand]

Any version of D&D that uses THAC0 or (worse) to-hit tables is kludgy garbage in need of a serious mechanical revamp.
Especially if you're adding a negative or subtracting a positive, like the old stuff does with AC. Mental.

Saying that, the bonus-itis of v3/v3.5 is a similarly bad system.

D&D 5e has some janky garbage as well. Simple advantage and disadvantage is too simple for my taste.

[rusty_shackleford]

Any version of D&D that uses THAC0 or (worse) to-hit tables is kludgy garbage in need of a serious mechanical revamp.

zoomers can't into thac0

[Anon]

5th got rid of alignments to favor a stupid nihilistic "there's no good or evil, it's all nuanced" stance, while also dumbing down many other mechanics. Can't even compare

[Rand]

5th got rid of alignments to favor a stupid nihilistic "there's no good or evil, it's all nuanced" stance, while also dumbing down many other mechanics. Can't even compare

I actually agree with getting rid of classic alignments. It's leftover Moorcock law/chaos nonsense anyway.
But their methods and reasoning for doing so is wrong, as is their implementation.

Remember the universe wide "thieves' cant" and the even stupider "alignment languages".
Retarded nonsense.

[Acrux]

4th Edition has the best alignment system, taken from Holme's basic: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil

I think I've posted this before, but that lines up really well with the way Poul Anderson sets up his universes on the law/chaos dichotomy (as opposed to Moorcock).

[rusty_shackleford]

4th Edition has the best alignment system, taken from Holme's basic: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil

Isn't this just the same alignment as was in the original Three Hearts and Three Lions book?

[Acrux]

4th Edition has the best alignment system, taken from Holme's basic: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil

Isn't this just the same alignment as was in the original Three Hearts and Three Lions book?

Yes, but not just that book. He has several fantasy books where chaos and order are fighting and lawful is always aligned with good and chaos with evil.
Operation Chaos
Operation Luna
The Broken Sword

I think some others.

[Xenich]

4th Edition has the best alignment system, taken from Holme's basic: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil

I think I've posted this before, but that lines up really well with the way Poul Anderson sets up his universes on the law/chaos dichotomy (as opposed to Moorcock).

How does it deal with for instance the Silver Principal of "do no harm" (ie your are not breaking the rule if your actions are not the cause of the persons problems) to which a character think the law is useless, gets in the way, is good , helping randomly as it seems appropriate, but having no need to be consistent in that position as long as it isn't something they cause themselves, and never doing evil in the process. So technically, they believe in doing good acts, they just don't feel "obligated" to that position constantly through overt acts of good or actions to stop evil.

[krokodil]

GURPS

[Acrux]

4th Edition has the best alignment system, taken from Holme's basic: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil

I think I've posted this before, but that lines up really well with the way Poul Anderson sets up his universes on the law/chaos dichotomy (as opposed to Moorcock).

How does it deal with for instance the Silver Principal of "do no harm" (ie your are not breaking the rule if your actions are not the cause of the persons problems) to which a character think the law is useless, gets in the way, is good , helping randomly as it seems appropriate, but having no need to be consistent in that position as long as it isn't something they cause themselves, and never doing evil in the process. So technically, they believe in doing good acts, they just don't feel "obligated" to that position constantly through overt acts of good or actions to stop evil.

Unaligned

[Xenich]

4th Edition has the best alignment system, taken from Holme's basic: Lawful Good, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil

I think I've posted this before, but that lines up really well with the way Poul Anderson sets up his universes on the law/chaos dichotomy (as opposed to Moorcock).

How does it deal with for instance the Silver Principal of "do no harm" (ie your are not breaking the rule if your actions are not the cause of the persons problems) to which a character think the law is useless, gets in the way, is good , helping randomly as it seems appropriate, but having no need to be consistent in that position as long as it isn't something they cause themselves, and never doing evil in the process. So technically, they believe in doing good acts, they just don't feel "obligated" to that position constantly through overt acts of good or actions to stop evil.

Unaligned

Yeah, that is too vague of a system for me then. I like the layers that AD&D earlier systems bring. They provide a wider encompassment of play and direction for various class and race makeups to define their structure. I see its reasoning though, just don't care for it as much I guess.

[Acrux]

How does it deal with for instance the Silver Principal of "do no harm" (ie your are not breaking the rule if your actions are not the cause of the persons problems) to which a character think the law is useless, gets in the way, is good , helping randomly as it seems appropriate, but having no need to be consistent in that position as long as it isn't something they cause themselves, and never doing evil in the process. So technically, they believe in doing good acts, they just don't feel "obligated" to that position constantly through overt acts of good or actions to stop evil.

Unaligned

Yeah, that is too vague of a system for me then. I like the layers that AD&D earlier systems bring. They provide a wider encompassment of play and direction for various class and race makeups to define their structure. I see its reasoning though, just don't care for it as much I guess.

You know, I had trouble parsing your post yesterday. Re-reading it, I think a character like that would probably be Good.

[Nammu Archag]

Honestly don't even know what the difference is, I've only ever played OSR

[Mortmal]

I'd say 5E because I prefer to remove the needless bloat and false complexity and keep the true tactical options, allowing more player agency and having more fun sessions. However, I'm not using those systems much and rather using indie systems like SOTDL or something OSR like DCC.

[boot]

5E is garbage!

[fkirenicus]

AD&D 2E, next question.

Actually, I am beginning to wonder if that is what we should play, actually. I do not want a game where we basically have to use minis and battle maps to be able to play...

[Acrux]

You can do "theater of the mind" with any edition. AD&D works really well for that, though.

Also, I saw you asking about the Rules Compendium in the IWD2EE trannycord.

Don't give them your money: https://archive.org/details/dd3.5rulescompendiumoef

This is why you should use different names.

[Cipher]

AD&D 2E, next question.

Based. This is the Patrician's opinion.

[fkirenicus]

You can do "theater of the mind" with any edition. AD&D works really well for that, though.

Also, I saw you asking about the Rules Compendium in the IWD2EE trannycord.

Don't give them your money: https://archive.org/details/dd3.5rulescompendiumoef

This is why you should use different names.

Oh, I really don't mind that much. :-)
I have downloaded all .pdf's for free previously (from that very site actually, along with a lot of 2e stuff I always wanted back in the 90s but couldn't afford then, being a student), but purchased printed copies of some of the 3.5 books for my group (esp. the wife prefers to use real books rather than .pdf's on handheld devices).
But as I've said, now maybe we will use AD&D 2e after all. :-P
I will have to make some changes/house rules, though. But it shouldn't take that long (looking at it now, there are some tables that will need reworking, first and foremost, and I think also I want to re-introduce (some of) the 1e UA spells). :-)
And yes, AD&D can be played perfectly well without minis. Actually, I don't think we used minis much at all back in the day.

[rusty_shackleford]

2E had no official rules to play using a grid at all, it came much later in the form of a supplement(Player's Option: Combat & Tactics)
Every edition after was designed for grid-based play first, and non-grid-based play was secondary.

You can find an online version of the digitized 2E here, which includes all(nearly?) of the books+supplements and an index:
https://www.purpleworm.org/rules/

[Vergil]

is there a 4.0

[rusty_shackleford]

is there a 4.0

No, it's one of those Windows 9 situations.

[Acrux]

is there a 4.0

Yes, there is, and I'm angry that @J1M has abandoned his game.

[Vergil]

is there a 4.0

No, it's one of those Windows 9 situations.

Zoo wee mama!

[J1M]

is there a 4.0

Yes, there is, and I'm angry that @J1M has abandoned his game.

Tell Wizards to follow though on their promise to OGL 4e. That would revitalize my interest.

[asf]

d&d was always gay, and so are you

[Oyster Sauce]

Undelete your post, I wanted to say nice things about you @fkirenicus

[fkirenicus]

I decided to ignore rather than enter into verbal sparring with a kindergarten nazi. You know, one might think this hobby nazi could be a "liberal" undercover, for such cartoonish behavior is exactly the kind of behavior that the "liberals" often accuse people who frequent sites like this of. Whether they are normal/sane people or wannabe nazis.
And with that, back to the topic.

[Anon]

Asf is a cool guy and these cheap one-liner remarks are just his quirk, don't be too harsh on him.

[asf]

butthurt central