I found my cousin's D&D stuff when I was over at their house one summer, I was 13. It was the original BECMI set and AD&D 2nd edition. I've been an addict ever since. 3.5 is for me though. Also, an old adage among coal miners is, "Shoot Pinkertons on sight."
I started with the red box in 1982 and the next year I went to ad&d. It was in the full swing of the satanic panic in the Midwest and it was quickly banned by our Baptist principal. There was a cooky old high school English teacher who stepped in and said that he had no authority in her class (he was the Jr high principal) and stayed late "grading papers" for a couple of hours so we had a place to play. The principal's son even went 😂😂!! Then came high school and girls, cars, beer, weed, etc and I lost contact with the game. Fast forward to 1991 and yours truly wanders into an army barracks rec room and...... are those d&d dice?? 2nd edition was in full swing and I had disposable income. Our DM was amazing and if podcasts were a thing back then I'm pretty sure we could have got us some views. Decades later, here I am poking my toes in the water again....
Your videos are always full of information that I have to watch each at least twice and even take notes! No joke. And thanks for the Glantri videos. That has to be the coolest setting of all imo.
Started with BEMI (no C for some reason,) have first edition 1e books, played in steady groups from 1-3.5e, although by 3.5 it was a mashup of mostly 2e and 3.5e custom rules we all had adopted over the years of playing. Loved many of the complete guides and the arms and equipment guide got use throughout the editions we played. Never really added in psionics, much of spelljammer space stuff or some of the other goofier creations that came through, although we had a hilarious campaign with a UA barbarian during that period. Honestly, I never even realized there had been a 4e until 5e came out, as we were definitely people who just kept playing our modified 2e-3.5e hybrid. 5e, well 5e seemed like some sort of participation trophy version where there were no wrong choices or actions and you could be whatever you wanted, no matter how absurdly overpowered, right from the start, but that's just my perspective. Seems to be popular, so more power to it. Haven't played for almost 20 years now, but if I did it would have to be something like our 2e/3.5e rules with a few 1e optionals. Or Shadowrun instead.
I bought the 2nd edition monster manual just for the art when I was 13 and I didn't even play for 2 more years. A 4 hour plane ride disappeared into the lore.
I will say, for all its shortcomings, watching Chris Perkins run 4e was an absolute treat. I'm getting into BECMI now, and honestly I love how quick character creation is. Roll your stats, pick a class, and go. I wrote up class kits for my players so they can just roll their dice and get going.
Theres this zefrank video about Halloween candy that breaks them up into chart/ven diagram. A key term that comes up is "flavor affinity". Whenever the topic of trying to rank or suggest RPGs to people, I think of that chart. Seeing as "crunchy" is an RPG category, I feel the candy analogy might work. World of Darkness is your dark chocolates. Vampire is your basic dark; as even if they might not like it specifically, everyone has a frame of reference for it. Werewolf has whole almonds in it, because extra chunky is how we'd all describe an encounter. Mage is dark with fruit fillings, but none of them being labelled. Its a crap shoot on what you'll get, but theres a chance you might find something you didn't know you liked. DnD is ranked on hardness. 5e being a fruit by the foot, 2e being a hard candy you find in a bowl n Nana's coffee table, and 1e being an actual rock. And if the rock isn't good enough, Chainmail is like a kidney stone you show of to people to prove a point. 4e is a Mounds bar. Not many people like Coconut.... but if you do, it does the job well. 3e and 3.5e are M&M, regular and peanut respectively. Baldr's gate 3 is Reese's Cups; you'd have to be allergic to peanuts to not find something about it. Pathfinder is a Charleston Chew. People keep saying its crunchy, but what really happened is they stuffed it into their mouths like 5e, and had a hard time chewing. If you like methodical and thoughtful, this and Sugar Daddys or Caramels are right up your alley. This also technically makes Starfinder Butterfingers.... difficult without foreknowledge. GURPs, BESM, or Guardians of Order are the Jellos of RPG. On their on they're very basic.. but start throwing things in that you think taste good, and you end up with tasty treat, or a total abomination. Call of Cthulhu are lollipops. Its all about getting to the center of a mystery, or just having an oral fixation.
For me, it is between BECMI and 2ndEd. BECMI introduced the Siege/War Machine rules and Immortals play, as it was connected to Mystara. I also loved the customization options of 2ndEd (yes, even Combat and Tactics, Skills and Powers), which was really an improved version of 1e. However, nowadays I've been working on my own hombrew skill-based rules inspired by these editions of D&D.
Love the video. For me I stuck w/Basic Fantasy RPG + Mystara (norwold area) and C&C for AD&D campaigns for nearly 20 years. Even after a taste of 4e and a 5 year stint of 5e I came back to these.
I have the interesting experience as to have run the same campaign in 1e, 3.5e, and 5e. Set in Greyhawk, I ran it back in high school, then in 2005 and finally online in 2015. Each felt different, but honestly it was the players, our ages, and my DM skilled which made it as different as the rules. 1e did have the massive advantage that combat was quicker as we weren't using battlemaps/figs and you could blast through 2-3 combats per hour or make much larger combats vs. 2-3 per session in the 3.5e or 5e. The 3.5e was scaled back in terms of dungeon sizes, random encounters removed, etc. 5e run pretty much like 3.5e with identical encounters. It was a good plotline/story, so all three had some of the potential for roleplay, challenges, etc. which different groups approached differently and had different 'key' or 'memorable' encounters -- most of which weren't combat. I find it hard to go back to 1e in terms of the clunky rules, but then again I miss massive campaigns like the ToEE, Slavers, AtG/VoD/GoDW which don't play the same way due to combat speeds. There are lots of 3.5e things which I disliked (micro-managing characters, feat trees) which 5e is both better and worse in. In the end, I'd say it doesn't matter the edition (other than 4e) it's mainly the campaign/module, DM, and players.
I still have some of my 1E/2E stuff but it is hard to get people to want to go back to the older TSR system mechanics, I have a love/hate for 3.5 and 5e is just too super-heroish for my tastes (although I still have a 5e campaign I finally fully converted to EN LU A5E which made 5e more tolerable for me to run) but I was able to get some people to try Castles & Crusades and enough liked it to keep moving forward, Personally it feels like old TSR D&D with smoother mechanics, and it is much easier to convert older 1E/2E modules to it than it is to WOTC D&D editions.
Started with the Basic boxset in the late 70's. Got into AD&D in '81 ... it's never left my affections :D I've played a lot of other systems but, oddly enough, never any other D&D versions. I bought the books for 3.5 and 5 but they never got used in anger - the closest was a few years back when I designed a new campaign setting and we were trying to organise a group ... but 'adulting' made it too difficult to schedule :(
I scored a 2nd edition forgotten realms boxset last year at half priced books. The one near deerbrook mall. Cheaper than Ettin games at the time. I also snagged a huge Dragon magazine haul each a buck fifty.
I'd be interested in a similar video breaking down the different non-Advanced TSR games (OD&D, OD&D plus supplements, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer), but who has played all of those?
Once someone breaks out of the "latest game from the big company" paradigm, the question really isn't "which d&d" it's "which system out of all of them"
I'm really glad I started playing D&D when I did. I could play anywhere, even a place with a lot of stairs. I was spry, taking them two at a time sometimes. Those were the days.
IMO, the 3.0/3..5e Forgotten Realm content is the pinnacle of WOTC D&D setting crafting. I play a lot of 5e now (easier to get players on-board) but with a whole load of 3e fluff thrown in to "augment" the rules.
Fourth edition is where i started and its still my favorite. I very much enjoy the battle mat playstyle more than theater of the mind playstyle. It also had my favorite class ever, Warlord.
Another 40 year player here. We still play our stripped out 1e /BEC. we've tried every edition to some degree, Hackmaster, Pathfinder, whatnot. Its just easier for the old men to head back home and let the kids play their derivative crap while we guzzle metamucil and remember to purchase rope, chalk, spikes, and belladonna.
2e or BECMI are my favorite. For Psionics, the Steve Winter book was perfectly playable with minimal tweaking. The revised version that came later in 2e, well, I didn't understand why it was even there and never used it.
I see 3.5 a "Advanced 5E." Besides, I appreciate the fact that 3.5 has rules for unlimited level-ups, and I like the idea of seeing how far my character can go... Now I just need to find a group who does as well.
Right now out of these six 1st & 2nd are the only ones i have left to play. 4th is still my personal preference, i really enjoy tactical combat and any of its other flaws I i find fairly easy to fix with a little homebrew.
Started with 2nd ed, learnt and played 3-3.5, dabbled in Pathfinder, and have returned to run multiple games for AD&D. Love it here. Slowly running as many modules as I can for my two parties.
I've never understood the folks that like a single combat encounter to last over an hour, and to contain so much table math and gamey jargon that the raw feel of adventure is practically lost. But, hey, to each their own.
Do you know any POE players? That game is 90% buildcraft, 25% farming, 80% looking up build ideas on reddit. I'm not even a math geek, and can still appreciate compounding multipliers, synergistic triggers, (Hanibal Cigar) loving it "when a plan comes together".
I started with the BECMI red box. I then found AD&D and liked the customization and crunchier rules. Our group combined the two. Mainly, we used The Known World setting. Then came the AD&D home brew campaigns and we fully embraced AD&D using Greyhawk. Though I collected a lot of The Forgotten Realms at the beginning of it's run, that's when life reared it's head and my hiatus encompassed most of 2nd ed through to 4th. I collected the books with intentions to play 2nd and 3rd, but never seriously got around to it. I did play a few games, or tried to rather. Even a game of D20 Modern. I started playing again soon after 4th arrived. I'd actually call it a different game, not really D&D but it was fun. I actually liked it for what it was. We played through a homebrew conversion of the Dragonlance Chronicles. Then 5th edition came out. The group decided to disband with the DM focusing more on college so the rest of us separated and drifted to 5th ed. It seemed too simplified to me at first but I saw it as a gateway drug and couldn't argue with the popularity it showed almost instantly. Then coming from a player who liked 4th, I decided to add some of the things I liked from 4th into 5th. I quickly found out that most the stuff from 4th was already in 5th, just hidden by new terms. And it was here, as I started to DM 5th, that I found the flaws that I actually did not like at all. I'll concede that I had no real experience with 2nd or 3rd. What I will say that had the most fun for the groups I was in was taking the best parts of each edition and mixing them in. Of course, this only works if you have multiple editions. If someone were to start playing today I'd probably suggest 5th just because they would be able to find a group right away, it's easy to play, and easy to learn. Then, figure out what it is you believe is lacking and, with more knowledge of what you are looking for in a game, choose from there. But also, look around at what other players are playing near you. For example, I was really interested in Starfinder and Pathfinder 2nd ed. I went out and spent a lot getting ready to play or run campaigns. And then found NO ONE, within a 50 mile radius plays them. Well, if they do, it's a small group of friends who don't go to the brick-and-mortar stores or join any of the social medias of such places. After plenty of advertising and trying to find others, I got nothing but crickets. But there are a lot of 5th ed games going on, even an Adventurer's League-esque thing going on in one of the stores. I say -esque because it's not AL but they call it AL. It's just a bunch of AL players disgruntled with the AL rules who still show up, break off into groups, and play the home brew of whoever decides to DM that evening. And that sounds really cool but most of the DMs have never DMed or even played before. So it tends to go off the rails into a completely disjointed mess.
BECMI for the win. After much debating with myself, I have decided to make Mystara my setting of choice and BECMI as the rules I wish to play/run games.
I started with getting the Moldvay magenta box for Christmas 1981. Transitioned to AD&D pretty soon thereafter, but played both through the 1980s and ever since. Never switched to newer editions, though I've grabbed a few adventures and supplements over the years and converted them back. I then jumped into various retroclones so now I pretty much alternate between Old School Essentials for my B/X fix and Castles & Crusades for that AD&D feel, with house rules, of course.
My biggest regret is selling my Rules Cyclopedia (which was my first D&D). I got into it because my older sister’s friend was into D&D, got the RC and a bunch of Basic adventures, but his group really wanted AD&D 2e. So perhaps 6 months after it was released, I bought it used. I loved it, but my players (including a friend who inherited a lot of his older brother’s 1e stuff) wanted 2e (race + class, splat books, more spells, more shit released ‘92 onward) so I switched. Eventually sold my RC. I love 2e. I, like most 1e and 2e DMs, don’t run RAW. I would lock out certain kits for a campaign and honestly, my players were pretty chill. Honestly, at least half played vanilla classes. It really sung as an era/edition in the settings. I was huge on Planescape (actually my interest in philosophy and religion as a DM lead to me reading more real life stuff and eventually winding up majoring in both in undergrad and having a masters of theological studies). Also Dark Sun was pretty damn cool. I actually got out of the hobby after 3e… with every fix (DC/unified mechanics, ascending AC, etc.) the broke another. And combat became sooo slow, especially when used to brisk and deadly combat. I wound up leaving the hobby for a while since barely anyone wanted to play 2e. I got back in around 2015-2016 with Castles and Crusades. Not perfect, but good. Stuck more to the OSR end. I did eventually get a hardbound reprint of the RC (and collected at least the core rules of every edition) but kind of finding my niche. 5e is too superpowered and crunchy, even if it scales back a lot of crunch. I like Basic/Basic-like ones, OSE in particular (especially with Advanced Fantasy). But even then there are things I like from 2e onward. 2e is probably my favorite, but as back in the day, I skip a lot of the super crunchy stuff. RC is probably the best overall. That being said, I am sticking more to cobbled together nonsense of OSE, Basic Fantasy, RC and a touch of 2e.
Ravenloft, by which I mean the adventure module of that same name whose cover you showed in your video at 12:01, was created in 1st edition, not second edition. Likewise, Forgotten Realms was first introduced with a boxed set as a campaign setting in 1st edition, not 2nd edition.
been playing AD&D with the same group of guys since the 1980's. with Top Secret, Boot Hill, and Gamma World it was one of the first "universal" systems, and a dragon's treasure horde was just as likely to contain magic weapons as a case or two of hand grenades.
*EDIT:* I just noticed your channel name... Mr. Welch... as in THE Mr. Welch? The list? I _loved_ that list! ❤ It inspired many of my later characters! Some of the material even made it into some of my fanfics! 0:39 "Plague"? Oh, you must believe in Cooties19. Is that "The floor is made of lava!" Reindeer Game really still a topic? Still, you stuck to the point otherwise, and really covered them well (I know 0e a bit and 1e through 3.x well, but essentially nothing of 4e and only Phandelver in 5e, so grain of salt there about my opinion and varying familiarity).
@@Mr_Welch That is awesome. :-) I searched your videos immediately, and have "Mr. Welch Reads the Things Mr. Welch Can No Longer Do In an RPG" open right now. Long-time admirer of that list, man, though you've probably heard that too many times before.
4th edition was designed for a specific type of person and I am that person. Merging board games, tactical miniatures games, MMOs, and roleplaying games? That's exactly what I want. Its the only edition that understood the concept of a Tank class, which was the archetype I focused on in this edition. Plus, players would fight over who got to be the Cleric (the only edition where that ever happened) because Cleric was the most powerful class in the game.
Hate that edition but respect it at the same time. I never appreciated it until I played gamma world for it. I don’t want it for DnD. But I respect the engine and can play gamma world with it
I'd argue the 3e (3.5e) Cleric was pretty powerful. Not the most powerful class, but the most consistently powerful across levels. As for the 4e Cleric, my experience was that a lot of Leader types were in high demand. Warlords were popular, and my favorite was the Animist Shaman. It's an edition where most classes could be considered the "most powerful" under the right circumstances, although there were a few duds.
I must be the exception, my favorite is most definitely 3.5, but I stayed to the end of the video. I feel it hit the balance point for streamlining/player options vs oversimplified/hand holding.
I wonder if our esteemed host would consider a similar video on some of the bigger OSR and OSR-adjacent games? Like, say, Pathfinder 1E vs Castles & Crusades vs Shadowdark vs Dungeon Crawl Classics. I know some of these have been covered in Mad Musings but I think I direct comparison of each games strengths and weaknesses could be interesting. That's assuming Mr Welch has played them all, of course.
Most exciting was BECMI and 1e when I was a kid back in the 1980s. I liked 2e too and played it several years. I tried 5e, but it didn't suite me because of the players being super heros and the oversimplified and not very balanced rules (advantage/disadvantage and short/long rest are the worst). Now, I am DMing a 3.5e campaign on the World of Greyhawk, and I love it, particularly the endless possibilities of the vast amount of rule books.
3.5 Greenhorn Grognard here, I know the System may not know when to stop, but the DM Should, the make or break of a 3.5 / 3.75 Game is a DM who can tame the system, Page 6 in the 3?5 DMg under Adjudicating Rules, the DM has Final Say, as it should be with any Edition, you are the Judge, not a Director.
Personally, I think what really hurt 4e was the GSL. Not only did it cause Piazo to splinter off and create their own game, it put severe restrictions on 3rd party publishers. It also alienated a lot of players by being so mechanically different to all the earlier versions. But for me, it's still the best version of the game. In terms of the characters being harder to kill, at low levels 4e characters have more HP than in any other edition. 1st level Wizards would usually have 20+ HP, giving them a good chance to survive a couple of attacks. Try that with a 1st level Wizard in any other edition. Wardens and Battleminds would often start with 30+ HP. Any character in 4e can access self healing in combat through 2nd Wind, and for some it was trivial to do so (looking at you, Dwarves). The downside is that it does take more to kill 4e characters, but for story orientated DMs I think that's a big plus. Because the Consitution modifier isn't added to HP when characters gain levels, that HP advantage is reduced at higher levels, but I believe most people play at levels where the starting advantage in HP still makes a big difference.
@bedeodempsey5007 Gygax was a lunatic who went on record to admit that he bullied his own children and tried to stalk people so he could force people to play his game. I am damn happy to contribute to ruining what he wanted.
Been DMing since 1979. Original (Basic/Expert/etc), AD&D (1e), AD&D (2e), D&D 3/3.5 are the best option, kids. PathFinder 1e isn't bad (it's like D&D 3.75). 4e thru 6e is trash. Don't waste your money. BUT... ShadowDark is a great blend of good stuff from Basic and 5e DnD. Also try Castles & Crusades, OSE, DCC, and other OSR style fantasy systems. Otherwise, stick to everything before 4th edition. You'll be happier and there is far more content and settings.
I prefer to mix and match editions. Theres bits I like from all of them, but I think the simple backbone of BECMI with the customization of classes and races from 2nd makes a good combo.
The tracking down of all the "to hit" modifers that are found in 3 different books for AD&D. TSR should have published an index with them all on it for a DM screen.
Colonizing fantasy Canada? Which module is that? Which d&d version are you playing? Which d&d version is your favorite? (guessing its BECMI/ Rules Cyclopedia)
10:04 What movie is this from? I'm pretty sure I've seen it, but can't remember. It's driving me crazy. I haven't played much tabletop D&D since middle school in the mid 80's, but I still have Basic Set, and AD&D Player's Handbook. I liked that version quite a bit. 3.5 also seems pretty good, from the PC games I've played based on it.
@@Mr_Welch Thanks! I never would have gotten that. I guess I was just jumbling some actors, and movies together. Filch from Harry Potter, Star Lord's mom from GotG, and maybe that new Conan movie with Jason Mamoa among all the other fantasy movies I've watched in my life. I'm gonna check out The Color of Magic, now, though. Hey, it's got Sean Astin from that TV show with Winona Ryder.
@@Mr_Welch I saw that film short, but the picture at 10:04 seems to be from this scene in The Color of Magic, but possibly a production still ruclips.net/video/EEdNNMLTd4I/видео.htmlsi=wrrm0VrOaMNi08VG&t=2693
Anyone want an idea of how 4e classes worked, but you don't have time to try 4e? I wrote Player's Guide to Powers and it's on the DM's Guild. It has almost exact one-to-one conversions of the 4e Player's Handbook classes, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, and Magic Items into 5e rules. I even made a "universal" subclass that gives a standard 5e class a few weaker Powers to use as part of their normal abilities.
I always thought that the AD&D 2e Players Option: Combat and Tactics book was actually quite good as long as you were selective in the options that you brought into your game. It certainly set the direction of travel for the more tactical, map-based combat system in 3rd Edition. If you wanted that sort of thing it was there for you but, if not, then just ignore it. There was a reason why those books; Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, and Spells & Magic sort of constituted a 2.5 edition - they had a lot of good ideas that actually contributed a lot to the game and changed it quite a bit... unfortunately the gems were mixed in with a load of dross too. I was never keen on the class/race specific splat books, though the "Complete Books of Villains" and "Creative Campaigning" still get some use on occasion.
In the preview chat I tossed a cryptic spoiler that the answer of "which edition was right for me" was AD&D2E with carefully curated supplementation. I will go ahead and elaborate: Specifically "1st printing" core PHB and DMG. These do not have black covers. In almost every instance black cover on 2E product = bad (2.5). They were using the covers to mourn the death of D&D. At least that's my story. The black cover is the version they sell at DTRPG both pdf and in POD, along with what they reprinted in the 2010s. They made all the wrong choices on purpose with those reprints (and frankly POD). Monstrous Manual. The original compendiums, they're both contained herein and expanded upon, making this have more monsters than every other edition including the upcoming 6th edition, in spite of them touting that it's the biggest monster manual. They win on a technicality that this isn't called "monster manual" but was treated as such as soon as it was printed for 2E. Unlike any other time, the black cover version (2.5) is better as it will have the errata incorporated. The Monstrous Manual 1st printing had less reprints so the errata wasn't incorporated in the first printings, unlike every copy of the 1st print PHB and DMG I've ever physically held. All the monstrous annuals and appendices are good to great. Of the Complete books, they all have OK to good flavor but the only ones I'd actually pull rules from are the core four (Fighter's, Thieves, Priest's and Wizards). Even though it's inferred I'd only give anything from the Fighter's handbook to Fighter players, and only give anything from the Thieve's book to Thief players. Priests actually isn't for Clerics or Druids, it's for designing your own Clerics and Druids that aren't tropes based on English history and Hammer horror films. And the Wizard's book... also exists. I generally would only allow it + core, or ToM (see below) + Core, not all three. Tome of Magic. I had a good time playing a Wild Mage and the Elementalist doesn't look OP and that's basically everything in this book beyond a bunch of new spells. Again I wouldn't add this and Complete Wizard's together, one or the other is sufficient. Basically the question is if you want the cartoonishly wacky magic of the Wild Mage or if that'll spoil the mood. DMGR Blue books: All are OK to Great. I never found one I hated, and essentially they add to the DM's toolbox. The settings: 2E's bread and butter is settings. Never liked FR, have everything for Planescape, never got into most other settings. Prefer to just make my own. Most 2E DMs I knew of the era didn't use published settings in spite of their popularity. The above tools are surprisingly malleable. Planescape is fun to read but a bear to play. Tend to use it for background material. Skills & Powers = bad. I never got into Combat & Tactics or Spells & Magic because of it. I hear they are a bit better. No matter.
The nice thing about the older versions is that there's now a whole load of affordable 3rd party clones of them that tidy up the language and knock off some of the sharper edges, plus there's decades of experience in how to run them in order to avoid some of the game-breaking "features."
I don't know if it's accurate or just a feeling, but it always seemed to me that the book of nine swords was kind of a testbed for the ideas that became 4th edition's underpinnings.
Out of the editions of D&D I have played 2e, 3.5 and Pathfinder, and 5th, but early 5th back in like '16 - '18 before things went off the rails. Out of them, I hate 3.5 and Pf. It is in my opinion overly complicated and full of the Illusion of Choice while only having a handful of Correct Answers. I enjoyed 5th edition when it was young and 5e night over at my FLGS was known internally as TPK Tuesdays because of how brutal it was initially. I think people have forgotten about those days. By far my Favorite edition that I've played was 2e, even though I still have no idea how THACO works. I liked the options the Kits provided and I liked how each class felt truly different from the others, at least within the three sub-types.
Although i'm by no means 4e fan, i will always defend it as one of the best design wise. They had clear play style in mind and based design around it. It just came in the wrong time. 5e is much more evolution of 3.5 than 4th is. And that's the problem. If 4th came out 2014, it would be more successful just based on fact that VTTs got so much better than they were back in '07/08 cause if one edition benefits most out of VTT (and was indeed partially design with vtts in mind) it's 4th ed.
I refuse to let the +2 just go anywhere. Your right. After being begged to use it by a player I realized it made races almost pointless other than what they looked like. I bought the monsters of the universe book and realized that they used Tasha’s with all the monsters and that you were forced to use the new system. Ugggh. So I went through my book and made my own adjustments to each race. like faerie getting dexterity +2 and charisma +1
Yeah I still play 4th but it’s mostly due to requests from one player who DMs and for a change of pace to diversify our friend meet up each week and our DMs time to get next session with less stress
While PDFs are a newer format ironically if i were to make an online purchase I'd choose a TTRPG pdf over any movie or PC game because those have a high tendency to be removed or altered at a whim. Plus its easy enough to take a pdf purchased from drivethru in particular to your own dropbox. Just saying...speaking as someone who has a large legit purchases pdf collection.
Combat & Tactics was fantastic! The Critical Hit system alone made D&D combat deadlier and more dynamic. I utilize this one every time I run a 2e game, with a modification of the Critical Hit system. I always start the first die off at max damage, then roll the second and add that along with all the appropriate bonuses, only once. I up the severity of critical hits by one die category, and allow for a saving throw to cut the severity in half, rather than negating the critical hit itself. Hence, every battle feels dangerous. No apologies for Skills & Powers, though. That one can die in a fire.
between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis and the rise of the sons of Arius... i started playing with B/X... moved later to AD&D 2nd, and finally pathfinder.
Started with 3.5, later 4th & 5th and then went to B/X, BECMI, DCC, and now S&W and AD&D Prefer S&W for “pure S&D”. Simple and can add from BECMI and AD&D without breaking things.
Say what you will about 4e's monofocus on a single pillar of gameplay, but there's nothing better for getting a bunch of dorks to scream out their once-per-day powers like shounen anime protagonists about to carve a room in half with their inexplicable ki-powered sword-laser. It does only support a pretty narrow style of play, but it gets a certain genre of player extremely hyped when you lean into that aspect.
As a DM, if I could pick, I'd play a different version or even TTRPG every time I'd start a new mini-campaign. I'm sure if I was mostly a player I'd love to stick to something like 5e (complex turns, lots of character customization). I've found that when I'm not running the game I'm not as quick to see the issues of a system. As a DM you are faced with the trade-offs of your system of choice constantly.
Psionics got some major erratas and fixes via Dark Sun sidebooks. So if you had those, then it was a complete system. However... It was still pretty broken.
1:43 "I'm not discussing the original D&D as that one was almost a prototype. They had classes and features that are core to the game but you had to get an Avalon Hill Boardgame for part of the rules, it wasn't a complete version for most players and that's why first edition was created" That's absolutely not true. OD&D is quite playable and Swords and Wizardry is one of the most popular retroclones out there.
We play 3.0, with bits of 3.5 allowed to creep in because there is a lot of material there. Mainly stick to 3.0 because of a ranger character - rangers in 3.5 are a completely different class so it's done mainly for continuity. These characters actually originated in 2E, and you can kind of simulate 2E in 3.0 by just not taking feats or classes or things that contradict it. Like how C exists within C++. So we translated the old characters from 2E to 3.0 and found that we were in the late 1360's/early 1370's DR of the Realms, thus we are "playing through" the lore transitions from 2E Realms to 3.x Realms, putting our own mark on things. And the campaign has a unstated goal: avert the absurd BS of the Smell Plague (avert the 4E timeline altogether).
I want to get into AD&D for my next campaign. After running one and a half BECMI campaign for three years I've come to the conclusion I want the complexity and options of AD&D... but not the spells. Why they last so little when casting in battle is almost damn impossible? I want magic effect that lasts for turns thank you very much.
Played all, and prefer 2nd Ed, but watched the whole video, probably because I like all editions. I have several hundred D&D sourcebooks and modules... including 1st print Deities & Demigods and Fiend Folio.
I found my cousin's D&D stuff when I was over at their house one summer, I was 13. It was the original BECMI set and AD&D 2nd edition. I've been an addict ever since. 3.5 is for me though.
Also, an old adage among coal miners is, "Shoot Pinkertons on sight."
Started a becmi game for my friends whom only played 5th edition. We're having a blast.
I started with the red box in 1982 and the next year I went to ad&d. It was in the full swing of the satanic panic in the Midwest and it was quickly banned by our Baptist principal. There was a cooky old high school English teacher who stepped in and said that he had no authority in her class (he was the Jr high principal) and stayed late "grading papers" for a couple of hours so we had a place to play. The principal's son even went 😂😂!! Then came high school and girls, cars, beer, weed, etc and I lost contact with the game. Fast forward to 1991 and yours truly wanders into an army barracks rec room and...... are those d&d dice?? 2nd edition was in full swing and I had disposable income. Our DM was amazing and if podcasts were a thing back then I'm pretty sure we could have got us some views. Decades later, here I am poking my toes in the water again....
You never forget your first. Mine was Third Edition and D20 Modern.
Your videos are always full of information that I have to watch each at least twice and even take notes! No joke. And thanks for the Glantri videos. That has to be the coolest setting of all imo.
Started with BEMI (no C for some reason,) have first edition 1e books, played in steady groups from 1-3.5e, although by 3.5 it was a mashup of mostly 2e and 3.5e custom rules we all had adopted over the years of playing. Loved many of the complete guides and the arms and equipment guide got use throughout the editions we played. Never really added in psionics, much of spelljammer space stuff or some of the other goofier creations that came through, although we had a hilarious campaign with a UA barbarian during that period.
Honestly, I never even realized there had been a 4e until 5e came out, as we were definitely people who just kept playing our modified 2e-3.5e hybrid. 5e, well 5e seemed like some sort of participation trophy version where there were no wrong choices or actions and you could be whatever you wanted, no matter how absurdly overpowered, right from the start, but that's just my perspective. Seems to be popular, so more power to it.
Haven't played for almost 20 years now, but if I did it would have to be something like our 2e/3.5e rules with a few 1e optionals. Or Shadowrun instead.
I bought the 2nd edition monster manual just for the art when I was 13 and I didn't even play for 2 more years. A 4 hour plane ride disappeared into the lore.
Yo similar start here!
2e was my first, the art is the best!
Played B/X and AD&D, nothing else, now decades later they still look good.
Completely agree. Maybe 2nd or 3e occasionally. But the first two are the best by far.
Same here mate!
They aren't good anymore. They're great!
Likewise, Mike :nods:
Claiming that only the things you have experience with are good doesn't make you look credible.
Played for 48 years now. GMed OD&D through 5e, but I’m a fan of Pathfinder 2e fan.
Still playing 2nd e.
Been doing so since the 90's.
The amount of supplements that came out for it is absolutely staggering.
You have good taste in games.
This is the way
@ This is the way.
"They can't take that away from you. Unless they call the Pinkertons."
Damn. Vicious but accurate and true 😂
I will say, for all its shortcomings, watching Chris Perkins run 4e was an absolute treat. I'm getting into BECMI now, and honestly I love how quick character creation is. Roll your stats, pick a class, and go. I wrote up class kits for my players so they can just roll their dice and get going.
This begs the question for D&D-Alternatives based on taste. That could be a fun video.
Theres this zefrank video about Halloween candy that breaks them up into chart/ven diagram.
A key term that comes up is "flavor affinity". Whenever the topic of trying to rank or suggest RPGs to people, I think of that chart.
Seeing as "crunchy" is an RPG category, I feel the candy analogy might work. World of Darkness is your dark chocolates. Vampire is your basic dark; as even if they might not like it specifically, everyone has a frame of reference for it. Werewolf has whole almonds in it, because extra chunky is how we'd all describe an encounter. Mage is dark with fruit fillings, but none of them being labelled. Its a crap shoot on what you'll get, but theres a chance you might find something you didn't know you liked.
DnD is ranked on hardness. 5e being a fruit by the foot, 2e being a hard candy you find in a bowl n Nana's coffee table, and 1e being an actual rock. And if the rock isn't good enough, Chainmail is like a kidney stone you show of to people to prove a point. 4e is a Mounds bar. Not many people like Coconut.... but if you do, it does the job well. 3e and 3.5e are M&M, regular and peanut respectively. Baldr's gate 3 is Reese's Cups; you'd have to be allergic to peanuts to not find something about it.
Pathfinder is a Charleston Chew. People keep saying its crunchy, but what really happened is they stuffed it into their mouths like 5e, and had a hard time chewing. If you like methodical and thoughtful, this and Sugar Daddys or Caramels are right up your alley. This also technically makes Starfinder Butterfingers.... difficult without foreknowledge.
GURPs, BESM, or Guardians of Order are the Jellos of RPG. On their on they're very basic.. but start throwing things in that you think taste good, and you end up with tasty treat, or a total abomination.
Call of Cthulhu are lollipops. Its all about getting to the center of a mystery, or just having an oral fixation.
I play 3.5 rules with Ad&d lore
For me, it is between BECMI and 2ndEd. BECMI introduced the Siege/War Machine rules and Immortals play, as it was connected to Mystara. I also loved the customization options of 2ndEd (yes, even Combat and Tactics, Skills and Powers), which was really an improved version of 1e. However, nowadays I've been working on my own hombrew skill-based rules inspired by these editions of D&D.
Love the video.
For me I stuck w/Basic Fantasy RPG + Mystara (norwold area) and C&C for AD&D campaigns for nearly 20 years. Even after a taste of 4e and a 5 year stint of 5e I came back to these.
I have the interesting experience as to have run the same campaign in 1e, 3.5e, and 5e. Set in Greyhawk, I ran it back in high school, then in 2005 and finally online in 2015. Each felt different, but honestly it was the players, our ages, and my DM skilled which made it as different as the rules. 1e did have the massive advantage that combat was quicker as we weren't using battlemaps/figs and you could blast through 2-3 combats per hour or make much larger combats vs. 2-3 per session in the 3.5e or 5e. The 3.5e was scaled back in terms of dungeon sizes, random encounters removed, etc. 5e run pretty much like 3.5e with identical encounters. It was a good plotline/story, so all three had some of the potential for roleplay, challenges, etc. which different groups approached differently and had different 'key' or 'memorable' encounters -- most of which weren't combat.
I find it hard to go back to 1e in terms of the clunky rules, but then again I miss massive campaigns like the ToEE, Slavers, AtG/VoD/GoDW which don't play the same way due to combat speeds. There are lots of 3.5e things which I disliked (micro-managing characters, feat trees) which 5e is both better and worse in. In the end, I'd say it doesn't matter the edition (other than 4e) it's mainly the campaign/module, DM, and players.
I still have some of my 1E/2E stuff but it is hard to get people to want to go back to the older TSR system mechanics, I have a love/hate for 3.5 and 5e is just too super-heroish for my tastes (although I still have a 5e campaign I finally fully converted to EN LU A5E which made 5e more tolerable for me to run) but I was able to get some people to try Castles & Crusades and enough liked it to keep moving forward, Personally it feels like old TSR D&D with smoother mechanics, and it is much easier to convert older 1E/2E modules to it than it is to WOTC D&D editions.
Started with the Basic boxset in the late 70's. Got into AD&D in '81 ... it's never left my affections :D I've played a lot of other systems but, oddly enough, never any other D&D versions. I bought the books for 3.5 and 5 but they never got used in anger - the closest was a few years back when I designed a new campaign setting and we were trying to organise a group ... but 'adulting' made it too difficult to schedule :(
19:56 If you're playing a tiefling and you didn't roll it up from the Planescape boxed set or The Planewalker's Handbook, no you are not.
Agree
I scored a 2nd edition forgotten realms boxset last year at half priced books. The one near deerbrook mall. Cheaper than Ettin games at the time. I also snagged a huge Dragon magazine haul each a buck fifty.
Impossible. Everybody knows that particular half price books only carries seventh edition 40K codexes in the gaming section
@Mr_Welch they've got a beat up star frontiers boxset behind the glass cabinet as we speak
I'd be interested in a similar video breaking down the different non-Advanced TSR games (OD&D, OD&D plus supplements, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer), but who has played all of those?
Started with 2nd Ed, and still love the settings from the time.
Once someone breaks out of the "latest game from the big company" paradigm, the question really isn't "which d&d" it's "which system out of all of them"
I'm really glad I started playing D&D when I did. I could play anywhere, even a place with a lot of stairs. I was spry, taking them two at a time sometimes. Those were the days.
Probably a homebrew of 3.5 is the most modular ruleset to use
Frankly, I've been able to find something worthwhile about every edition.
....as well as something foundationally wrong with it
For me personally, it's D&D 3.5.
IMO, the 3.0/3..5e Forgotten Realm content is the pinnacle of WOTC D&D setting crafting. I play a lot of 5e now (easier to get players on-board) but with a whole load of 3e fluff thrown in to "augment" the rules.
Thanks for this. It's always fun to get new perspectives in case ever play again.
Fourth edition is where i started and its still my favorite. I very much enjoy the battle mat playstyle more than theater of the mind playstyle. It also had my favorite class ever, Warlord.
My favorite 4e class is the Animist Shaman, who plays a lot like a Warlord.
40 year player as well. I have tried them all but keep going back to 2nd or 2.5 / Pathfinder. That is when I am not found in a Mech.
3.5, you mean?
MechWarrior?
@@energyfitness5116 MechWarrior, Battletech, and MegaMek
@@richardstephens3327 Nice
3rd is my favorite, yet I listened through it all to hear your opinion of each edition.
Excellent breakdown video!
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Ed is what my group settled on after playing every edition.
I want to go to Ye Olde Bookshop, I'll drive.
I'm fond of my homebrewed prototype. Enjoyed your descriptions, pretty much spot on. And Spin Spin Sugar... I miss the Sneaker Pimps. with Kelli Ali.
Another 40 year player here. We still play our stripped out 1e /BEC.
we've tried every edition to some degree, Hackmaster, Pathfinder, whatnot. Its just easier for the old men to head back home and let the kids play their derivative crap while we guzzle metamucil and remember to purchase rope, chalk, spikes, and belladonna.
You forgot the extendable pole and rations!
@@nordicmaelstrom4714 He found them in the starter dungeon where the party met.
2e or BECMI are my favorite. For Psionics, the Steve Winter book was perfectly playable with minimal tweaking. The revised version that came later in 2e, well, I didn't understand why it was even there and never used it.
Thanks for the video, it was fun… 3.5 FOR LIFE!
I see 3.5 a "Advanced 5E." Besides, I appreciate the fact that 3.5 has rules for unlimited level-ups, and I like the idea of seeing how far my character can go... Now I just need to find a group who does as well.
Right now out of these six 1st & 2nd are the only ones i have left to play. 4th is still my personal preference, i really enjoy tactical combat and any of its other flaws I i find fairly easy to fix with a little homebrew.
Started with 2nd ed, learnt and played 3-3.5, dabbled in Pathfinder, and have returned to run multiple games for AD&D. Love it here. Slowly running as many modules as I can for my two parties.
I've never understood the folks that like a single combat encounter to last over an hour, and to contain so much table math and gamey jargon that the raw feel of adventure is practically lost. But, hey, to each their own.
Do you know any POE players? That game is 90% buildcraft, 25% farming, 80% looking up build ideas on reddit. I'm not even a math geek, and can still appreciate compounding multipliers, synergistic triggers, (Hanibal Cigar) loving it "when a plan comes together".
So you have never played Advanced Squad Leader.
Or Star Fleet Battles...
@@freelancerthe2561 You are definitely not a math geek with those percentages (I joke
I still have my Add Thief Handbook. One of my favorite books in my collection.
I started with the BECMI red box. I then found AD&D and liked the customization and crunchier rules. Our group combined the two. Mainly, we used The Known World setting. Then came the AD&D home brew campaigns and we fully embraced AD&D using Greyhawk. Though I collected a lot of The Forgotten Realms at the beginning of it's run, that's when life reared it's head and my hiatus encompassed most of 2nd ed through to 4th. I collected the books with intentions to play 2nd and 3rd, but never seriously got around to it. I did play a few games, or tried to rather. Even a game of D20 Modern.
I started playing again soon after 4th arrived. I'd actually call it a different game, not really D&D but it was fun. I actually liked it for what it was. We played through a homebrew conversion of the Dragonlance Chronicles. Then 5th edition came out.
The group decided to disband with the DM focusing more on college so the rest of us separated and drifted to 5th ed. It seemed too simplified to me at first but I saw it as a gateway drug and couldn't argue with the popularity it showed almost instantly. Then coming from a player who liked 4th, I decided to add some of the things I liked from 4th into 5th. I quickly found out that most the stuff from 4th was already in 5th, just hidden by new terms. And it was here, as I started to DM 5th, that I found the flaws that I actually did not like at all.
I'll concede that I had no real experience with 2nd or 3rd. What I will say that had the most fun for the groups I was in was taking the best parts of each edition and mixing them in. Of course, this only works if you have multiple editions. If someone were to start playing today I'd probably suggest 5th just because they would be able to find a group right away, it's easy to play, and easy to learn. Then, figure out what it is you believe is lacking and, with more knowledge of what you are looking for in a game, choose from there. But also, look around at what other players are playing near you.
For example, I was really interested in Starfinder and Pathfinder 2nd ed. I went out and spent a lot getting ready to play or run campaigns. And then found NO ONE, within a 50 mile radius plays them. Well, if they do, it's a small group of friends who don't go to the brick-and-mortar stores or join any of the social medias of such places. After plenty of advertising and trying to find others, I got nothing but crickets. But there are a lot of 5th ed games going on, even an Adventurer's League-esque thing going on in one of the stores. I say -esque because it's not AL but they call it AL. It's just a bunch of AL players disgruntled with the AL rules who still show up, break off into groups, and play the home brew of whoever decides to DM that evening. And that sounds really cool but most of the DMs have never DMed or even played before. So it tends to go off the rails into a completely disjointed mess.
BECMI for the win. After much debating with myself, I have decided to make Mystara my setting of choice and BECMI as the rules I wish to play/run games.
My only issue with BECMI is it makes level gains far too rapid if you deal XP as written.
@@phaedruslive Well XP from monsters is very little. You can manage XP gain with treasure by not putting so much in the games.
@@phaedruslive Don't do that then!
I started with getting the Moldvay magenta box for Christmas 1981. Transitioned to AD&D pretty soon thereafter, but played both through the 1980s and ever since. Never switched to newer editions, though I've grabbed a few adventures and supplements over the years and converted them back. I then jumped into various retroclones so now I pretty much alternate between Old School Essentials for my B/X fix and Castles & Crusades for that AD&D feel, with house rules, of course.
My biggest regret is selling my Rules Cyclopedia (which was my first D&D).
I got into it because my older sister’s friend was into D&D, got the RC and a bunch of Basic adventures, but his group really wanted AD&D 2e. So perhaps 6 months after it was released, I bought it used.
I loved it, but my players (including a friend who inherited a lot of his older brother’s 1e stuff) wanted 2e (race + class, splat books, more spells, more shit released ‘92 onward) so I switched. Eventually sold my RC.
I love 2e. I, like most 1e and 2e DMs, don’t run RAW. I would lock out certain kits for a campaign and honestly, my players were pretty chill. Honestly, at least half played vanilla classes.
It really sung as an era/edition in the settings. I was huge on Planescape (actually my interest in philosophy and religion as a DM lead to me reading more real life stuff and eventually winding up majoring in both in undergrad and having a masters of theological studies). Also Dark Sun was pretty damn cool.
I actually got out of the hobby after 3e… with every fix (DC/unified mechanics, ascending AC, etc.) the broke another. And combat became sooo slow, especially when used to brisk and deadly combat. I wound up leaving the hobby for a while since barely anyone wanted to play 2e.
I got back in around 2015-2016 with Castles and Crusades. Not perfect, but good. Stuck more to the OSR end.
I did eventually get a hardbound reprint of the RC (and collected at least the core rules of every edition) but kind of finding my niche.
5e is too superpowered and crunchy, even if it scales back a lot of crunch. I like Basic/Basic-like ones, OSE in particular (especially with Advanced Fantasy). But even then there are things I like from 2e onward.
2e is probably my favorite, but as back in the day, I skip a lot of the super crunchy stuff. RC is probably the best overall. That being said, I am sticking more to cobbled together nonsense of OSE, Basic Fantasy, RC and a touch of 2e.
fortunately, it is back on print-on-demand I think
@ I have a reprint now. Just wished I had the original one I had.
Ravenloft, by which I mean the adventure module of that same name whose cover you showed in your video at 12:01, was created in 1st edition, not second edition. Likewise, Forgotten Realms was first introduced with a boxed set as a campaign setting in 1st edition, not 2nd edition.
been playing AD&D with the same group of guys since the 1980's. with Top Secret, Boot Hill, and Gamma World it was one of the first "universal" systems, and a dragon's treasure horde was just as likely to contain magic weapons as a case or two of hand grenades.
cool vid ty , many reasons in here why i went with my own watered down version, mostly because im old and slow.... lol
3.5 comes out of this pretty unscathed. I just wanted to hear what others thought of it since I play 3.5 with some homebrew stuff.
Excellent recap. Have you ever done a comparison of D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1 or D&D 5 and Shadow of the Demon Lord?
@@joeadams3228 I have not, I might do pathfinder as a musings though and put the comparisons there
*EDIT:* I just noticed your channel name... Mr. Welch... as in THE Mr. Welch? The list? I _loved_ that list! ❤ It inspired many of my later characters! Some of the material even made it into some of my fanfics!
0:39 "Plague"? Oh, you must believe in Cooties19. Is that "The floor is made of lava!" Reindeer Game really still a topic? Still, you stuck to the point otherwise, and really covered them well (I know 0e a bit and 1e through 3.x well, but essentially nothing of 4e and only Phandelver in 5e, so grain of salt there about my opinion and varying familiarity).
@@charlesrockafellor4200 I am he to whom you refer to
@@Mr_Welch That is awesome. :-) I searched your videos immediately, and have "Mr. Welch Reads the Things Mr. Welch Can No Longer Do In an RPG" open right now. Long-time admirer of that list, man, though you've probably heard that too many times before.
1st or 2nd Ed. for Advanced D&D (I'd lean to 2nd) or good old Basic Rules Original D&D which to this day remains the simplest system
4th edition was designed for a specific type of person and I am that person. Merging board games, tactical miniatures games, MMOs, and roleplaying games? That's exactly what I want. Its the only edition that understood the concept of a Tank class, which was the archetype I focused on in this edition. Plus, players would fight over who got to be the Cleric (the only edition where that ever happened) because Cleric was the most powerful class in the game.
Hate that edition but respect it at the same time. I never appreciated it until I played gamma world for it. I don’t want it for DnD. But I respect the engine and can play gamma world with it
I'd argue the 3e (3.5e) Cleric was pretty powerful. Not the most powerful class, but the most consistently powerful across levels. As for the 4e Cleric, my experience was that a lot of Leader types were in high demand. Warlords were popular, and my favorite was the Animist Shaman. It's an edition where most classes could be considered the "most powerful" under the right circumstances, although there were a few duds.
I like 3.5 because it gave the most option's. You want to play a wind sock? You can play a wind sock
I must be the exception, my favorite is most definitely 3.5, but I stayed to the end of the video. I feel it hit the balance point for streamlining/player options vs oversimplified/hand holding.
I wonder if our esteemed host would consider a similar video on some of the bigger OSR and OSR-adjacent games? Like, say, Pathfinder 1E vs Castles & Crusades vs Shadowdark vs Dungeon Crawl Classics. I know some of these have been covered in Mad Musings but I think I direct comparison of each games strengths and weaknesses could be interesting.
That's assuming Mr Welch has played them all, of course.
Great video!
Most exciting was BECMI and 1e when I was a kid back in the 1980s. I liked 2e too and played it several years. I tried 5e, but it didn't suite me because of the players being super heros and the oversimplified and not very balanced rules (advantage/disadvantage and short/long rest are the worst). Now, I am DMing a 3.5e campaign on the World of Greyhawk, and I love it, particularly the endless possibilities of the vast amount of rule books.
3.5 Greenhorn Grognard here, I know the System may not know when to stop, but the DM Should, the make or break of a 3.5 / 3.75 Game is a DM who can tame the system, Page 6 in the 3?5 DMg under Adjudicating Rules, the DM has Final Say, as it should be with any Edition, you are the Judge, not a Director.
I don't think 3.5 players are considered grognards. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am?
Personally, I think what really hurt 4e was the GSL. Not only did it cause Piazo to splinter off and create their own game, it put severe restrictions on 3rd party publishers. It also alienated a lot of players by being so mechanically different to all the earlier versions. But for me, it's still the best version of the game.
In terms of the characters being harder to kill, at low levels 4e characters have more HP than in any other edition. 1st level Wizards would usually have 20+ HP, giving them a good chance to survive a couple of attacks. Try that with a 1st level Wizard in any other edition. Wardens and Battleminds would often start with 30+ HP. Any character in 4e can access self healing in combat through 2nd Wind, and for some it was trivial to do so (looking at you, Dwarves). The downside is that it does take more to kill 4e characters, but for story orientated DMs I think that's a big plus. Because the Consitution modifier isn't added to HP when characters gain levels, that HP advantage is reduced at higher levels, but I believe most people play at levels where the starting advantage in HP still makes a big difference.
Best edition of D&D - HackMaster 5E, the true successor to TSRs D&D. Never given WOTC or Paisio a single cent and never will.
Do you really think you have any right to complain about things you fully admit you've never even looked at?
@ oh, I have looked and even played the later abominations. Gygax would not be proud of the crap D&D has morphed into.
@bedeodempsey5007 Gygax was a lunatic who went on record to admit that he bullied his own children and tried to stalk people so he could force people to play his game. I am damn happy to contribute to ruining what he wanted.
Been DMing since 1979.
Original (Basic/Expert/etc), AD&D (1e), AD&D (2e), D&D 3/3.5 are the best option, kids. PathFinder 1e isn't bad (it's like D&D 3.75).
4e thru 6e is trash. Don't waste your money.
BUT... ShadowDark is a great blend of good stuff from Basic and 5e DnD. Also try Castles & Crusades, OSE, DCC, and other OSR style fantasy systems.
Otherwise, stick to everything before 4th edition. You'll be happier and there is far more content and settings.
🤨 These days, Hasbro/WotC/TSR doesn't own the best versions of D&D.
Advanced Labyrinth Lord (group)
Swords & Wizardry Complete (solo)
I gave up on 5e. I play shadowdark exclusively now. Been adapting Nights Dark Terror to shadowdark and running it for my players
I prefer to mix and match editions. Theres bits I like from all of them, but I think the simple backbone of BECMI with the customization of classes and races from 2nd makes a good combo.
The tracking down of all the "to hit" modifers that are found in 3 different books for AD&D. TSR should have published an index with them all on it for a DM screen.
My question is what was your favorite and why? And what's the role-playing game like D&D that you will advise for people to play?
Colonizing fantasy Canada? Which module is that?
Which d&d version are you playing? Which d&d version is your favorite? (guessing its BECMI/ Rules Cyclopedia)
@@jaybakata5566 test of the warlords
10:04 What movie is this from? I'm pretty sure I've seen it, but can't remember. It's driving me crazy.
I haven't played much tabletop D&D since middle school in the mid 80's, but I still have Basic Set, and AD&D Player's Handbook. I liked that version quite a bit. 3.5 also seems pretty good, from the PC games I've played based on it.
@@POPNDOUGH Cohen the Barbarian
@@Mr_Welch Thanks! I never would have gotten that. I guess I was just jumbling some actors, and movies together. Filch from Harry Potter, Star Lord's mom from GotG, and maybe that new Conan movie with Jason Mamoa among all the other fantasy movies I've watched in my life. I'm gonna check out The Color of Magic, now, though. Hey, it's got Sean Astin from that TV show with Winona Ryder.
@POPNDOUGH My wife has told me that the name of the movie is actually troll bridge. Cohen the barbarian is the title character
@@Mr_Welch I saw that film short, but the picture at 10:04 seems to be from this scene in The Color of Magic, but possibly a production still ruclips.net/video/EEdNNMLTd4I/видео.htmlsi=wrrm0VrOaMNi08VG&t=2693
Anyone want an idea of how 4e classes worked, but you don't have time to try 4e? I wrote Player's Guide to Powers and it's on the DM's Guild. It has almost exact one-to-one conversions of the 4e Player's Handbook classes, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, and Magic Items into 5e rules. I even made a "universal" subclass that gives a standard 5e class a few weaker Powers to use as part of their normal abilities.
I always thought that the AD&D 2e Players Option: Combat and Tactics book was actually quite good as long as you were selective in the options that you brought into your game. It certainly set the direction of travel for the more tactical, map-based combat system in 3rd Edition. If you wanted that sort of thing it was there for you but, if not, then just ignore it. There was a reason why those books; Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, and Spells & Magic sort of constituted a 2.5 edition - they had a lot of good ideas that actually contributed a lot to the game and changed it quite a bit... unfortunately the gems were mixed in with a load of dross too. I was never keen on the class/race specific splat books, though the "Complete Books of Villains" and "Creative Campaigning" still get some use on occasion.
In the preview chat I tossed a cryptic spoiler that the answer of "which edition was right for me" was AD&D2E with carefully curated supplementation. I will go ahead and elaborate:
Specifically "1st printing" core PHB and DMG. These do not have black covers. In almost every instance black cover on 2E product = bad (2.5). They were using the covers to mourn the death of D&D. At least that's my story. The black cover is the version they sell at DTRPG both pdf and in POD, along with what they reprinted in the 2010s. They made all the wrong choices on purpose with those reprints (and frankly POD).
Monstrous Manual. The original compendiums, they're both contained herein and expanded upon, making this have more monsters than every other edition including the upcoming 6th edition, in spite of them touting that it's the biggest monster manual. They win on a technicality that this isn't called "monster manual" but was treated as such as soon as it was printed for 2E. Unlike any other time, the black cover version (2.5) is better as it will have the errata incorporated. The Monstrous Manual 1st printing had less reprints so the errata wasn't incorporated in the first printings, unlike every copy of the 1st print PHB and DMG I've ever physically held.
All the monstrous annuals and appendices are good to great.
Of the Complete books, they all have OK to good flavor but the only ones I'd actually pull rules from are the core four (Fighter's, Thieves, Priest's and Wizards). Even though it's inferred I'd only give anything from the Fighter's handbook to Fighter players, and only give anything from the Thieve's book to Thief players. Priests actually isn't for Clerics or Druids, it's for designing your own Clerics and Druids that aren't tropes based on English history and Hammer horror films. And the Wizard's book... also exists. I generally would only allow it + core, or ToM (see below) + Core, not all three.
Tome of Magic. I had a good time playing a Wild Mage and the Elementalist doesn't look OP and that's basically everything in this book beyond a bunch of new spells. Again I wouldn't add this and Complete Wizard's together, one or the other is sufficient. Basically the question is if you want the cartoonishly wacky magic of the Wild Mage or if that'll spoil the mood.
DMGR Blue books: All are OK to Great. I never found one I hated, and essentially they add to the DM's toolbox.
The settings: 2E's bread and butter is settings. Never liked FR, have everything for Planescape, never got into most other settings. Prefer to just make my own. Most 2E DMs I knew of the era didn't use published settings in spite of their popularity. The above tools are surprisingly malleable. Planescape is fun to read but a bear to play. Tend to use it for background material.
Skills & Powers = bad. I never got into Combat & Tactics or Spells & Magic because of it. I hear they are a bit better. No matter.
What’s the preferred way to play remotely with friends now? I haven’t looked into it in a very long time.
There are many options.
The nice thing about the older versions is that there's now a whole load of affordable 3rd party clones of them that tidy up the language and knock off some of the sharper edges, plus there's decades of experience in how to run them in order to avoid some of the game-breaking "features."
Book of 9 swords was indeed Wuxia fighters with spells but it wasn't overpowered at all, it was by design about half as good as actual spells
I don't know if it's accurate or just a feeling, but it always seemed to me that the book of nine swords was kind of a testbed for the ideas that became 4th edition's underpinnings.
started way back in the early 80 with AD&D then finally switched to pathfinder 1e after playing 3.5 for decades
Out of the editions of D&D I have played 2e, 3.5 and Pathfinder, and 5th, but early 5th back in like '16 - '18 before things went off the rails. Out of them, I hate 3.5 and Pf. It is in my opinion overly complicated and full of the Illusion of Choice while only having a handful of Correct Answers. I enjoyed 5th edition when it was young and 5e night over at my FLGS was known internally as TPK Tuesdays because of how brutal it was initially. I think people have forgotten about those days. By far my Favorite edition that I've played was 2e, even though I still have no idea how THACO works. I liked the options the Kits provided and I liked how each class felt truly different from the others, at least within the three sub-types.
Although i'm by no means 4e fan, i will always defend it as one of the best design wise. They had clear play style in mind and based design around it. It just came in the wrong time. 5e is much more evolution of 3.5 than 4th is. And that's the problem. If 4th came out 2014, it would be more successful just based on fact that VTTs got so much better than they were back in '07/08 cause if one edition benefits most out of VTT (and was indeed partially design with vtts in mind) it's 4th ed.
I refuse to let the +2 just go anywhere. Your right. After being begged to use it by a player I realized it made races almost pointless other than what they looked like. I bought the monsters of the universe book and realized that they used Tasha’s with all the monsters and that you were forced to use the new system. Ugggh. So I went through my book and made my own adjustments to each race. like faerie getting dexterity +2 and charisma +1
AD&D and 3.5 are what "D&D" is for me. 4th and 5th never did it for me.
I have decided none. I will make my own or play Shadowdark.
In my opinion:
1- DnD 5e
2- DnD 3rd
3- DnD 2nd
4- DnD AD&D
5- DnD Basic
6- DnD 4th
Yeah I still play 4th but it’s mostly due to requests from one player who DMs and for a change of pace to diversify our friend meet up each week and our DMs time to get next session with less stress
While PDFs are a newer format ironically if i were to make an online purchase I'd choose a TTRPG pdf over any movie or PC game because those have a high tendency to be removed or altered at a whim. Plus its easy enough to take a pdf purchased from drivethru in particular to your own dropbox. Just saying...speaking as someone who has a large legit purchases pdf collection.
Combat & Tactics was fantastic! The Critical Hit system alone made D&D combat deadlier and more dynamic. I utilize this one every time I run a 2e game, with a modification of the Critical Hit system. I always start the first die off at max damage, then roll the second and add that along with all the appropriate bonuses, only once. I up the severity of critical hits by one die category, and allow for a saving throw to cut the severity in half, rather than negating the critical hit itself. Hence, every battle feels dangerous.
No apologies for Skills & Powers, though. That one can die in a fire.
between the time when the oceans drank Atlantis and the rise of the sons of Arius... i started playing with B/X... moved later to AD&D 2nd, and finally pathfinder.
Started with 3.5, later 4th & 5th and then went to B/X, BECMI, DCC, and now S&W and AD&D
Prefer S&W for “pure S&D”. Simple and can add from BECMI and AD&D without breaking things.
Say what you will about 4e's monofocus on a single pillar of gameplay, but there's nothing better for getting a bunch of dorks to scream out their once-per-day powers like shounen anime protagonists about to carve a room in half with their inexplicable ki-powered sword-laser. It does only support a pretty narrow style of play, but it gets a certain genre of player extremely hyped when you lean into that aspect.
As a DM, if I could pick, I'd play a different version or even TTRPG every time I'd start a new mini-campaign. I'm sure if I was mostly a player I'd love to stick to something like 5e (complex turns, lots of character customization). I've found that when I'm not running the game I'm not as quick to see the issues of a system. As a DM you are faced with the trade-offs of your system of choice constantly.
Psionics got some major erratas and fixes via Dark Sun sidebooks. So if you had those, then it was a complete system. However... It was still pretty broken.
I still find that B/X or BECMI was the most consistent, logical, and playable version of early D&D.
D&D 3/3.5E, the perfect version of the game. I came up with BECMI and AD&D (2E), so I like those too, but 3E is the best.
1:43
"I'm not discussing the original D&D as that one was almost a prototype. They had classes and features that are core to the game but you had to get an Avalon Hill Boardgame for part of the rules, it wasn't a complete version for most players and that's why first edition was created"
That's absolutely not true. OD&D is quite playable and Swords and Wizardry is one of the most popular retroclones out there.
Wait, Humble TX? I lived there back in the very early 80s. Today, Ettin Games is totally worth a visit.
@@TheOldDragoon I'm friends with Dave. Early 80s was between HBC and Comics and Cards
We play 3.0, with bits of 3.5 allowed to creep in because there is a lot of material there. Mainly stick to 3.0 because of a ranger character - rangers in 3.5 are a completely different class so it's done mainly for continuity.
These characters actually originated in 2E, and you can kind of simulate 2E in 3.0 by just not taking feats or classes or things that contradict it. Like how C exists within C++. So we translated the old characters from 2E to 3.0 and found that we were in the late 1360's/early 1370's DR of the Realms, thus we are "playing through" the lore transitions from 2E Realms to 3.x Realms, putting our own mark on things. And the campaign has a unstated goal: avert the absurd BS of the Smell Plague (avert the 4E timeline altogether).
I want to get into AD&D for my next campaign. After running one and a half BECMI campaign for three years I've come to the conclusion I want the complexity and options of AD&D... but not the spells. Why they last so little when casting in battle is almost damn impossible? I want magic effect that lasts for turns thank you very much.
Is that blade coming out in an angle on the cover at the end?
Played all, and prefer 2nd Ed, but watched the whole video, probably because I like all editions. I have several hundred D&D sourcebooks and modules... including 1st print Deities & Demigods and Fiend Folio.