Gary Gygax hated 5th edition. 3rd ed all the way

[moace]

the remains of his bones shriek in agony at the bad rules

[Yakito]

I hate DnD no matter what edition. I hate that pen and paper world and all of its mechanics. There are much better and more fun worlds and mechanics to explore.
DND can stick to computer games for all I care. I lose interest in a session when somebody mentions it'll be DnD we'll be playing. Ugh...

Give me anything else but that ♥♥♥♥.

[Ashe]

Damn son. Then why isn't he on the forums ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about it now?

[Kyutaru]

引用自 Vixzian：

引用自 Kyutaru：

No, because all editions have had those elements, but left to player and DM decision. Codifying them in 3.5 is what CONSTRICTED RP by forcing mechanical adherence to social aspects. Players just min-maxed what benefits there were to Good vs Evil instead of choosing what they wanted to play. Complexity does not make an inherently better system. It ruins what is a simply beautiful system at heart. You don't need a book to tell you what your chance to poop is and exactly what modifier you have to do so. That's what eliminates a roleplay opportunity... forcing the DM to do things by the book.

I'm even more shocked that people would claim that 5e is a step down from AD&D when the latter had even fewer options, crunch, and abilities than 5e does.

Again wrong. Not all editions had those elements because not all editions had it's level of options. 3.5 is only constricting if someone who cares about min/maxing allows it to be.

Yes, they did. They just weren't presented in a book. You had freedom to draw outside of the lines, not restrictive multiple choice boxes. Playing AD&D didn't mean going around casting spells in sequential order or needing a feat to allow you to improvise an attack. It meant swinging on a chandelier to knock an orc into other orcs and cause them to fall down the stairs. It means disarming traps by word of mouth, not mere dice roll. Detecting secret doors involved actually SEARCHING for secret doors, not relying on a passive Perception check to eliminate needing to paying attention to descriptive clues.

You think something only exists if it's in the book. But that's what goes against D&D. It was an outline meant for DMs to color in the picture, not a fully drawn image that was identical across all tables. As Gygax's own words said, DMs were masters of the game and each table had its own game feel. Dictating that Drow are evil because the Player's Handbook says they are just stifles the creativity that created Drizzt Do'Urden.

[[TG] zac]

引用自 Kyutaru：

引用自 Vixzian：

Uhhh no. RP wise 3.5 is the best edition. Alignment, character diversity, character flaws, societal disparities, racial enmity, crazy amounts of class options, gods... THOSE are the tools of RP.

No, because all editions have had those elements, but left to player and DM decision. Codifying them in 3.5 is what CONSTRICTED RP by forcing mechanical adherence to social aspects. Players just min-maxed what benefits there were to Good vs Evil instead of choosing what they wanted to play. Complexity does not make an inherently better system. It ruins what is a simply beautiful system at heart. You don't need a book to tell you what your chance to poop is and exactly what modifier you have to do so. That's what eliminates a roleplay opportunity... forcing the DM to do things by the book.

I'm even more shocked that people would claim that 5e is a step down from AD&D when the latter had even fewer options, crunch, and abilities than 5e does.

As a DM I actually like having a lot of rules codified.

It lets me keep things consistent and saves me a bunch of time.

It also largely lets my players take characters from one of my games and bring them to another DM's (or vice versa) table where they know they will perform largely the same.

If I don't like an official rule however I simply do not use it.

For instance in my PF2e games I like about 70% of tables use the "free archetype" variant rule that the community came up with along with a few others.
And guess what, the company that makes the game is actually adopting that along with several other errata into their updated books.

That being said I can somewhat agree with you on complexity.
Its why pathfinder 2e is infinitely better then pathfinder 1e (they cut the useless bloat but expanded character choice by separating character feats into different categories, being class, heritage, general and archetype then made it so you got specific ones at specific levels. So character customization no longer competes with how your class is built)

[Conker]

引用自 Kaiji：

What does Gary Gygax know about Dungeons & Dragons?

obviously he is just some dude writing satanic books tryin to cause a panic amongst mortals

[Vixziค็็็็็n]

引用自 Kyutaru：

引用自 Vixzian：

Again wrong. Not all editions had those elements because not all editions had it's level of options. 3.5 is only constricting if someone who cares about min/maxing allows it to be.

Yes, they did. They just weren't presented in a book. You had freedom to draw outside of the lines, not restrictive multiple choice boxes. Playing AD&D didn't mean going around casting spells in sequential order or needing a feat to allow you to improvise an attack. It meant swinging on a chandelier to knock an orc into other orcs and cause them to fall down the stairs. It means disarming traps by word of mouth, not mere dice roll. Detecting secret doors involved actually SEARCHING for secret doors, not relying on a passive Perception check to eliminate needing to paying attention to descriptive clues.

You think something only exists if it's in the book. But that's what goes against D&D. It was an outline meant for DMs to color in the picture, not a fully drawn image that was identical across all tables. As Gygax's own words said, DMs were masters of the game and each table had its own game feel. Dictating that Drow are evil because the Player's Handbook says they are just stifles the creativity that created Drizzt Do'Urden.

You just described everything I did in 3.5 on top of the 70+ books available to me to further inspire creativity.

Dictating that Drow are evil isn't because a book says so it's because the lore created for the Drow dictates who the drow are as a race. Without that the Drow don't even exist. So if they are a creation and the foundation of their creation is that they are nearly inherently evil due to how they are raised and how their society works... THAT is the reasoning behind it not 'Players handbook says chaotic evil'.... come on man. That's not a stifling of creativity that is an invitation to use the nature of a race to create world building aspects in how said race interacts within it's own society and with those outside of it. Creating an infinite number of situational interactions and possibilities.

[TrashPanda]

One thing I do appreciate about 5th addition is not having to spend 5 minutes buffing up the party to obscene numbers after every rest just to be on par with the enemies or needing mods to do it for me. lol Yet 5th addition concentration annoys me. Why can't I have more tha one spell!!! GRRR... No way to please me.

But I do miss the endless creative ways to build characters in 3.5. That said... so often 3.5 based games encourage you to min/max taking away the potential for interesting builds. For example... always killed me that if you want to tank in some 3.5 based comp games... you were better off with robes than full plate.

my best memories of D&D comes from 3.5 campaigns with by friends ever weekend. And I loved DDO back in the day. An MMO that allowed you to mess up your toon! Was amazing for it's day.

[[TG] zac]

引用自 TrashPanda：

One thing I do appreciate about 5th addition is not having to spend 5 minutes buffing up the party to obscene numbers after every rest just to be on par with the enemies or needing mods to do it for me. lol Yet 5th addition concentration annoys me. Why can't I have more tha one spell!!! GRRR... No way to please me.

But I do miss the endless creative ways to build characters in 3.5. That said... so often 3.5 based games encourage you to min/max taking away the potential for interesting builds. For example... always killed me that if you want to tank in some 3.5 based comp games... you were better off with robes than full plate.

be best memories of D&D comes from 3.5 campaigns with by friends ever weekend.

You might like pathfinder 2e then.

Due to how the 3 action economy works you can maintain multiple spells at once (each only takes one action to maintain each turn)

They also have a lot more feats and separated them into categories like class, heritage, general and archetype with you getting specific ones at specific levels so unlike 3.5 you don't have stuff you need competing against RP stuff you want.

And its extremely hard to break anything numbers wise since they had actual mathematicians help design it.

In terms of complexity it hits the sweet spot between 5e D&D and 3.5 D&D

The entire rules set and everything (aside from lore) is also available for free & the company puts it up on Archives of Nethys

PS: if you want to tank their paladin (Champion), fighter, barbarian, swashbuckler or their monk are both godly at it and unlike 5e there are options to give your allies damage resistance (or take the damage for them) as a reaction with champion.
There are also some taunt like behaviors that can debuff enemies like the "Bon Mot" general feat.

[ihatevnecks]

引用自 Yakito：

I hate DnD no matter what edition. I hate that pen and paper world and all of its mechanics. There are much better and more fun worlds and mechanics to explore.
DND can stick to computer games for all I care. I lose interest in a session when somebody mentions it'll be DnD we'll be playing. Ugh...

Give me anything else but that ♥♥♥♥.

Preach.

[Zapp Brannigan]

引用自 mopace：

the remains of his bones shriek in agony at the bad rules

Gygax died 6 years before 5E came out...

[Mrblurr]

I'm excited to hear about Critical Rolls' new TTRPG system. Daggerheart I think. It would be nice to have a DnD competitor that's actually a bit different from DnD. Pathfinder is just DnD through a slightly shaded lens. lol

Also, from someone who started playing DnD at the end of 2nd Edition, and played all through 4E. 4E sucked balls compared to anything else. Haven't played 5th, but I've heard good things.

[Prophet Ge]

引用自 mopace：

the remains of his bones shriek in agony at the bad rules

As everyone knows, Gygax is now a level 53 arch-lich living his evil undead best life in a ruined tower protected by magical traps past an impassable, haunted mountain range, and only accessible at all behind a hidden door in a mountainside.

[Rumar]

2nd edition AD&D was best for the lore which helped the storytelling tremendously. I like the restrictions of AD&D as well because it forced you to be creative.

[Occursus]

引用自 🌸𝒱𝒾𝑒𝓇𝒶🌸：

3, 3.5 and 4th edition were the furthest thing from an Adequate D&D experience. 5th Edition brought back what the first 2 editions did amazingly well which was the RPing aspect haha

Tell me you never played those editions without telling it.

Shall we bring back class as being a race ? Because man, the earlier editions were wild in some respect (still love them).

[fluong]

What is exactly the point of kvetching about a ruleset? I remember disliking the rules of AD&D2, because the mechanics to roll for abilities, THAC0, saving rolls, and proficiencies were all different. Nevertheless, I played because that was what some of my friends were DMing. And those friends knew that when it was my turn to DM, we would play a game where the rules got out of the way, like Castle Falkenstein, the World of Darkness games, Elric!, or Legends of Five Rings. Heck, I even enjoyed the SAGA system TSR was supporting for a while. What mattered to us was the idea of crafting memorable stories. As the American poet Robert Creeley said, "form is never more than an extension of content."