| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| n/a |
Posted - 07 Sep 2007 : 19:15:19
I was just wondering, what edition of (A)D&D are you Realms played in? We play (I am the DM) in the first edition Realms (Grey Box and first 10 or so supplements), but with the second edition rules. I was wondering what ruleset/realms set everyone here uses. Please do not turn this into an argument about editions of (A)D&D. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sirreus |
Posted - 05 Oct 2007 : 15:47:43
I play 3.5. it's streamlined, allowing almost anything to be played(as a player or dm). combat moves smoothly, and all classes are skilled differently. I'm not impressed with what i'm hearing of 4e, both rule wise and lore wise. |
| Thangorn |
Posted - 05 Oct 2007 : 13:53:27
2nd Edition, full Player's option rulesets with a few house rules borrowed and converted from 3.5.. combat & tactics has the best combat rules for D&D bar none which is why my group still roll with it..
Some of the most awesome epic battles I've ever played have arisen from this system.
|
| BlackAce |
Posted - 05 Oct 2007 : 12:05:55
3rd Edition and have converted most of my tons of 2E material to 3E and so I'm looking at 4E with a sense of weary resignation.
Unless it's really good, we'll probably stick with 3E & 3.5 though. Which was pretty much our attitude toward 3rd. |
| Dalmar Amad |
Posted - 05 Oct 2007 : 03:00:49
Well met,
I've been playing 2nd edition with a few house rules since '92.
Through NWN 1 and 2 I've got a glimpse of 3/3.5. I truly like the skill-system in these editions but couldn't convince myself to buy anything of them. |
| Mr. Wilson |
Posted - 04 Oct 2007 : 09:07:46
3.5 and probably will convert to 4.0 mechanics. Still on the fence about the setting itself as presented by the designers. |
| Ugly is the new black |
Posted - 04 Oct 2007 : 05:24:42
My friends and I began playing D&D toward the very end of 2nd edition. We liked it a lot, but we were young, and a lot of the rules confused us. Wizards got ahold of D&D around that time and released 3rd edition, and we've been playing that ever since. Honestly though, I'd like to go back to 2E sometime. A lot of what didn't make sense then would be easy now that we're all fairly experienced, and besides, we've looked into playing Alternity a few times, and from what I can tell, it's similiar to 2E (minus THAC0 and whatnot).
So yeah, 3E/3.5E.
love,
nathan. |
| realcrowjoe |
Posted - 29 Sep 2007 : 01:17:37
When I DM which is most of the time it is 2nd. When our other DM runs it it is 3.5.
Me I like Elminster sitting in Mr Greenwood's house telling him secrets and eating his ice cream. |
| Aewrik |
Posted - 14 Sep 2007 : 19:45:03
Currently 3.5
I'm twisting and turning the rules in order to make a diceless version of the D20 system, but it's pretty darn difficult without upsetting various in-game balances that are solved by chance. |
| scererar |
Posted - 14 Sep 2007 : 03:12:24
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
3.5.... thousands of dollars' worth of 3.5 actually... name a sourcebook/accessory/supplement by WotC since 2003... I have it.
I am with you my friend. I have most as well. |
| freyar |
Posted - 14 Sep 2007 : 01:24:33
one 3.5 campaign in Erlkazar in 1358 and one 3.5 campaign in the Silver Marches in 1374. |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 14 Sep 2007 : 01:10:17
My Waterdeep campaign start in AD&D, made the transition to D&D 3.0, it's now in 3.5, and we thin in migrate to the 4th edition. In timeline, this campaign is now in the summer of 1370 DR.
My Unapprocheable East start and continue in the 3.5 rules. It's in Tarsakh of 1372.
My Vilhon Reach campaign by forum (that started today) is in the 3.5D&D. It's in Eleasias /1372
And my family will start another campaign, and I pretend to set that in the dales (with a focus in daggerdale). It will be in the 1367, I think.
Well, that's it. DMing 4 Realms campaigns, all in 3.5! But I really want to play a little, only to a change of state. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 14 Sep 2007 : 00:47:53
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Well I am serious enough about both the game and the Realms and I still prefer 2ed. It is mostly a matter of taste and preference.
Indeed--and if you're really used to one system, it might be more difficult to change over to a newer (much different) one. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 13 Sep 2007 : 17:40:45
quote:
Originally posted by sirreus
we(xysma and i) started back hardcore just as 3e came out. drgn issue 289 or so. from what we hear we'll probably just supplement the 4e lore into our 3.5 realms. it's my belief that anyone serious about this game and still plays 2nd ed., simply hasn't taken the time to understand 3e. the rules are well streamlined, especially the 3.5 errata, and combat seems much smoother than with earlier ed.'s. skills are much better and allow quickly referenced dc's.
we all love our realms. as long as you get to the table, it's not terribly important what ed. you prefer.
...'till the blood on your sword is the blood of a king. - Manowar
Well I am serious enough about both the game and the Realms and I still prefer 2ed. It is mostly a matter of taste and preference. |
| sirreus |
Posted - 13 Sep 2007 : 17:33:07
we(xysma and i) started back hardcore just as 3e came out. drgn issue 289 or so. from what we hear we'll probably just supplement the 4e lore into our 3.5 realms. it's my belief that anyone serious about this game and still plays 2nd ed., simply hasn't taken the time to understand 3e. the rules are well streamlined, especially the 3.5 errata, and combat seems much smoother than with earlier ed.'s. skills are much better and allow quickly referenced dc's.
we all love our realms. as long as you get to the table, it's not terribly important what ed. you prefer.
...'till the blood on your sword is the blood of a king. - Manowar |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 12 Sep 2007 : 02:35:21
3.5.... thousands of dollars' worth of 3.5 actually... name a sourcebook/accessory/supplement by WotC since 2003... I have it. |
| Dewaint |
Posted - 11 Sep 2007 : 21:50:08
well, the adventures of the grey box with the 1st, then 2nd 'til 2002 and currently the 3.5 with a lot of houserules; some of them reflecting 2nd spells and item creation.
At the moment i am realy sceptical about the 4.0 edition. To be honest we are quite comfortable with the actual version and maybe feeling to old  for another change of the ruleset. Furthermore i have accumulated enough material for many years to come.  |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 11 Sep 2007 : 13:48:44
Regular Campaign (that has been going for 6 years now) has been 3.0 updated to 3.5 when it came out. Was much easier to get new players without having to explain THAC0 :) We will probably finish this one with 3.5 (will probably take a couple more years at least with what the plot is), but we'll probably start a 4E one when it comes out to play the odd time till the mian campaign is done. |
| Vitellia |
Posted - 11 Sep 2007 : 12:51:14
Currently 2.0 in an forum play - had a look at 3.0 which was okay, but as rules are not as important to me as roleplaying, I'm afraid, I'm not really up to date ;) Wouldn't mind trying out 3.5 or even 4.0 (or any other system *g*) as long as I find a group which suits my needs 
Vitellia |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 08 Sep 2007 : 23:21:44
I play in a 3.0 campaign and I'm running a 3.5 campaign. (3.0 uses 3.5 material when it has to.) |
| Pharaun Mizzrym |
Posted - 08 Sep 2007 : 22:35:40
Version 2 because its my brothers old guides from way back when |
| Markustay |
Posted - 08 Sep 2007 : 16:52:20
I've played in every edition... and tried just about every other system out there (I really liked Runequest and Rolemaster).
I moved forward and I don't look back, except for maybe nostalgic reasons. The game has gotten better and less unwieldy with each edition, and that is why I have high hopes for 4e.
So to answer the question, it's 3.5 for me... for now. |
| Halidan |
Posted - 08 Sep 2007 : 16:11:02
I started with OD&D back in 1976. Switched to 1E, 2E and 3.0 as they came out. My long-term gaming group were playtesters for WotC for the FRCS and at least one of the original series of 3.0 modules. We broke up just before 3.5 came out, although I' ve judged 3.5 games for conventiuons and one-shots that I've done over the lst few years. I'm also currently getting ready to do some 3.5 intro games for a local game store. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 08 Sep 2007 : 10:41:09
My Realms are mostly those of the Gray box with what I find interesting from later products and what I have put into it myself. As for edition when using the Realms, it is 2ed. or another system entirely. |
| Victor_ograygor |
Posted - 08 Sep 2007 : 09:52:47
We play with the 3.5 system, but we have some home made rules of our own. |
| boddynock |
Posted - 08 Sep 2007 : 09:02:05
I started with AD&D in 1996. Now I only play 3.0 in combination with 3.5. characters are made in 3.0 version.
|
| Warrax |
Posted - 08 Sep 2007 : 07:10:08
I did the 1e and 2e thing for a while, tried 3eek and 3.5 because 3.5 was free through the SRD... and now I'm back to 2nd ed. I'm running my PBeM 2nd Ed (or will be when it starts very shortly) and I'm playing in a few 2e games. 3e's solid but I still love THAC0.
:D |
| Varl |
Posted - 08 Sep 2007 : 03:44:09
1e/2e hybrid since day 1. |
| scererar |
Posted - 08 Sep 2007 : 02:01:49
2E for the entire time period that it was around, now 3.5E. Reluctantly, I will switch to 4E |
| Xysma |
Posted - 07 Sep 2007 : 22:26:47
My group plays 3.5, our current consensus is that we will stick with 3E rather than going into 4E, but of course that may cange. |
| Reefy |
Posted - 07 Sep 2007 : 21:10:38
We have moved to 3.5 fully, after playing a reasonably modified 3E for a while. We moved from 2E when 3E first came out. As for 4E, that remains to be seen. |
