D&D tabletop.

england6667

What would be the best (and cheapest) way to get into D&D the table top version?

arontimes

http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm

That's the D&D 3.5 rules for free.

4e (the edition this game is very loosely based on), has Keep on the Shadowfell, which lets a party of five play from level 1 to level 3.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2F4news%2F20090428

If you want to play the latest edition (D&D Next, a.k.a. 5e)...

https://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx

Edit: All of these options are free, though you may need to register for D&D Next.

knightfalz

There is nothing wrong looking through 3.5 and 4th edition rulebooks, but if you are just starting out you may want to look at 5th edition instead, as that will be WotC's focus. There was a big change from 3.5 to 4, so the change from 4 to 5 may be large as well.

However, you can probably find groups playing just about every edition of the game, depending on how large a city you live in, or if you play online. As such, you may want to look over the rules of several editions and seek a group that plays the one you like most.

serpinecoh

knightfalz wrote: »

There was a big change from 3.5 to 4, so the change from 4 to 5 may be large as well.

Based on my experience with the playtest of D&D Next the difference between it and 3.5 is more on scale of that between 2e and 3e. Most aspects of 4e (good or bad) have been lost.

knightfalz

serpinecoh wrote: »

Based on my experience with the playtest of D&D Next the difference between it and 3.5 is more on scale of that between 2e and 3e. Most aspects of 4e (good or bad) have been lost.

Yeah, that's what I thought just glancing through some of the info on 5 on the WotC D&D site. It seems they enjoy radical shifts. Hopefully they'll feel they are more on track this time around and 5th Ed. will have a long shelf life, and future editions will be more of a progression along the same line rather than yet another re-imagining of the rule set.

rhoric

the groups I have played with and still play with when I have time away from work is all 2E. Didn't like 3e and have not touched 3.5 or 4

bluedarky

knightfalz wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I thought just glancing through some of the info on 5 on the WotC D&D site. It seems they enjoy radical shifts. Hopefully they'll feel they are more on track this time around and 5th Ed. will have a long shelf life, and future editions will be more of a progression along the same line rather than yet another re-imagining of the rule set.

4e has had the same shelf life as 3e and 3.5e (about 5 years)

bracer2

As far as rules sets go, you cannot go wrong with editions 2e(AD&D)through 3.5. I would stay away from the earliest versions and 4e as they dont allow for total flexibility imo.

Just a side note, 4e was created for video game format, and has little to no value in a quality tabletop environment. I would have to say i does nothing for video games either, just removes fundamental D&D.

As far as cost, any of those editions (2e-3.5e) are very affordable for the PHB and DMG, even a MM would be withing 20-30 bucks for all three. Cheaper even if you look online, as they dont sell for close to retail anymore. Then you need a set of dice around $8. So cheap. Figure around 30-35 dollars will get you all that you need.

jerseyimperator

The Red Box is the cheapest way to get into the game ($20)

http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e5bf/?srp=3

its extremely **** friendly and comes with everything you need to create your first character and try a game or few (dice, books, tiles, character tiles, etc) . There are also downloadable .pdf modules that build on the story from the red box and continues it, also for free. but eventually if you really want to play you will have to get traditional books.

jerseyimperator

and the word they censored was "nube" (but spelled with numbers). I didn't know that was a swear word, lol

serpinecoh

bracer2 wrote: »

Just a side note, 4e was created for video game format, and has little to no value in a quality tabletop environment.

Other then it borrowing a few terms, I've never really understood the whole "video game" accusation: It plays more like a game of chess then a game of Diablo. To me 4e is actually a very solid system for a tight tournament / tactical game.

bracer2

serpinecoh wrote: »

Other then it borrowing a few terms, I've never really understood the whole "video game" accusation: It plays more like a game of chess then a game of Diablo. To me 4e is actually a very solid system for a tight tournament / tactical game.

Though i dont have a link to it, WoC openly stated upon release of 4e that it was designed for online games, as the regular D&D rules are to complex and diverse to be applied to mmo video games.

Its the most dumbed down version of D&D to ever be released, this is easily proven by comparing the 4e rules to any other D&D version.

knightfalz

bluedarky wrote: »

4e has had the same shelf life as 3e and 3.5e (about 5 years)

Yes, both of them had a terribly short life span.

knightfalz

bracer2 wrote: »

As far as rules sets go, you cannot go wrong with editions 2e(AD&D)through 3.5. I would stay away from the earliest versions and 4e as they dont allow for total flexibility imo.

That depends much on personal taste. I found 3/3.5 to be nothing but wrong, with the incredible level of minutia in it. I never bothered looking much at 4 as I felt it strayed too much from the original game. As for the limitations of earlier editions, that also depends much on taste, and added flexibility is simply a DM call away.

One of the most economical editions to get is the Dungeons and Dragons Rules Cyclopedia, that puts everything from the Basic Edition under one cover, along with new bits that allow for more complexity and alternate rules for removing racial level limits.

It doesn't allow for the full diversity of later editions of (A)D&D in many areas, but for someone just learning the game that extra level of diversity can be a curse as well as a blessing. In some ways though, it is more complete than the latest versions of the game, with some of the options within allowing for some comparatively detailed extras.

It's economical as you only need the one book, and at most in addition the DM screen. It may be a challenge to find though, as I suspect it is pretty rare compared to most older books.

bracer2

knightfalz wrote: »

That depends much on personal taste. I found 3/3.5 to be nothing but wrong, with the incredible level of minutia in it. I never bothered looking much at 4 as I felt it strayed too much from the original game. As for the limitations of earlier editions, that also depends much on taste, and added flexibility is simply a DM call away.

Agree. Considering that you hardly need a rules set at all as a DM can change anything, create anything for any reason at any time. Though in my experience gamers i know all agree that 2e -3.5e is kinda the "golden" years of D&D rules sets. For folks just starting out i think this era would suit best. JMO.

knightfalz

bracer2 wrote: »

Agree. Considering that you hardly need a rules set at all as a DM can change anything, create anything for any reason at any time. Though in my experience gamers i know all agree that 2e -3.5e is kinda the "golden" years of D&D rules sets. For folks just starting out i think this era would suit best. JMO.

Though I greatly dislike 3.5, I expect that many had a better opinion of it than me, so I could see many feeling it met a higher standard than I do. Second edition is alright. I like the non-weapon proficiency system it has compared to most modern skill systems, as I don't recall it having anything that substituted for role-play interactions.

obsidiancran3

If you don't mind digital books you can get the Rules Cyclopedia from http://www.dndclassics.com/index.php along with various other books.

For me Next is shaping up to be a solid edition, though until final calls on some things are made it will be tough to be certain, so far though 4E is my favorite, especially when DMing.