PDA

View Full Version : Your favo(u)rite D&D edition?



PoeticDwarf
2016-04-03, 02:09 PM
As the title says. Which do you prefer?

Mine is probably 4e. All PCs are heroes from level 1, movement and actions in combat, pretty balanced but still enough options etc.

I enjoy both 3.5e for the cool options and 5e because it is just simple and balanced but 4th is unique and awesome from level 1.

Curious what you all think

denthor
2016-04-03, 02:42 PM
2nd edition due to that is what I originally played. 3.5 runs a very close second

FabulousFizban
2016-04-03, 04:48 PM
5e. 3x is a #s game & 2nd has THACO

ATHATH
2016-04-03, 05:35 PM
3.5, for the sheer number of options available.

Seriously, go to dndtools or something and look at the number of pages of classes, feats, and spells. A few of them are duplicates (updates in later books and such), but most of them are unique. Then remember that dndtools doesn't include Dragon Magazine content, which has a 100 or so issues for 3.5 and 3.0 (which is compatible with 3.5).

ApocalypseSquid
2016-04-03, 06:01 PM
2e. Nothing else gives the "Classic D&D" feel like it does (and it's better made than 1e)

Kane0
2016-04-03, 06:08 PM
5e. 2e-ish simplicity, 3e-ish options and 4e-ish balance wothout sacrificing too much of each. Its also the one i get a good chance to own all the books for, what with my age at the time of previous editions and more controlled rate of releases.

Faily
2016-04-03, 06:21 PM
3.5 and it's younger brother Pathfinder.

Comet
2016-04-04, 12:35 AM
The Rules Cyclopedia. Just the right amount of rules, interesting character paths and clear guidelines on what players are supposed to be doing and what kinds of stories we're creating. Also a surprising amount of coherent world information in the rules themselves, resulting in a world that is pretty weird without going full-on surreal.

Yora
2016-04-04, 02:53 AM
B/X, the rules light D&D. Specifically retroclones like Basic Fantasy or Lamentations of the Flame Princess that replace the calculation of attack rolls with something sensible. With a different magic system it would even be my favorite RPG.

Khedrac
2016-04-04, 06:31 AM
BExCM/Cyclopedia for me (I don't really think either Immortals rules set is that good).

SirBellias
2016-04-04, 06:43 AM
5e, then pathfinder, then 4e.

5e and 4e because they're the most accessible/simple for my friends, and pathfinder because complexity is good sometimes.

viking vince
2016-04-04, 09:56 AM
1e, primarily because I've never played 2e or higher. (Yes, I still mess around with 1e).

Eldariel
2016-04-04, 10:03 AM
AD&D 2e with Player's Options. It's a versatile system with a modicum of sense and somewhat workable balance design (with a lot more organic XP/leveling systems), most significantly lacking in the free customizability, but Player's Options does at least bring some customization onto the classes themselves, and there are multi/dual classes. The system is full of all sorts of cool, weird stuff. I particularly like the spell design: very powerful but very dangerous. Be it calculating angles for bolts on the fly or praying against the system shock (or for it, if Polymorphing an enemy), spells have the sorts of strengths and weaknesses you'd probably expect them to, and things are much less homogenous than later in general.

themaque
2016-04-04, 10:05 AM
It's a tie depending on what my goals are for the campaign. Either 5th edition or Pathfinder.

5th edition replaces 1st to 2nd for me and Pathfinder replaces 3rd through 4th.

2D8HP
2016-04-04, 10:20 AM
The short and easy answer is whichever edition the people you want to play with use!
Longer answer:
From a used book store I recently picked up "The Classic Dungeons & Dragons Game Rules and Adventures Book" which I am guessing came from a 1994 basic set. As a Dungeon Master (unless the players insist otherwise) I would probably choose those rules as they are close to the rules I memorized in the 1970's and look real easy to learn, plus the 1e modules I have look easily compatable. While I still remember 1e pretty well, I simply don't know 2e, 4e, and the post 1977 and pre 1994 "Basic" editions so I can't speak on them. The 3e and 3.5 rules just have way to many options to keep track of, so all else being equal, as a player I would probably chose 5e because it looks close enough to the 1970's rules I remember for me to jump into. Playing a "Champion" Fighter looks nicely rules light while still being effective, plus compared to Oe and 1e, more of the other 1st level classes look powerfull enough to survive more then a few sessions.
But really whatever the edition, if it has dragons in dungeons I want to play it!

VincentTakeda
2016-04-04, 12:58 PM
2e for me. Zeb and Greenwood. Them's my dudes.

obryn
2016-04-04, 01:06 PM
1st place: 4e by far. It's the edition I've run the longest*, and been the happiest with.

2nd place: Close, but I'll go with BECMI/RC/BX ... the "Basic" line.

3rd place: Like I said, close - AD&D 1e. Yeah, it's wonky, but it's what I grew up on. The adventures are top notch.

4th place is probably 5e.

I don't really care for 2e or any of the 3.x's, so they're down at the bottom.


* Yeah, that's weird, but I think it's accurate? No idea; I've been playing since 1982ish, but I don't think I've run continual campaigns without significant breaks as long as I have with 4e. In the 80's and 90's we experimented around with all kinds of games; Marvel FASERIP in the 80's and Earthdawn in the 90's, for example. I ran 3.x on and off for its entire lifespan as a product, but was dissatisfied so I ran a whole lot of other stuff, too. With 4e, we're mainly doing one-shots with other systems instead of longer campaigns.

oxybe
2016-04-04, 02:44 PM
4th > 3rd/pf > 2nd ed > 5th ed

4th ed gives the best "adventurers doing adventurer things" experience, it could use some cleaning up, but the same can be said of all D&D editions and 4th ed does what I want from D&D the best and has the cleanest system to boot.

3rd/pf is probably the game i have have the most issues with but with the right group we can make it work and the game's options are it's strong suite

2nd is a mess, but a familiar one and does the weak/nobodies who strap up their boots and grab some old somewhat-sharp piece of metal and adventure. works for the more lethal games.

5th is probably the game i'm least familiar with but also the one i currently have the least amount of issues with. problem is, i don't have any motivation to learn more about the game. it's so... bland, so vanilla, so safe... and doesn't really do anything i want in particular that i don't already have. the game doesn't do anything to pique my interest.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-04-04, 05:46 PM
3.X

I love the complexity, I love the lore, and it all just sorta 'clicks' with me. I don't particularly like PF because it made too many fiddly little tweaks and dropped the ceiling on maximum power accross the board. I -may- occasionally backport a piece here and there, though I haven't found anything worth the effort yet.

4e is too simple and I'm not much familiar with the rest to make judgements.

D+1
2016-04-04, 06:10 PM
1E.

Warts and all.

JBPuffin
2016-04-04, 07:06 PM
My favorite edition at the moment is 5th, with 4th behind - they're the editions I've had the most experience with, 4e as a player and 5e as a GM. Great times on both regards.

Scots Dragon
2016-04-04, 07:49 PM
It's basically a tie for me.

On one hand there's Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st and 2nd edition which I consider as being parts of the same basic edition since they're similar enough to use most rules interchangeably. I like its complexity and its options, as well as the fact that it's modular and customisable enough to change things out without breaking anything.

On the other hand there's Classic Dungeons & Dragons, as embodied by the B/X, BECM and Rules Cyclopedia, which has a few differences I don't quite like but I enjoy the system as-is for its surprising level of elegance. That it's similar enough to the above for certain spells, rules, magic items, monsters, and other such to be used as an interchangeable note doesn't hurt.

Naturally my current approach is to take some cues from the B/X retroclone Labyrinth Lord (and more specifically its Advanced Edition Companion) and merge in some of the ideas there to create a hybrid.

I have a close second place adoration for the Original 1974 Dungeons & Dragons, and think it's a pretty underrated classic, especially when used with the Greyhawk and Blackmoor supplements. Granted at that point it's basically the missing third piece of the above puzzle given its own benefits.

I like some of the stuff that 5th edition does, but it has a few minor annoyances that stop me from really getting into it.

I also have a distant fourth place like for Pathfinder, albeit far more for its lore and background information than for its actual rules at this point.

Mark Hall
2016-04-04, 07:50 PM
Of just D&D:

2e > RC > 1e > 4e > 3.x

5e I haven't played, aside from the early playtest stuff.

2e improved on the design of 1e, clarifying a lot, clearing up some of the weirder bits, and creating more options, without overwhelming you. Rules Cyclopedia is simply a joy to read and gather information from. 1e has more warts than I want, and some wonky bits of logic, combined with a relative inflexibility compared to 2e. 4e I do not enjoy making characters, but it plays smoothly and is relatively solid design. 3.x is an annoying mess.

JAL_1138
2016-04-04, 08:20 PM
2e's the edition I started with and still my favorite. It's certainly not without its flaws, but I have the most fun with it, both as a player and DM. It also had a vast library of great setting material to draw from. As a bonus, material from 1e and BX/BECMI/RC (up to 20th level anyway) can be used with 2e with very little effort to convert.

5e has been a pleasant surprise thus far, and is my second-favorite. I'm not as fond of it as 2e, but it has a lot of the classic "feel" despite the mechanics being quite different. It's easy to use, quick, and flows well, too. In some ways it's even easier to DM; 2e didn't really have much of anything in the way of encounter-balancing guidelines, for instance.

While I've played some BX/BECMI/RC modules, I've never played a game with BECMI/RC characters or rules, so I can't truly evaluate them. I've never used Holmes Basic at all.

Never liked 3.X or 4th, for a variety of different reasons. (It'd take too long to get into all my gripes with either edition, so I'll just leave it there for now.)

Inevitability
2016-04-05, 12:38 AM
Tough question... If I had to choose, I'd say 5th edition when DMing and 3.5 when playing. 4e's great too, but the system requires a number of tweaks to make it work.

Piedmon_Sama
2016-04-05, 12:42 AM
3.5 for the heavy customization allowed for characters, monsters and just about everything! I love the way you're invited in 3.5 to really go under the hood and not just "refluff" but really change the way something works, so THIS ogre isn't like THAT ogre and so-on.

EvilestWeevil
2016-04-05, 01:26 AM
5e is my favorite, 3.x is a close second, but I started with 3rd. 4e is like the star wars prequels of D&D, a lot of cool ideas with poor execution, and very few redeemable qualities.

Or you could say its the Aquaman of D&D for the comic fans.

Knaight
2016-04-05, 02:28 AM
5e. I dislike the D&D line in general, but I've found 5e more tolerable than most.

2D8HP
2016-04-05, 08:25 PM
5e. I dislike the D&D line in general, but I've found 5e more tolerable than most.
Heresy!
(actually while I still look forward to playing D&D for a long time I've wanted to play Pendragon even more and while I don't really remember or care about the rules, the Castle Falkenstien setting looks great)
But if you don't like D&D what is the attraction of "Order of the Stick"?

Pex
2016-04-05, 08:50 PM
Pathfinder metaphorically. 3E technically.

Kish
2016-04-05, 09:11 PM
3.5ed. No question at all.

VoxRationis
2016-04-05, 10:13 PM
2nd edition, then 5th, then 3rd (even though I play 3rd and don't really mind its flaws enough to stop playing it). I am not especially fond of the new direction of flavor that 3rd started, and I'm glad 5th, while giving lip service to it (such as the continued inclusion of 4e's tieflings and dragonborn), cut back down in some ways. But I enjoy 2nd's grittier feel and frequent references to historical examples, as well as the genuinely more interesting spells that 3rd cut out (Leomund's lamentable belaborment being my favorite example).

Winter_Wolf
2016-04-05, 10:14 PM
"Basic" BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia all the way. After that, 1E/2E for me. 3.X mostly killed my interest in everything after 2nd. I still have and read 3.5E, but I'm itching for BD&D.

Knaight
2016-04-06, 12:07 AM
Heresy!
(actually while I still look forward to playing D&D for a long time I've wanted to play Pendragon even more and while I don't really remember or care about the rules, the Castle Falkenstien setting looks great)
But if you don't like D&D what is the attraction of "Order of the Stick"?

I know D&D well enough to still find jokes about it funny, and that held up for the first hundred strips or so. Since then, it's mostly been that OotS is a solid and well told story, and that the D&D aspect really isn't essential to that.

goto124
2016-04-06, 01:21 AM
But if you don't like D&D what is the attraction of "Order of the Stick"?

It features jokes that apply to games and stories in general as well. That's how I got from TVtropes to OotS to DnD!

The art is really nice too. Simple, colorful, and pleasing to the eyes.

Inevitability
2016-04-06, 02:23 AM
It features jokes that apply to games and stories in general as well. That's how I got from TVtropes to OotS to DnD!

I got into D&D the exact same way!

Thrudd
2016-04-06, 08:26 AM
Wow, it's crazy people discovered D&D because of OoTS, not the other way 'round. I would never have thunk it.

1E AD&D and Basic/Expert/Rulescyclopedia tied for me, it's what I started with and they create the gaming experience that I enjoy most. Ten years ago I would have said 3.5e, but I realized I was basically homebrewing it to be more like AD&D in order to get the game I really wanted.

I like elements of 5e, but I can't say I favor it. I would homebrew it to be more like Basic/AD&D, if I had to run a game of it.

My perfect game is a homebrew mixing elements of 1e and Rulescyclopedia.

Milo v3
2016-04-06, 08:31 AM
3.5e (and PF) without a doubt, it's buggy but better than the other games at my groups aims.

2D8HP
2016-04-06, 08:49 AM
Wow, it's crazy people discovered D&D because of OoTS, not the other way 'round. I would never have thunk it.


I'm amazed/surprised as well!

Pluto!
2016-04-09, 11:03 AM
I only clicked this because the (u) in the title made me angrier than I can actually justify.

And definitely Castles and Crusades. For simplicity and semi-compatibility with just about every monster manual in ever.

Straybow
2016-04-09, 02:21 PM
1E AD&D and Basic/Expert/Rulescyclopedia tied for me, it's what I started with and they create the gaming experience that I enjoy most. Ten years ago I would have said 3.5e, but I realized I was basically homebrewing it to be more like AD&D in order to get the game I really wanted.

I like elements of 5e, but I can't say I favor it. I would homebrew it to be more like Basic/AD&D, if I had to run a game of it.

My perfect game is a homebrew mixing elements of 1e and Rulescyclopedia.
Yeah, I considered 3.x to be a vehicle for selling books to schnooks. (Oh, look! A new class that's like this one and that one but with the other thing added.) But the framework of the SRD could be adapted into interesting things.

I'd keep homebrewing 3.5 until it is boiled down an improved 1e/2e type game.

oxybe
2016-04-09, 03:03 PM
I only clicked this because the (u) in the title made me angrier than I can actually justify.
Agreed. Only uncultured barbarians would dare drop the "u" in "favourite".

Kelb_Panthera
2016-04-09, 03:30 PM
I only clicked this because the (u) in the title made me angrier than I can actually justify.


Agreed. Only uncultured barbarians would dare drop the "u" in "favourite".

Silly english speaking people. (of which I am one.)

Yora
2016-04-09, 03:40 PM
2e for me. Zeb and Greenwood. Them's my dudes.

Zeb's the man!

BECMI
Isle of Dread
Dwellers of the Forbidden City
Oriental Adventures
Planescape!!!

oxybe
2016-04-09, 03:45 PM
Silly english speaking people. (of which I am one.)

French Canadian here. Like all commonwealths, I learned Her Royal Majesty's proper English. :P

Angel Bob
2016-04-09, 03:59 PM
I, a filthy n00b, have only played 4e and 5e, so I can only comment on those two. As a DM, I prefer 5e for storytelling and roleplaying purposes. It really makes the campaign feel like a fantasy story, even in its most gamey moments, and it's way quicker and simpler for my players to learn. However, I will always have a soft spot for 4e, because encounter design was so much easier in that edition. Building balanced but entertaining encounters took very little effort but was highly rewarding -- the best combats I've ever had were in 4e. Meanwhile, in 5e I have no bloody idea how to make any sense of the CR system, especially with six PCs rather than five. I just have to eyeball everything and live in fear of causing a TPK.

All things considered, though, I have to go with 5e, for the overall feel of the game.

Thrudd
2016-04-09, 04:00 PM
French Canadian here. Like all commonwealths, I learned Her Royal Majesty's proper English. :P

Sure, but what kind of French did you learn? :smallwink: jk

I'm mostly Quebecois by ancestry. We're probably related. Cousin.

Quertus
2016-04-09, 04:31 PM
I like a lot of things about 3.x, including the core system, and the sheer number of options. But I had the most fun with, and the most favo(u)rite characters in, 2e.

neonchameleon
2016-04-09, 04:48 PM
1: 4e. I can run it on a wing and a prayer (all I need are the Skill Challenge DCs and the MM3 on a business card). There's massive flexibility in building viable characters. The kinaesthetic combat is amazing. And the whole thing works.

2: RC, B/X or BECMI. (Or assorted retroclones). For that hardcore dungeoncrawling experience. One of the best designed, best tested, and best balanced RPGs ever.

3: 5e. To play it's unobjectionable and has a pretty good diversity of classes. I'd much rather run a system that gives me help running the game it's trying to be.

4: 1e: The Spite Edition. The entire purpose of 1e was to take oD&D (or B/X) and screw Arneson out of royalties by pretending it's a different game. It's best used as a collection of optional rules for RC or BECMI.

5: 3.0. A relatively strong if flawed effort to put 2e onto a consistent base. A pity they screwed up the saving throws and a couple of classes as well as not understanding the level structure.

6: Pathfinder. After 9 years it still couldn't fix what was fundamentally broken in 3.0, but the flaws in it mostly stem from politics.

7: 2e. This game is barely fit for purpose. It tries to change D&D from murderhobos to epic fantasy while not understanding anything about incentive structures.

8: 3.5. The blatant cash grab edition. Released only 2.5 years after 3e it made a few errata level fixes (Ranger, Bard, another failure at the Monk, the Haste Spell) - but the fundamental reason for this edition was to make just enough changes to 3.0 to not be backwards compatable without changing any of the fundamentally broken structures in 3.0.

oxybe
2016-04-09, 05:23 PM
Acadian French from PEI. Little to no connectivity to the mainland means that the dialect still has roots in some Ye Olde Frenche grammar, mixed in with some random smatterings English for brevity or precision and due to how it condenses words to be near incomprehensible by almost anyone but other Acadians.

I recommend looking up "The Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing, A Prince Edward Island French case study" by Ruth King for an actual study on our particular manner of butchering the French Language.

Thrudd
2016-04-09, 06:18 PM
Acadian French from PEI. Little to no connectivity to the mainland means that the dialect still has roots in some Ye Olde Frenche grammar, mixed in with some random smatterings English for brevity or precision and due to how it condenses words to be near incomprehensible by almost anyone but other Acadians.

I recommend looking up "The Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing, A Prince Edward Island French case study" by Ruth King for an actual study on our particular manner of butchering the French Language.

My folks are most recently from the St Laurence, Mauricie, Trois Rivieres region. My pepe's family spoke Quebec French, but American school only teaches mainland French. I did a lot of work on my ancestry recently, I was able to trace back reliably all the way to 16th century in France, Perche (pretty common), Normandy, Ile de France and Aquitaine. That's why I'm sure anyone of French Canadian decent is likely related to me, some 10-12 generations back. There wasn't a lot of immigration after a certain point, everyone was Catholic, and families commonly had 10+ children.

Brainstorming for a story a while back, I considered that some version of Canadian French should be represented in a version of post-apocalyptic eastern North America, similar to how Firefly has mandarin phrases blended into English, and there have been sci-fi stories where Russian and English blended. Maybe I need to be exposed to more Quebecois media, but I can't recall ever reading or seeing anything where French Canadian language and culture are represented in such a manner. Mad Max: Beyond le Dome de Tonnerre.

And that's why I prefer Rulescyclopedia and 1e. Because I do not engage in off-topic discussion. :smalltongue: (I'm trying).

oxybe
2016-04-09, 06:57 PM
Post apocalyptic french canada? Shadowrun, chummer. "Republic of Quebec (http://shadowrun.wikia.com/wiki/Republic_of_Qu%C3%A9bec)"

Iguanodon
2016-04-09, 07:26 PM
5e for sure. It's just such an elegant system that really embodies what the D&D-style RPG should be about, in my opinion. The lack of options doesn't offend me much; it's more fun to try to be creative under constraints like these.

Gizmogidget
2016-04-09, 07:32 PM
When I DM I prefer 5e when I get a chance to play I prefer Pathfinder/3.5. I enjoy the complexity of 3.5 but because I have such high turnover rate because I DM at my high school I use 5e cause it is just so easy to learn.

2D8HP
2016-04-09, 07:53 PM
1e: The Spite Edition. The entire purpose of 1e was to take oD&D (or B/X) and screw Arneson out of royalties by pretending it's a different game. It's best used as a collection of optional rules for RC or BECMI.

Even though I only briefly played oD&D, and the version of D&D I have mostly played has been 1e AD&D (gazes forlornly at "A Paladin in Hell" illustration, while humming "The way we were"), inspired by a post on another thread:

I mentioned this in one of the "Things I May No Longer Do While Playing" threads, and while I'm not trying to kick off an actual argument on this thread, I might as well repeat it here, (since it's tangentially relevant):

I do like to troll people that 3.X and 4th weren't real, much the same way as the alleged but definitely nonexistent "prequels" in Star Wars. So WotC bought TSR and shuttered D&D and AD&D for over a decade. They did release one RPG product, a generic game engine designed to compete with GURPS, and were hoping to get the license to Star Wars for it, but Star Wars never went anywhere after West End lost the license. After Paizo's RPG based on WotC's generic engine hit big, they decided D&D needed to make a comeback, but needed a new system to differentiate it. When they finally relaunched the product line, 14 years after shelving it, they decided to unify the Basic and Advanced lines and adopt a new numbering system to reflect the unification:

OD&D--1
Holmes Basic--1.5
1e--2
Unearthed Arcana--2.5
B/X--3.0
BECMI--3.5
RC--3.75
2e--4.0
Players' Options: 4.5
And finally, the relaunch: 5e.

Of course, playing the fool and outright denying the existence of 3.X and 4th, especially when someone breaks out the books, is always fun. E.g., for 3rd, something like "Oh, yeah, I heard about this one! This is that fanmade thing where somebody did a version on the generic system, d20 I think it was called? They really shelled out to get this printed in hardback. Probably got sued into oblivion for it, though--I bet this book has some real value on the collector's market; there can't be many out there."
I have wondered what it would have been like had there'd never been the separation between "Basic/Classic" and "Advanced". What if it had been no 1e and 2e AD&D, and instead it was just:
oD&D--1, then
BECMI/RC--2, then
3e etc.?

Pluto!
2016-04-09, 08:19 PM
Agreed. Only uncultured barbarians would dare drop the "u" in "favourite".
Far be it from me to critici(s/z)e someone for the regional spelling of words like "favo(u)rite(,)", but I'm unjustifiably tweaking out at those parentheses.

JAL_1138
2016-04-09, 09:51 PM
but I'm unjustifiably tweaking out at those parentheses.

The parentheses look wrong. They should be square brackets instead, if this were printed, but the forum code would have a freakout.

Kurald Galain
2016-04-11, 08:45 AM
I'm going to go with Pathfinder, although I'd happily play 3E/3.5 as well, because of the sheer amount in possibilities both in character building and in overall power level of the campaign.

5E simply has too few options and I find the non-combat systems to be lacking. 4E was the most popular game in my area for maybe two years until literally everybody got tired of it and switched to Pathfinder or Whitewolf, or in some cases 5E. Also for 4E, I find the non-combat systems to be lacking.

And I have good memories of 2E although I haven't touched it for a decade.

1337 b4k4
2016-04-11, 10:14 PM
Just for giggles, I ran some ranked voting on the replies here for editions people expressed explicit rankings for (and equal lowest ranking for any editions not mentioned if a vote was given for any edition), and so far, the favorites for the thread are in order:


3e / 3.5e / Pathfinder
5e
2e
B/X / BECMI / RC
4e
1e
OD&D

StormyWaters21
2016-04-11, 10:38 PM
4e hands-down.

RedMage125
2016-04-12, 12:39 AM
Amazed to see any love for 4e, I've seen so many people with nothing but vitriolic hate for it.

I started playing in 2e, and to me, even before 3.0 was released, I felt that the mechanics of that system were more of an obstacle to enjoying the game than anything.

I liked 3e when it came out, and still like it to this day. I started DMing in that edition.

I was on board with 4e, namely because I read the preview material and really liked their design goals for it. It was a dream to DM. So easy.

I do really enjoy 5e, but I haven't had as much experience with it as I have with other editions.

I had heard of Pathfinder, but never read the material until a year and a half ago. I must say that I feel like they REALLY improved the 3.5e chassis it was based upon.

So, as a DM, my favorites are, in order: 4e, 5e, 3.5e

As a player: 3.5e/Pathfinder, 5e, 4e

2e doesn't figure into my favorites in any way, shape or form.

JoeJ
2016-04-12, 12:50 AM
I started with blue box D&D back in 1978 or 79, but quickly transitioned to AD&D. I've played every edition that's come out since then except 4e, which I skipped because reading the Quick Start was enough to convince me it wasn't what I was looking for in a game.

My list, from best to worst is:

1) 5e
2) 2e
3) 1e/OD&D
4) 3.x

(Since I never played 4e, it's not on the list at all.)

Inevitability
2016-04-12, 07:57 AM
Amazed to see any love for 4e, I've seen so many people with nothing but vitriolic hate for it.

Vitrolic hate is more interesting and gets more attention. Think about how often you see threads bemoaning 3.5's caster-martial imbalance, then think about how often you see threads talking about how 3.5 is such a great diverse system. Negative messages simply get posted more often than positive ones.

2D8HP
2016-04-12, 10:07 PM
B/X, the rules light D&D. Specifically retroclones like Basic Fantasy or Lamentations of the Flame Princess that replace the calculation of attack rolls with something sensible. With a different magic system it would even be my favorite RPG.
I like what I've read of yours so far, and if I read further maybe I will find out. But I am inpatient. What is your favorite RPG?
Thanks!

Lhyonnaes
2016-04-13, 01:09 AM
I'm certainly in the 4E camp, for a variety of reasons. I think what it comes down to the most, though, is that 4E feels like it's intended for a slightly different sort of setting and overall worldview than "traditional" D&D, and I happen to prefer that slightly more high-magic, vaguely action-movie-esque vibe.

Tetsubo 57
2016-04-16, 03:49 PM
Pathfinder with Radiance coming in second. Everstone would be third I suppose.

Gtdead
2016-04-16, 05:22 PM
I started playing in 3.5e and it's remains my favorite. Although I'm happy to retire it in favor of 5e, since it's easier for my friends to get into.

The reason I like it is because of the customization. Balance may be horrible but I can't possibly care when it gives me options to create whatever I can think of. Most of my favorite rpg videogames are based on this system too.

Jay R
2016-04-18, 09:04 AM
My favorite is original D&D with Greyhawk and the other supplements, for several reasons:

1. I own all the rules. Every supplement, every magazine article.
2. I've read all the rules multiple times.
3. It feels like a (limited) simulation of fantasy adventures. Later editions have slowly created the D&D-type universe, which feels more like a D&D-type universe than like any fantasy land I ever wanted to visit or read about.
4. The DM never makes a ruling he doesn't believe in. He's supposed to ignore the general rule when it doesn't apply to a specific situation.
5. You never forget your first love, your first hero, your first great book, your first great teacher, or your first rpg.

Having said that, the worst ruleset with a good DM is better than the best ruleset with an average or poor DM.

Ceiling_Squid
2016-04-20, 04:40 PM
I've long-since been turned-off to d20 in general, but I'd have to say 4e. I cut my GMing teeth on it (and proceeded to run a campaign for 2 years!).

I was never fond of the vitriol against it. I thought it was a pleasure to run and was balanced tightly enough to encourage coordination and party teamwork. I don't play it anymore, mostly because I can't find anyone to play it with. It seems stuck with the "dud edition" reputation in my area, meaning my large collection of 4e books will probably gather dust for a long time.

PF and 3.5 are a little too fiddly and unbalanced for my tastes, but they're what everyone around here wants to play, I guess.

Now I mostly run lighter fare like FFGSW and Savage Worlds. 5e looks pretty good, but my book budget is only so large.

2D8HP
2016-04-21, 06:57 AM
I've long-since been turned-off to d20 in general, but I'd have to say 4e. I cut my GMing teeth on it (and proceeded to run a campaign for 2 years!).
-snip-
I don't play it anymore, mostly because I can't find anyone to play it with. It seems stuck with the "dud edition" reputation in my area, meaning my large collection of 4e books will probably gather dust for a long time.Ceiling_Squid,
:smallfrown:
Sorry, I empathize with your pain. As the 1980's wore on I could find less and less tables that still wanted to play D&D, and in the 90's the only RPG's anyone in my area would play were Cyberpunk and Vampire the settings of which I just don't like. Over 20 years of no D&D (or even other, lesser RPG) play followed. Don't lose the books!

obryn
2016-04-21, 09:14 AM
I don't play it anymore, mostly because I can't find anyone to play it with. It seems stuck with the "dud edition" reputation in my area, meaning my large collection of 4e books will probably gather dust for a long time.
Sadly, the California/Illinois commute would be a bit severe. Otherwise I'd invite you!

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-21, 11:44 AM
Agreed. Only uncultured barbarians would dare drop the "u" in "favourite".

Yep, nice to see someone with a full grasp of the language. The worst I've seen is all these uncultured barbarians leaving out the 'u' in 'armour', makes that darn D&D game nearly unreadable due to all the spelling mistakes.


5e for sure. It's just such an elegant system that really embodies what the D&D-style RPG should be about, in my opinion. The lack of options doesn't offend me much; it's more fun to try to be creative under constraints like these.

I actually lol'ed at this. It might just be the Fate fan in me, but I can't see 5e as being elegant. To me 5e is missing the framework that makes elegant rules. In 5e I'm a little confused at how skills work, I just roll when I want to do something related to the situation? But how does turning over a bunch of money tables to slow my pursuers differ rules-wise from jumping out the window to lose them? In Fate it's fairly clear, (using the standard skill list both for simplicity and because I like it) the first is a Physique roll to Create and Advantage, while the second is an Athletics roll to Overcome the difficulty of escaping from these guys.

(I massively prefer Fate over 5e for fantasy adventures by the way)

For my favourite D&D edition, it has to be 4e because of the tighter design. It's not the one that I'd say has the most focus on the areas of Roleplaying I enjoy, but I appreciate the design and the honesty of where the focus is.

Telwar
2016-04-21, 09:23 PM
4e, by far. My group would still be playing it if they weren't in the process of turning off DDI. Then 3.5/PF, then 2e, then 5e.