Pros and Cons of each edition

[Ratter]

Now, I know the mods will think I am trying to start an edition war. I AM NOT. This is me simply asking for Pros and Cons of each edition because I have only ever played 5th and want to know if I should get into Pathfinder/2e/AD&D. Examples of Pro Con is a more balanced game as well as a more homebrewable and simple game, but lots of complexity is gone for 5e. Thank you. (:

[zergling.exe]

I believe you may want this in the general Roleplaying Games forum if you want comparisons to OD&D, AD&D and 4E, since this sub forum is specific to 3E.

[Ratter]

I was thinking it would fit here under D20, because other systems like savage worlds are in others, while only really OD&D didnt use D20

[zergling.exe]

I was thinking it would fit here under D20, because other systems like savage worlds are in others, while only really OD&D didnt use D20

The D20 system is basically 3Es OGL, all the homebrew and new systems made using the D20 system are 3E derivatives. Yes 4E and 5E used d20s, but they are not really part of the 'D20 system' itself. OD&D and AD&D don't use the d20 in a unified system as the default roll. WotC started the d20 trend.

[Falontani]

5th edition did a lot well; however IMO it's main draw is it is easy to get into, easy to teach, and is great to draw people into dungeons and dragons as a whole.
4th edition didn't do too well; IMO it was trying too hard to be a video game while using paper n pencil style. it piqued the interest of quite a few people that played video games/MMOs and drew people in for 5th edition, however it did get a lot of it's older fanbase to leave
Pathfinder (also known as 3.75) is amazing and still doing well; IMO It took the widely popular 3.5 and expanded on it, and made it truly their own. It is widely customizable, and no two games will ever be the same. However it is very complex and hard to get into.
Finally 3.5, my personal favorite; IMO 3.5 gave us a huge system that can be used to create nearly anything that you would like to create. It is the most complex system (that I've typed about) and not at all friendly to new players. However a player that learns it can do things with this system that others have likened to Art (see the Iron Chef Challenges). It is very enjoyable, while time consuming.

I have not used 2nd or 1st enough to know the ins and outs, or to give an opinion on it. The only opinion I'll give is that THAC0 is weird.

[Jormengand]

3.5 is less balanced than 5th, and slightly more complex. There, the problems with 3.5 by comparison to 5th end.

The skill system is actually there, with DCs you don't have to make up on the spot because they're actually written in the damn book. The classes mostly actually do something worth doing and your wizards and sorcerers feel like wizards and sorcerers, rather than adepts on an ego trip. Advancement is a meaningful thing (for example, at high levels in 3.5 you can actually pass DC 10 checks 100% of the time without being a rogue or pumping the relevant stat) and you stop being threatened by lucky level 1 characters after a while. While the class imbalance is significant, even a samurai - one of the worst classes in the game - can actually walk through a small army without worrying that he's going to die horribly, rather than having to worry that bounded accuracy will mean that he's poked to death by the little guys. Oh, and there's just more of it, so you don't have to worry that your character concept doesn't exist (your concept is that you steal famous dead people's souls and tack them onto your body for magical power? There's a class for that!).

Pathfinder is 3.5, only they fixed some things and broke some other things.

Pathfinder 2nd edition is maybe like 5th, only they fixed maybe one or two things and broke everything else.

[exelsisxax]

3.5 is less balanced than 5th, and slightly more complex. There, the problems with 3.5 by comparison to 5th end.

The skill system is actually there, with DCs you don't have to make up on the spot because they're actually written in the damn book. The classes mostly actually do something worth doing and your wizards and sorcerers feel like wizards and sorcerers, rather than adepts on an ego trip. Advancement is a meaningful thing (for example, at high levels in 3.5 you can actually pass DC 10 checks 100% of the time without being a rogue or pumping the relevant stat) and you stop being threatened by lucky level 1 characters after a while. While the class imbalance is significant, even a samurai - one of the worst classes in the game - can actually walk through a small army without worrying that he's going to die horribly, rather than having to worry that bounded accuracy will mean that he's poked to death by the little guys. Oh, and there's just more of it, so you don't have to worry that your character concept doesn't exist (your concept is that you steal famous dead people's souls and tack them onto your body for magical power? There's a class for that!).

Pathfinder is 3.5, only they fixed some things and broke some other things.

Pathfinder 2nd edition is maybe like 5th, only they fixed maybe one or two things and broke everything else.

Hey, it's way too early to say how many things they fixed and how many they broke. For all we know barb rage makes you invulnerable and they forgot to give druids spellcasting, but they totally fixed equipment/magic items and spell lists. I mean. I bet they didn't but we don't know!

[Jormengand]

Hey, it's way too early to say how many things they fixed and how many they broke. For all we know barb rage makes you invulnerable and they forgot to give druids spellcasting, but they totally fixed equipment/magic items and spell lists. I mean. I bet they didn't but we don't know!

To be clear, I mean that it's (maybe) (like 5th but they fixed a few things and broke everything else) not that it's (maybe like 5th) (but they fixed a few things and broke everything else). All I can see is how Paizo tells me that PF2 stacks up, and it's not pretty so far.

[FreddyNoNose]

Now, I know the mods will think I am trying to start an edition war. I AM NOT. This is me simply asking for Pros and Cons of each edition because I have only ever played 5th and want to know if I should get into Pathfinder/2e/AD&D. Examples of Pro Con is a more balanced game as well as a more homebrewable and simple game, but lots of complexity is gone for 5e. Thank you. (:

I'd bet you could google that....

[Elder_Basilisk]

I'll give it a shot. In terms of handling unusual character concepts that are not the standard class bundles (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, etc).

AD&D. We have a few classes. Limited options and simple character creation are part of the attraction.

2e. There's a kit for that. Buy some splatbooks and pick a unique set of abilities that you get starting at level 1. However, like AD&D your profession and abilities are pretty much set at character creation. (Other than dual classing which is highly restricted and not terribly useful).

3e and 3.5 there are feats, multi-classing, and prestige classes for that. Your character is differentiated from others as you gain new abilities through play. The downside is that it does not have nearly the same options for a simple but effective progression as other editions did (well, other than wizard 20, cleric 20, and druid 20 but even those need a wise selection of feats and abilities to be effective).

Pathfinder. There's a base class for that. Seriously, we've got 20 million of them just look. Not what you wanted? There's an archetype for that. It's like a 2e kit except that the abilities aren't all front loaded. And if you really want to you can multiclass. Oh yeah and you get feats too.

4e. There's a base class for that. Well, unless you want a different form of resource management (like previous editions vancian spells) or combat resolution (like previous editions save or die/lose mechanics or magic missile stype auto-hit mechanics). There's also paragon paths and epic destinies too.

5e. We've got a few base classes and some heroic archetype thingees. You can multiclass if you really want to but it will probably suck. We have a few feats too. But not many. The end result seems to be about 80% AD&D and 20% Pathfinder.

[Tvtyrant]

AD&D: Combat is very swingy, things die so easily that every option is a save or die (including swords). Control spells are actually somewhat weaker here because dead is a better stat condition then everything else. Out of combat is a giant mess but lots of cool ideas found over a lot of splat books.

3.X: Combat was made to be less swingy, and casters less punished. Now a fighter no longer casts Finger of Death in sword form, and casters no longer die from a good sneeze. Also spells became so permissive that upper level casters wear underwear that can kill gods. Lots of options available, more streamlined.

4E: Everyone is a 3.5 caster in combat, no one is a 3.5 caster out of combat. I feel like they needed to decouple in and out of combat mechanics, but it os the best for combat.

5E: i didn't enjoy it much, only played five sessions so I will leave this to others.

[Selene Sparks]

3.5 is less balanced than 5th, and slightly more complex.

I actually have to disagree here. It's easier for a wizard to totally break the game in 5e over their knee without even trying in 5e, because at least one archetype is explicitly encouraged to do so with their signature spell, and clerics and lore bards can pretend they're wizards enough to be everyone who's not in the previous list. 3.5 doesn't stick incantatrix and persistent spell right in the core book.

The skill system is actually there, with DCs you don't have to make up on the spot because they're actually written in the damn book. The classes mostly actually do something worth doing and your wizards and sorcerers feel like wizards and sorcerers, rather than adepts on an ego trip. Advancement is a meaningful thing (for example, at high levels in 3.5 you can actually pass DC 10 checks 100% of the time without being a rogue or pumping the relevant stat) and you stop being threatened by lucky level 1 characters after a while. While the class imbalance is significant, even a samurai - one of the worst classes in the game - can actually walk through a small army without worrying that he's going to die horribly, rather than having to worry that bounded accuracy will mean that he's poked to death by the little guys. Oh, and there's just more of it, so you don't have to worry that your character concept doesn't exist (your concept is that you steal famous dead people's souls and tack them onto your body for magical power? There's a class for that!).

While I feel this is excessively harsh, this is also all still completely true and deserves emphasis, especially this skill system.

Pathfinder is 3.5, only they fixed some things and broke some other things.

Notably here, they nerfed basic melee options into the ground. Or at least did from the beginning, I really don't have the time or energy to go through the rather user-unfriendly wiki to figure out if it's changed since I last looked.

But seriously, improved disarm and power attack were nerfed while casters got even better. That's the bottom line of Pathfinder, at least for me.

To more directly answer the OP:

5e: You've already played it. It's super simple, which is a plus, but it's also super reliant on GMs "ruling" everything ever because they have no actual skill system. Bounded accuracy was a flawed concept that could have, theoretically, been handled, but it really wasn't. Also, there's little variation between characters, because there are so few choices to make, and the choice between ASIs and feats is just about the worst game design choice imaginable.
4e: To avoid the edition wars, what I will say is that it was innovative in the extreme. It took a bunch of way out there ideas, and implemented them in a system that was actually pretty well balanced. The downside was that it has essentially no out-of-combat system. Seriously, skill challenges don't do what they're supposed to, and there's the silliness like ice getting slipperier as you level up or the disassociative nature of powers. Furthermore, your rulebooks themselves won't be too useful, because there were a huge number of stealth erratas when a new exploit was found. On the plus side, it's actually well-balanced so long as you're sticking to and has actually gotten a couple of non-gamers I've met into D&D.
3.PF: Essentially, it's like 3.X with a bunch of tiny, fiddly changes. The systemic problems weren't addressed, but it was the only source of new 3.X-ish stuff for a decade. I'm not a fan, as I've said, but I know people who switched over for the new content and had it go over fine.
3.X: are broken. It's a sad fact, but casters are just flat better than anyone who's not a caster. It's okay, though, both because support casting is really good, you can make casters do non-castery things anyways, plus once you get to leave core, you can get the non-caster decent classes like Warblades, Binders, or Incarnum users. Furthermore, every character can be distinct because you have so many options, with a bit of work you can build essentially whatever you feel like. Also, the low-end stuff is amazingly detailed, with the skill system mapping real life very well up to level 5~, and so I've really never had a situation where a game came to a halt because we didn't know how to handle whatever a problem was, and without the GM having to make anything up. The big downside is the prevalence of Save-Or-Dies at higher levels(Although they can be avoided if you know what you're doing), which means combat winds up annoyingly swingy and randomly risky unless you work hard on defenses.
2e: Ah, the days of THAC0, before people realized that counting in a consistent manner was a good thing. It's a bit like 5e in that 5e decided to take in a bunch of frankly awful elements of 2e and bring them back(Such as Rakashasa being able to ignore the party unless you metagame something fierce) and the system goes out of its way in many cases to spit on player agency. Also, there really aren't any skill rules because the writers weren't really talking to each other at all, because this was pre-2000 and only White Wolf was really up on this whole "computer" thing. Also, you need to roll stats, and you need to roll very well, or else you miss out on class features and thus suck at life. This was also the days of race-based level caps that nobody ever actually used. On the other hand, fighters are actually decent(Assuming they can get that lovely percentile strength), wizards have some built-in weaknesses that got dropped, and clerics are simply better than everyone else, especially if they're drow. HP in general was lower(Especially if you weren't a fighter), so damage was actually something you tried for. Also, between all the kits lying around, Skills and Powers, and Player's Option, you could make some really silly things happen. It's a mixed bag, really.

[RoboEmperor]

3.5 - Pro:You can do virtually anything you want. ANYTHING. You can spend years customizing perfecting a character to your exact liking. This means among skilled players, no two PCs are the same. Every PC is super unique and is the incarnation of the player's personality and desires.
Con:Too many ways to break the game. Players have to hold themselves back to not break the game.

5e - Pro:Easy to get into
Con:Very little customization. You will often see identical PCs.

PF - a mid point between 3.5 and 5e. Everyone goes pure base class here so very little customization, but a lot more than 5e.

[Psyren]

3.5 - Pro:You can do virtually anything you want. ANYTHING. You can spend years customizing perfecting a character to your exact liking. This means among skilled players, no two PCs are the same. Every PC is super unique and is the incarnation of the player's personality and desires.
Con:Too many ways to break the game. Players have to hold themselves back to not break the game.

5e - Pro:Easy to get into
Con:Very little customization. You will often see identical PCs.

PF - a mid point between 3.5 and 5e. Everyone goes pure base class here so very little customization, but a lot more than 5e.

I'll echo this but with a caveat - "pure base class" in PF can result in extremely different builds due to Archetypes. For example, you could do a party of 5 bards where every one of them has a totally unique playstyle.

With that said, Sturgeon's Law does apply heavily to PF (as it does to 3.5) and there are trap options everywhere, resulting in system bloat.

[Wings of Peace]

3.5 is an imbalanced, overly complicated, and mentally taxing game when you're a newbie. At the same time, the sheer breadth of official content available for the edition means that nearly anything is possible and clever players are well rewarded for their creativity.

[Malimar]

I'm sure I'm gonna get blowback on this, but: The main difference I've noticed between 3.5 and PF is not mechanical, but a fundamental design philosophy:

3.5e feels like 3.5e. All its myriad of options and monsters and components work more or less together to feel more or less like its own beast. When it takes from other fictions, it is inspired by them, not making slavish copies.

PF feels like a mashup of everything you've ever liked or not liked in fiction, taken mostly literally from the source material. Gunslingers, everything from the Cthulhu mythos, half the archetypes out there are based on some specific archetype from fiction, and so on, they all combine to feel more kitchen-sinky than 3.5e. Like they're throwing everything they think players might think is cool at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Name any random monster, class, PrC, or whatever from the wide world of 3.5e content, most likely either you'll be able to trace it back to 2e, or you won't be able to trace it back to anything. Name any random monster, class, archetype, or whatever from the wide world of PF content, most likely you'll be able to trace it back to a specific published work of fiction.

3.5 - Pro:You can do virtually anything you want. ANYTHING. You can spend years customizing perfecting a character to your exact liking. This means among skilled players, no two PCs are the same. Every PC is super unique and is the incarnation of the player's personality and desires.

I think this is only true at an intermediate level of skill. At very low skill, one isn't aware of all the uniqueifying options. At very high skill, one is aware of the single most powerful option (and there usually is one option that's head and shoulders above the rest). Only those at a medium skill level, or those of high skill who deliberately choose not to go with the most powerful option, will actually make unique characters.

But yes, among people who are of the proper skill level and mindset, 3.5e allows more uniqueness than virtually any other edition.

[Mordaedil]

I guess I'll give my simplified input.

AD&D - The best edition. Gives you control of all your little soldier and gives you access to special classes if you roll really well. Timeless and some neat psionic rules.

AD&D 2nd edition - The best edition. Gives you a lot of cool multiclassing options and fixes a lot of problems with older editions and is widely regarded by most people as when D&D was best. Broken psionics that nobody likes.

D&D 3rd edition - Defunct edition. They fixed the troublesome rules where lower AC is better and now made rules make sense for a progression as it was built. Has interesting psionics that nobody likes.

D&D 3.5 edition - The best edition. Fixes everything bad about 3rd edition, but forgoes having enchantment on weapons matter, instead dumping all the damage reduction rules into "magic". Has psionics, but forget about that and check out the shadowcaster, warblade and factotum.

D&D 4th edition - The divise edition. Some people love this. A lot of people hated this. A lot of people loved that some people hated this. Eventually got all of its base classes in order. Multiclassing has crashed, would you like to reset?

D&D 5th edition - The best edition. Goes back to 3.5 edition, but makes things simpler in a good way. Doesn't have psionics. Multiclassing refuses to start.

Pathfinder - The best edition. Has everything D&D 3.5 edition has, but makes everything a little stronger. Wizards aren't so bad at 1st level. Fighters are "better" at higher level. Multiclassing still works. Has 3rd party psionics, but forget about that and check out the alchemist, gunslinger and witch.

[Sir_Leorik]

Having played most editions of D&D extensively (other than 1E AD&D), I have some opinions on what the differences are.

Basic D&D (BXCMI/Rules Compendium) this was a streamlined version of the OD&D rules that eventually ballooned into to its own bloated system. Basic makes everything a class, including races like Dwarf and Elf. You get XP for finding treasure, but there is a dearth of healing options (Clerics don't get spells until 2nd level). Basic can be very good for beginners to teach them the tropes of dungeon crawling, but in the last twenty five years since basic was discontinued, better systems for that have come out. (Like Dungeonworld.)

2E began by making cosmetic changes to 1E (there was an insistence from management that David "Zeb" Cook make it backwards compatible), but the supplemental rules is where the system innovated. Notably, kits and non-weapon proficiencies were an area to innovate, but they contributed to system bloat. There were two different kits for beggars that I'm aware of, and two different NWPs for begging, because the editors didn't always pay attention to things like this. 2E can be counter-intuitive, with no central mechanic for task resolution. For combat, you roll a d10 to determine initiative, roll a d20 needing a high number to hit, for NWPs you roll a d20 and need to roll under a number, and Thief skills require a d100 and rolling under. That being said, as a DM I have looted 2E often for great ideas for my 3.X, 4E and 5E campaigns. Some of the best D&D campaign settings came out of 2E: Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Planescape and my favorite, Ravenloft.

3.X is the beginning of unified mechanics for D&D. Roll a d20, add a modifier, try to beat a number, whether its AC or a skill DC. 3.X is very crunchy, where there is a rule for any task you might want to try. There are players who like this level of crunchiness, while others may find it daunting. Equally daunting, 3.X has been out for 18 years, including the Pathfinder supplements and myriad 3PP material. As a new DM it can be overwhelming to see the ocean of feats and Prestige Classes that are available for players, NPCs and monsters. My personal advice to a new DMs: adopt the 5E guideline of Core + 1: a player chooses one splatbook that their PC can take feats and PrCs from, which will cut down on the system bloat. Even if you don't want to limit yourself that way, put a limit on what players can take.

I'm going to say something controversial: for what it is, 4E is not a bad game. However it is its own thing and you need to abandon any preconceptions about what D&D is if you're going into it. If you do, know that combats in 4E can take up to an hour to resolve and that the Skill Challenge system doesn't work, and that the math of the system was flawed with a feat tax instituted to fix it. But it is a fun game, IMO, and doesn't deserve the vitriol it receives.

I am currently running a 5E game, and I occasionally play in Adventurer's League. Having played since 1990 in multiple editions, I can see the legacy of each edition in 5E. It has the theatre of the mind popular in 2E, the unified skill system from 3.X, several innovations from 4E, and the streamlined nature of Basic. However it is streamlined in a way to prevent the crunchiness of 3.X and 4E, and some players may be turned off by this. I recommend staying with 5E unless there is a feature of an older edition you prefer.

Also this thread should be moved to the General RPG section.

[Florian]

Let´s look at a different angle: Player Empowerment.

oD&D to AD&D 2nd: Rules light, heavy on the sub-systems, but mainly "Mother May I?"

3.0, 3.5 and PF: Rules heavy, but geared towards shifting the decision-making process towards the system, away from the gm.

4E: Rules and procedure heavy, delves could actually played without a gm, most of the empowerment happened on the side of the players by handing them the concrete tools.

5E: Middle ground.

[2D8HP]

Whitebox + supplements (most importantly Greyhawk) AKA "0e"

Pros:

Most fun game I've played EVER!
Cons: You're trying to figure out how to play by reading the rules?

HAHAHAHAHA

HA!

Folklore or go home.

(Seriously, the Oracle of Delphi was less opaque)

1977 "bluebook" Basic rules

Pros:

48 pages of sublime concentrated D&D.
You may crave more, but it's all you need.

Really.
Cons: Some pitiful needy folk want more options (make them wear the DM hat!).

1977 to 1979 AD&D AKA "1e

Pros: More options, and the writing is a bit more clear, but still charming.
Cons: Only a little bit more clear, and trying to follow all the RAW is too hard.

1985's Unearthed Arcana

Pros:

More options
Cons: Foul balance destroying HELLSPAWN OPTIONS!

FLEE BEFORE YOU'RE DOOMED!

DOOMED I SAY!

2e AD&D:

Pros:

Less opaque.
Cons: I never played it.

1991/1994 "Blackbox"/Classic/Rules Cyclopedia

Pros:

Easiest to learn from reading the rules version of D&D EVER!
Cons: That we're not playing it right NOW!

"3e D&D"

Pros:

Actually a pretty good game.
Cons: I payed full price for those books damn it!

YOU MADE IT OBSOLETE SO SOON!

DAMN YOU WIZARDS!

DAMN YOU TO HELL!

3.5

Pros:

Lots of nice friendly people play it.
Cons: Steep learning curve
there's ...... just ...... so ...... much!

AND YOU OWE ME A REFUND WIZARDS OF THE COAST, I HAD JUST BOUGHT THE 3e BOOKS!

*rant, rave, mumble, fume*

4e D&D:

Pros:

Want some cheap barely used books? A few people really like it.
Cons: Too few people. Good luck finding a table.

5e:

Pros:

Lots of nice friendly people play it. The most significant rules are free.

FREE!

Some simple classes are available that are fun to play.

Launching arrows at Dragons that sit on giant piles of treasure again!

Cons: Players want to use all the myriad not free rules/options.

SWEET SILKY LOLTH, I'M NOT LEARNING ALL THAT TO DM!

Can I interest you in a game of King Arthur Pendragon?

[Telok]

AD&D: Opaque, significantly dependent on a good/flexible DM, character options through roleplay and player decision making.
Pros: fast character generation, simple base rules, some table lookups, surprisingly balanced, easily moulded into being more than a dungeon crawl.
Cons: opaque, DM dependent, unsuited to video game style play.

AD&D 2e: ThAC0, Kits, Spelljammer! Dark Sun! Ravenloft! Still pretty much like 1e.
Pros: full compatibility with AD&D.
Cons: still opaque, still DM dependent, ThAC0.

3e: The grand unification theory of d20 meets D&D. The rise of easy and safe spell casting, severe HP inflation, and gating fighter class features behind the choose-the-good-feat challenge.
Pros: More character building options, introduction of prestige classes and spontaneous casters, skills open up across classes.
Cons: Skills lock down and exclude character abilities, some saves stop getting better as you level up, casting is too easy and extra spells from stats are normal, the fighter/mage concept dies in a fire.

3.x: Even easier spell casting, and more more more of everything. Introduced CoDzilla, arseplomancer, and metamagic reducers.
Pros: More options, extreme flexibility in character options, skills and skill DCs are pretty easy to adjudicate, new and interesting sub-systems.
Cons: Skills become binary yes/no due to high bonuses, metamagic reducers, spell power bloat, monster complexity, starts having significant difficulty doing anything but D&D style games.

4e: The great balancing of combat. Sadly lacking in non-combat and suffering from multi-hour combat slogs. AEDU generally precludes variants and sub-systems.
Pros: Balanced combat. Just following the instructions created reasonable combats.
Cons: Got the math wrong the first time around, no real out of combat support, slow combat, not allowed to have actors change sides in a fight due to severe differences in pc/monster numbers, characters have difficulty doing things that aren't powers written down on the character sheet, the system can't really handle anything but the D&D style.

5e: The great retcon. Simpler characters and a return to depending on the DM to write or make up rules for the game to run. The introduction of bounded accuracy.
Pros: Easier to build characters and run a game than 3.x, more D&D feel than 4e.
Cons: Severe HP bloat, the d20 roll becomes more important than the character sheet, skills revert to NWPs but without the power and clarity, returns to being extremely dependent on DM skill, limited character options, characters get worse at saving throws as they level up.

[2D8HP]

....skills revert to NWPs but without the power and clarity...

"NWP's"?

What does that stand for?

[zergling.exe]

"NWP's"?

What does that stand for?

'Non Weapon Proficiency' I believe.

[Florian]

"NWP's"?

What does that stand for?

Non-Weapon Proficiency.

And the critique is mostly right on this one. In 3E/4E, many skills had fixed DCs for certain tasks listed, so you could a) gauge how your chances are and b) handle a lot of tasks on your own without having to consult the rules or gm further.

[Nifft]

unsuited to video game style play.

Just as an aside, you should know that the most popular D&D video game franchise was based on a faithful AD&D -- it's the Baldur's Gate series.

AD&D includes some very arcade-game like mechanics ("The boss wizard started attack animation casting, quick hit it for damage to force the attack animation spellcasting to abort!"), faithfully reproduced in BG.

AD&D 2e is therefore the most video-game edition.

The introduction of bounded accuracy.

The editions from oD&D to 1e kinda introduced Bounded Accuracy, it just didn't have a name back then.

For example, in 1e AC went from 10 down to -10, and no further. AC -10 was the limit.

1e ability scores went up to 25, and no higher. 5e bounds at 20 instead.

Bounded Accuracy is another retro feature of 5th Edition.

[Mordaedil]

So faithful they removed the turn-based mechanics that makes D&D interesting and feature no actual roleplaying.

[Elder_Basilisk]

The editions from oD&D to 1e kinda introduced Bounded Accuracy, it just didn't have a name back then.

For example, in 1e AC went from 10 down to -10, and no further. AC -10 was the limit.

1e ability scores went up to 25, and no higher. 5e bounds at 20 instead.

Bounded Accuracy is another retro feature of 5th Edition.

Not really. If you stuck to the AC Max at -10 rule (and a lot of people didn't), then it would have been bounded inaccuracy. Your THACO and attack bonuses could get to the point that you could hit AC -10 relatively easily and the system did nothing to stop it. It was (at most) a lower bound, but there was, practically speaking, not an upper bound any more than there is in 3.x

Likewise, while strength scores were boundaried at 25, the system gave increasing bonuses every number from 16 on up (and multiple sets of bonuses for different values of 18(??)). As a consequence the score limit of 25 gave a number of distinct bonus levels equivalent to a hard cap of 40 in 3.x (15 different bonus levels). While that is theoretically a hard cap, it is one that many 3.x campaigns would never run into and results in much more headroom for bonus increasing than the 5e caps do.

The big way that 5e went retro wrt stats was returning stat boost items to granting static ability scores rather than bonuses just like in 1e and 2e. Thus a belt of giant strength can give you strength 25 whether your starting strength is 3 or 20 and an item that gives you strength 20 is useless if you already have it naturally. There are pros and cons of both methods but it doesn't have much to do with bounded accuracy.

[Nifft]

Your THACO and attack bonuses could get to the point that you could hit AC -10 relatively easily and the system did nothing to stop it.

You're thinking of 2e, which introduced THAC0.

This is one way in which 1e was different from 2e, one distinction that changed the game's balance.

[Elkad]

You're thinking of 2e, which introduced THAC0.

This is one way in which 1e was different from 2e, one distinction that changed the game's balance.

2e just added the notation, so you didn't need to check the hit matrix every time.
Since most of us were already doing the math in our head anyway, nothing changed except accessibility for newbies.

[Nifft]

2e just added the notation, so you didn't need to check the hit matrix every time.
Since most of us were already doing the math in our head anyway, nothing changed except accessibility for newbies.

... and the boundaries defined by using tables instead of a formula, those boundaries were also removed. Bounded AC was removed.

You're right that newbies would see nothing change, because they'd be playing within those boundaries anyway.

You're wrong that nothing changed, though. Here's one of the charts:

Spoiler: GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD

Show

A 1e Fighter (2nd level) could not hit AC -6 even on a 20, but she could hit -5 and up. With a 19, she could only hit AC 2 or higher. THAC0 math will not give that same result. THAC0 is not identical to the 1e tables.

THAC0 only fits the middle of the chart, from level 11 and beyond, where the on-a-20 tail event isn't in scope, and the curve became a line.

So yeah, 2e was a simplification of 1e, which lost some bits in the simplification.

5e brought back one of those bits.