PDA

View Full Version : D&D: Which version is best?



Vaern
2016-12-21, 04:56 PM
I've never played the original release of AD&D, but throughout the last few releases I've heard a lot of good and a lot of bad about each version. What are your thoughts about each edition you've played? Here are my thoughts on each:

3.0/3.5: These had a long age in which a lot of supplement material was released. This is the era that I have the most experience with, and it is certainly my favorite. Any type of setting you want to create for your game, and kind of character you want to play, there is printed material for it. This edition thoroughly covers everything and has nearly endless character possibilities, and is all-around my preference for any campaign.

4E: This one is very simplified, and probably what I would recommend to anyone getting into the game. It's easy to just pick up and play, though the rules and mechanics seem like they're definitely directed more towards combat than actual role-playing. I personally wouldn't want to run this edition too often, but I would strongly recommend it to beginners or anyone wanting a quick kick-in-the-door dungeon crawler.

5E: As I was creating my character, the options of subraces and backgrounds available from the start made it feel like I was being drawn more into my character and less into the mechanics of the classes and spells. I feel like this is definitely better than the previous editions for encouraging role-play rather than roll-play.

russdm
2016-12-21, 06:40 PM
Everything I have seen so far about 5E suggests that it is good, better than 3.5 in most ways. I have not really played 5E much, and I played the other two editions quite a bit, but I wouldn't immediately recommend either one to someone without some caveats.

For 4E: You won't that many people willing to admit they played this and liked it. It is considered "Nerd Cred" to describe it as being nothing but terrible, whereas it is simply a different and somewhat bizarre version of D&D. It doesn't fit everyone, but you can have fun if you recognize that it was attempting to do. This Edition is enjoyable, despite its issues. I wouldn't really recommend it.

For 3.5: The Most Critical question regarding this is whether you want to have actual fun, how much of a decent human being you are and how much decent beings your fellow players are likely to be. The system here lacks a certain amount of refinement, and you can probably be fine playing any game up to level 10 or 11 before needing to quit without ruining your friendships. The system has material that is extremely easy to break, and it's stuff that any newbie player can accidently find and use without intending to wreck things. Plus the DMG material rarely mentions how to solve any of the issues. I can't really recommend this edition without insisting that you spend some time looking into all of the possible game issues so you know what things are likely to wreck your own playing. Even then, I still can't really recommend it.

Go with 5E, it will go better.

Vitruviansquid
2016-12-21, 06:41 PM
*watches from the sideline for when this thread turns into "3.0/3.5 players measure every other edition by their edition's yardstick"

Koo Rehtorb
2016-12-21, 06:56 PM
1e/2e: They're made for dungeon crawling and getting loot. Combat is intentionally dangerous and unfair to encourage people to use clever tactics and dirty tricks to get an advantage. I'd hesitate to call them good games, but I think they have a clarity of purpose that's lacking in every other edition of D&D. They know what they want to do and they do it pretty well.

3e/3.5/PF: The editions for people who like having a million different options so they can break the game with them. Optimizer's edition.

4e: Focused around tactical combat and balance. While not perfect at them, definitely the best edition for people who want a fantasy wargame.

5e: Everyone's second favourite edition, because it tries to do everything each of the previous editions did and consequently doesn't end up doing anything particularly well.

Vaern
2016-12-21, 08:23 PM
For 4E: You won't that many people willing to admit they played this and liked it. It is considered "Nerd Cred" to describe it as being nothing but terrible, whereas it is simply a different and somewhat bizarre version of D&D. It doesn't fit everyone, but you can have fun if you recognize that it was attempting to do. This Edition is enjoyable, despite its issues. I wouldn't really recommend it.

Oh, it's certainly not bad. It's just different. After playing a few sessions I made a comment about how it was a good game, but they changed enough that it almost felt like a different game altogether rather than a new edition of the same old system.

MrStabby
2016-12-21, 08:59 PM
3rd was my first edition. I loved it - but this was before anyone worked out how to break anything and it was all low level.

2nd followed 3rd (oddly). After 3rd it didn't seem as good. It felt both less intuitive and more restrictive although I could see what others liked.

4th followed. I couldn't get into this. Just not for me.

5th Is awesome and in my eyes the best edition by far. It has clarity, pace, a degree of freedom and is intuitive without being too simplistic. Content is more limited than 3rd but the content is growing.

Jay R
2016-12-21, 09:10 PM
The best one to play is the one that you already own the books for.

Steel Mirror
2016-12-21, 09:37 PM
One thing to keep in mind is that there is not going to be a "best" edition, but different editions do have their strengths.

3.P is kind of 2 possible games, IMO. If you use the PHB and maybe a few splatbooks that your crew has, it's a good system with rules covering just about everything. IMO it's probably the best edition (at least from 3E to 5E, I'm not an expert on what came before) for "simulationism". There's probably a better word for that. But monsters and NPCs use the same rules that PCs do, most any magic item you come across or ancient spell you discover can be crafted by the PCs (with the right feats and resources), and there are detailed rules for everything from the resilience of masonry vs natural stone walls to siege weapons to skill DCs for adjusting NPC reactions up and down with very granular social rolls.

Then there is the 3.P game where you allow every official splat, all the PrC's and monster races and LAs and splats and maybe some third party or homebrew stuff as well. This game is massive in scope, a paradise for players who love customization, and optimization, and builds that require 5 PrC's and 4 base classes with feats and spells and items from two dozen books and old back issues of Dragon magazine. The disadvantage is, if you don't have the time and inclination to optomize your build like that, you'll get left in the dust by the other players that do. A big disparity in optimization between PCs is also a huge headache for the DM, as in order to challenge the powerful members of the party you could very well be forced to use enemies which the less optimized PCs have no chance of harming at all. But with a group of players who are on the same optimization page and love the system mastery aspect of play, this is hands down a great edition.

4E is the best tactical game of all of them. It rewards careful manipulation of the battlefield and knowledge of the tactical situation. People who like wargaming and strategy games will probably best appreciate what 4E has to offer. It too has a huge mass of customization options, with a higher "floor" of character power and a lower ceiling for the truly powerful builds, so it's slightly better for groups with differing levels of system mastery between players. Most of the problem-solving action of 3.P happens in character creation, I've found, where most of the problem solving in 4E happens on the battlemat. On the minus side, it tends to have the longest combats of any of the editions (IME), and so you'll get less done in a game session than you would in other editions.

5E is a sparse edition by comparison to the others, at least in the amount of published material. That being said, it's a great intro to RPGs because of that, and it's also among the most flexible. You might not have 100 ways to make a spellslinging frontline warrior, like you do in 3.P, but you do have a few, and the few that you have are flexible enough that you can fulfill most character archetypes and specialties without any trouble. On the other hand, those players that love wringing every ounce of power out of character creation will have less to love here. Optimization is possible, but unless you are actually playing just a worse version of something that another PC is better at, it's hard to have such a huge power disparity between PCs that anyone feels useless. From the GM's perspective, 5E is the least amount of work of any of the editions (that is my opinion, yes, if you disagree that's fine!), though that also means that the rules leave more for the DM to decide than the others. If you like having detailed rules covering every situation, 5E may not be your choice. If you like doing things on the fly and prefer making quick rulings at the table to flipping through tables, 5E was the edition most designed with your philosophy in mind.

As I said though, I only have opinions on 3E to 5E. Others will have to pick up the slack to talk about earlier editions!

Lord Raziere
2016-12-21, 09:41 PM
well I value balance but also maximum customizability. So to my view, none of them are best. 3.5 has the most customizability and potential for the amount of characters I want to play, but unfortunately the downside of customizability is people using customization wrong to become stronger, when that shouldn't be the point of customizability.

4e is far far more balanced, but lacks a lot of the customization that I want, achieving this balance through limiting your options. the actual options I want to play needs more options than what 4e gives me.

while 5e is less balanced than 4e, but still kind of sucks option wise, so it not really my wheelhouse either way.

So its like, 3.5 has all the options that could actually allow me to play what I want but none of the guarantee of it being worth it, 4e has all the balance to make sure I'll be awesome but none of the options I want to play, while 5e doesn't have any of the options I want while not having the balance of 4e, so its kind of the worst of both worlds.

I dislike 3.5, but I don't care what system I have to make my character as long as that system allows me to make it as a valid concept. No guarantees on good play, but its still a chance. until 5e comes out with things like savage species, path of war, comprehensive psionics, things like that, I don't really care for it all that much. So 3.5 is the least worst.

comk59
2016-12-21, 11:16 PM
http://i.imgur.com/NnoGhN1.gif

Kane0
2016-12-21, 11:56 PM
3.X: Start small and grow right up to phenomenal cosmic power and beyond. Has a written rule, class, feat, etc for anything you can think of, and much more. Glorious for those who like being buried under options and mechanics. Rocket tag is a feature, not a bug.

4th: Deep, balanced, lengthy combat. Really focuses on role based play and ensures everybody has something to do and everything is 'fair'. The Combat As Sport mentality is strong here, with a niche appealing to 'Small scale wargamers and MMO Players'

5e: Returns the 'feel' of the game back to AD&D days. Simplified play and giving power back into rulings over rules makes for a more streamlined game open to interpretation. Finely tuned balance is not a priority but the higher floor coupled with lower ceiling really does wonders for the age old Linear Warriors / Quadratic Mages problem. Lessons of the past have mostly been taken to heart and implemented in a 'crowd-pleaser' kind of way.

Mutazoia
2016-12-22, 12:01 AM
1e/2e: They're made for dungeon crawling and getting loot. Combat is intentionally dangerous and unfair to encourage people to use clever tactics and dirty tricks to get an advantage. I'd hesitate to call them good games, but I think they have a clarity of purpose that's lacking in every other edition of D&D. They know what they want to do and they do it pretty well.

1e/2e were not intentionally unfair. Those edititions didn't mollycoddle the players like later editions. Death was a very real possibility, so if you went charging in to every encounter, sword swinging, you had better be damned sure that you could win. These editions were first gen RPG's and it shows. There is the obvious mechanical clunkiness (THACO) and a lack of extra options (skills, etc) that appear in later games. But then, in 1e/2e you just told the DM what you wanted to do and he/she made a ruling on how to do it. These editions were rather difficult to break. The balance between the classes worked to make sure that each class had it's strong and weak points, making party cohesion necessary for success.


3e/3.5/PF: The editions for people who like having a million different options so they can break the game with them. Optimizer's edition.

Pretty much. 3.0 was WOTC taking their failed attempt at an TTRPG made during the initial success of Magic: The Addiction, and copy/pasting D&D stuff all over it. They didn't really proof read or play test much, and threw most (all) of the class balance from the earlier editions out the window. The resulting "mess" had to be quickly revised with 3.5 as they attempted to fix a lot of the now majorly broken aspects that were grandfathered in from 2e (such as haste) and mutated with the new mechanics. With little to no class balance, and the edition of Feats and (especially) meta-magic, 3.X is very easy to break (just read some of the "Optimize this" threads on this board for evidence). With class balance out the window, the rise of the Batman Mage began, and the common Fighter became rather superfluous, as most clerics became better fighters than the actual fighters. 5 foot steps and "defensive casting" made casters more powerful than previous versions. Where a good hit could ruin a casters spell in 1e/2e, 3.X casters could get pummled into near unconsciousness and still blast away with ease.


4e: Focused around tactical combat and balance. While not perfect at them, definitely the best edition for people who want a fantasy wargame.

A rather unpopular opinion, but: 4e was designed to play more like an MMO (attempting to cash in on WoW's success), giving every class abilities with "cooldown" times (once per round, once per turn, once per encounter, etc). It had some mechanical wonkiness of it's own that, while not really breaking the game on their own, made things....interesting ("elves" that can teleport once per "encounter" for free...how do you lock them in jail?) Definite more combat oriented, and written/marketed in a way to be more of a cash cow than a new edition (multiple player's handbooks needed to get all of the class/race options, etc).


5e: Everyone's second favourite edition, because it tries to do everything each of the previous editions did and consequently doesn't end up doing anything particularly well.

5e is still new enough that the verdict is still out, but looking okay so far. Not as breakable as 3.X and not as 'MMO-ish" as 4e. Definitely tries to put the role playing back into the game (vs. 4e's roll playing).

Stealth Marmot
2016-12-22, 12:12 AM
Which version is best?

Answer: Yes.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-12-22, 01:13 AM
In before this devolves into a proper edition war (again :smallsigh:).

As my profile's posting history suggests, I'm rather enamored of 3.5. The enormous range of options and the fact the power can scale from what are basically normal, RL people swinging pointy sticks all the way up to freakin' marvel superheroes (b-listers only, though); sometimes, though not necessarily, in the same campaign are very attractive features to me.

4e's focus on balance (even if it ultimately failed, from what I hear), generally samey structure to characters, and basically easier survival curve just hit all the wrong buttons for me. Far be it from me to judge anyone else if any or all of that appeals to anyone else though.

5e is... I honestly don't know. By much of what I've heard it tries to blend some of the "best" features of the other editions but the answer to whether or not it does so successfully varies widely depending on who you ask. Personally, I don't care much for the idea of bounded accuracy and I -like- my christmas tree, dangit.

Disclaimer: I haven't had much opportunity to play either of the latter two and I haven't examined either in anything approaching the depth I have 3e, so take this post with a grain of salt.

Grac
2016-12-22, 01:30 AM
I'd suggest 'Moldvay' Basic/Expert. Nicknamed 'Moldvay' after the author of the basic set (there's a few different basic sets over the years, with different authors).

Two 64 page booklets, basic covers levels 1-3, and expert covers levels 4-14. The rules are concise and clearly written. It's also extremely adaptable, and you can mod it for almost everything.

They are available on drivethrurpg and associated stores, and there's a few clones available for free (it is the most cloned edition).
Clones include Labyrinth Lord and Basic Fantasy RPG, with Adventurer, Conqueror, King a heavily modified version which has rules for everything. Unfortunately for ACKS, it is like the non-basic games, in that its book is huge, a little bigger than the 3e player's handbook.

The last one I'd mention is a clone of the original D&D books, called Delving Deeper. It's available for free online, or by print on Lulu.

I really suggest you give the free clones a read. Especially Delving Deeper, due to size. Find the one which inspires you the most.

Knaight
2016-12-22, 02:21 AM
I favor 5e, or more accurately dislike 5e least. With that said, there isn't a single best - there's an elaborate set of metrics both good and bad which different editions occupy to different extents, and which works out to worst is entirely dependent on how you weight them (and some of the weighting is directional). If heavily codified squad tactics is something you absolutely love, 4e ends up looking solid. If rules quantity is a strong negative, 5e comes out looking pretty nice.

Kurald Galain
2016-12-22, 05:16 AM
Strawberry!

Jormengand
2016-12-22, 06:00 AM
Strawberry!

Just to check, if I play truenamers of less than 20th level, do I lose my ability to taste D&D editions as well as ice cream?

Theodoric
2016-12-22, 06:25 AM
The best one to play is the one that you already own the books for.
Or the one you can convince enough people to play. That's itself a big enough issue that the exact edition is really a secondary concern.

Best you can hope for is having friends who've played KOTOR or other d20-based games so they're not put off immediately by character sheets with Str, Dex etc.

Professor Chimp
2016-12-22, 07:29 AM
Isn't it obvious? The one you enjoy playing the most.

Celestia
2016-12-22, 12:57 PM
To me, the main thing I care about is customization. Everything else is secondary or tertiary. I view roleplaying as a storytelling medium first and foremost. Therefore, the more possible characters, the more possible stories. 3.5 has hundreds of races and monsters, dozens of templates, hundreds of classes, and millions of ways they can be combined. I am capable of creating literally any character I can possibly think of. No other edition has that kind of versatility. Yes, some (most) people use this customization to powergame, but I don't care as much about that. What other people do in other games doesn't affect my enjoyment here.

JAL_1138
2016-12-22, 01:04 PM
Which edition is best for you depends on a variety of factors. "What do you want out of the game" is probably the most pertinent question.

There is no "best" edition in any objective sense—the things one person loves about a particular edition may be the very things another person hates. Neither person is necessarily wrong.

There are also a lot more than five editions. There used to be two separate product lines, "Dungeons & Dragons" and "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons[/i]." WotC dropped the "Dungeons & Dragons" product line altogether after they bought TSR, but then dropped the "Advanced" part of the name from the AD&D line for 3rd edition.

Here's a short history in almost-chronological order (the TSR era had a lot of overlap between the bifurcated product lines) that also covers a bit of the edition-warring.

Woodgrain Box/White Box (identical text and same front-cover art, woodgrain was the earlier release and extremely collectible). AKA OD&D. Initially required the game Chainmail to play, plus a recommendation for competing company Avalon Hill's board game Outdoor Survival recommended as a map and inspiration for the wilderness exploration. Later received several paperback pamphlet-sized supplements, five I think, adding new classes, monsters, treasures, a short adventure scenario, and (I don't know for sure) maybe helped make it kind of playable sans-Chainmail. The mother of all tabletop RPGs.

Holmes Basic: Covered only very early character levels, 1-3 I think; can be thought of as the beginner's English translation of OD&D. Didn't need Chainmail to play. Generally well-received by OD&D fans, although many who'd been playing OD&D saw no reason to convert since it covered such a low level range.

AD&D 1e: A complete game (eventually), although for a year or two only the Monster Manual was out, with suggestions to use the monsters in OD&D or Holmes until the remaining books dropped. Poorly organized and idiosyncratic, but still much beloved. Initially released in part because of a feud between Gygax and Arneson. Got a few extra classes and spells in Unearthed Arcana. Reaction split; many OD&D and Holmes fans loved it and switched; others thought it was entirely too complicated and fiddly.

D&D: Moldvay Basic + Cook-&-Marsh Expert, AKA B/X. The first of the "Basic" or "Non-Advanced" line. Introduced the races-as-classes thing, if I'm not mistaken. A streamlined system that covered low levels and mid-high levels, 1-3 for Basic and 4-14 for Expert. A very different and streamlined game from 1e. Generally well-received, although some Holmes, AD&D, and OD&D fans dislike the compression of classes and races. More popular with Holmes and OD&D fans than with AD&D fans.

D&D: Mentzer Basic, Expert, Companions, Masters, & Immortals, AKA BECMI. Five box sets for Non-Advanced D&D. Basic and Expert were re-edited and re-organized, and then expanded upon with Companions and Masters, which took characters to high levels (36!). Characters could become godlike entities in the Immortals set, which had another 36 ranks of Immortals. Generally well-received by B/X fans, although some still prefer B/X--differences from B/X are mainly in layout, art, and writing style for levels 1-14. "Red Box," the Mentzer Basic set, is where D&D exploded in popularity, although some AD&D fans consider it overly-simplistic.

AD&D 2e: Streamlined the combat rules of 1e and used THAC0 instead of matrices for attack resolution. Several classes and a race (half-orcs) got changed or dropped initially, and some made a return later in supplements, but different than their 1e incarnations. The rules text has less "charm" than 1e, in general; 1e fans sometimes find it a bit sterile in that regard. Initially, the Monstrous Compendium was released as looseleaf supplements for use in three-ring binders instead of a hardback. Received a second version with the (small amount of) errata included and some new art in the '95 "black border" printing that included a hardback MM. Splatbooks and setting box sets galore--unfortunately, some of the splatbooks are horribly broken because of a lack of playtesting. Hated by some 1e diehards who felt it was a much more "sterile" set of rules and for the growing emphasis in published adventure modules on heroic fantasy over sword-and-sorcery, but earned a fair share of converts for reorganizing and streamlining some combat rules.

D&D Rules Cyclopedia: Aaron Alston (of Wraith Squadron fame, for Star Wars EU fans) collected and re-edited the rules of the first four BECMI box sets, levels 1-36, into one slim book that combined PHB, DMG, and MM. The Immortals rules would be significantly changed and reintroduced with the Wrath of the Immortals box set. Wrath of the Immortals was poorly received, but the Rules Cyclopedia itself is much-beloved by many "non-advanced/basic D&D" fans; same reaction as B/X and BECMI from OD&D and AD&D fans.

[Note: 1e material and 2e material are largely compatible. A 1e character may be unbalanced (not that either edition is balanced at all, but still) next to its 2e equivalent or vice-versa, but as long as you don't have them side-by-side, you can drop-and-replace them into either game relatively easily. Monsters likewise. 1e adventures can be run in 2e by giving the monsters a THAC0 or having the 1e to-hit tables handy. 2e adventures can be run in 1e largely as-is. BX, BECMI, and RC are all largely compatible with each other except for the Immortals rules, particularly BECMI and RC. B/X, BECMI, and RC material can also be run in 1e and 2e with fairly little adjustment below level 20, as long as you don't have AD&D classes/races side-by-side in the same game with their D&D counterparts on the player side (replace with one or the other instead), although it takes a smidge more work. Adventures from AD&D and D&D likewise can be run effectively as-is, little to no conversion needed, in either system, by giving monsters a THAC0 or having the to-hit tables handy. Despite AD&D and D&D having very different rules, and despite 1e and 2e having some distinct differences as well, the game math is broadly similar to the point conversion for a module is a 5-minute job at most, and a weird hybrid of the different rulesets can be created quite easily.]

AD&D 2e Player's Options: Three books called "Combat and Tactics," "Spells and Magic," and "Skills and Powers." Sometimes called 2.5e, although they still required the use of the 2e corebooks. Introduced new skill systems, a (terribly broken) point-buy-esque character creation system, and a combat system that would become the basis of 3e. Extremely mixed reaction from 2e fans; some loved them, some hated them.

(A)D&D 3.0: The "Advanced" was dropped, but it carries on from 2e's Combat and Tactics, not the old "non-advanced D&D" line. The dawn of the d20 system. Character classes and combat received huge changes, and pretty much everything else did too. Skill systems, initiative, and the like were all changed and put onto the unified d20 chassis, and monsters followed PC creation rules. Spellcasting remained Vancian, but spells no longer had casting times that resulted in a fizzle if you were hit before they went off, and casters were guaranteed to learn far more spells than before. Emphasis on a grid for combat. Needs extensive conversion to use previous material from the TSR era; no longer backwards-compatible. The martial/caster disparity already in place at high levels in previous games becomes even more severe. Introduced the Open Game License and redulted in a wave of third-party publishing. Hated by TSR diehards, but earned a lot of converts and became an extremely popular system with new players too.

HackMaster 4th Edition: Kenzerco's AD&D. The initial edition (called 4th edition, to tie it in to the fictional game used in the Knights of the Dinner Table comic) released a year after 3.0 hit, and was a parody-heavy licensed rework of 1e and 2e with a few extra mechanics. HackMaster would eventually drop the AD&D license and create a system with significantly different rules from any D&D edition. I'm counting HM 4e here separately from the OSR since it was licensed.

(A)D&D 3.5 A rules patch for 3.0. Some classes and mechanics got heavy reworks and math changes. I'm not up to speed on all of them. Claimed to be backwards-compatible with 3.0, and is to a moderate degree, but takes some converting due to math differences. 3.X received a HUGE number of splatbooks from WotC adding tons of options for races, classes, spells, and feats during its run, dwarfinv even 2e's splatbook frenzy. Later received some supplements like Tome of Battle that would be the genesis of Saga Edition d20 Star Wars, which would in its own way be the forerunner of 4e. Annoyed a lot of 3.0 fans who felt they had to buy the game again after only a few years, but widely regarded as a needed fix for elements of the earlier game and thus effectively replaced 3.0.

The Old-School Renaissance (OSR): Not one game from any single publisher, but the dozens of games and retroclones like OSRIC, Dark Dungeons, Adventurer Conqueror King, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and the like. Some are different systems altogether, but some are straight-up retroclones of OD&D, AD&D, or "basic" D&D that are fully compatible with TSR material. Too many retroclones to list them all.

(A)D&D 4e Hoo boy, this one's contentious. Drawing on Saga Edition SW and late 3.5 supplements, it revamped and reworked the entire system to the AEDU chassis. Character classes and game math were drastically changed. Heavy focus on tactical combat on a grid; out-of-combat spellcasting largely replaced by rituals. Skill system revamped from scratch, with a much-streamlined set of available skills compared to 3.X. Caster/martial disparity was functionally erased. Monster stats and PC stats were separated again. Notably had more than 120 pages of errata that completely changed the skill system math and monster stats; it's usually recommended to use the latest errata and MM3 monster-creation rules instead of the initial versions. It also dropped the OGL, which irked a lot of fans (and publishers). Beloved by some, but loathed by many 3.X and TSR-era fans. Mentioning it nowadays in the wrong forum can spark a flame war as its fans and its detractors go for each others' throats.

Pathfinder: Paizo's 3.75, built on the Open Game License, with Paizo's custom setting of Golarion. Patches several rules issues of 3.5. Has a metric boatload of supplements of its own in addition to 3.5 material. Later received some updates in Unchained that changed some classes and broke with the moderate degree of backwards-compatibility it had with 3.5. Earned a great deal of converts from 3.5, although many stuck with 3.5 as well. People who weren't keen on 3.5 generally (but not universally) aren't keen on PF either.

(A)D&D 4e Essentials: A revamp/update/modular-extension of 4e that introduced a new setting, new comparatively-streamlined character classes, new powers, new monsters, and included some of the errata. While entirely compatible with (errata'd) vanilla 4e, the introduction of classes focused on powerful basic attacks can break things a bit with some vanilla-4e leader classes in the same party. Somewhat contentious among 4e fans, but nowhere near the split that the 2e Player's Option series caused.

(A)D&D 5e: Reworks 3.X into a simpler, streamlined, faster, more balanced form, with an attempt to capture some of the nostalgia and "feel" of the TSR era, a looser combat structure, and a rework of class progression into class+subclass influenced by Pathfinder's Archetypes and AD&D kits. Still has a bit of the caster/martial disparity, but not to 3.X levels. Blends some elements of 4e in, like two types of rests with some abilities working on short rests and some on long rests, reliable at-will damage for spellcasters (instead of plinking away with a crossbow and a terrible THAC0 like they used to do when out of spells), and the death save mechanic, few alignment restrictions for classes, some 4e racial lore, a compact skill list, a version of the healing surge mechanic, easy healing without magic, and a few other things here and there. Recently reintroduced a slightly-more-limited Open Game License, and a few third-party books have started to drop, but nothing like the third-party flood the 3.X OGL spawned yet. Drew a good chunk of the TSR crowd back into the fold, got some converts from 4e who were dissatisfied with the grindy combat, and earned some converts from PF and 3.X for streamlining things considerably—but hated by other fans of TSR-era editions, 3.5/PF fans, and 4e fans. Generally less contentious than 4e for the most part, except to diehard 4e fans who liked the AEDU system, heavier tactical emphasis, and martial power options; although there's a(n) (un)healthy rivalry between 3.5/PF and 5e fans as well—some 3.X/PF fans dislike the extremes 5e went to to simplify things and the comparatively fewer options due to a much slower splatbook-release schedule and the separation of monster and PC creation rules.

wumpus
2016-12-22, 01:37 PM
1e/2e: They're made for dungeon crawling and getting loot. Combat is intentionally dangerous and unfair to encourage people to use clever tactics and dirty tricks to get an advantage. I'd hesitate to call them good games, but I think they have a clarity of purpose that's lacking in every other edition of D&D. They know what they want to do and they do it pretty well.

3e/3.5/PF: The editions for people who like having a million different options so they can break the game with them. Optimizer's edition.

4e: Focused around tactical combat and balance. While not perfect at them, definitely the best edition for people who want a fantasy wargame.

5e: Everyone's second favourite edition, because it tries to do everything each of the previous editions did and consequently doesn't end up doing anything particularly well.

1e was hardly "intentionally unfair". It would be much more accurate to say it failed to relentlessly favor the PCs over the monsters and dungeon. It *was* fair, which would make players endlessly whinge about not getting their way all the time. One blindingly obvious thing was that the author was also CEO of the publishing company: nobody could force any editing decisions onto him. I'm sure there were plenty of rules not included in the DMG, and they were likely sorted by "which is coolest" and "which can we cram where" and anything that didn't pass those was tossed. This is not a game where the conecpt of RAW makes any sense whatsoever.

On the other hand, Gygax poured his love into the game to make sure that the sense of adventure is to be stressed above all else. The rules were there as backup, and obviously never really tested as a whole (while endless essays on how to dungeon master were included). The game was always about adventure, and rarely about rolling the dice.

[Unearthed Arcana - first edition: probably the worst fantasy role playing product I've ever bought. All classes are specifically designed to play poorly with others (and such is a specific balancing agent for the barbarian, they can't even group with clerics until 2nd level, and don't ask about grouping with magic users [later called wizards]).]

2e. Didn't play (other than Baldur's gate). The player's handbook appears unchanged, but I'd avoid an AD&D game that tried to lower Gygax's influence.

3.xe Finally a complete game. RAW actually is a thing and players can rules lawyer the DM on exactly what the die modifications can be. This can go either way on how you look at it. It also has a horribly broken caster/melee split that any high level (or even low level if players browse the internet for tips) play will have to deal with.

4e. A game made to look like an MMO. Although actual play is said to have worked, I doubt I'll ever touch it for two reasons.
1. When it dropped I was playing DDO, a *great* MMO based [well at the time, they've diverged a lot since] on 3.x. The idea of a "more WoW" D&D was pretending that great game didn't exist.
2. The original marketing was absolutely horrible. It was like they *knew* why we loved D&D and cut its heart out.
As D&D as a wargame, I would probably go back to the AD&D 1e (and previous) sources. The wargaming fingerprints were all over that.

5e. Probably a "better AD&D than AD&D" (at least if you have old school players), possibly at least as good a 3.x as 3.x (after enough splatbooks). For those into that thing, I'd suggest reading the essays in Gygax's DMG and playing the rules of 5e.

Also, don't underestimate the free Basic and SRD sources compared to the boxed basic editions of yore. They appear to be a far "better Basic than Basic & Expert". I still worry about powercreep through splatbooks, but I haven't heard of any problems.

Pex
2016-12-22, 01:57 PM
My order:

1) Pathfinder

2) 3E (3.5/3.0)

3) 5E

4) 2E/1E

5) 4E

GrayDeath
2016-12-22, 03:09 PM
Strawberry!

Nah, thats ChocoMint.


Just to check, if I play truenamers of less than 20th level, do I lose my ability to taste D&D editions as well as ice cream?

Only while not Truespeaking as a true Englishman (with stiff upper lip), because you cannot breathe through your nose and speak nasal English?



As for the OP`s Question: None/all of them.

But if it interests you which one I like best, then its Pathfinder, followed by 3.5.

Then a loooong empty Space, and then comes 5th Edition (without the hardcap I might actually play more of it,´but I hate hardcaps).

I never played 4th (only read it and it didn`t appeal), and the earlier versions try something which many other Systems do better or are too much a wargame for my tastes.

ExLibrisMortis
2016-12-22, 03:30 PM
I don't know about pre-third edition, and not much about 5. I prefer 3 to 4 (knowing 4 before 3 - it's not just nostalgia), and from what I hear 5 doesn't have the breadth and depth of 3, mechanically speaking, so I doubt I'd prefer that to 3.

I prefer third edition mechanics, in how each level is a separate entity. Building a character is a matter of slotting levels, feats, and skill points into a class table, with relatively few restrictions on what you can put where. I don't nearly resent the 3.5 monk as much as I would if I were required to take all 20 levels. After all, you can stop taking monk levels any time, the first two levels are perfectly usable, and that's what matters :smalltongue:.

Pronounceable
2016-12-22, 03:31 PM
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the first one you played. I certainly like ADnD more than others, despite thac0 and other objectively stupid stuff.

JAL_1138
2016-12-22, 03:36 PM
Sadly I haven't played OD&D, Holmes, or BX/BECMI/RC, so I can't rank them fairly. But for those I've played, my personal preferences (1 = favorite, 6= least favorite) are:

1) 2e without the three "Player's Option" books, and/or a 2e/1e hybrid using 2e combat rules
2) 5e
3) 1e
4) 2e with the three "Players Option" books
5) Pathfinder/3.5/3.0
6) 4e

And I'd be more likely to not play at all than to play in 2e-with-Player's-Option-books, 3.PF, or 4e again.

Lurkmoar
2016-12-22, 03:38 PM
I like them all, but the company is whats the best. Company being the players I game with. Out of all of the editions, I've played 1e and 4e the least(five games between both editions, sad).

Your table may very.

Kurald Galain
2016-12-22, 04:01 PM
My order:

Come to think of it, the best answer you're going to get is probably to send a "favorite edition" survey to a couple hundred gamers. Of course, the results will probably depend on which forum you ask them on.

Grod_The_Giant
2016-12-22, 04:38 PM
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the first one you played.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. There is no real right answer.

3e/3.5/PF: "Expert level" D&D, in my opinion. Which sounds... kind of snobbish when I put it like that, I suppose, but... 3.PF is the game you play with a group who's really into the game. When you have multiple people who really want to dig into the mechanics, who want to make complicated characters and play with different magic systems and carefully build character to the same balance point. If you don't feel like sorting through the incredible mess, kind of a drag.

5e: D&D Lite. Has the structure we're familiar with, just cut down and smoothed out. Great for casual players and much easier to run, but it's no fun to mess around with character mechanics.

4e: I played a little bit at the beginning of the edition and don't have fond memories, though I understand that a lot of the issues (at least with combat pacing; I used to cut everything's health in half) have been improved with time. Sort of a weird offshoot with weirdly inconsistent detailed combat options/ignored utility options.

Millstone85
2016-12-22, 06:10 PM
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the first one you played.Ding ding ding, we have a winner.Not true in my case. 4e was my first true contact with D&D. While it did succeed in making me like the game, its PHB1 and MotP are now sitting next to my ongoing collection of all 5e sourcebooks. The new edition is so much better!

The worst thing for me in 4e was that most spells with some modicum of flavor were rituals, and ritual casting was a ridiculous expense of resources. Also, never try to play this edition without a grid, just don't.

Ravinsild
2016-12-22, 06:34 PM
I like AD&D original, 4e and 5e. So..those 3? Also does pathfinder count? That one too.

3.x was my first edition but I hate it. I would never play it. Not even sure I would realllly play Pathfinder. It's just too busted and the power gap between completely terrible and 1 shot god-like being of infinite power is too massive. It fundamentally ruins the game for me. Also the fact that martial characters become obsolete the longer the game goes.

I like AD&D because it's simple, fun and interesting. I like 4e because it feels very balanced and I like fighting type campaigns. I like 5e because it's like 3.x but not busted and the power gap is way smaller.

Asha Leu
2016-12-22, 06:44 PM
Out of the editions I've actually played:

AD&D 2E: This is the edition that I was introduced to D&D with, although I was a bit too young to really *understand* it at the time, and I remember very little rules-wise about the 2E games I played. I never owned any of the books, and while my friend's older brother had an enormous collection of 2E rulebooks that we used, most of the times I tried to read any of the crunch it just went right over my head.

My least favourite out of those I've played, though the edition itself isn't really at fault in that regard.

D&D 3E/3.5: The edition I played all through my high school years, and still the one I've had by far the most experience with. While it can seem rather clunky and convoluted in hindsight, and it took me literally years to master the rules, I'll always have a deep affection and really fond memories of 3.X. My group was never much for optimising, and I was the only one who ever bothered buying non-Monster Manual splatbooks and Dragon magazine (and I was *terrible* at building good characters), so a lot of the balance issues never really came up for us.

The best thing about this edition was the sheer breadth of the rules system and the way that there were rules for doing seemingly *anything*. The worst thing was, well, the sheer breadth of the rules system, which could take seemingly forever to completely get one's head around - I remember quite literally cramming the combat section of the Player's Handbook prior to sessions

Ties with 5E as my favourite edition, though nostalgia plays a big part in this - I haven't actually played a single game of 3.5 since 4E was released, and honestly would be surprised if I ever do again.

D&D 4E I have *very* complicated feelings about this edition. I was incredibly wary about a lot of the previews we got prior to release, a lot of the simplified rules and limited non-combat options just seemed... wrong to the "D&D rules should try to model real life" mindset 3.X had installed in me, and that bizarre presentation Wizards gave when it was first announced, with its obnoxious self-congratulation and mockery of previous editions, really rubbed me the wrong way. On the other hand, that 3D virtual tabletop looked awesome... only way they could have stuffed that up was if it stayed stuck in development hell until well after 5E came out.

And, yet, when we actually started *playing* it, I started to really like it. It was an absolute breeze to DM compared to 3.5 (those monster statblocks are still the best of any edition, IMO), character creation was a lot quicker (with the exception of recording all those goddamn powers), I loved the varied combat tactics and the ability to push and pull opponents around the battlemap, loved that the monsters all got a variety of different roles so I wasn't forced to either constantly use the standard kobold or manually add class levels, and quickly grew to embrace the faster play enabled by the simplified rules.

But then we played even more. And the flaws became apparent. Battles just took *forever*, to the point where we were halving everything's HP just to get through more than one or two battles a session. The power system was hindered by the fact that there wasn't really anywhere on the character sheet to record all the bloody things, forcing you to print out pages of power cards, hastily scrawling the things on the back of your character sheet, or pawing through the Player's Handbook mid-session. Skill challenges and multiclassing just... sucked. Seemingly basic options like two-weapon and archery-based fighters, rangers with animal companions and druids weren't available without buying piles of supplements, yet the pointless eladrin and warlords were somehow core. That amazing virtual tabletop just... never came.

And the battles just took forever. Seriously, that over-inflated HP really was the fatal flaw in what could have been an amazing edition - it doesn't matter how many cool terrain features you've put into an encounter once the PCs corner the remaining enemies (or vice versa) and it turns into 10+ rounds of slowly chipping away at each other's HP until someone drops (it also rather ruined the otherwise brilliant minion mechanic).

In the end, we had more or less stopped playing by the time the Player's Handbook 2 came out. We tried again every so often - one campaign even managed to last nearly six months - but something was missing, and it often felt like we were playing out of obligation more than desire. By the time 5E rolled around, I hadn't played a game in years.

D&D 5E: I didn't actually get around to trying out 5E until nearly a year after its release, and was really wary about investing (both financially and emotionally) in yet another new edition. But I took to 5E almost immediately, and the more I play it, the more I like it.

Sure, there are flaws. The release schedule for new material is painfully slow, I miss some of the depth and crunch of 3.X and those wonderful monster statblocks from 4E that never forced me to look up spells, and the way the rulebooks are written can be infuriatingly confusing and anti-intuitive at times (seriously, what is with the DM's Guide rambling on about the planes before even getting to things like building encounters and campaigns?) But it seems to combine a lot of the best aspects of previous editions (most of the changes I liked in 4E have carried over, often executed a lot more successfully - ie. the battlemaster fighter), in a very fun and playable little package.

Currently tied with 3.5 as my fave, and looks likely to overtake it soon enough.

oxybe
2016-12-22, 06:48 PM
4th ed.

2nd ed's PHB sold 13ish year old me on the idea of playing heroes like Hercules, Perseus, Beowulf, Siegfried & Cuchulain. It also failed spectacularly at doing so.

4th ed, almost 2 decades later, finally made it possible. In play, the characters felt heroic strait out of the PHB.

Pex
2016-12-22, 10:47 PM
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the first one you played. I certainly like ADnD more than others, despite thac0 and other objectively stupid stuff.

Not with me. 2E was my first during college though technically 1E temporarily in high school when I didn't really know what it was about. I enjoyed it back then, even more than other games I tried - GURPS, Rolemaster, Fantasy Warhammer, though an Ars Magica game I played was nice. I really hate it now. Lots of minutiae I won't get into, but 3E got rid of all my issues of the game.

Knaight
2016-12-23, 12:05 AM
Not with me. 2E was my first during college though technically 1E temporarily in high school when I didn't really know what it was about. I enjoyed it back then, even more than other games I tried - GURPS, Rolemaster, Fantasy Warhammer, though an Ars Magica game I played was nice. I really hate it now. Lots of minutiae I won't get into, but 3E got rid of all my issues of the game.

Me neither. I started with 3.0, and it is no longer my favorite edition of D&D, being supplanted by 5e and to an extent 2e. More than that, there's a long list of non-D&D games that I like a lot better than any edition of D&D.

comk59
2016-12-23, 12:09 AM
Yeah, I'm also in the "Dislike my first edition" group. I started playing 3rd in grade school, and played it religiously. But, I took a break from it for a year in middle school, and when I came back to it, I saw all the things wrong with it. All the cracks, the balances, to little bits and pieces, and the massive, abhorrent mess that it was when you stepped back and looked at it as a whole.*

So I played other systems for a while, and even had quite a bit of fun in 2nd edition. When 5th came out, and I heard it described as a "Better 3.P", I decided to pass on it like I had 4th. However I kept hearing good things about it, and after finally picking up a PHB, I was pleasantly surprised. Honestly, 5th is tied with 2nd for my favorite edition at this point, for entirely different reasons.

*this is a purely subjective observation. That being said, if you like 3.5, then I direct you to my Signature.

Hawkstar
2016-12-23, 12:19 AM
I... don't know anymore.

AD&D and 3.5 are too unrefined and haphazard for me to enjoy. Pathfinder is great for people who like to play magical wizards and sorcerers and stuff (Except they maintained 3.5's screwed up sorcerer progression), and Dreamscarred Press made martial characters relevant and fun again on the unbound d20 chassis. 3.5 sort of got better as it went on, but its core was busted and that caused all sorts of problems.

4e is amazing, but overly-focused. It'll win any rap battles against its competitors because it's easily the most badass. Except when it isn't. (Say, I want to make a dex-based Storm sorcerer instead of Con-based Storm Sorcerer. Or have a new race) But it has the BEST Dragonborn Warlords OF ALL TIME! OF ALL TIME!

I think with 5e's release of Volo's Monster Book, it has become THE best edition. Because I can play Catfolk (Sorry... Tabaxi) Sorcerers again, like I could in Pathfinder, but couldn't in 4e.

Algeh
2016-12-23, 03:22 AM
Disclaimer: I actually like GURPS better than any edition of D&D. I know, I know, I'm On The Wrong Forum For That Preference (but I like it here!).

As for D&D, I like the 1st and 2nd editions best, because they had a lot more arbitrariness to their character creation/progression so it seemed like players focused on adventuring with the characters they had in front of them rather than on building perfect characters. It sounds odd for a GURPS-enthusiast to advocate for arbitrariness in character creation, but I felt like with 3.x D&D, you'd get a certain kind of player coming in with a complete plan for what their "build" was going to be through level 20 before they started play, and there would thus be a tendency for characters to either fit poorly with the actual campaign or for players to feel like they'd "wasted" levels when they changed paths to better fit the things that came up in the actual game.

1st and 2nd edition, if you didn't allow the Giant Pile of Options Books, really didn't give players too many choices that it made sense to make "in advance", so it seemed like more players chose their new proficiencies/thief skills/spells "as they came" at level-up based on what seemed useful for the adventures they'd been having and saw themselves as likely to have rather than as a theoretically-optimized path they'd carefully charted out to make the best possible character in some sense. (Well, with spells this was only true if you had a DM who used the rules for finding and learning spells such that you really didn't have the full menu of possible spells in the game available at all times - DMs could do a lot to balance and direct their magic-using character's likely options by thoughtful selection of which spells the PCs found as treasure.)

Of course, this may also have been due to the group I played 2nd edition AD&D with. I suspect playing a terrible system with a compatible group will produce better results than playing the most perfect system ever created with people who annoy you and want really different things out of the gaming experience.

Short aside: why doesn't the totally point-based character creation/progression in GURPS seem to create the same issues as I saw with 3.x edition D&D? I suspect it's because progression is more granular so you can goof around and take a couple of points in non-optimal skills here and there without "ruining your build". (While GMing a humor-based GURPS campaign, I once gave all players a few generic EXP for the session, whatever individual acknowledgements were called for, plus they could each have two points in the not-actually-a-real-GURPS-skill "drunken fishing" if they wanted to due to a joke that made perfect sense at the time. There was space for that kind of thing because skills weren't tied to levels or classes. Also because my players had the same sense of humor I did.) This could have a lot more to do with who I was playing with than the system, though. My GURPS groups generally had pretty compatible group of players who were more focused on having fun and telling a good story than "winning", which makes a lot of rules sets pretty viable.

Corsair14
2016-12-23, 08:53 AM
For me 2nd was far superior to anything else. You had options with characters but also real limitations. It handled multi-classing perfectly. No more of this suddenly leveling and decided one want to be a wizard now. You started as a wizard/fighter and took the exp penalty of splitting the exp between the two classes evenly as you gained it. Plus the campaign worlds were unparalled by anything available in today's DnD. Spell jammer, Dark Sun, Planescape, and grand daddy Greyhawk. Nothing has compared to the imagination and imagery of these worlds since.

3rd and Pathfinder- Played them for years and really didn't see that big a difference between the two. I liked the expanded classes and the easy ability for a multitude of races and making ones own. I never found the whole figuring out bonuses that hard. I did house rule no one got the bonus attacks like a rogues sneak attack unless they were behind the target.

5th is ok. More simple than 3rd and pathfinder and I find the lack of proficiencies and domains to be fairly short sighted. Not of fan of infinite cantrips and find them too powerful and monotonous. They are far too slow at putting out supplement books with archetypes and domains. Playing it now in two campaigns, might go back to a simple 2nd ed next time I run a game.

4th played once and hated it so bad I immediately sold my phb. If I wanted to play WOW I would log onto it online. Most pathetic attempt to make a role playing game I have ever played and I have played a lot of different games. Absolutely stupid mechanics.

RazorChain
2016-12-23, 04:56 PM
Disclaimer: I actually like GURPS better than any edition of D&D. I know, I know, I'm On The Wrong Forum For That Preference (but I like it here!).

As for D&D, I like the 1st and 2nd editions best, because they had a lot more arbitrariness to their character creation/progression so it seemed like players focused on adventuring with the characters they had in front of them rather than on building perfect characters. It sounds odd for a GURPS-enthusiast to advocate for arbitrariness in character creation, but I felt like with 3.x D&D, you'd get a certain kind of player coming in with a complete plan for what their "build" was going to be through level 20 before they started play, and there would thus be a tendency for characters to either fit poorly with the actual campaign or for players to feel like they'd "wasted" levels when they changed paths to better fit the things that came up in the actual game.


I think players planning their build is more of a Computer RPG influence than anything else. I have this with new players that have only prior experience with CRPG.


I have played 4 editions of DnD and I can't tell which is the best of them, the only thing I can say is DnD doesn't fit my needs anymore and never will.

Eldariel
2016-12-23, 10:42 PM
Depends on what kind of a game you want to run. Sword & Sorcery? AD&D 1e/2e would be my pick. High magic epic fantasy? 3.5e OR 5e. Slightly lower high magic epic steampunk fantasy? PF. Standardized? 4e.

mephnick
2016-12-23, 10:59 PM
AD&D 1e/2e would be my pick. High magic epic fantasy? 3.5e OR 5e. Slightly lower high magic epic steampunk fantasy? PF.

Man, I don't know how you can consider PF even slightly lower high fantasy than 5e. It's at least as high magic as 3.5 and thus miles away from 5e.

Eldariel
2016-12-23, 11:01 PM
Man, I don't know how you can consider PF even slightly lower high fantasy than 5e. It's at least as high magic as 3.5 and thus miles away from 5e.

Fair. I just didn't feel like writing a separate entry for 5e since in spirit it's pretty much just 3.P at lower magic settings, but your criticism is certainly warranted.

NomGarret
2016-12-24, 12:12 AM
As with most of the world's great and no so great questions, the answer is "it depends."

I started with 2e, complete with Players Option and all the Complete Handbooks. I certainly enjoyed the time I played it, but feel no compulsion to go back.

3.P has the most diverse range of options, which is the biggest point that piques my interest. I'm far more likely to run a "no core" than a "core only" game in these systems. I'm here because I want a party with an Incarnum user and a dragon.

4e is my system of choice. The idea that character concept does not determine how steep your learning curve as a player is, nor how many interesting options you have available, is key for me. I won't play an elf ranger in any other edition.

5e is alright, I guess. It seems bound and determined not to do anything too controversial, which in practice means it doesn't do anything I can't do with what I already own. On the other hand, it's a great compromise edition, so finding a group willing to play it generally isn't as daunting.

Deaxsa
2016-12-24, 03:56 AM
In my experience, vanilla 5th or pf are probably the best, while 3.p e6 is my all-time fav(it's just not vanilla). I found adnd was quite difficult to get into, 3.5 was fun until high levels when things just got too weird, I've never been in a pf campaign with lots of power disparity, 4th was suuuuuper gamely, and 5th has given me two distinct experiences: it's got next to no options, the rules are different for the PC and the npc, and everything is the same; vs it allowing a good dm to create a fun environment with ease. I think my favorite "edition", however, has to be 3.5 e6 (preferably gestalt). It has that low-power feel so your achievements matter, power disparity isn't huge, it rewards system mastery, and it also forces the dm to do come up with a plot, as there's no trail of endless +1s to pretend to be progress - it must come from the story.

Cluedrew
2016-12-25, 03:47 PM
I must admit when I first saw this thread I had a "nope" moment... only just read it. Still this seems to have turned into a pretty good selection tool if someone is trying to pick an edition. ... Although I suppose it does largely ignore going outside off D&D which ended up being my answer. Not actually because I disliked D&D, yes there are problems with it, but on the whole I have enjoyed it.

The issue for me is play speed, especially in combat. I enjoyed D&D combat but it still wasn't what I was coming for and it takes so long. I considered getting back into it with 5e but I had a conversation that went something like this: "[I explain my problem with combat speed]" "Oh yeah, 5e has sped that up. You can usually finish a combat in about 45 minutes." "... Thanks for the information."

Unless that estimate is a whole order of magnitude off, I'm not really interested.

I'm also not entirely sure why I felt the need to write this in a thread about what is great about D&D (of which there is plenty) but there you have it.


Here's a short history in almost-chronological order (the TSR era had a lot of overlap between the bifurcated product lines) that also covers a bit of the edition-warring.That is quite possibly one of the best histories of D&D I have ever read. Of course given my knowledge you could of made a lot of that up and I wouldn't know.


4th played once and hated it so bad I immediately sold my phb. If I wanted to play WOW I would log onto it online. Most pathetic attempt to make a role playing game I have ever played and I have played a lot of different games. Absolutely stupid mechanics.... You know, considering the resources behind it I can actually see an argument there. But still I having seen some... utterly terrible systems I have to say 4e's main issue is it tried to solve the wrong problems. It probably would have been much less hated if it hadn't been a D&D game.

Jay R
2016-12-25, 10:27 PM
You can't say, because there is no agreement about what makes one game better than another. They are aiming at different goals, and sometimes at different audiences.

More importantly, the worst system with a great DM is far better than an excellent system with a poor DM.

Vrock_Summoner
2016-12-26, 01:30 AM
Disclaimer: I actually like GURPS better than any edition of D&D. I know, I know, I'm On The Wrong Forum For That Preference (but I like it here!).

You (re)posted in the wrong neighborhood.

(I had to mess up the grammar a bit, but hopefully the reference came through regardless.)

As for which version of D&D is best... Hm. I'd like to pick a retroclone rather than D&D itself - Basic Fantasy is pretty much old-school D&D but much more professionally-presented and sans some of the wonkiest bits like THAC0 and 9th-level spells - but those aren't actually D&D.

3(.5)'s most fun gameplay segment is character creation, for better and for worse. Making D&D characters is great fun once you know what you're doing (though there is a definite learning curve), while character creation being a slog is a common complaint in other rules-heavy games. Success!

However, the gameplay is basically picking through garbage in dice rolling form. All that work in character creation feels sort of wasted when you get to the game and it's such a complete inundation of stagnant repetition thinly veiled behind dozens of fiddly bits to keep track of that never do anything more interesting than a couple of pluses and minuses. Even the most competent game masters I've ever gamed with have trouble convincing me to stick with them through 3(.5) campaigns because there's such a high story investment bar that needs to be cleared for me to not run away citing the "no game is better than bad game" mantra.

4e has disappointingly mediocre character creation but the gameplay is much more fun, once you chip the HP inflation out. That said, it's only fun from the context of wanting a tactical mental challenge in combat. Everything outside of combat, everything was basically thrown to the wood chipper. And it doesn't always feel very fantasy, but D&D is rarely impressive in that respect regardless of edition.

5e is much better about avoiding 3.5's millions of things to keep track of, but the gameplay isn't especially more tactical. Maybe it'll get better with splats. Maybe it won't. So far it's the best out of "modern" D&D.

1e and 2e had, as others have stated, much more purposeful goals in mind, because the later editions have suffered seriously from trying to look like "the fantasy system you can use for anything" when they're totally, absolutely, 100% not. That said, they also suffered from the very obvious fact that they were generally made by hobbyists, not actual game designers. They suffer from a certain amount of spontaneity and are completely lacking in polish or smooth execution. They're still fun, I don't deny that for a second, but they were a mess compared to any other edition and most TTRPGs in general. Ergo, why I like retroclones.

If I had to pick a favorite, it would probably be 4e. But this is coming from a person who doesn't really like D&D on the whole; there are many other RPGs I'd rather play. I'm here for the community.

JAL_1138
2016-12-26, 02:11 PM
I must admit when I first saw this thread I had a "nope" moment... only just read it. Still this seems to have turned into a pretty good selection tool if someone is trying to pick an edition. ... Although I suppose it does largely ignore going outside off D&D which ended up being my answer. Not actually because I disliked D&D, yes there are problems with it, but on the whole I have enjoyed it.

The issue for me is play speed, especially in combat. I enjoyed D&D combat but it still wasn't what I was coming for and it takes so long. I considered getting back into it with 5e but I had a conversation that went something like this: "[I explain my problem with combat speed]" "Oh yeah, 5e has sped that up. You can usually finish a combat in about 45 minutes." "... Thanks for the information."

Unless that estimate is a whole order of magnitude off, I'm not really interested.

45 minutes would be a quite long, grueling "boss" type battle. Which often run fifteen-ish minutes quicker than that, and only very rarely run to an hour at a large table, in my experience (which is limited to mostly Tiers 1 and 2, with a smattering of Tier 3 that wasn't appreciably slower since damage and abilities scaled rather well). Typical, ordinary combat runs much faster, and so do "boss" fights with fewer and simpler enemies. Ten or fifteen minutes is not uncommon. You can easily fit 4-8 combat encounters of varying difficulty into a 4-6 hour session that's still mostly a mix of dungeon-crawly exploration, intra-party strategizing talk, Monty Python jokes, a quick lunchbreak, and/or social interaction by a fairly significant margin--that's not terribly uncommon even for League. I dunno about an order of magnitude faster, but I can't really fathom an ordinary, Medium-difficulty encounter running 45 minutes. It's not much slower than 2e (and 2e without hordes of hirelings or optional systems like weapon type vs armor or individual initiative to add to the fiddliness, at that).



That is quite possibly one of the best histories of D&D I have ever read. Of course given my knowledge you could of made a lot of that up and I wouldn't know.

Thanks! I've not played much 1e (was a little before my time, but I've played a bit of it, and have played more of a hybrid of it and 2e than pure 1e), and haven't played any of the Basic line, although I own them all except White Box (though I do have a couple of the supplement pamphlets for it floating around my storage closet somewhere). The edition-warring bits of pre-1e/2e or Basic are based more on forum talk from later years than personal experience. I was there for the rest of the edition-warring, having started in late 2e and used a smattering of 1e material with it; I was one of the TSR grognards that quit during the 3.X years (although I didn't get any direct experience with the PO series for 2e until I'd gone back to it from 3.X).

I've played and run 1e/2e hybrid games (1e PHB and MM/FF with 2e combat rules, 1e classes as drop-and-replace in 2e games, and/or 1e modules in vanilla 2e), and run Basic-era modules in vanilla 2e without any issues. I've read through the Holmes, B/X, BECMI, and RC rules, and really hope to get a chance to actually play any of them sometime. The Rules Cyclopedia in particular I really want to play; it's a solid, relatively slim book (about 300-ish pages, about the same as the two-column '95 run of the 2e PHB) that looks really well-done going just from a read-through (though no idea if it'd hold up in actual play). If you can find the RC at a FLGS, used-book store, or in pdf on DMsguild, it's usually not too expensive and it's probably the best-made of the rules-medium "old-school" RPG products I've ever read, even compared to some of the retroclones that try hard to clean up the idiosyncracies of AD&D. There are rules-light OSR products that are a good deal simpler and more streamlined, but for its day and for its spot on the rules light/medium/heavy spectrum, it's amazing. It's even got a brief setting rundown of Mystara and the Hollow World with color hex maps.



... You know, considering the resources behind it I can actually see an argument there. But still I having seen some... utterly terrible systems I have to say 4e's main issue is it tried to solve the wrong problems. It probably would have been much less hated if it hadn't been a D&D game.

And/or solve the right problems in what many felt were the wrong way for D&D specifically. If the grindiness of the combat could be cut down by a huge amount, and it hadn't been called D&D, it could have potentially been a really, really solid superheroes-, anime-, or wushu-style game. With combat length left where it was (at least with the experience I had with it, which may not be universal), it'd still have some issues, just due to the time involved in combat--when I played, combats typically took 3+ hours and sometimes stretched into the next session for another hour or two (though to some of course long tactical combats are a feature rather than a bug, since preferences vary, and apparently there are ways to trim it down quite a bit). I didn't personally enjoy it as its own game or as an edition of D&D, but I can see what its fans like about it, and I think with some tweaks and a different IP than the D&D brand, it could have been a much more popular system.

2D8HP
2016-12-26, 10:17 PM
Not too long ago I tried to help create a way to match peoples preferences to a versions of D&D with the Making a quiz! Which D&D is right for you? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?509619-Making-a-quiz!-Which-D-amp-D-is-right-for-you) thread.

If they're no more post's, I think that attempt will be a faliure.

JAL_1138's posts to this thread work well though.

Which version is best?

The one you can play with actual other people.

So Wednesday's with the Pathfinder Society and Thursday's with the Adventurer's League?

The versions that are closest to my hart are:

The 48 page 1977 Basic "Holmes, blue book" rules that I first read, and used to Dungeon Master with (I DM'd before I was a player).

OD&D with the load of supplements that my first DM used. Hard to beat. For years my gaming "circle" tried a lot of different games, despite my plea to "let's just play D&D like we used to".

5e D&D The first RPG I played after a very long break from the hobby. I'm growing more fond of it.

1e AD&D This was my game. I was the only one in the "gang" who owned all the books (until "Unearthed Arcana"), and thus I was the only "Advanced" D&D DM.
Except...... in retrospect I really wasn't.
Just like my first DM used the 1977 Monster Manual, but ignored the rest of the "Advanced" rules, I built upon "basic", and while I did use all of the Advanced books, I didn't use all of what was in the books, and really I just treated them as optional supplements, so now I wonder if I really played AD&D at all.

Anyway, here's some posts from earlier this year that sort of fit (my opinions have changed some, but there still close enough):


. While I never bought 2e or the post 1977 "basic", editions, I bought most ever D&D product I could get with my then very limited money from 1978 until "Unearthed Arcana" came out, which I passed on (I am still kicking myself that I didn't buy Dave Arnesons "Adventures in Fantasy" when it was new), and I started buying D&D again with 3e. I mostly skipped 3.5 and 4e, but I have since bought all the 5e (including some non Wotc material) I have found, and I then went back and read some 2e, 3.5, Pathfinder and 4e material and a 1994 basic rulebook I found at half price books.
While I would not feel confident Dungeon Mastering any R. A. W. games beyond "holmes basic", supplemented by 1e (I remember reading the "blue book" cover to cover in 6th grade, three times before I felt "I got it"), while I am reading any additional materials, from any edition, I love it and want to play RIGHT NOW (except for the grappling and psionic rules, which even in the 1970's made my eyes glaze over).
If it's got Dungeons and (especially) Dragons then it's good, whatever edition it is, as long as someone else is the DM (now Call of Cthullu, which is not my favorite to play, was dead easy to GM or "Keeper").
As long as it keeps bringing in players, let a thousand editions bloom!
Now if only I could figure out a way to get someone to GM Castle Falkenstein, Pendragon, or Space 1889![/QUOTE]


. 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![/QUOTE]


. From the 1977 Holmes "Basic" rules, I miss:
Being able to know all the rules. How enchanting the box illustration looked. How quickly characters could be created.
From the 1974 to 1977 OD&D rules and supplements I miss:
The charm of a creation of "amateurs" (done for love), not "professionals" (done for money). "Guidelines" rather than "rules" (5e kind of brings this back).
From 1e AD&D I miss:
The authorial voice. How completely awesome 1e Rangers were!
That the characters stayed human scale longer (not quickly becoming comic book style superheroes). How "Appendix N" and "Deities and Demigods" inspired my reading.
What I don't miss about 1970's D&D:
How hard it was to create and get a character to survive more than a few sessions (but man was it gratifying when they did!).
How feeble magic users were at first level (in retrospect we should have just started classes at different levels, but that seemed like "cheating").
How much magic users overshadowed the other classes at high levels (in retrospect just tweak the level advancement, and give latter edition like benefits to the other classes). That I was never able to roll ability scores high enough to create a Ranger (and get 2D8 hit points at first level)!
From 1985's "Unearthed Arcana" I miss:
The initial excitement of the "Barbarian" and "Cavalier" classes.
I don't miss:
What an unbalanced rule changing mess it made of the game (I later skipped 2e thinking it would be more of the same, also the artwork turned me off, just say no to helmet horns!).
3e, what I miss:
The initial excitement of the diversity of characters that could be created. That they brought back the Greyhawk setting! That more classes were viable and could survive first level!
What I don't miss about 3e:
The oversized mess it became (just say no to infinite "feats" and "prestige classes)! How quickly 3.5 and 4e replaced it (no more than one edition per decade please)! How quickly the characters became unhumanly "epic".
Two weapon wielding Rangers, that's not Aragorn!
What I like abou 5e:
Not as bloated as 3e yet, but it retains much that I liked about it.
What I may not like:
It seems like PC's get too powerful and pile on extra abilities, too fast,
All that said, if the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game![/QUOTE]

wumpus
2016-12-30, 11:19 AM
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the first one you played. I certainly like ADnD more than others, despite thac0 and other objectively stupid stuff.

True, although I'd expect plenty of AD&D (especially 1e) fans to have started with one of the various basic sets.

Although while I'm an AD&D(1e) fan I'm not sure that either AD&D edition is the best edition to play AD&D. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 5e works better, simply thanks to game designers with much broader ideas of how to make an RPG. I'd say the key to AD&D is elevating the "rule of cool" and "rule of fun/plot" far above any actual written rule (this was inherent in the original books: I'm pretty sure they were edited down to core rules + coolest addons and *zero* attempt to make RAW work (the whole notion of AD&D "RAW" is unthinkable).

Much like "real programmers" can program FORTRAN in any language, "real AD&D DMs" can DM AD&D in any edition (4e might take some work). I suspect there is a certain overlap in the sets as well.

obryn
2016-12-30, 12:05 PM
Well, to make a long story short, my favorite editions are 4e and BX/BECMI/RC

4e is a dream to DM and fun to play. It captures the heroic themes I'm looking for out of modern D&D, and keeps both the magical and mundane on solid footing. It focuses on the game as a game, and I appreciate how it cuts through the cruft.

The Basic line is a marvel of efficient design, and it's marvelous how focused it is. The RC is the one book I'd been stranded on a desert island with.

I ran 3.x for most of its life, but I can't bring myself to play or run it again. I enjoy the various materials released for AD&D, and 1e has some of the best adventures of all time, but I think the Basic line does its style of gameplay better.

Other than that, I suggest people play games that aren't D&D. :smallbiggrin: There's a big, wild world of RPGs out there, and almost all of them are worth a try.

2D8HP
2016-12-30, 12:48 PM
I suggest people play games that aren't D&D. :smallbiggrin: There's a big, wild world of RPGs out there, and almost all of them are worth a try...........
Come to think of it, if I could somehow combine '70's rules D&D, 5e D&D, Pendragon, and Stormbringer! it would be ONE GAME TO RULE THEM ALL!

Tzonarin
2016-12-30, 03:22 PM
I have personally have preferred 5e for a very simple reason - ease in doing what is MOST MOST MOST important in RPG - Role Playing!

I really cut my teeth on 3e, even though I've gone through 1e and 2e. Never cared for the THAC0 stuff - unnecessary need for upside-down math.

3e was a D&D for a whole new generation - but rules rules rules everywhere. I liked some of the improvements with 3.5e, which was my defacto standard up through about 2 years ago. I tried Pathfinder - hated it.

4e to me was D&D for the WoW generation. And since I have never nor have ever had any interest in playing WoW, well, say no to munchkin mode.

D&D Next and 5e was exciting to me. Easier rule set, focusing the game on storytelling rather than rule-lawyering.

So, I'm with 5e, with 3.5e as my backup game.

Tzo

Solaris
2016-12-30, 06:42 PM
My personal favorite is 3.X E6 (although I'm working on a version that adds five more weakened levels for prestige classes). Regular 3.X is a close second, though, because sometimes it's fun to get into the lunatic levels.
My players have pretty consistently built themselves to be about the same power levels and generally don't have trouble with basic math, though. The huge gaps in power are thus for me a feature, not a bug; it permits me to play many different types of games with the same mechanics. Likewise, I can so easily handle the rules to the point that I have trouble understanding how other people can't.

AD&D is in third place. Although it's my first, and it has Baldur's Gate, when I play it I can't help but miss the customization options of 3.X.

slachance6
2017-01-01, 10:38 AM
I'd say start with 5e if you're completely new to RPGs, since it's very simple. Then switch to Pathfinder once you want more depth. I don't really see how anyone could argue that PF is an improvement over 3.5.

Hawkstar
2017-01-01, 11:42 AM
I'd say start with 5e if you're completely new to RPGs, since it's very simple. Then switch to Pathfinder once you want more depth. I don't really see how anyone could argue that PF is an improvement over 3.5.Unless you want to play a game only of Magical Wizards and Impossible Swordsmen (Core casters, and everything else Dreamscarred Press), stay the hell away from 3.5 and Pathfinder. Even then, you're probably better off with 4e for that kind of game (At least 4e doesn't have screwed up ability progressions). Absolutely every design decision made in the game's ruleset is designed to restrict and inhibit the ability of martial characters to act, starting with the full attack action.

nyjastul69
2017-01-01, 12:04 PM
The best version of D&D is the version I'm currently playing.

VincentTakeda
2017-01-01, 01:42 PM
palladium's heroes unlimited is my favorite system to run and to play, but of the different versions of D&D I'd say my favorite to run is 2e, and while my favorite character I ever ran was in pathfinder, the system itself was less than stellar.

BarbieTheRPG
2017-01-01, 02:03 PM
Isn't it obvious? The one you enjoy playing the most.
We have a winner :smallsmile:

Talakeal
2017-01-01, 03:58 PM
I play whatever edition I can find a group for.

I haven't played AD&D 1E or Basic D&D / OD&D.

Of the editions I have played:

2E plays very well but looks like an inconsistent mess. Lots of tables and counterintuitive rules.

3E is the opposite of 2E. It is fairly consistent and intuitive, but the game doesn't play nearly as well.

3.5 is marginally better than 3E but is for the most part too little too late.

PF is marginally better than 3.5 but is for the most part too little too late.

4E is the best D&D from a gamist perspective and the worst from a simulationist perspective. It is fair and balanced, but requires a lot of suspension of disbelief. The one downside of the gamist portion is that it is very slow, the one upside of the simulationist portion is that the world is for the first time created more or less as a consistent whole rather than a grab bag or random fantasy tropes.

5E is, imo, the best overall edition of D&D but has one fatal flaw; bounded accuracy. Your character's capabilities are very inconsistent and multiple weak characters are far more effective than a single powerful character, leading to balance issues with summoners and with low CR monsters that have "save or lose effects" being overly powerful and strange situations where the king is better off having a squad of low level conscripts kill monsters than high level PCs.

goatmeal
2017-01-02, 12:07 AM
Haven't tried 5e yet, so this thread was helpful in figuring out what to expect. I have a feeling I will like it.

I have played 1e, 2e, 3.5, and Pathfinder. I definitely like 3.5/P more than what I started with simply due to no THACO0. But I keep feeling Pathfinder is getting too bloated for its own good.

Kurald Galain
2017-01-02, 02:24 AM
The best version of D&D is the version I'm currently playing.

Nuh uh! The version I'm playing is much more bester than the version you're playing! So there!

Ninja-Radish
2017-01-04, 09:21 PM
It depends on what you like in a game. I really enjoy the mechanical side of games, so my preference is 4E and Pathfinder. I despise 5E, again because I'm into game mechanics and 5E is light on those.

However, 5E is pretty popular, so there are definitely plenty of people who enjoy it. I just happen to not be one of them.

Lord Raziere
2017-01-04, 09:51 PM
Nuh uh! The version I'm playing is much more bester than the version you're playing! So there!

Nuh-uh, clearly the version thats best is a random heartbreaker that someone made thinking that breaking a certain sacred cow of DnD had never been done before!

comk59
2017-01-04, 10:16 PM
Nuh-uh, clearly the version thats best is a random heartbreaker that someone made thinking that breaking a certain sacred cow of DnD had never been done before!

Clearly, my homebrewed ruleset that goes out of it's eay to not being D&D to the point of its own detriment, that is obscenely compliacted and requires higher level mathematics to play, is obviously the best!

2D8HP
2017-01-04, 11:20 PM
The best version of D&D is the version I'm currently playing.


Nuh uh! The version I'm playing is much more bester than the version you're playing! So there!


Nuh-uh, clearly the version thats best is a random heartbreaker that someone made thinking that breaking a certain sacred cow of DnD had never been done before!


Clearly, my homebrewed ruleset that goes out of it's way to not being D&D to the point of its own detriment, that is obscenely compliacted and requires higher level mathematics to play, is obviously the best!

The best rules system is the one in which I describe a scene, the players state what their PC's try to do, I make up what they need to roll for their characters to succeed, they roll dice, and then I tell them what happens.
Repeat (without my taking any notes to keep the dice rolls needed consistent)

Talakeal
2017-01-04, 11:53 PM
The best rules system is the one in which I describe a scene, the players state what their PC's try to do, I make up what they need to roll for their characters to succeed, they roll dice, and then I tell them what happens.
Repeat (without my taking any notes to keep the dice rolls needed consistent)

So 5E then?

2D8HP
2017-01-05, 12:34 AM
So 5E then?


True, they'll grumble while they play the game by default, because they won't be compromise together on another game. Being "everyone's second favorite" game means it actually gets played, unlike "favorite" games that mostly remain on the shelf.

Ever?
Easier is relative. Play a human Champion Fighter, and 5e is not so hard that it unduly diminishes the fun, but that it has so many rules does make it hard to be the DM.
Since the only open RPG tables I could find in the early 1990's were for Cyberpunk and Vampire, I did actually play some of old White Wolf before deciding that no RPG'ing was better than playing those RPG's, but
I really don't remember the rules so I can't compare 5e DnD to that game, but what I do compare it to is the Dungeons & Dragons rules I learned in 1978. If I can choose point buy, or standard array, and choose my class, as a player I now prefer 5e. But as a DM? The sublime 48 pages of the 1977 "blue book" rules are just so much easier, and if I was forced to DM using all the rules of a game, I would choose '77 Basic instead of the 5e PHB, but the 5e Starter set rules however rock, and work well.


How dare you suggest that bad gaming is better than no gaming!


I've heard before that D&D is everyone's 2nd favorite RPG, which is a good ballpark. So, even if it's no one's favorite RPG, it's what everyone in the group can agree to play consistently. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather play my 2nd favorite RPG than sit alone in a room with my favorite one. :PYes. indeed, correct.

yuvraj1068
2017-01-05, 12:44 AM
I couldn't get into this. Just not for me.already own the
books for I'm not an expert on what came before) for
simulationism .There's probably a better word for that
but different editions do have their strengths

Calthropstu
2017-01-05, 12:52 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that AD&D 2nd edition was my favorite. No one plays it anymore, but I thoroughly enjoyed every game I played in it. 3.5 runs a close second as far as D&D goes, but I have completely switched to pathfinder play over 3.5 because I believe it to be a far more solid game (and it has up to date popular support)

I have not played 5th edition and likely never will. The money grubbiness of wotc driven by hasbro has turned me off to all of their products. I will never send wotc another dime if I can avoid it. Between what they've done to MTG and the whole blatant 4th edition attempt to attract the WOW crowd at the expense of their core fan group, I am loathe to accept anything they offer.

Corsair14
2017-01-05, 09:41 AM
I agree on almost everything you said Calth. 2nd is my preferred system, although I have plans to run a game in the future. I have the books still, why not? My groomsmen in a different city have been playing a Ravenloft 2e campaign now for almost 6 years. So there are still people who play. I also thought pathfinder/3.5 was pretty good, but like someone not far up said, the campaign setting is getting heavily bloated. I wish they would come up with some alternate campaign setting.

4th I completely agree with everything you said. It wasn't DnD, it was more WoW on paper than the actual WoW campaign that came out for the old d20 system.

5th I will disagree slightly, its actually not horrible like 4th, they aren't putting out near the number of books and most of those are ignorable adventure paths that add nothing to the game if you aren't going to play them. So the only real meat books they have released are the dmg, phb, MM, Volos, and Sword Coast which has a good amount of broad info that can be moved anywhere. Its been out for what 3 or 4 years now and that's it, 5 actual books I can think of off hand. Its actually my biggest issue with 5e aside from the proficiency system being so wonky. I loved the complete series handbooks from 2nd and think they could go a long way without upping any sort of power levels by releasing a similar series of books.

Zombimode
2017-01-05, 09:50 AM
I also thought pathfinder/3.5 was pretty good, but like someone not far up said, the campaign setting is getting heavily bloated. I wish they would come up with some alternate campaign setting.
(Emphasis added)

???
Does not compute.

There is no "the" campaign setting for 3.5.


With regards to the topic: 3.5 is my favorite edition by far. I also like it more then other systems I have payed so far. I really liked Edge of the Empire. Savage Worlds is also fine. And some day I want to use GURPS for some nice Sword&Sorcery (for which 3.5 is not the best choice) or somewhat hard SciFi. But 3.5 is where I am most at home.

obryn
2017-01-05, 11:11 AM
Between what they've done to MTG and the whole blatant 4th edition attempt to attract the WOW crowd at the expense of their core fan group, I am loathe to accept anything they offer.

4th I completely agree with everything you said. It wasn't DnD, it was more WoW on paper than the actual WoW campaign that came out for the old d20 system.
It's so bizarre how neither me nor 6/7 of my players (primarily in our 30's and 40's, most married, most with kids) ever played WoW or any other MMO's and yet still find 4e perfect for the kinds of D&D games we want to run. :smallbiggrin:

2D8HP
2017-01-05, 11:23 AM
???
Does not compute.

There is no "the" campaign setting for 3.5.
I'm guessing the Pathfinder "Inner Sea" setting was meant.
I actually think the "Inner Sea" setting looks more interesting than the "Forgotten Realms", though I've never played Pathfinder or 3.5 (the rules look too intimidating).

obryn
2017-01-05, 11:29 AM
I'm guessing the Pathfinder "Inner Sea" setting was meant.
I actually think the "Inner Sea" setting looks more interesting than the "Forgotten Realms", though I've never played Pathfinder or 3.5 (the rules look too intimidating).
Both are bland fantasy pastiches with elements of interest for fans to latch onto as distinctive characteristics. As is Greyhawk, as is Krynn. And frankly, that's fine for a game like D&D, where that's exactly what's implied by the core rules, anyway.

Eberron moves away from the default a good ways. Dark Sun and Spelljammer moved away from it quite a lot.

2D8HP
2017-01-05, 11:38 AM
It's so bizarre how neither me nor 6/7 of my players (primarily in our 30's and 40's, most married, most with kids) ever played WoW or any other MMO's and yet still find 4e perfect for the kinds of D&D games we want to run. :smallbiggrin:I've never played any MMO either, nor Am I looking to, but from what I've read of 4e it sounds like what my circle was hoping to play in the 1970's and 80's.
Eberron moves away from the default a good ways. Dark Sun and Spelljammer moved away from it quite a lot.
Other than the "Warforged" (magic sentient robot PC's) which bug me (but not as much as FR's "Factions"), Eberron looked very cool.

GungHo
2017-01-05, 12:15 PM
Even though I mostly play Pathfinder due to group preference, I personally enjoy the simplicity of D&D Rules Cyclopedia/BECM (no I). Immortals was too much. I also enjoyed 2nd Ed for taking out a lot of the pretension of AD&D (I like your game Gary, but please shut up), but they jumped the shark once they got into the Complete brown book for Psionics with the "door in my head" photos. I agree with the posters who said "it depends on where you started", and I cut my teeth on BECM, and by the time I could buy my own books, 2nd Ed was coming out.


Both are bland fantasy pastiches with elements of interest for fans to latch onto as distinctive characteristics. As is Greyhawk, as is Krynn. And frankly, that's fine for a game like D&D, where that's exactly what's implied by the core rules, anyway.

Eberron moves away from the default a good ways. Dark Sun and Spelljammer moved away from it quite a lot.

As someone who likes both, Golarion and Faerun are theme parks that span the entirety of the Floridian Peninsula, and that's definitely where the guy was going. Paizo is furthermore going the 2000's FR direction for supplements and as the adventure paths go around the world, new area supplements to provide dressing for those APs are being issued. Furthermore, systems and rule books are being added (we've gone from kingdom management to a version of epic powers to sanity rules, not to mention advanced guides) , which is why the guy was talking about volume. They've basically replicated WotC in both setting and rules bloat in the guise of lore and options. One big difference though is that they're not really advancing time while they're adding to their setting, so it's not like they turned all the maps to junk. However, I might hit my hand with a hammer if they decide to add Voltron in with Godzilla, Frankenstein, Cthulhu, and the Terminator.

Talakeal
2017-01-05, 04:51 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that AD&D 2nd edition was my favorite. No one plays it anymore, but I thoroughly enjoyed every game I played in it. 3.5 runs a close second as far as D&D goes, but I have completely switched to pathfinder play over 3.5 because I believe it to be a far more solid game (and it has up to date popular support)

I have not played 5th edition and likely never will. The money grubbiness of wotc driven by hasbro has turned me off to all of their products. I will never send wotc another dime if I can avoid it. Between what they've done to MTG and the whole blatant 4th edition attempt to attract the WOW crowd at the expense of their core fan group, I am loathe to accept anything they offer.

I agree that 2E is the edition I have had the most fun playing, but that might just be because it was my first.

Looking back on the game it is just such a mess. So many seemingly random and arbitrary rules. I don't think I could go back there, I am just to OCD, and would if I attempted it I would have to do a Castles and Crusades style rewrite of the system (which wouldn't really be hard, I could probably do so in about an hour).

Ninja-Radish
2017-01-05, 06:34 PM
4E was great for people like me who despise martial vs caster disparity. I have never wanted to play casters, but still want to have cool things. 4E was the only edition of D&D that allowed that. Too bad the caster players got to have it all their way again with 5E. Martial/Caster disparity is back in a BIG way. Though not as bad as it was in earlier editions.

D+1
2017-01-05, 10:23 PM
House-ruled 1E.
Runner-up: 3.5 - E6 rules.

Templarkommando
2017-01-06, 06:49 AM
The best version is the one that is the most fun for you to play. I realize that's not a big help, but there really is no accounting for taste. I've played 1st (sort of but not really), 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and PF. In addition I have the core books for 4th but haven't really ever played. Trying to objectively judge versions... the arguments just get tiring to me after a while. I like RPGs because they're fun, not because I'm loyal to a set of books. That said, I'm willing to give my opinions on editions, but really, feel this out for yourself if you can. There are some gaming stores that run exhibitions of games from time to time and will let someone sit in on a game or two, so that's at least an option. There are also a dozen different video series on youtube now that are people playing different versions of DnD.

1st: This edition is is classic in a sense. It's where the whole fantasy RPG thing really started as long as you don't get into any wargaming precursors like Chainmail. The best part of this edition as far as I'm concerned are the illustrations in the various monster manuals. They're definitely old-school pics, but you can tell there's a lot of creativity going on there, and you can build lots of encounters from the monster ideas in here. The rough patch is that the actual rules themselves are kind of unapproachable. There will be one rule pertinent to the first thing you do in an encounter in one book, then another thing you do in a whole different chapter... things aren't very concentrated in the PHB and DMG for this edition as far as I'm concerned. In addition, the ThAC0 system is difficult for some new players to understand. (As a fun sidenote, there comes a point where you reach a certain level in this version of the game that you basically poop out a base. I think at level 12 - 14 all fighters are supposed to get castles, which is kind of nifty, though it does sound a little painful to poop out a castle.)

2nd: This is one of the two editions that I've really spent a lot of time with. My DM really enjoyed playing DnD in highschool and this was the version that he had. He still isn't really fond of 3.5 or PF for the combat system, but he admits that 1st and 2nd ed don't have great skill systems by comparison. I've played a really memorable and fun campaign (all total it lasted about 10 years) that was 2nd ed for the most part, though we eventually switched to 3.5 because everyone but the DM preferred the edition. We later did kind of a mish-mash system that took the 2nd ed combat system and the 3.5 skills/feat system and tried to cobble them together. All that said, 2nd ed suffers from a few of the same problems that 1st ed had. Notably, there's still some of the rummaging around multiple books to do simple things (though they are organized a bit better), and you have to deal with a similar combat system. There are some weird optional rules that get applied in 1st and 2nd ed. If your DM is mean enough there are tables that you roll on every day to see if you contract some random life-threatening disease.

3.5: I'm going to skip 3.0 because 3.5 is basically the updated version of 3.0. Without going into a lot of detail there were a few little things that were weird about 3.0 that they got rid of in 3.5. This is my personal favorite (again, kind of feel out what you like best. Don't take anyone's word for what *you* like.) Combat is very simplified. Instead of having to subtract your roll from the ThAC0 all the time to come up with a possibly negative AC, you just have to beat a number by adding your various bonuses and your roll together. If your number is higher, you hit. Spells are somewhat watered down compared to previous editions, but there's some give and take. 3.5 has True Resurrection which doesn't have any real downside for your character, but most earlier edition rez spells had negative consequences for anyone that died. True rez is still kind of rare, but it's an option at least. Personally, I think that 2nd ed had cooler and generally more powerful magic items, but 3.5 actually has a reasonable system for buying/selling/trading for magic items depending on the campaign setting. In addition if you DM any edition and you see a magic item from another edition that you like, you can always just make the item for your campaign world. There's no rule that says you can't do that per se. One thing that's nice about this edition is that it's really closely related to some other games. It's close to d20 modern and the Saga edition of Star Wars which are both reasonably fun games.

4th: I haven't ever played this edition, but I hope to play it at least once some day. I actually have the core books for it, but if you're not interested in reading that story, I'll put it in spoilers just in case.

So, I went to a Vintage Stock that is kind of a Geek nostalgia type store. They sell TCG stuff, comics and old video games. From time to time I've seen DnD stuff in there. Anyway... one day I went to one of these and I asked the clerk if they sold 3.5 DnD books. I like having a few extra PHBs at my table, so I'm always keeping a lookout for more. This was some point after 4th ed was published, but before they did a reprinting of 3.5. Anyway 3.5 books were kind of a hit or miss thing if you weren't shopping online which I wasn't. The clerk told me that the store didn't sell them, but that he had some that he was planning on taking to a half-price book store, and that maybe we could come to a deal. Long story short he sold me something like 6 or 7 books total including the DMG, MM, and PHB for 4th ed. I got all of these for about fifty bucks. He figured that the used book store wouldn't have given him what I was given him, so he was happy and I was ecstatic.

Anyway, 4th ed. All of my experience with this edition comes from watching it played. Specifically, the guys from Penny Arcade have a long-standing DnD campaign that began with them, Wil Wheaton, and a guy named Scott Kurtz. It's really great to watch and they play for crowded theaters during PAX. Their DM is a guy named Chris Perkins who is an excellent DM btw. If you haven't seen them, I highly recommend looking up various "Acquisitions Incorporated" videos on Youtube. The impression that I get for 4th ed., is that it's trying to simplify gameplay so that you can play the game without having to dig for rules. Each class would get a very specific ability that would get put on a card or somewhere on the Character sheet, and it was a really quick reference. I feel like it was kind of shooting for a World of Warcraft type MMORPG feel where instead of "clicking a button" you "play a card." You'd have abilities that could be used 1/day, or 1/encounter.. there were different restrictions, but it was a pretty approachable game. This one feels like a game that inexperienced players could approach really easily. You would still roll dice, but those abilities were always close at hand and you didn't have to dig for rules as much because all the pertinent things were right there on the card... I may have this totally wrong, because again, I haven't really played 4th ed. I think 5th ed has been picked up by this same DnD group, so some sessions that they do are 5th ed and not 4th. I've literally never read a scrap of 5th ed rules, so I can't tell you a lot about it.

Pathfinder: Pathfinder - to me - is basically a refined version of 3.5. WotC stopped doing 3.5 and Paizo kind of picked it up and did its own thing with it. A lot of the rules translate readily enough from 3.5, but there are a few notable differences. Classes tend to have more customization within their respective talent trees. I tend to play fighters of one sort or another, and I like some of the things that PF added to 3.5. They're just little things that help you change the way that your particular fighter works and that makes me happy :D PF is still a little unfamiliar for me, but I'm presently playing in two campaigns (it's really one campaign, but the second campaign is kind of a sabbatical waiting for players from the first one to get through different life events before we start it back up) of PF and it's a fun approachable game as well.

Millstone85
2017-01-06, 01:27 PM
I feel like it was kind of shooting for a World of Warcraft type MMORPG feel where instead of "clicking a button" you "play a card."I would certainly describe 4e as being more of a board game or miniature wargame than other recent editions. But I don't see what's so massively-multiplayer-online about it, aside from the audience it may have been aimed toward.

Lord Raziere
2017-01-06, 02:11 PM
I would certainly describe 4e as being more of a board game or miniature wargame than other recent editions. But I don't see what's so massively-multiplayer-online about it, aside from the audience it may have been aimed toward.

Man, I actually played WoW, why would I want to play 4e after that? No graphics, no mount collection, no engineering skill, you can't play Horde, or a Wow-Style Warlock, alignment is still there cutting off both options, and the goblins aren't even the cool crazy merchant and mad scientist guys I love so much. If wanted to play Poor Man's WoW, I'd play the actual World of Warcraft TTRPG Blizzard made. Which I believe is either based on 3e or 3.5 DnD rules. It didn't sell very well.

Ceiling_Squid
2017-01-06, 03:14 PM
Man, I actually played WoW, why would I want to play 4e after that? No graphics, no mount collection, no engineering skill, you can't play Horde, or a Wow-Style Warlock, alignment is still there cutting off both options, and the goblins aren't even the cool crazy merchant and mad scientist guys I love so much. If wanted to play Poor Man's WoW, I'd play the actual World of Warcraft TTRPG Blizzard made. Which I believe is either based on 3e or 3.5 DnD rules. It didn't sell very well.

...maybe because, in 4e, you're still playing a TTRPG, with all the improvisation, roleplaying, imagination, and scenario creation that entails? The way abilities are laid out doesn't change the bare fundamentals of a tabletop RPG, and thats what infuriated me for years when people turned up their noses at my edition of choice with a dismissive "oh, it's just an MMO on paper, that edition sucks".

I mean, that's a fundamental difference! It's not an MMO, because that stuff is all pre-programmed simple themepark questing. You interact with the virtual world in an extremely shallow way, and I certainly couldn't have run my two-year campaign inside an MMORPG. I thought I was still playing D&D, but according to reductionist edition snobs, I wasn't even playing a real TTRPG.

That's just absurd. I absolutely hated the anti-4e edition war. I have lots of lovely books that most people outside my original game will refuse to touch, because of that misconception.

Ah, well. It was my first TTRPG, and I enjoyed it. I really have no desire to go back to D&D anymore, and have branched out to other systems.

Corsair14
2017-01-06, 03:26 PM
Its not really a misconception. Combat was based on the same functions as WoW with cards"buttons" you pushed depending on things that happened, you had actions on "timers" you could use once per fight, actions once per day etc. It was very much and very obviously an attempt to interest MMO gamers and most older edition players didn't like it because of that massive divergence from 3rd to an almost alien system. Then there was the retarded feywild crap. 5th is a great improvement over 4th despite the lack of sourcebooks. 3.5/PF while it got bloated with too much stuff was a far superior system to 4th. I still like the simplicity of 2nd, but again 5th isn't horrible and it at least has brought players back to the table.

oxybe
2017-01-06, 03:34 PM
Cards for D&D have existed for years. 2nd ed had official decks of cards for spellcasters (https://img0.etsystatic.com/074/1/9113818/il_570xN.815099498_tinj.jpg)so they don't have to go through the books all the time: it keeps all the rules nearby on hand.

Same with if you were playing a fighter and wrote out

GreatSword, +5 to hit, 2d6+4 slashing
GreatSword (power attack), +3, 2d6+7 slashing

So you don't have to recalculate your -hit and +damage everytime you use it.

You've basically done the above. You've done the 4th ed power card, the 2nd ed spell card, just for your 3rd ed Power Attack.

4th ed just gives you things that are more mechanically interesting by default and the character builder gives you a way to organize them in an easy to read format.

That ''It's a MMO!" rhetoric still baffles me to this day. They took one off-hand comment where a dev was talking about how they were looking outside of D&D for ideas because (holy crud!) other games may have ideas worth integrating and mentioned MMOs as an example and people went full derp, no stop, final destination, fox only.

Ceiling_Squid
2017-01-06, 03:37 PM
I'm just gonna have to disagree respectfully, Corsair. Layout of player resources aside (I'll admit they are absolutely designed in a gamist fashion, and the influences are apparent), I still find the "MMO" brushoff a straight-up reductio ad absurdum. It's a thoughtless cliche that writes off an entire functional game and perfectly valid RPG.

Also..."retarded feywild crap?" Care to elaborate? Because now we're just nitpicking on matters of taste, and maybe not in the most mature way. Frankly, I prefer 4e's world axis cosmology, "retarded feywild crap" and all. The Great Wheel never hooked me the same way.

Corsair14
2017-01-06, 03:54 PM
Went through high school playing planescape so I am a bit biased on the planes and never understood the need to come up with some other plane system like they did when the existing one was perfectly fine. But yes that's fluff debate and is easily bypassed.

As for the MMO thing, I never read anything about 4th before we sat down and actually played. This is actually the first RPG forum I have ever been on and I joined when I started looking up info as to whether 5th would be tolerable. My first impression of 4th with no other bias going in than it was definitely not a revamp of 3rd was "this thing plays like a friggin' mmo". We all had that impression in my group. I remember being highly disappointed with it, note this was 08 09 time frame so I don't remember my exact complaints other than that as far as mechanics go.

I was a hard core 2nd player, we never used cards(didn't know they existed), hell, half the time we didn't use the books especially playing after school, we knew the system well enough without them.

Millstone85
2017-01-06, 04:13 PM
My favourite class in 5e is the warlock, which has mostly kept the at-will/encounter/daily power design of 4e. It is simple, it is fun and I wish the fighter and the rogue still had a martial version of it. Go cards!

As for figurines and tiles, I don't know how fun that was since we never really used them. I believe that, in that regard at least, we were playing the game completely wrong. I said so to the DM but his mind was set.

If there is a way in which the "gamist" focus of 4e annoyed me, it was the magic item economy. It seemed like you needed everything from the +1 cap to the +1 boots, which you would then grind into fairy dust so you can enchant yourself a +2 cloak. And you had better hope every rat would drop a gold coin once slain. We didn't do any of that either, but here I can't fault the DM on it. I will also agree with the video game comparison for that aspect of 4e.

Ceiling_Squid
2017-01-06, 05:08 PM
I can absolutely agree with the magic item economy gripe. I would not play 4e again without the optional "Inherent Bonuses" rule they introduced later.

Millstone85
2017-01-06, 05:36 PM
Frankly, I prefer 4e's world axis cosmology, "retarded feywild crap" and all. The Great Wheel never hooked me the same way.
Went through high school playing planescape so I am a bit biased on the planes and never understood the need to come up with some other plane system like they did when the existing one was perfectly fine.I like the 5e Great Wheel the best, because it has incorporated the Feywild, the Shadowfell and the Elemental Chaos, which I all found neat, into the more appealing concentric pattern.

I will now always picture the Astral Plane as 4e's Astral Sea, but I am glad that Mechanus, Elysium, Limbo and Hades have returned to serve as its cardinal points, with all the intermediate planes between them and all the silliness like the conflict between the Modrions and Slaabbids.

You can even continue to portray it as a World Axis if you want. The only real contradiction is the position of the Abyss. Is it astral or elemental? I prefer it astral.


I can absolutely agree with the magic item economy gripe. I would not play 4e again without the optional "Inherent Bonuses" rule they introduced later.We found out about those but too late. On that note, I remember 4e Dark Sun being better received than 4e Eberron, which was better received than 4e Forgotten Realms.

Asha Leu
2017-01-06, 07:38 PM
I could talk all day about the issues I had with 4E, but I never really got the (generally derogatory) MMO comparison. Apart from the way class abilities were flavoured*, they never felt that similar to me. Certainly, 4E's hours-long "every encounter is an epic boss battle" combats were a world away from WoW, where fights that lasted more than a minute were exceptionally rare, and being one-shotted without warning was a very real possibility if you wandered into the wrong area.

* And even then, the At-Will/Encounter/Daily system lent itself to very different combat tactics and action economy than WoW's 10-15 second cool-downs.

Honestly, whenever I hear the "4E was a poor-man's WoW" gripe, I wonder if the people making those complaints have ever actually *played* WoW. I admit, its been a long time since I've played either game, but when I think back to my experiences with WoW, its quick-and-deadly style seems much more reminiscent of, well, pretty every edition of D&D but 4E (with the obvious exception of WoW's super-easy resurrections.)

Now, the tactical wargame/board game comparisons, sure, those are pretty accurate. But you know what felt nothing whatsoever like a tactical wargame or board game: World of Warcraft.

Talakeal
2017-01-06, 09:36 PM
Man, I actually played WoW, why would I want to play 4e after that? No graphics, no mount collection, no engineering skill, you can't play Horde, or a Wow-Style Warlock, alignment is still there cutting off both options, and the goblins aren't even the cool crazy merchant and mad scientist guys I love so much. If wanted to play Poor Man's WoW, I'd play the actual World of Warcraft TTRPG Blizzard made. Which I believe is either based on 3e or 3.5 DnD rules. It didn't sell very well.

It isn't very much like WoW in setting, or even in specific mechanics.

IMO the main points of comparison are threefold:

When compared to D&D 1-3E:

1: Both games agree that good gameplay trumps lore, and the fun and balanced mechanics are better than those that try to perfectly model "reality".

2: Both games have clearly defined class roles which are outright stated and the game assumes a balanced party.

3: The games prefer to focus on short term tactical gameplay rather than long term strategic resource management. If you don't have to worry about managing your reserves of HP and the use of your abilities between combats each combat can stand on its own as a fine, challenging, and balanced encounter regardless of what condition the PCs ended their last fight in.