Your favo(u)rite D&D edition?

[PoeticDwarf]

As the title says. Which do you prefer?

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

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

Curious what you all think

[denthor]

2nd edition due to that is what I originally played. 3.5 runs a very close second

[FabulousFizban]

5e. 3x is a #s game & 2nd has THACO

[ATHATH]

3.5, for the sheer number of options available.

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

[ApocalypseSquid]

2e. Nothing else gives the "Classic D&D" feel like it does (and it's better made than 1e)

[Kane0]

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

[Faily]

3.5 and it's younger brother Pathfinder.

[Comet]

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

[Yora]

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

[Khedrac]

BExCM/Cyclopedia for me (I don't really think either Immortals rules set is that good).

[SirBellias]

5e, then pathfinder, then 4e.

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

[viking vince]

1e, primarily because I've never played 2e or higher. (Yes, I still mess around with 1e).

[Eldariel]

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

[themaque]

It's a tie depending on what my goals are for the campaign. Either 5th edition or Pathfinder.

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

[2D8HP]

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

[VincentTakeda]

2e for me. Zeb and Greenwood. Them's my dudes.

[obryn]

1st place: 4e by far. It's the edition I've run the longest*, and been the happiest with.

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

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

4th place is probably 5e.

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


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

[oxybe]

4th > 3rd/pf > 2nd ed > 5th ed

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

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

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

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

[Kelb_Panthera]

3.X

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

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

[D+1]

1E.

Warts and all.

[JBPuffin]

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

[Scots Dragon]

It's basically a tie for me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LibraryOgre]

Of just D&D:

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

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

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

[JAL_1138]

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

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

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

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

[Inevitability]

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

[Piedmon_Sama]

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

[EvilestWeevil]

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

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

[Knaight]

5e. I dislike the D&D line in general, but I've found 5e more tolerable than most.

[2D8HP]

5e. I dislike the D&D line in general, but I've found 5e more tolerable than most.

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

[Pex]

Pathfinder metaphorically. 3E technically.