D&D General Which Previous Edition (poll; read OP)

[Micah Sweet]

Then....you have conceded what I was claiming, so I am confused as to why you seemed to be contesting the point. My point is, the above list of options (though the intent has been explained as "what others think" and not Reynard's personal thoughts) reflects this bizarre belief that 4e Essentials is exactly the same level of difference as that between 3.0 and 3.5e, yet for whatever ungodful reason PF1e is lumped in with 3.5e despite making vastly more changes than Essentials ever did (which, again, is  zero, because they are literally the exact same game, one just has more options in it.)

If you wouldn't call Tasha's a new edition, then I don't really care whether you feel it has noteworthy distinctions in it or not; a poll about "which edition do you enjoy playing" should not separate 5e that way because that's not an edition distinction. Much less the distinction between "original" 4e and Essentials.

Also like... Tasha's didn't suddenly rewrite 5e. Literally no content from the PHB has been lost or deprecated as a result of the publication of Tasha's. There are new options, and some of those options are strong, but they are things you must opt into and which do not radically affect the gameplay or experience. I know you have this bugaboo about racial ability bonuses and the like, but there is nothing about Tasha's which makes it a new ruleset. It is the same ruleset with more options than before, exactly the same as every other splatbook ever published.

I'm not going to argue you about Tasha's, other than to say that it represents a sea change that has and will continue to have far-reaching effects and is thus a reasonable separation point to me. Our points of view are too far apart for it to be arguing further. I will agree that, if the OP is using edition as a break point, neither Tasha's nor Essentials are appropriate, and PF1 should be treated separately from 3.5.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

TBH I would want in a perfect world to play a 2e style game with 4e math but with math fixes (less HP all around) and I would want BOTH ess and pre ess classes represented.

also I already think that if you think that there are not already 5e players saying "pre tasha", and "include tasha" you are fooling yourself.

then again there was a split in 2e too that I don't see represented here... in the 90's I had a group of friends who called Spells and Magic, Combat and Tactics, and Skills and Powers 3e... skills and power really is the tasha of it's day.

 

[Reynard]

It's a weird decision, man. If you're not gonna split off 1e UA and 2e S&P, there should probably only be six options on the poll — Original, Classic, and 1e through 4e.

It's weird that the distinction is such a big deal to you.

You're free to make your own poll, with blackjack and hookers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

and right now as a snapp shot i feel REALLY good about enworld... my 2 fav are 4e then 2e and the 2 4es make up 30% and 2e another 16%

 

[HammerMan]

I agree that some editions having splits and others not may weight the vote but we can just add up what ones we want to discuss it.

4e adding together is beating out everything and I love that

Adding the 2 3e togather is 14% and both half’s of the 4e beat that. Add all the basic togather is about 10% and none and special snow flake are less then 10% added

 

[HammerMan]

It's weird that the distinction is such a big deal to you.

You're free to make your own poll, with blackjack and hookers.

I mean the distinction adds all 2e and all 1e but splits 3e 4e and basic giving them a disadvantage but even with that we see 4e leading.

 

[Reynard]

and right now as a snapp shot i feel REALLY good about enworld... my 2 fav are 4e then 2e and the 2 4es make up 30% and 2e another 16%

The 4E nostalgiassance is really interesting to me, as someone who basically skipped it. I mean, I played in one short campaign and bought the core set but otherwise went PF. In the last year or so it seems lots of people are active and vocal about their nostalgia for 4E.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I would be willing to play 3.x/pathfinder but not run it so I voted 4e (pre-essentials because I had to, not sure I would count the difference).
I Like 5e best and still like 4e but I do not think I would go back to any TSR edition. I would prefer to try something different.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

5e is far from perfect but it's by far the best version of D&D I've played. I wouldn't sign up for a different edition.

I would sign up for Traveller of FASA Star Trek though.

 

[Oofta]

The 4E nostalgiassance is really interesting to me, as someone who basically skipped it. I mean, I played in one short campaign and bought the core set but otherwise went PF. In the last year or so it seems lots of people are active and vocal about their nostalgia for 4E.

Some people liked it. My own experience (I had a decent sized in-person community at the time) it was only around 5% that were vocal about the fact that they were going to miss it. Could have been more that simply didn't want to speak up of course, but the majority were vocal about being happy to move on and some people came back from Pathfinder.

People like what they like.