Regardless of Edition, what do you like about D&D?

[WayneLigon]

Since I am currently involved in rewriting the D&D rules to include everything I like from various editions, I am curious about what others like about various editions and why?

I would add in something similar to the weapon mastery rules from D&D Cyclopedia.
I would use Arcana Unearthed's approach to spell slots, templates and wizard feats (there is an article in the Dragon that talks about how to apply spell templates and their required feats).
I would use the alignment rating system from Book of Hallowed Might, or just drop alignment altogther. There was a Dragon article on 'Traits' instead of alignment that I really loved.
I would replace some of the feats with simpler Arcana Unearthed feats.
I'd use Mutants and Masterminds variant rule about 2 or 3 skill ranks per skill point.
I'd use a couple variants from Unearthed Arcana; probably the simpler turning rules at least.
I'd make Rakshashas immune (not just having high spell resistance)to all magic under ninth-level spells like they were before. As God intended.

 

[The_Gneech]

Barbarians. With DR and bastard swords.

Just 'cause.

-The Gneech

 

[Moon_Goddess]

My absolute favorite part about D&D: being able to find groups.

I can't assume that gamers have heard of other games, like BESM, True20, Mutants & Masterminds, or what have you. But most gamers out there who are still chucking dice are probably playing D&D. Nothing worse than having a game but nobody to play it with. D&D is a touchstone which all gamers have in common, whether they like it or loathe it. It's a jumping-off point for finding games and countless discussions about the hobby.

Whether it deserves it or not (opinions for another thread), D&D is a central pillar of the hobby, and it's one game that you're most likely to find groups with more than any other (with some regional variance, of course).

100% agree, anymore the only reason I play DND is becuase others do.

It's hard to find people that play in other settings or other games but if I'm needing gaming I can find a DND game.

 

[Shadeydm]

I would love to find a way to add weapon speeds back into the game in a meaningful way.

 

[pawsplay]

Whether you call it a kit or a class variant or a low-powered PrC, I like being able to mold a character to a particular concept with a minimum of fuss. "I'm one of those." Customization, but not playing without a net, if that makes sense.

I like magic to be both scarce and potent.

I like the idea of weapon proficiencies. It really mattered in previous editions what styles you had trained in. Weapon specialization was not just an ability, but a choice with consequences. Likewise, skills should be a precious commodity.

XP calculation should be easy. Basic D&D monsters x kills, good. D&D 3.5 look it up on the chart, good. AD&D 2e, look over your adventure notes, use a different bonus system for each class, bad.

NPC retainers are good.

 

[SavageRobby]

Hmm. In no particular order:


I like the modern unified mechanic. I like C&C's version of it based off primes even more. I don't like the d20, though - I'd prefer to see something with an actual curve, like 2d10.

I like defined spells. Not necessary the spell system (Vancian, or whatever), but I like having a large library of set, quirky spells that can be difficult to learn (1e's Know Spell % roll - or changed to an Int roll with the unified mechanic) and have strange, not always optimal spell effects. I don't like the "construct-a-spell" style of spell casting, where all spells are (basically) optimized.

I like XP measured in hundreds and thousands, not in 1s and 2s (giving some granularity to advancement). I like the unified XP table of 3e, but I liked earlier versions slower XP progression of 1e.

I like flat XP calculation, not scaled by level/CR/EL/whatever.

I like grouped weapon proficiencies and armor proficiencies.

I love the fast speed of 1e combat. I like many of the tactical options of 3e and the focus on miniatures/visual representation. (Again, I go to C&C for a nice middle ground.)

I like the lower HP scaling and general power level of 1e.

I like 0-level NPCs.

I'm a big fan of archetypes. I like customizing my character by my in-game choices, not necessarily by my character sheet.

I like rules-lite, with encouragement for DM adjudication and winging it. (That is to say, I dislike having granular subsystems, charts and modifiers for every contingency, but this is supposed to be for praise only.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Anyone else?

 

[Irda Ranger]

Since I am currently involved in rewriting the D&D rules to include everything I like from various editions, I am curious about what others like about various editions and why?

I came into the hobby just as AD&D 2e was released, so AD&D 2e and 3e are the only D&D versions I really have experience with. I've read the older rules, but not played them.

AD&D 2e - speedy char chen; strong archetypes; fast combat; the dual & multi-classing rules (being 2-3 levels behind everyone else always seemed fair, and a better deal than "15th level Cleric abilities, or 1st level in Fighter, which costs the same thing" - it works OK-ish for melee types, but screws casters); frequency, No. of, and ecology of monsters sections of in the MM (great baseline for world generation);

Best part about AD&D 2e; Hand Down: all those funky rules were a hurdle to learn, but once you did, they were fast to run, and that left more time for "the fun stuff." I had the PHB and DMG memorized by the time I was out in 8th grade (I didn't even need the index - I knew page numbers, if I wanted to double-check to be sure), and could run my group through 3-4 sessions worth of "3e game" in an afternoon. Speed and easy-on-the-DM setup is critical.

3e - d20 mechanic (very easy to adjudicate); saves based on what you resist things with (makes it much easier to adjudicate Saves vs. new things); the weapon chart (makes it easy to judge new weapons); Feats (good for personalization, but you have to keep the list short & archetypey sweet - too many Feats causes buyer's remorse in players, slows down char gen, and is a huge burden on the DM's mental resources); +LA races (but this could be replicated with XP penalty races if you used AD&D 2e mutli-classing, which would be better anyway, since most +LA assumes a melee class, and is just an albatross around any spellcasters' neck).

Best Part about 3e; Hands Down: Unified, consistent rules for Combat, Saves and Weapon qualities. This makes it so much easier to both adjudicate "stuff no one's tried before" and to introduce new players to the game. When it makes sense, use a unified mechanic (but only when it make sense - don't shoehorn stuff that doesn't fit; and don't unify magic - then it's not magic).

Both versions: spells (instead of a "spell system"); fun races; fun classes; Misc/Wondrous magical items;

Other systems:
Armor = DR or converts Lethal to Subdual (Iron Heroes, Grim Tales)
Combat options to cause conditions (Frighten, Stun, Daze, etc.) instead of the static "lethal or subdual HP dmg"

Iron Heroes' simplified Attacks-of-Opportunity (any standard action not a melee attack - what 3e should have been)
Iron Heroes' stunts & skill challenges (not every cool maneuver needs to be a Feat)
Iron Heroes' non-reliance on external sources of plusses. You get to have all the funky magical items (like flying carpets and bottle of endless water) and can always grant unique weapons (like x2 damage vs. dragons), but you don't need "generic +3 magic weapon" or "yet-another-cloak of resistance +4" to be balanced vs. CR-appropriate monsters or spellcasters, and you're just as dangerous with a loin cloth and a rusty blade as a D&D character of the same level, fully equipped. I love that.)

C&C's unified "Do stuff that's not combat" mechanic (they use Prime stats, but you could also "group" former Skills into "athleticism", "agility", "sneak", "perceive", "traps, tools & locks", "influence" etc. and have a unified class-derived advancement, just like BAB and Saves). I think Skill Points were a huge improvement over Non-Weapon Proficiencies, but a step in the wrong direction nonetheless.