D&D General What editions of Dungeons & Dragons do you like?

[ccs]

My order of preference D&D wise goes:
1e, 5e, PF/3x, 2e, PF2, BX/ECMI &/or Rules Cyclopedia.

At present I'm only playing 5e.

PF2: I started out liking it well enough. But the more we played it.... It's not bad, it's just different for the sake of being different & not-quite-compatible enough with all my other D&D stuff without more effort than it's worth.

On OD&D: I've read this one, but I've never played it. I likely never will. It'd be way harder to run/play than the effort would be worth considering there's 7+ more refined iterations of the game at this point. Now if this were 1975 it'd be fantastic. It's not 1975. That's why it's not on the list.

On 4e: I gave it a fair shot. I DM'd it for one year & spent the next year as a player. I determined that I do not like this edition. At all. I'd rather attempt to play OD&D than ever touch 4e again. That's why this ones not on the list.

 

[Blackrat]

I’ve liked them all, honestly.

I’m with Morrus on this really. Not unconditionally, but I can say I like them all.

I have not actually played 1st edition but I’ve read the rules and they are solid.

AD&D 2e was what I played when I started and it was fun. Also love the crpg’s that it spawned.

3e and 3.5 are what I’ve played the most and in time I had a huge binder of house rules. So I like it a lot, but in the end I liked it more when improved upon.

4e I hated as a DM but it was really great as a player. My experiences with it are very limited though.

5e is almost like the best of 3.5 and 2e rolled into one. Many of my houserules for 3.5 are similar to 5e rules, and once I got through my apprehension to buy yet another D&D, I really really like it.

As for the spinoffs, I have loved d20 modern back in the day, I ran a lenghty SW SAGA campaign, I’ve used True20 which was a OGL system and liked it, and eventhough I never played PF I did mine it for houserules for 3.5 at some point.

 

[FireLance]

I've played and enjoyed every edition since 1E and generally felt that every edition was better than the last except 5E, which felt like a step backwards from 4E, although I think it is still an improvement over 3/3.5E.

I'm currently running a game which tries to emulate 4E style characters by basically gestalting a class with abilities that are mostly recovered on a short rest with another class with abilities that are mostly recovered on a long rest, e.g. Paladin + Battlemaster Fighter, Bladesinger Wizard + Four Elements Monk. It seems to be going well so far.

 

[RobJN]

It's not quite the longest-running edition, but it's very close.

BECMI began with Frank Mentzer's Basic Set (the "B" in "BECMI"), which, presuming I have my dates correct, came out on May 1st, 1983. After this, the absolute latest I can find a BECMI-compatible product coming out from TSR is Troy Denning's The Classic Dungeons & Dragons Game: Epic Adventures with Wizards, Dragons, and Magic!, which came out on either May 2nd or May 4th, 1994 (I've seen conflicting listings). So BECMI lasted almost exactly eleven years.

(If you don't count that introductory boxed set as the ending point, then the last BECMI product would be the Poor Wizard's Almanac II, published on December 1st, 1993.)

By contrast, the AD&D 2E Player's Handbook came out in February of 1989, with the Dungeon Master's Guide following in May of the same year and the MC1 Monstrous Compendium Volume One following in June (I can't find exact release dates). Since the last AD&D 2E product was Die Vecna Die! (June, 2000), that means that if you start counting from when the PHB was released, AD&D 2E just barely edges out BECMI by a few months.

Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.

17 years for Basic/Classic D&D, vs. 11 for 2e. Mentzer was a revision of Moldvay, which was a revision of Holmes.

 

[see]

17 years for Basic/Classic D&D, vs. 11 for 2e. Mentzer was a revision of Moldvay, which was a revision of Holmes.

I get it if you want to argue that Mentzer BECMI was just a "revision" of Moldvay/Cook B/X instead of a new edition, sure. But Holmes? Holmes had, for example, five alignments.

 

[Grogg of the North]

3.5 - Played and DM'd
PF 1E - DM'd
5E - Played

All have things I like and dislike. If I had to choose a favorite it would be pathfinder.

 

[GSHamster]

I'm not sure that 3E is my favorite version, but it definitely was my favorite time period. The OGL brought so much energy to the hobby!

 

[cbwjm]

Voted for all except 1e. I didn’t start playing until 2e, and I don’t think 1e’s host of idiosyncrasies would be as appealing without the layer of nostalgia.

There are also a number of D&D-likes that I enjoy, 13th Age, SotDL, and a number of OSR derivatives the primary among them.

This is pretty much me. BECMI is also amongst the top of the pile, I was first introduced to dnd via the rules cyclopedia. I also like pathfinder and ACKs.

 

[teitan]

I like 1e, 3e & 5e. Even my 2e games were more like 1e.

1e hit all the sweet spots for me, I learned on it so it makes sense but there was something to 1e that 2e lacked and it wasn't the wonkiness.

With 1e I felt like I was playing a fantasy adventure that dank and dirty, it was merciless, the gods didn't even really seem to care so you didn't really know where a cleric got his power beyond his/her faith in some higher power except for the truly nasty ones like Iuz. Even before From the Ashes Greyhawk was a grim setting. Survival wasn't easy and with 1e's random character generation there was no such thing as "party balance" in the sense of a classic D&D party of Fighter, Thief, Cleric & Wizard. It was down to the roll. Even the OGB FR set was dank & dirty.

I always felt the designers in 2e wanted to be developing for a different game as while the settings were cool, tacking them onto the AD&D rules resulted in some very poor integration. Seem to be worse once White Wolf started eating into TSR's market share like a hungry shark. I played 2e but It always seemed to me that no one understood how NWP worked, they just wanted them on their sheet and the Priest class was an interesting idea but poorly executed with all the spheres and even level restrictions for spells based on Deity power levels. WHo would choose to worship Iuz as an example? You got jack for it so why was he such a formidable force in the world? I mean sure, Roleplaying purposes but you were not going to last wrong really as a PC based on the rules which meant being a priest of a lesser god or demigod was not going to be much fun and you weren't really going to be able to contribute to the party in the medium or long run.

3e was soooooooooooooooo much better. I would say 3e is my favorite edition of the game still. I was hating on 3e for a while. I would read the arguments like LFQW and think yeah that's a problem with the game but really... I learned to DM in 1e and 2e so to me party balance was about letting characters shine and giving players their moments, wisely handing out treasure. It wasn't about making sure everyone did the same amount of damage etc. But I will say 3.5 ranks in the middle of my editions because it was when things seemed to get away from "D&D" and into more weird areas. Core rules were great, I disliked the fact that I would need to spend hours converting stuff I was told I wouldn't need to for sure. Really I just got burnt out because for those 8 or so years I was ALWAYS the DM. SO I had a big disdain for 3.5 by the time 4e came out and... I never got to play it. The one thing I disliked about 3e was that it was the edition when "character build" became a part of the language for sure. Munchkin gaming became "System Mastery". 3e really brought back, for me, that AD&D1e feel.

5e is great, it's my number 2 edition. I really like its simplicity but it also seems to be its drawback. We still see builds and most of the conversations I've seen on character builds, like in 3e, break the rules. It has a very 2e feel but the designers seem to be building settings that are designed FOR D&D instead of trying to fit things into the D&D system and I really appreciate that. Theros is great, Wildemount is my favorite setting for the game. It's number 2 because while as a DM it's easiest for me to run and allows me to improv on the fly again, its kind of limited in options. You pick a class, you get a subclass between level 1 or 3 and... if you don't use feats, you are kind done in the character creation department. Admittedly I am super happy they aren't releasing like they used to though. Quarterly releases and rules supplements maybe every 18 months sits well with me. Its tight at number 2 between 3e and 5e for number 1.

Pathfinder, I didn't play it due to my 3.5 disdain from years of playing but I played a session of 1e a few months back. My wife was super excited to try it so we bought a lot of the pocket edition books and played a single session due to DM impropriety in his desires but it gave me that kick I got when 3e first came out. I would play 1e again. 2e I liked on paper but not sure about. I'd like to try it as a DM and a player. I may get the pocket edition since I sold my hardcovers a few months back but I honestrly don't see a lot of differences between PF1 and 2 aside from some rules implementations. ALternate racial traits and class abilities seem to be the same as the PF2 feat system.

 

[DammitVictor]

It's real neat being able to see what percentage of voters chose each option.

But I really wish I could see what percentage of voters for each option voted also for each other option. Already, I've seen a couple of people vote for one of my favorites... who also like my least favorite editions. I'd be curious to see how that shook out.