D&D General What is each edition BEST at?

[Snarf Zagyg]

OD&D (incl. Holmes Basic): The rules equivalent of MacGyvering a working computer when given a paperclip, a ball of twine, and some pre-chewed bubblegum.

Basic (Moldvay, Mentzer, etc.): Propping up the bumper pool table in the basement rec room so it wouldn't wobble.

AD&D: Scoring higher on your SATs because you were forced to learn high Gygaxian.

2e: Reading about settings you won't use, and then reading novels set in the place you aren't playing in.

3e (and PF): Counting really high.

4e: Arguing, so much arguing.

5e: Finding youtube videos of people who "explain" simple concepts incorrectly, and then watching videos of people reacting to how stupid the other videos are.

 

[GrahamWills]

Being careful to answer what each IS best at, not WAS best

OD&D, Basic: Nothing springs to mind
AD&D, 2E: Nostalgia and as a reminder of how much D&D has improved
3E: Best worlds: Sandstorm and Arcana being the ones topping my list
4E: Best version for tactical combat encounters
5E: Best for finding people to play with

 

[Ruin Explorer]

OD&D: High Gygaxian dungeon-heisting
Basic (and its children/cousins): As you say, changing play. The tone naturally shifts from one set to another.
AD&D1: My experience is likewise limited, but humanocentric hexcrawl seems accurate
AD&D2: Wildly creative settings and extensive lore (though some dislike the bowdlerizing it got as an attempt to dodge the Satanic Panic.) Also, being such a fertile ground for inspiring such great video games as Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment.
3e (and its direct children): Options! You get options, and you get options, and you get options, and EVERYONE gets options! Also, actually systematizing the system, and giving us the OGL.
4e (and its indirect children): Balance, tactical combat designed to be enjoyable as its own gameplay experience, high-mythic concepts/lore, and extensible framework rules that work well and then get the hell out of the way. Oh, and DM advice/support/tools.
5e: Compromise, outreach, inclusion. No edition has put as much work into these as 5e has (except maybe the outreach part, but only in terms of DMs.) My first post in the fandom toxicity thread noted this.

My experience with 2e is very limited and anything before that is mostly by word of mouth (though I have played a few sessions of Labyrinth Lord), so naturally my commentary is more extensive for WotC editions.

I'd basically second all of this.

4E also has, contrary to all expectations, by far the best rules/suggestions D&D has ever had for "improvising" or doing "stunts" that D&D has ever had. In 3E, stunts and improvisation tended to be a disaster, because of the "a rule for everything, and you're bad at everything unless you took a Feat to make you good at it!". This was maybe my group's biggest problem with 3E - they wanted to play it like 2E and improvise a ton, but 3E had rules for that, and doing a stunt/attack which in 2E might just be "attack at -4", was typically 3+ rolls, and you were for sure going to fail one of them due to the RNG of d20s, even if they were fairly easy DCs. But page 42 + other advice in 4E gave you really solid guidelines for improvising and stunts, and made them worth doing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

OD&D: It was the first very rough draft, so of course it's not going to be best at anything. Not a dig at the edition, but just a comment on cycle development and refinement.
B/X: to me all the basic systems come down to Moldvay/Cook. This is the best edition to learn the game and play it quickly.
1e: Art and aesthetic. Zero to hero. Individual adventures rather than campaigns.
2e: Setting and lore
3e: PC build options
4e: I've only played a little, but best at tactical combat
5e: Bringing gamers to the table.

 

[Stormonu]

Being careful to answer what each IS best at, not WAS best

OD&D, Basic: Nothing springs to mind

I'd say for B/X & BECMI - getting folks into the game.
<EDIT> Though that's what it WAS best at for me.

 

[Reynard]

I'd basically second all of this.

4E also has, contrary to all expectations, by far the best rules/suggestions D&D has ever had for "improvising" or doing "stunts" that D&D has ever had. In 3E, stunts and improvisation tended to be a disaster, because of the "a rule for everything, and you're bad at everything unless you took a Feat to make you good at it!". This was maybe my group's biggest problem with 3E - they wanted to play it like 2E and improvise a ton, but 3E had rules for that, and doing a stunt/attack which in 2E might just be "attack at -4", was typically 3+ rolls, and you were for sure going to fail one of them due to the RNG of d20s, even if they were fairly easy DCs. But page 42 + other advice in 4E gave you really solid guidelines for improvising and stunts, and made them worth doing.

Emphasis mine.

The best, least used rule in 2E.

 

[Burnside]

OD&D: Haven't played

Basic: This is BECMI, for me. It was great at onboarding. The first edition where you could read the books and understand how to play even if nobody in your group was previously familiar with the game.

AD&D 1E: Weirdness, narrative flexibility, DIY art and aesthetics

AD&D 2E: I played this for 7 years and honestly I'm struggling to say what it did best. Planescape and Darksun? The Bioware/Black Isle games late in this era were great. Oh, bards were really good in 2E but they're actually better in 5E so not bards.

3E: Character customization

4E: Never played

5E: Accessibility and inclusivity. And, this one will be controversial, but I think 5E has consistently better official adventures than any previous edition.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Emphasis mine.

The best, least used rule in 2E.

I can tell you this - it was not underused at my or my bro's tables lol, that rule got a damn work out!

 

[CleverNickName]

Of the editions that I've played more than once, I found that in my opinion:

Basic/Expert D&D was best at telling the story, and is still the best for running a classic 'dungeon crawl' adventure. The rules were light, and most importantly, they stayed in the background. The rules didn't get dragged out and waved around by the people at the table nearly as often as they do these days.

Companion/Masters D&D was best at running mass combat, armies, sieges, etc. Other editions have tried to improve on these rules, and they inevitably ended up making the rules harder to understand (and more complicated than they're worth).

3.X D&D/Pathfinder was best at character and monster customization. I still appreciate the concept of templates, and I miss the way that multiclassing worked.

5E D&D is the best for actually running a modern (ie., not a dungeon crawl or hex crawl) game. The rules are light enough to get out of the way of the story, but they have a little more meat on them for the players to chew on. The rules are a lot more intuitive and robust than the BECM rules I grew up using, too.