What version of D&D is your favourite to play (expanded poll)

[Jedi_Solo]

3.5 with a few houserules and a few 3.0 things not updated.

3.45?

 

[Nightfall]

Usually 3.5 with some 3.0 stuff I liked mixed in. (Like wizard specialization that allows you to ban Divination. )

 

[kaomera]

"Other" I enjoy each version of D&D equally, except 2E with or without options. I thought the release of 2E was useless. They just repackaged stuff I already had and took away options. Then kits came along - OK concept - no balance - horrible. I don't even want to talk about Player Options -

Yeah, 2e pretty much kicked my puppy, too.

Actually, it wasn't 2e per se. I could have totally played 2e, but it was a really bad time to split the fan-base (into: "Those who play 2e" and "Those who spend all session bitching about 2e instead of playing 1e") when a lot of my fiends where already dropping out of role-playing...

I was really afraid the same thing was going to happen with the 3.5 "revision". There changes may have been mush less than AD&D to 2e, but some of them seemed positioned to cause maximum controversy. There where a lot of things that got "fixed" that there was really no agreement (at least among the people I played with) that there was actually any sort of a problem with in the first place. Fortunately pretty much everyone I know ended up going along with 3.5, even if (in a few cases) only to make things simpler.

 

[Mycanid]

I voted 1st edition with the Unearthed Arcana ... perhaps if I had the chance to play C & C I'd have coted for that, but I have not yet had the chance (or gotten off my duff to go out and get the books and actually try it out).

Really liked the basic/expert sets and rules too, but Greyhawk won over Mystara.

3.x are both close after these for me. There are still some things about them feel wise that I just do not like ... I am not much of "rules-inconsistency getting me upset" kinda guy. :\

I did not like 2e AT ALL either.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

3.5 all the way baby!

 

[Kristivas]

Yup

I had a reason they got Arcane spells back in 1E and I didn't want to redo the history I had written for the class. I have to admit that the 3.5E ranger is much better at representing a wilderness warrior, but I loved 1E Rangers so much I made a PrC that keeps the abilities of the old style Rangers.

I have absolutely no idea how balanced it is, however.

Here it is, please be kind, I suck at making balanced mechanics.

I like what you've done on one hand. The arcane casting does add some unforseen coolness. The bonus feats don't hurt at all either. I'd have liked to seen the lore of the class added, maybe beneath all the abilities and whatnot to know exactly why they have arcane spells.

The bad stuff (imo):
The 10th level ability seems really overpowered, imo. Automatic crit threat can really swing things in an unfair direction.
+1 against favored enemies every few levels (especially with that 10th level ability) is just too much. I would stick to normal favored enemy progression.
Also, the armor thing honestly doesn't seem rangerish at all. If you could convince me that it is, then I would say it's overpowered. The only class that can cast in armor without penalty is the battle mage and they have a really limited selection of spells. Giving free heavy armor while having: dual weilding, divine spells, arcane spells and so on is mighty unbalancing.

 

[Hussar]

Sure puts a perspective on things looking at that poll. Sure, many answer who might never have seen other versions, but, that still means that they prefer x to y. I've never eaten whale, but, I'm still pretty sure I prefer beef. (Ok, that's a lie, I have eaten whale, and, yuppers, I do prefer beef. )

Reading the threads, you might think that there's a fairly even split of the games that people play, assuming that people play their favourit game, it appears that 3.x is by far the most played game right now.

 

[dcas]

How do you hybridize the same game with itself? Rather, what is the same game mechanically. I mean I'm really curious. Are there that many differences between 3.0 and 3.5?

ISTM that there are as many, if not more, differences between 3.0 and 3.5 as between 1e and 2e.

 

[Desdichado]

How do you hybridize the same game with itself? Rather, what is the same game mechanically. I mean I'm really curious. Are there that many differences between 3.0 and 3.5?

Yes, quite a few. Most of the classes were altered--some subtly, some not so. Tons and tons of spells and feats were altered. A bunch of skills were changed. Combat was changed in several ways. Almost all of the monsters were rewritten, it seems.

I mean, yeah--the game at a fundamental level is still the same, but almost all of the details have changed. To me, D&D 3e vs D&D 3.5 seem almost as different from each other as either is from d20 Modern.

 

[Wombat]

I'd have to say my favourite version is my own house-rules 3.0/Arcana Unearthed cross.

I never take a game straight.