What's your favorite edition of D&D (so far)?

[Greg K]

I went with 3e

2e has some good points: Settings,s Specialty Priests, Historical Books, The Complete Books (sans most kits not in the Thief or Druid book), PO: Combat and Tactics, PO: Spells and Magic. My favorite edition for official supplements.

4e also has some good things: balance between classes, no level drain, no 3e XP costs, non-spellcasting Rangers as default, removing most non-biological aspects or race and making them feats, disease track, heroic tier multi-classing, Feywild, Warlord, magic missile requiring to hit roll (before the Compendium reversed this), better WOTC supplements (in general) than 3e with the exception for PHB3 and the scattering out both giants and demons among various books which felt like a money grab (I still hold 3e Unearthed Arcana and Fiendish Codex 1 above the 4e supplements. It is just that I think WOTC class and race books sucked hardcore as did the later books)

3e, however wins. Mechanically, I prefer it to 2e. 4e, while having some improvements over 3e including the big one of clas balance) has more deal breakers for me including the skill system (skills are too broad and there are too few for my tastes and I dislike the +1/2 level bonus). 3e also has the benefit of Unearthed Arcana and specific third party material that allows me to both "fix" the areas of 3e that I dislike and customize the game more to my liking.

 

[FalconerGH]

Are there any other people who prefer the 3.0 core over the 3.5 core, and why?

 

[kitsune9]

I'm a big fan of Pathfinder. As for a retro-clone, I like C&C.

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], you raise a lot of interesting points - I haven't played 3E and 3.5 in quite a few years, so don't feel qualified to address them point by point, so I'll take your word for it! That said, the poll is what it is; if I were to re-do it (maybe once 5E comes out?) I might include all of the sub-editions, or at least 3E and 3.5 as separate.

 

[Incenjucar]

4E, hands down, no question. I loved 2E's vast amounts of fluff and fantastic settings back in the day, and 3E's expansion of options, but 4E's rules work the best with my personality and play style. I've had criticisms for the edition since day 1, but nothing that has come before comes close to how easy and effective to run the edition has been for me.

 

[Corathon]

I voted for 1E - and I'm pleasantly surprised to see how many others did.

 

[UHF]

I've played since D&D. (I used to have the box with the chits.)

I voted 1e... I think that what I liked was the simplicity of character creation. (I know... butt load of wierd rules.... just go with it.)

I missed 3x, and came back for 4e. I am a 4e evangelist... but I've since moved on to Pathfinder. The primary reason for the change was that premade materials for PF, were way way better. 4e does old school very well, but I can't just keep making my own adventures.


Back to 1e... one thing I liked was the slow pace of advancement for 1e. I dunno, but I liked the setting, and the way it felt magical. I feel that 4e takes away a lot of that, and PF only takes some of that away.

 

[scourger]

Are there any other people who prefer the 3.0 core over the 3.5 core, and why?

The 3.0 core really appealed to me. The game mechanics were streamlined. The skills were integrated into the system. The feats added a lot of customization options. The classes all had cool options added from prior editions but retained that classic feeling. I ran core 3.0 without any modifications. I could do the same with 3.5, but it changed just enough to interfere with my mastery over the d20 system. And, my favorite derivative games were based on 3.0 and sometimes didn't translate to the 3.5 changes. The 2 changes that I really liked in 3.5 were the Die Hard feat and the ability of dwarves to always move at 20 feet regardless of encumbrance. Otherwise, the 3.5 changes weren't necessary for me. When I purge my collection, I'll keep the PHBs for both as I have with all prior editions, but I will keep my 3.0 DMG & MM. By the way, the 3.0 DMG has some very useful information like NPC tables by class and variant rules for modern weapons. That just made 3.0 that much more useful. Same with the original 3.0 PHB having a small bestiary in the back so you could play immediately when it was first published.

 

[Mercurius]

Through 250 votes...

 

[teitan]

I voted other because I was tossed between 1e and 2e. I preferred the customization of Thief skills in 2e but the big problem with 2e was that it felt very incomplete in the core with so much emphasis on the Spheres and specialty Priests without providing enough concrete examples not called Druid and the flimsy guidelines presented. I played 1e first and then in 91 we got the 2e books because the 1e books weren't as readily available anymore so we mish mashed our game a bit. My biggest gripe was the option-non-optional rules. NWPs being an example there as while they were optional in the core, they were integral to the complete books. I had no real issues with the kits myself, yeah some were over powered but our DM and myself when I DMed always were able to keep things in line because it was about fun, not kewl new powers. We didn't have a bar on any of them but I preferred the 3e Prestige Classes to kits because you earned them.

That said, were I to go back I'd run 1e or 2e. I just wish Legends & Lore were a better book for the specialty priests than it was. I'd also do Greyhawk. Meh. Call me old school.