Which D&D edition do you *really* prefer?

[babomb]

I like the FEEL of 2e. (I've never played any earlier versions.) The 3e books seem dry reading in comparison; 2e rules felt more evocative, even when they were unwieldy or terrible. I like that the benefits from stats are non-linear. I like that the spell list includes Sticks to Snakes and Baleful Polymorph and that Improved Invisibility isn't called Invisibility, Greater. I like Cleric spheres. I like that some spells take a full round or more to cast and can get wasted if the caster is it. I kind of like that there are system shock rolls even though we hand-waved them. I kind of like having a save vs. Poison/Paralysis/Death Magic, even if Fortitude saves make more sense. I like ecology in the Monster Manual.

I guess what I'm getting at is that 2e feels organic and a little mysterious, and therefore I loved it, warts and all. For all the improvements 3e made, it always felt a little sterile to me.

 

[Herobizkit]

Best DM 'crunch' material: 1ed.
Best DM 'fluff' material: 2ed.
Best to play: Pathfinder (3ed)
Best to run: 4ed.

 

[Corathon]

AD&D 1E for me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Definitely 4E. I like the tactical combat system, and I like the implied setting and the mythology it brings in. I just dig all the story elements they scattered all over the books. It's also the system I find the easiest and most fun to run (I ran D&D 3.xE and variuous d20 offshots including Iron Heroes and Arcane Evolved before, as well as Shadowrun).

 

[DaveMage]

3.5 is my favorite edition of D&D, though now I play Pathfinder.

For settings, 2E is champ by far! 2E Forgotten Realms, Planescape, and Spelljammer were all lots of fun! (Although the 3E FR book was wonderfully done, IMO.)

 

[Salamandyr]

Houseruled B/X. I like some of the stuff in the Companion rules, like mass combat and domain management, but I don't really think the game needs 36 levels.

 

[Pickles JG]

Rules 4e by the book - contra Delericho best of a good bunch

2e settings by choice - Planescape (definitively D&D) or Al'Quaddim

I thoroughly enjoyed 3.0/3.5 but got a bit disillusioned after a lot of play & Pathfinder fails to fix any of my issues.

 

[Wicht]

Pathfinder.

I've played every edition but fourth and I like them all and would play them all if asked, but for all around solid rules and a good play experience, 3e was the best imo and Pathfinder improved on that. Plus the OGL continues to allow constant improvements from a wide variety of sources keeping the game continually fresh.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

A strongly houseruled 3.x/Pathfinder. I use Pathfinder as core rules, with lots of elements from 3.5 support books (Races of, and Complete series) a fair amount from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed (the 20 level version for compatibility's sake) as well as numerous third party product for 3.0. 3.5 and PF.

But the core of the game is the base that was created for 3rd - even if modified. I like the classes, I like the skill system, I like the magic system (when house-ruled some), it has a huge amount of support for monster books and adventures. It has epic rules so there is no actual cap on when you stop playing (I've played the same Champions character off and on for over 25 years - if I like a character I don't want to stop playing them).

I use a few elements of 1st, 2nd and 4E in the game, but they are small things. Already planning to adapt some ideas from Next and 13th Age.

 

[delericho]

Rules 4e by the book - contra Delericho best of a good bunch

Heh.

For me, the single worst thing about 4e was that it was good enough to really highlight the weaknesses of 3e, without giving me something that's better.

Problem is that fixing those issues, either by house ruling 3e or building a custom system, is much harder than I thought it should be.