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

[ShinHakkaider]

House ruled Pathfinder.

I just dont have the prep issues and complaints that a lot of people do with the 3.5 / Pathfinder system. I could be because I run AP's almost exclusively but I still tweak the hell out of encounters and outright change them when I feel something else would work better for the party.

I never really cared for 2E once kits came into play and pretty much stopped playing after a while. 1E I have fond memories of but I could never go back to playing it or BECMI again. Pathfinder is the right level of robustness and options for me and my table. I'm not looking for training wheels or a simple game.

 

[MerricB]

Err... none of them?

One of the delightful things I've been able to do recently is run campaigns of AD&D, 4E and Pathfinder, and what I've discovered is that all of them can be fun, but they also irritate me in different ways.

AD&D irritates me with the imbalance between fighter and wizard. 4E irritates me with the power structure and lack of "small" combats. And Pathfinder irritates me by being the least balanced and with the least interesting combats of the three.

4E set-piece combats are one of the real highlights of the edition for me, but it doesn't do well with smaller combats. AD&D does exploring really well, and I love the (generally) short combats with simultaneous resolution of player actions. And Pathfinder has a cavalcade of interesting options for characters.

Each of these games is good at different things, but I still hope that the next edition will give me the good bits of each game and provide a superior product.

Cheers!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I only run 4e, but I like playing both 3.x/PF and 4e.

 

[Elf Witch]

I wanted to add that if I am running Forgotten Realms I really like 2E for that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

On one hand, the game I run is a far cry from core 3.5; a flurry of variants and custom rules such that most of the original system is gone.

On the other, the 3.X system is the only one that even gives me enough to be worth trying to fix it up to fit my needs. It's the toolbox. It tolerates modding well. Occasionally some sensibilities from 2e make it into my houserules, but I find it a quaint, dated system. 4e has nothing for me.

So of the D&D editions, I'd still say 3e is my favorite, even though I don't play it as written.

 

[billd91]

Pathfinder, then I suppose 2e. I'm skipping over including 3.5 in the list because I find PF a definite improvement but close enough to be much the same game. Listing both would be redundant.

 

[diaglo]

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For me? 3.X. By which I mean that I my favorite is 3.5, but I find many of the clones- AU/AE, Pathfinder, True20, FantasyCraft, Midnight 2Ed, etc.- to be equally good...and bad.

 

[scourger]

I really prefer D&D Miniatures. I ran a very fun mini-campaign with the Miniatures Handbook simple rules for advancement. If I could get that level of simplicity for the foes, I would love to run 3.0 or even 3.5 again with greater levels of complexity for the players. As it is, I really prefer 3.0 with Omega World d20 or Judge Dredd d20 as a second option. Perhaps E6 would be a good way, too. I've even thought of running D&D using Savage Worlds to reduce the processor load. I think I like the flavor without all the work, which seems to come from the super-complicated magic systems. Ironically, it is the magic that makes it feel magical.

 

[Orius]

I like the structure of the 3.0 rule set. Didn't like the 3.5 revision as much, too many little changes here and there to complicate compatibility, and some of the later flavor wasn't to my taste. Definitely prefer the classic 2e flavor though. Any future games I run will likely end up being 3.0 or 2e with 3e-inspired house rules.