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

Depends on when you ask me. Most of the time, I would say probably 3.5 as a player, and anything but 3.5 as a DM. But that changes from time to time. I'll play anything, and I don't think I'd be happy playing just one edition from now to the end of time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

AD&D 2e, forgotten realms. The only reason why is because it is the game that I was introduced to as dungeons and dragons. I feel the most comfortable with the setting and the timeline from DR 1358 - DR 1372. I will play any game in any edition but I'll only run 2nd edition for my friends if it's d&d.
 


I've played all of the editions of D&D in my 32 years of gaming and I can say I enjoyed them all. That being said 3.5 was like somebody scooped all of my thoughts about 2ed out of my brain and smeared them into a 3 book series.

I'm not a big fan of HP and AC...but I like them in a high fantasy game.

4ed is really neat, I enjoy some of the battlefield maneuvers and the jumping right into the hero roll off the start; but, it takes some of the transparency away from the system...something that I became accustomed to in 3.5.

So, honestly out of all the editions...minus the nostalgia of some of my longer and more indepth adventures from 1st and 2nd edition...and my quirky and murderous adventures from od&d I would have to say 3.5 edition.
 


Honestly, for balances rules, ease of DMing and cool monsters that play like the flavour text indicates it would have to be 4E. On balance, it is my favourite edition.

For adventures, it would be early 1E (before Temple of Elemental Evil came out: that was crap), 2E Dungeon magazine and some of the Pathfinder adventure paths.

For campaign settings, it would be 2E (Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Spelljammer) or 3.xE (Forgotten Realms again, Midnight, Midnight and Midnight) and 4E for Dark Sun also.

For tinkering around, it would have to be 3.xE.

I don't do edition wars. I can't understand why people can't just take what they like from each edition and put it in their own game.
 



3.5e, but it's the best of a bad bunch.

There's an awful lot that I like about 2nd Edition, but having seen the consistent framework of 3e, I know that I could never go back - there would always be something that I would fell I had to change for my sanity... and then there would always be one more thing.

(It's been a long time since I played BEC(MI) D&D, and while there was a lot I like about it, it has the same issue as 2nd Ed. I haven't played 1st Ed or OD&D to any significant extent, but am reasonably sure that the same applies.)

There's a lot that I like about 4e, but there are also a number of things that I really hate. And some of those things are pretty damn fundamental to the game, so they're not something I feel I can fix with house rules.

So that leaves 3e. And, on balance, I feel that 3.5e was an improvement on 3e. (Actually, Pathfinder is, on balance, an improvement again, but it's not "better enough" to compel me to switch.)

But 3.5e is so damn complex! Our campaign has just hit 8th level, and the range of options the group Wizard, Druid and Artificer have is just absurd. Especially once they start digging in to polymorph magics, and pulling all sorts of wild and wonderful things out the hat.

And that's after we cut a huge swath of complexity from the game by disallowing Prestige Classes and banning everything but a small handful of books!

--

Actually, what I really want is, essentially, "D&D Saga Edition" - something with the same fundamental underpinnings as 3e, but with much of the complexity abstracted out. Of course, even "Star Wars Saga Edition" is not without significant flaws, and even it gains some very nasty complexity once you get into all the supplements. But it's the closest thing I've seen to where I would really like to be.
 


Remove ads

Top