D&D General Which Previous Edition (poll; read OP)

[Vaalingrade]

I'm sure it would be if it was an option on the poll!

Wouldn't be so sure there.

But my real curiosity is how much of 3.5's votes are for Pathfinder.

 

[Reynard]

I thought 5e would easily be the winner (and who knows, it may still be in the very long run if people continue to vote) but as it wasn't a choice, then other (or none) would be it...

I think it might be a little premature to call 5E a "previous edition" already.

 

[Stormonu]

Poor 3.0. Was the Ranger really that bad?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Poor 3.0. Was the Ranger really that bad?

It lacked rules requiring spellcasting to stir things.

 

[billd91]

Poor 3.0. Was the Ranger really that bad?

To torpedo the whole edition for a throwback campaign? Probably not. But it was pretty bad.

A bit more seriously, there were a lot of things 3.5 improves on compared to 3.0 and relatively few that are made worse (weapon sizes, I'm looking mostly at you but some buff durations are also on that list).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Voted 4E pre-essentials, but essentials would also be fine.

And honestly, RC D&D (which I don't see as being quite the same thing as BECMI or B/X) would be equally good in terms of previous editions.

 

[Burnside]

Voted 2E but that's really as a DM.

As a player, 3.5 easily. But I'd hate to DM 3 or 3.5 at this point.

 

[Reynard]

And honestly, RC D&D (which I don't see as being quite the same thing as BECMI

Why not? I don't think there are any significant differences, except the inclusion of setting material.

 

[CleverNickName]

I really wish I could run a BECM campaign all the way from 1st level to 36th level. It would be amazing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I would like to be clear that I would not be okay with Essentials.