D&D General Your favorite things about editions that aren't your favorite.

[wingsandsword]

We've all got a favorite edition. We've all got editions that aren't our favorites.

However, from the editions that weren't my favorite, I can still point out things that I liked from those editions. Concepts, styles, ways books were written. . .something. . .in each edition that were good.

What were your favorite things about your less-favorite editions?

For me?

2nd Edition: Absolutely wonderful setting materials. A bounty of lore, with so many settings and so deeply rendered. While you might need to update the rules aspects for later editions, there was enough raw setting material released in the 2e era for a lifetime of adventures.

4th Edition: Primordials. Normal D&D lore has deities requiring worship to have their powers and stay alive. This does create the "chicken and egg" problem of where the first deities came from, if they need worship to live. There's also the matter of certain deities in D&D lore that already were shown as not caring at all for or about their worshipers yet being immensely powerful anyway (Akadi, Grumbar, Kossuth and Ishtishia, the 4 elemental gods in Forgotten Realms, for example). The idea that there's another class of divine being that isn't reliant on worship explains this issue. Also, having some beings of a divine power level that aren't tied to worship opens the way for immensely powerful beings (or monsters, since they retconned some of the Elder Eternal Evils of FR into being Primordials) that don't have huge churches or cults.

5th Edition: I appreciated how they put a variety of pantheons as options in the Player's Handbook, not just one pantheon from one setting, but the core elements of the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance pantheons, plus a few historic/mythological ones from real life that have been popular for use in D&D as well. The basics of the cosmology, and an appendix with animals and basic monsters was great. I know it was mainly meant for player reference since they were things that could be summoned or created by PC's, but it also means that it's easier for a DM to run a quick pick-up game from just the PHB, since there are stats for some things you might find in a low-level pick-up adventure like wilderness animals and skeletons in just the PHB.

 

[Reynard]

4E: monster presentation. Everything you need to run the monster should be present in a reasonably sized stat block.

 

[David Howery]

I didn't really like any edition after 2E, but I did like how they finally fixed that 'AC runs backwards' thing...

 

[Gladius Legis]

3e: Making the numbers more intuitive (i.e. higher numbers are always better). Unifying the experience/level chart was a step in the right direction also, it's just that the 3e classes weren't rebalanced well around that. Tome of Battle was the first step toward getting martial characters to do cool things, although admittedly the way it was done was specifically addressed to the unique problem inherent in 3e martial characters in the first place.

4e: I actually like a lot of what it tried to do. Made an earnest effort to balance martials and spellcasters straight out of the box and have martials do nice things on the battlefield, even if I didn't necessarily like the execution of it. Made an earnest effort to make the DM's job much easier, and 4e still has the best format for monster blocks. While my overall views on the 4e cosmology are mixed to say the least, I love that it introduced the Feywild and the Shadowfell. I actually liked what 4e did to FR, too, though I'm aware I'm in the minority on that.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

Oh, there's something to like about every edition. Since 5e is my favorite to date, let's go edition by edition:

AD&D 1st Edition: The DMG was Gary's magnum opus - there's no other RPG book quite like it. That's one to sit down, read and enjoy. So many classic adventures from this period - the original Ravenloft being the big standout, as it was the module that really brought D&D to the next level - showing that the game could be much more than a hack through a big dungeon full of monsters (Not that there's anything wrong with that!) And yes, even Dragonlance - while it was a mess and a railroad, it was the first attempt at making D&D do High Fantasy rather than Swords & Sorcery, and it definitely left a mark.

"Basic" D&D/Red Box/Black Box/Rules Cyclopedia: THE RULES CYCLOPEDIA. It's my paradigm for what an RPG manual should be. EVERYTHING you needed to run a whole campaign was right there in one utterly packed book. Not only that, but it had the best skills system we'd see before 3e, and the Domains, Strongholds, Mass Combat and Divine Ascension rules were something that should have been carried into the core of later editions as well. (Though, from what I understand, these weren't something Gygax really wanted to mess with, and as the later editions were truly in the lineage of AD&D rather than "Basic", it's understandable that they were dropped. Still a shame.)

AD&D 2nd Edition: The settings, of course. Planescape and Ravenloft are my favorites. Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms got expanded on - the latter massively (though let's not forget the Dragonlance "Time of the Dragon" boxed set, which introduced my favorite setting that I've never run - Taladas). The Spells and Magic sourcebook made D&D magic as interesting as it's ever been. OMG, THE PLAYERS OPTION CRIT CHARTS! Birthright brought in the elements I liked of BD&D - and was rapidly canned. Lots of great stuff, lots of missed opportunities. The 90s in a nutshell.

D&D 3E: It was... a revolution. Two years before it came out, InQuest published a "top 20 RPGs" list - and AD&D 2nd edition came in... 4th. As they put it, while they couldn't deny how great it was... it was looking pretty creaky. RPGs had come a long way since Gygax's day, and the game didn't just need a coat of paint, it needed a whole new engine. In came Monte Cook... who built the Lotus Evora of RPGs. A high powered, technical masterpiece... that wasn't for the timid. Everything got an upgrade. The mechanics were rationalized in a way that made sense. A thorough skills system was introduced. Feats and stackable multiclassing opened up an array of customization options. Creatures could all be built as characters now - nothing was off limits. Eventually the massive problems came to light... but when that PHB showed up in my hands in late summer 2000, shortly before I left for college... I was hooked. D&D for the 21st century had arrived.

D&D 4e: The black sheep. As much as I loathe this edition... I do think it's a fantastic tactical combat game, and I may look at it further in the future for ideas for beefing up my encounters. Skill challenges were a great idea too. Too bad about everything else.

 

[aco175]

4e has the monsters and powers that you could make up to boost them. Each monster could have a better version instead of just giving the orc max HP. You want the orcs to have a leader, you can make one sand give him a warlord power along with a few more HP and better attacking.

Minions worked as well to keep monsters relevant at higher levels. 10th level PCs can still run into goblins and get hit, not a lot, but some. Great filler monsters.

I liked encounter and doily powers. It allows some great character types and made situations more tailored. Also ties in with monster creation. You seemed to have big, cool, things you could do each fight.

 

[dave2008]

I liked encounter and doily powers.

I don't remember those, can you tell me more? Were they some type of crochet weapon?

 

[Oofta]

Well old school D&D was where I started so I have fond, if incredibly vague, memories.

I liked 2E's Skills and Powers. My barbarian that would tell the truth no matter the consequence was quite fun.

With 3.x we straightened out the math and cleaned up stuff from previous editions, even if we did need a 3.5.

In 4E I did enjoy The Mighty Rev. A cleric that could also dish out significant amounts of damage (soo many D12s) on the same turn? Sign me up.

 

[dave2008]

I don't know if I have a favorite edition, but here is what I like from each (off the top of my head):

AD&D 1e: Monster Manual and Deities and Demigods. Major influences on me. I particularly loved the Devils, Demons, Dragons, & Giants. Great wheel cosmology.
D&D: Set 3 for the stronger dragons and set 5 Immortals. Demon Lords as Eternals.
AD&D 2e: Tougher dragons
AD&D 3e: Draconomicon (redesigned dragons)
D&D 4e: brought me back to the game. Loved the graphic layout of the books. Liked the balance and shared advancement and power structure. Liked healing surges and skill challenges. Liked monster roles. Primordials, dawn war and world axis cosmology.
D&D 5e: like the flexibility of monster design, ease of monster customization, bounded accuracy, advantage / disadvantage, exhaustion mechanic

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I really liked the multi-classing system in 4E, and it's something that absolutely could not have worked without the universal class-based resource infrastructure.