What's your favourite edition of DnD?

[Drathnoxis]

So there's 5 editions of DnD now, how do you even decide which one to play? Is the newest one the best and most refined or have they just been messing things around for 4 versions? I've only played 2 sessions of 3.5 a couple years ago but I'm curious what other Escapists like best.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

DnD5 seems pretty decent so far playing up to level 5. Player characters seem quite powerful even at low levels. There are some balance issues like how OP the spell Faerie Fire is. Another group of friends has a DnD5 campaign as well and they seem to be liking it overall.

DnD4 is horrible, pretend it doesn't exist. I don't think really anyone plays anything earlier than 3.5. I never played DnD 2 or earlier but I think DnD2 is the one where negative armor is better and it's kinda number backwards.

If you wanna play DnD3.5, Patherfinder is basically DnD3.75 as Paizo bought the rule-set and added to it. Also, Pathfinder 2nd Edition just came out and we played our first session of it yesterday and I'm liking it a lot, quite a bit of streamlining. Character creation is pretty simple and there's a proficiency system that determines like 90% of all your stats and it's pretty intuitive. The only thing I don't like about it is the ability scores towards mid-to-higher levels where characters will end up rather similar with regards to ability scores because (like Starfinder, Paizo's space RPG) your ability scores increase by 2 when you increase them until you get to 18, then they only go up by one, and you get to boost 4 ability scores every 5th level. Thus, whatever you start high in like 18 strength for a Fighter or 18 intelligence for a Wizard (you can get one ability score to 18 for a level 1 character), it's then hard to up those scores so your lower scores will catch up when they go up 2 at a time and your main score is only going up 1 at a time. And, that strength-based fighter and intelligence-based wizard ability scores at level 20 won't be all that dissimilar.

TLDR: If you want maximum customization go with Pathfinder 1st edition. If you want a more streamlined game, go with DnD5 or Pathfinder 2, though I think new Pathfinder is more newbie friendly and easier to understand, but it's literally brand new and only has base classes and 6 races right now.

Also, PCGen is free character creator software, the interface takes a bit of figuring out (it's not as user friendly as the paid Hero Lab) but it supports Pathfinder 1 (with support for 2 coming) and DnD5 support along with a few other systems.

 

[meiam]

I know everyone love to punch 4, but I quite like the system of having everything works trough ability that can be used either at will, once per encounter or once per rest. Your basic attack were more varied than just hitting stuff over and over, since even re useable ability had some interesting flair to it and spell caster weren't stuck not doing anything most fight since they could actually use there spells every encounter knowing they would be re usable next encounter. The biggest weakness is that it makes the classes very similar for the first few levels, but once everyone has a couple of encounter abilities class start to distinguish themselves.

 

[Kae]

If you wanna play DnD3.5, Patherfinder is basically DnD3.75 as Paizo bought the rule-set and added to it.

I have no issue with what you said but I just want to clarify, Paizo didn't buy the ruleset, it's more like when Wizards Published D&D they made most their D20 system legally free to use for everyone else under something called the Open Gaming License so that there would be a lot of 3rd party content for their game without having to worry about legal repercussions, that's why other games with very similar rulesets exist such as a D20 version of Star Wars, Call of Cthulu & even Legend of the 5 Rings (Even if all those games have more popular non-d20 rulesets), & Paizo just used that open license to make their own game, in fact if you wanted to make you're own D20 derivative system you also could without having to pay anyone for the license just so long as you call it something else & it's not the exact same thing.

On-topic: I'm unsure, I've only played D&D 5E & Pathfinder in an actual tabletop & TBH I'm not a huge fan of either system, but probably just for ease of use I would go with 5E since you can get people playing with you without they having to be as well-versed in the system, I even successfully ran a game yesterday with minimal trouble with a player that had never played any tabletop RPGs ever, so there's that.
Though as a player I find it kind of frustrating due to it's very linear leveling progression & find it mechanically shallow & unsatisfying, the system that I've read that I've liked the most is called Burning Wheel but I haven't been able to convince anyone of playing it with me so far.

 

[Kyrian007]

None of the DnD systems were anything more than simply functional. For the folks that want a dice roll and rule for everything there's Palladium and its myriad of settings. For those who like a more free form system you have your White Wolf or Fate style settings. And for those who just want the best one ever made there is Pinnacle's original Deadlands. As someone who has played all the older DnD systems, starting with the 1st ed... probably 3.5? 2 easily had the most supplemental material, as it came out as a genuine upgrade from 1 rather than just a money grab to make everyone have to replace their books. And THAC0 wasn't as hard or unintuitive as most people made out (it is kindergarten math.) However there were serious balance issues, and when they introduced psionics (well, and spelljammer) it broke the entire system. 3.5 had probably the best balance... but they rebooted so quickly just to make a buck there wasn't a lot of material out there. Plus my favorite setting was Ravenloft, and 3 than 3.5 Ravenloft was crap by comparison to 2. And after a couple of cursory attempts with 4... my friends and I just gave up on DnD for core rules. So 3.5 for core rules... but 2 for variety of settings and supplemental material.

I still remember my first session with my college gaming group. "So, what have you played before?" they asked. "Well Ravenloft, a Greyhawk variant, and of course Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. We even played around with a little Dark Sun." "So, have you played anything other than DnD? You know... anything actually good?"

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

I guess 3.5, cuz that's what my group plays. It's also the ruleset I'm most familiar with as DM. We've dabbled in Pathfinder, 4E and 5E, but those tend to be one-shots, since our homebrew setting makes use a lot of 3.5 specific stuff and I'm too lazy to port all of it to a different edition. Though we don't really play pure 3.5, but a hybridized version that's mostly 3.5 but replaces some of the more tedious and/or superfluous rules with their Pathfinder or 5E versions.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

3.5 is the best of the ones I've played, although I haven't played 5 yet. 2nd Ed is alright, it's a bit clunky but once you get your head around some of the overly complicated rules it's still a decent system. 4th Ed is too simple for my tastes, like a tabletop wargame with RPG mechanics rather than being a down-to-the-bone RPG. 3.5 has the most going for it as far as I'm concerned.

The only real complaint I have with it is that due to the high number of source books (we have well over 20, maybe as many as 30) available, well-learned players can cherry-pick feats and abilities from different books that were never designed to work together to create game-breaking synergies. Although that can be easily solved by the GM picking only one or two supplements at the start of the campaign - for example our current campaign uses the PHB, DMG, Complete Adventurer, Cityscape and *nothing else*, despite our large library.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

The only real complaint I have with it is that due to the high number of source books (we have well over 20, maybe as many as 30) available, well-learned players can cherry-pick feats and abilities from different books that were never designed to work together to create game-breaking synergies. Although that can be easily solved by the GM picking only one or two supplements at the start of the campaign - for example our current campaign uses the PHB, DMG, Complete Adventurer, Cityscape and *nothing else*, despite our large library.

Are you talking about Serpent Kingdoms? It's Serpent Kingdoms, isn't it? Either that, or Book of Exalted Deeds.

But yes, limiting which splatbooks are available to players can help curtail a lot of excesses. Also good if your group of players has a wide range of experience with the game.

 

[CritialGaming]

I really like 5e. I know that most veteran players like 3.5 the best (at least that's what I usually hear) but frankly 5e is a great version.

I like it because it allows you to play an actual game rather than getting together to ***** about rules at the table. It's simple, it's easy to learn and get into which makes it easy for more people to get into Dungeon Mastering, and I find that it is a tweakable enough system that you can do some really creative things with it.

Previous editions were more rule heavy and some people really like that, but it made a huge barrier to entry not only for players but it also meant that DMing was a pain because you had to be a walking text book in order to DM. Either that or constantly looking shit up in the book.

So IMO 5e is the best DnD has ever been.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I know everyone love to punch 4, but I quite like the system of having everything works trough ability that can be used either at will, once per encounter or once per rest. Your basic attack were more varied than just hitting stuff over and over, since even re useable ability had some interesting flair to it and spell caster weren't stuck not doing anything most fight since they could actually use there spells every encounter knowing they would be re usable next encounter. The biggest weakness is that it makes the classes very similar for the first few levels, but once everyone has a couple of encounter abilities class start to distinguish themselves.

DnD4 is horrible because the combat drags on forever when you get to mid-high levels. Nothing can really kill you (wizards can tank), attacks don't do enough damage. Everyone at the table knows how the battle is going to end but it'll take 2 hours to get there. Most that stuck with DnD4 made their own changes to the combat; one of the common "fixes" is: Divide monster hit points by 2. Multiply their damage by 1.5. At low levels DnD4 is pretty good.

If you wanna play DnD3.5, Patherfinder is basically DnD3.75 as Paizo bought the rule-set and added to it.

I have no issue with what you said but I just want to clarify, Paizo didn't buy the ruleset, it's more like when Wizards Published D&D they made most their D20 system legally free to use for everyone else under something called the Open Gaming License so that there would be a lot of 3rd party content for their game without having to worry about legal repercussions.

Ah.

 

[Saelune]

5e. I love how easy it is to run. It has its flaws, but so far it is easily the best edition of DnD. I hope future editions just improve on 5e rather than start over, like, add tiny and large sized races, add magic item creation, but otherwise I dont desire the number crunching of 3.5 or Pathfinder.

I do wish 5e would be less stingy on additional rulebooks. I get not wanting to be as overburdened like 3.5e, but that doesnt mean we need to starve to death. I am tired of Adventure Modules and setting books. Give us more Xanathar's Guide.

 

[Fappy]

I have heard good things about 5e, but my group has been playing Pathfinder 1e for 10 years now so I can only personally recommend that. As mentioned above, Pathfinder 2e also just came out and I am loving it so far. It has a lot of potential!

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

>snip<

Are you talking about Serpent Kingdoms? It's Serpent Kingdoms, isn't it? Either that, or Book of Exalted Deeds.

But yes, limiting which splatbooks are available to players can help curtail a lot of excesses. Also good if your group of players has a wide range of experience with the game.

Exalted Deeds, that's the main culprit. That and Weapons of Legacy. We used WoL for one horribly broken campaign and never touched it again.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Exalted Deeds, that's the main culprit. That and Weapons of Legacy. We used WoL for one horribly broken campaign and never touched it again.

Ah, just to be sure then, give Serpent Kingdoms a wide berth. BoED and WoL shenanigans are cheecky compared to the high-yield bullshit you can pull with Serpent Kingdoms. It's the book that spawned fucking Pun-Pun, and that's not the most broken thing you can do with it.

 

[Summerstorm]

I have played 2nd edition, 3rd, 3.5 and Pathfinder

and i have been Dungeon Master for fifth

I usually prefer different roleplaying games, but of the DND ones i vastly prefer Pathfinder, then 3.5. Eh, i have lots to say about roleplaying and such... but i am going to stop myself - i am not going to write a 20-page treatise on interaction of rules and atmosphere or the problem of overloading information and putting out too much content into your gameworld.

 

[Cette]

5E by fairly wide margin.

It's basically 3.5's rough structure with all the fiddly BS filed off and a bunch of the better bits of 4E added then shoved inside a 2nd edition shaped body. It's a nice greatest hits edition.

4E is probably the only other version I'd still play besides it.

 

[Elfgore]

I've only played 5E, so I say that one. It's accessible, I learned it by watching a video series on it, and just has everything nice and neat. It ain't perfect though. The first few levels can be a bit dull for combat heavy groups or min-maxers and the later levels can be a bit of a slog as well. Still the best though, since my biggest complaint is we don't get content fast enough.

Never played 4E, but I've heard some solid defense of it. I like the concept of minions. Good way of making fights larger without making them super dangerous.

I've not played 3.5 or 3E, but I played Pathfinder, which is normally called 3.75. I didn't care for it. Modifiers and feats out the ass aren't enjoyable to me.

Anything before that has obtuse and bad rules in my mind, fucking THAC0, so I don't have a solid stance on them.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Exalted Deeds, that's the main culprit. That and Weapons of Legacy. We used WoL for one horribly broken campaign and never touched it again.

Ah, just to be sure then, give Serpent Kingdoms a wide berth. BoED and WoL shenanigans are cheecky compared to the high-yield bullshit you can pull with Serpent Kingdoms. It's the book that spawned fucking Pun-Pun, and that's not the most broken thing you can do with it.

Wow, that was an interesting read!

I'll take your advice and make sure our group steers well clear of that. Thanks!

 

[Satinavian]

I like Pathfinder most of all D&D versions.

But i prefer other systems like Splittermond over D&D.

 

[Drathnoxis]

And for those who just want the best one ever made there is Pinnacle's original Deadlands.

So what makes it so good and how does it differ from DnD?