For me I prefer 3rd edition because of the opportunities it opened up role playing wise. The thought of a Dwarven Ranger or Elven paladin made me really happy.
What I didn't like was how it did feel tailored more towards power gaming even from the get go. Suddenly for most characters you couldn't just be a C/B high school graduate (what i consider 8 int) but instead had to do 12 usually for MOST classes. That actually kinda irked me and I feel lead to min/maxing. At least in the CRPGs
@thecoffeeGod and @LadyRhian Yeah... my wife me and my sons sort all my old second edition stuff that was just used for reference. If you count all the old Dungeon Magazines, it took us nearly a week (ok, I admit that there was a lot of "HEY! This adventure was awesome!" and then stop to reminisce, but still... nice vacation week.)
I guess I like second edition because of the flexibility given to the DM. Even one of the designers of D&D Next stated that they felt that later editions of the game emasculated the DM creating a whole slew of players that were rule book lawyers. Some earlier in this thread said that in the old edition even though say Dwarven Magic-users weren't allowed, a DM was free to disregard that rule. If not, he probably had a reason not to. If he didn't have a reason not to, he probably wasn't a very good DM.
I've only played 2e and 3e, but 3e allows for flexibility and decision-making throughout character development, whereas 2e is basically just watching your character grow in levels and you never have any decisions to take. 3e goes overboard with class combinations and prestige classes but I'd rather have too much flexibility than not enough.
In which edition did they nerf the bard spell set? I think it was 3rd. The whole point of bards was versatility, and since we had a small group, a support caster who could stab something and be the designated spokesperson was a handy thing--until there was all the nonsense about "you can only cast spells that deal with sound." Logical perhaps, but it ruined my fun.
AD&D for computer games, 4th for tabletop. Honestly, if other editions had combat grids as core, I'd like them better, since I do like a lot of 3.5 more than 4e. But I can't stand "theatre of the mind," and I like to know what my abilities are and what I can do. 2e was the most fun overall if a computer is handling the abilities and grids, but it's a royal pain if not.
I had to go with 3e, I was relatively late to the DnD party so it's what I learned on. It wasn't until later when I discovered BG and tried to figure out wth THACO was.
3E/Pathfinder all the way. At heart, it is essentially 1E/2E plus options for non-combat stuff. Skills, open multiclassing, and far, far less nonsensical and forced restrictions on races and classes. I've never found any system to cater more or less to power gamers. I've seen some of the most gamist of power gamers when visiting the local 2E players. Folks who swear by X race such as elves or dwarfs because they are just better than everyone else (gnomes, halflings, and dwarfs get a +1 to all saves for every 3.5 Con for example), or can tell you the best ways to min/max 2E, which weapons are better (longswords and darts tend to rule the school), and so forth.
I like the modability of the d20 3.x/Pathfinder system. I have enjoyed experimenting with them for the past twelve years or so, and there is little you can't do with it. I'm actually getting ready to run a Baldur's Gate campaign using Pathfinder because my younger brother said it would be fun to do a tabletop BG using Pathfinder. I've written up some NPCs, and have been considering some house rules for the game. Since Pathfinder offers multiple XP progressions (fast, medium, or slow), I have considered allowing gestalting up to three classes to keep the BG feel of multiclassing (allowing normal characters to use the fast progression, 2 class gestalts to use the medium progression, and 3 class gestalts to use the slow progression). After discussing it with my brother, we will likely determine the Bhaalspawn of the story randomly.
In fact, I even modded a small file in my BG Tutu installation to allow any race to choose any class in BG Tutu. So anyone playing my BG install can play a dwarf mage or an elven paladin if they desire. More options are good.
In which edition did they nerf the bard spell set? I think it was 3rd. The whole point of bards was versatility, and since we had a small group, a support caster who could stab something and be the designated spokesperson was a handy thing--until there was all the nonsense about "you can only cast spells that deal with sound." Logical perhaps, but it ruined my fun.
I played a bard assassin in 3rd Edition and his spell selection was far more than just Sound spells. He was frightningly effective too, because of his versatility. Used Alter Self to appear the way he wanted, get hired to perform at a party, while performing, used fascinate on the people of importance and suggestion (let's step outside) on the target. Stab the target in the eye while we were alone, invisibility to get back in the party unseen or vacate the premises. Collect payment, bang prostitutes. He had a good life.
I know I'm in the minority but I don't mind 4th ed.
I've only played 2nd ed back in the early 90s and 4th ed starting last year. Never tried 3 or 3.5 and my only interaction with 3rd ed was with IWD2. I found 4th ed to be very similar with 2ed but more visual with the tiles/dungeon layout. The level progression is similar in that the focus of multi-classing has taken a backstep. When I played 2nd ed, our group stuck with single class characters.
I'm a visual person and like to see the battles play out which is why I don't mind 4th ed. I like to see what the dungeon looks like. What enemies our party is up againt. Where my party is. With 2nd ed, we didn't see that laid out. It was all in our head. Our party comes across 3 orcs? Okay, my thief will use stealth [roll check] and go around and backstab one of them. I had no idea where my party members were in the heat of battle. I just knew they were there. With 4th ed, I can see that visually.
I've actually been trying 4th for a couple of months now, and yea... it's probably my least favorite D&D incarnation, the most annoying thing is how long battles take. Granted, we're 7 players in my group + the DM, but some battles take over 3-4 hours... ughhhh...
We had that problem with long battles taking 2+ hours to do. What we found is that it wasn't the rules but certain players in our group. One player in particular wouldn't think out ahead what he was going to do when his turn came up. When his turn did come up, he would spend 5-10 minutes figuring out what to do and do it. If he couldn't pull off something due to the rules, it then becamse a rules argument with the DM.
Since that person has left, and the DM has asked players to think ahead, our combat flows faster and 95% of our battles are usually less than an hour.
I'm a visual person and like to see the battles play out which is why I don't mind 4th ed. I like to see what the dungeon looks like. What enemies our party is up againt. Where my party is. With 2nd ed, we didn't see that laid out. It was all in our head. Our party comes across 3 orcs? Okay, my thief will use stealth [roll check] and go around and backstab one of them. I had no idea where my party members were in the heat of battle. I just knew they were there. With 4th ed, I can see that visually.
How does edition have an effect on whether or not your DM uses maps? I play 3rd Ed with my group and I handmake all my maps and print them out. I'd do the same, whether I played 2nd or 4th Ed.
We had that problem with long battles taking 2+ hours to do. What we found is that it wasn't the rules but certain players in our group. One player in particular wouldn't think out ahead what he was going to do when his turn came up. When his turn did come up, he would spend 5-10 minutes figuring out what to do and do it. If he couldn't pull off something due to the rules, it then becamse a rules argument with the DM. Since that person has left, and the DM has asked players to think ahead, our combat flows faster and 95% of our battles are usually less than an hour.
Aye, my group has the same problem. It's the paladins and he starts leafing through his character sheet, looking for special abilities he might have (which he hardly does), then tries to think up things like jumping on a table, making a 180 degree turn and jumping on the enemy to get an attack bonus AND full attack. When I say no, he tries to figure out another way to break the game while everyone else is going "Just attack the freakin' cultist, you can kill him with one full attack ffs!". And even then he wants to re-calculate his attack bonus every turn. I've been using a small hourglass (30 seconds) to keep track of people's turns. You declare your action and do it, or you skip your turn. It's been pissing him off but at least we don't have hour-long battles with three cultists anymore.
3e had a terrible, terrible multiclassing system. Fighter(4) Bard(1) RDD(10) FB(5) anyone? Or the cheesy immersion-breaking combos like bard/blackguard (or paladin)
You can blame the rules but in the end it's the cheesy, immersion-breaking players >.<
Admittedly, if the temptation is there, it's sometimes hard to resist.
For a CRPG I much, much prefer the AD&D 2nd ed. ruleset that we have in the Baldur's Gate series. Hands down for me over NWN/NWN2's ed. 3.5 (which isn't horribly implemented mechanics-wise imho, I just greatly prefer combat and character creation in the BG series). I think I had a very brief go at Bard's Tale which uses the Dark Alliance engine that is based on DnD ed. 3.0. But I didn't get drawn into the game, so it has remained on the shelf all these years. Don't play tabletop.
I like them all really. I voted 2nd Ed it was pretty simple as far as class system , plus pretty brutal on your PC(meaning you could totally bonk your PC up in character creation badly if your not careful)
3.0 and 3.5 Ed , do a great job of making saving throws,spells and such easier to maintain. The class system is pretty broad , I just prefer to be a bit more simple class system.
4th Ed , is pretty much a great system for a video game , which at this point in my life I would rather play than a board game.The main thing I like is the mana system over spells per day thing.I know its going to be hard to get my friends to play a 4th Ed video game if one comes out, due most of my friends hate the rules.I think some people hate it just cause Forgotten Realms world has changed so much.
Our group of players dont even want to hear about 4E, so we keep playing 3.5. BTW, any news about 5th edition?
5th Edition is, so far, basically the worst parts of 3.5 (healing is weak, resting is encouraged, Fighters and Rogues are boring without cool supplemental feats) and 4E (monsters are sometimes wretchedly overpowered at low level; big high HP monsters with no special, dynamic powers are boring to fight) rolled into one, sprinkled with less than a handful of mechanics that are actually pretty neat.
The only thing about the playtest I've really liked so far is advantage/disadvantage, where under certain circumstances you roll twice and take the best/worst result. I've houseruled it into my 4E game, so I now have no reason to play Next at all.
AD&D for computer games, 4th for tabletop. Honestly, if other editions had combat grids as core, I'd like them better, since I do like a lot of 3.5 more than 4e. But I can't stand "theatre of the mind," and I like to know what my abilities are and what I can do. 2e was the most fun overall if a computer is handling the abilities and grids, but it's a royal pain if not.
Did you read the 3.5 books? The core rules for 3.5 totally support and encourage minis and combat grids. The combat section of the PHB contains tons of references to squares and is full of pictures of minis on grids to illustrate combat principles; the back of the DMG even has some battle grids you can tear out.
Comments
What I didn't like was how it did feel tailored more towards power gaming even from the get go. Suddenly for most characters you couldn't just be a C/B high school graduate (what i consider 8 int) but instead had to do 12 usually for MOST classes. That actually kinda irked me and I feel lead to min/maxing. At least in the CRPGs
AD&D 2nd ED is the only one that exists for me!
-old pic, but you get the idea-
I guess I like second edition because of the flexibility given to the DM. Even one of the designers of D&D Next stated that they felt that later editions of the game emasculated the DM creating a whole slew of players that were rule book lawyers. Some earlier in this thread said that in the old edition even though say Dwarven Magic-users weren't allowed, a DM was free to disregard that rule. If not, he probably had a reason not to. If he didn't have a reason not to, he probably wasn't a very good DM.
4th edition is a joke.
I don't stroll up to your gaming table and knock the dice out of your hand, broseph. You could easily have left insulting editions out of your post.
I like the modability of the d20 3.x/Pathfinder system. I have enjoyed experimenting with them for the past twelve years or so, and there is little you can't do with it. I'm actually getting ready to run a Baldur's Gate campaign using Pathfinder because my younger brother said it would be fun to do a tabletop BG using Pathfinder. I've written up some NPCs, and have been considering some house rules for the game. Since Pathfinder offers multiple XP progressions (fast, medium, or slow), I have considered allowing gestalting up to three classes to keep the BG feel of multiclassing (allowing normal characters to use the fast progression, 2 class gestalts to use the medium progression, and 3 class gestalts to use the slow progression). After discussing it with my brother, we will likely determine the Bhaalspawn of the story randomly.
In fact, I even modded a small file in my BG Tutu installation to allow any race to choose any class in BG Tutu. So anyone playing my BG install can play a dwarf mage or an elven paladin if they desire. More options are good.
Collect payment, bang prostitutes. He had a good life.
Made me rethink my opinion on bards.
I've only played 2nd ed back in the early 90s and 4th ed starting last year. Never tried 3 or 3.5 and my only interaction with 3rd ed was with IWD2. I found 4th ed to be very similar with 2ed but more visual with the tiles/dungeon layout. The level progression is similar in that the focus of multi-classing has taken a backstep. When I played 2nd ed, our group stuck with single class characters.
I'm a visual person and like to see the battles play out which is why I don't mind 4th ed. I like to see what the dungeon looks like. What enemies our party is up againt. Where my party is. With 2nd ed, we didn't see that laid out. It was all in our head. Our party comes across 3 orcs? Okay, my thief will use stealth [roll check] and go around and backstab one of them. I had no idea where my party members were in the heat of battle. I just knew they were there. With 4th ed, I can see that visually. We had that problem with long battles taking 2+ hours to do. What we found is that it wasn't the rules but certain players in our group. One player in particular wouldn't think out ahead what he was going to do when his turn came up. When his turn did come up, he would spend 5-10 minutes figuring out what to do and do it. If he couldn't pull off something due to the rules, it then becamse a rules argument with the DM.
Since that person has left, and the DM has asked players to think ahead, our combat flows faster and 95% of our battles are usually less than an hour.
With a few variations.
I've been using a small hourglass (30 seconds) to keep track of people's turns. You declare your action and do it, or you skip your turn. It's been pissing him off but at least we don't have hour-long battles with three cultists anymore.
Admittedly, if the temptation is there, it's sometimes hard to resist.
I voted 2nd Ed it was pretty simple as far as class system , plus pretty brutal on your PC(meaning you could totally bonk your PC up in character creation badly if your not careful)
3.0 and 3.5 Ed , do a great job of making saving throws,spells and such easier to maintain.
The class system is pretty broad , I just prefer to be a bit more simple class system.
4th Ed , is pretty much a great system for a video game , which at this point in my life I would rather play than a board game.The main thing I like is the mana system over spells per day thing.I know its going to be hard to get my friends to play a 4th Ed video game if one comes out, due most of my friends hate the rules.I think some people hate it just cause Forgotten Realms world has changed so much.
The only thing about the playtest I've really liked so far is advantage/disadvantage, where under certain circumstances you roll twice and take the best/worst result. I've houseruled it into my 4E game, so I now have no reason to play Next at all.