Skip to content

Which D&D system do you prefer?

124»

Comments

  • neokarnyneokarny Member Posts: 39
    2nd edition, baby! Actually played 3rd first, got into 3.5 for a long time, and then finally tried 2nd. Completely hooked ever since.
  • ARKdeEREHARKdeEREH Member Posts: 531
    I think the only two I've actually used before are 2nd and 3rd, but I much preferred 2nd.

    Even if the other too are really good, I'd ideally want Baldur's Gate's rules to stay the same. Otherwise it wouldn't feel much like Baldur's Gate.
  • KurumiKurumi Member Posts: 520

    Pathfinder. 2nd ed is too restrictive, 4th is crap, and Pathfinder improves on 3.5 which improves on 3.

    This!
  • GygaxianProseGygaxianProse Member Posts: 201
    2E.

    The PF sessions Ive played in were very poorly GMd, so I have a bad impression. It turned combats into chess, I absolutely hated the squares, feats, aoo. Totally destroyed what used to be fun, brisk, even exciting combat in 1e and 2e. It wasn't just me, though, the whole table was bored to tears playing PF, except the munchkin who was all into his build.

  • PlasticGolemPlasticGolem Member Posts: 98
    There is a big difference between 2E and later. 3rd edition is a superheroes game that focuses on fighting. It is a cleaner set of rules that maps well to computer games, but it has nothing in common with 2nd edition and earlier apart from a name, some generic mechanics and some window dressing.

    Second Edition is a heroic without being a superheroes game. Characters are resilient, but still mortal. It also has a broader focus than combat, and requires a lot more human (DM) adjudication to run. It also has more built-in character, and classes and races are distinctive over and above what special powers they provide. Because of its more open ruleset and greater focus on creative problem-solving, it is less well-suited to computer games, but I think it is more fun as a PnP game.

    Original Advanced D&D is much more of a low fantasy game. Characters tend towards the venal rather than heroic, and quests are personal (survival, fame, fortune and aventure) as opposed to epic (save the princess/civilization/world) as are the rewards. Characters are fragile and die easily, so the focus is on the party and its ever-changing membership rather than individual heroes. It is designed to make combat the least desirable option: fighting carries the highest risk and nets the least reward; getting the treasure with guile gives you 80% of the wealth and experience at a fraction of the risk. It is also the least structured and requires a human DM to make all kinds of judgments. It is a bad system for computer games but I think it can be the most fun as PnP.

    I have never tried 4E, but I've heard it is basically like playing a computer game except that you have to do all of the math and bookkeeping yourself instead of letting a machine do it. Doesn't sound very attractive.
    GygaxianProse
  • LadyEibhilinRhettLadyEibhilinRhett Member Posts: 1,078
    Personal preference, 3.5e, but that's because it's the one I have the most experienced with. AD&D 2e is pretty great too. I have fond memories of the original D&D because my cousin had all the old original D&D stuff in the basement at my aunt's house, and he introduced me to it. 4e is just rubbish.
    ...Okay, so maybe it's not rubbish. I did play an adventure in 4e once. It was actually very enjoyable, and I liked it, but...it just wasn't D&D.
  • MechaliburMechalibur Member Posts: 265
    I have to go with 3rd edition.

    My problem with AD&D is that the character customization is so much more limited. The inclusion of kits later on was pretty cool, but skill points and feats are what really sold me for third.

    I still really love Baldur's Gate, though, because about party customization, which I can get in to. Well, also because of the awesome character and storyline, but that's not something unique to any game system.
  • JRRJRR Member Posts: 21
    1st edition. D&D has gone downhill ever since.
    Wandering_Minstrel
  • PlasticGolemPlasticGolem Member Posts: 98


    My problem with AD&D is that the character customization is so much more limited. The inclusion of kits later on was pretty cool, but skill points and feats are what really sold me for third.

    That's not quite true: AD&D has a fairly minimalist set of formal mechanics and character classes define broad archetypes. There is little to mechanically differentiate, for example, one fighter from another, but players are encouraged and expected to develop the game beyond the core mechanics, which leaves tremendous room for customization and individualization of characters. 3E gives a lot more scope for customization within the formal rules, but offers less leeway to go outside of those rules. In 3E, the rules are more or less intended to be comprehensive. In AD&D, the rules are intended as a starting point for you to develop your own system and style of play.

    If you play 1E as though it were 3E, or vice versa, you are going to have a sub-optimal gaming experience.
    AndreaColombo
  • ryuken87ryuken87 Member Posts: 563
    Having only experienced DnD through video games, I used to think 3E was so crap compared to 2E, but then I realised that was just because the NWN campaign sucked.

    Recently I've been having a lot of fun with IWD2 and I've found it to be a lot more balanced and fun. A vanilla fighter is much more worthwhile and thanks to skills and feats, allowing every character in the party can pull their weight in their own way. Due to the vastly imrproved multiclassing system, there is a lot more room for experimenting meaning every character is more unique.

    I mean in BG2 for example, Korgan is going to play like Korgan more or less every single time. You put an axe in the main hand, spend proficiencies on dual wielding/hammer/short sword or scimitar, then tell him to whack something over the head.
  • MechaliburMechalibur Member Posts: 265


    My problem with AD&D is that the character customization is so much more limited. The inclusion of kits later on was pretty cool, but skill points and feats are what really sold me for third.

    That's not quite true: AD&D has a fairly minimalist set of formal mechanics and character classes define broad archetypes. There is little to mechanically differentiate, for example, one fighter from another, but players are encouraged and expected to develop the game beyond the core mechanics, which leaves tremendous room for customization and individualization of characters. 3E gives a lot more scope for customization within the formal rules, but offers less leeway to go outside of those rules. In 3E, the rules are more or less intended to be comprehensive. In AD&D, the rules are intended as a starting point for you to develop your own system and style of play.

    If you play 1E as though it were 3E, or vice versa, you are going to have a sub-optimal gaming experience.
    I'm well aware, I just prefer systems that *are* intended to be comprehensive. Otherwise, I'll just make up my own system, which I have done in the past. That's just my preference, and I certainly don't see anything wrong with people who prefer AD&D, but when it comes to what your character can do within the ruleset, you just have more gameplay options in 3rd edition, while still being able to customize your character's personality and development.
  • dieterderblaudieterderblau Member Posts: 8
    Me, I'm seriously offended that first edition isn't even considered. In my house, we break out the old first ed books to play D&D. Second Edition was just a money maker for everyone who'd dissed E. Gary Gygax, and everything that's come out since has just been all about the money. Thanks, no thanks. I'll play the game that was good enough to spawn an entire gaming genre.
    Wandering_Minstrel
  • AkerhonAkerhon Member, Translator (NDA) Posts: 614
    Sorry ... xD
    I think that the first edition would not even be considered for a new Baldur's Gate III, more than anything else i was interested to have a general opinion in this regard.
  • Raistlin82Raistlin82 Member Posts: 256
    edited November 2012
    I've played 2nd, 3.0, 3.5 and 4E.
    Always as a DM.

    4E is:
    a) the most balanced;
    b) the easiest to DM;
    c) the one "less ruined" (none of them is untouched, sadly) by additional support material;
    d) the most underrated.

    And it's just as fun as the others (actually much more fun than 2nd).

    PS: I playtested D&D Next... so far it looks terrible.
    Oxford_Guy
  • GygaxianProseGygaxianProse Member Posts: 201

    Me, I'm seriously offended that first edition isn't even considered. In my house, we break out the old first ed books to play D&D. Second Edition was just a money maker for everyone who'd dissed E. Gary Gygax, and everything that's come out since has just been all about the money. Thanks, no thanks. I'll play the game that was good enough to spawn an entire gaming genre.

    I'm not seriously offended, but don't know what the OP was thinking in disregarding both OD&D ( or "basic") and AD&D 1E. 1st edition, and the Mentzer red box, nearly made D&D mainstream.
    It's like asking which Star Wars film is your favorite, and only listing the prequels as choices. WTF, over?



    Wandering_Minstrel
  • Eldoth_KronEldoth_Kron Member Posts: 18
    AD&D 2nd Edition, fond childhood memories. Haven't tried 3rd edition other than in NWN.
  • RheiosRheios Member Posts: 22
    edited November 2012
    I said 3rd for 3.5. It seemed to be just an extension of 2nd edition to me, with its parts cleaned up and more choices added. For multiclassing in 3.5 though it does seem like they tried to hack together dual-classing and multiclassing and didn't fully perfect the system. Although personally, I would have liked 3.5 multiclassing and something closer to a gestalt option with an LA for leveling for 3.0. That could have been a cool progression.

    A Note: I'm interested in NEXT, but too cautious about it to pledge to it. Especially since my friends have as much told me: No, we won't be getting Next, its another money sink we don't need.
  • bigdogchrisbigdogchris Member Posts: 1,336
    edited November 2012
    I like a lot of what 3rd Edition did to simplify the game, but I don't like ARAC (All Races can be All Classes). I think some races/cultures should remain different, meaning they would not pursue every class.
    Post edited by bigdogchris on
    Wandering_Minstrel
  • HeinrichHeinrich Member Posts: 188
    I have never actually played a DnD game other than Baldur's Gate but from researching, I'd lean to 3rd Edition with a flaw that irks me. I'd like to be able to use multiple classes and skills as it makes the game more roleplayable and make it possible to go solo.

    The thing that irks me is that compared to the 2nd Edition is the ability score range. In 2nd Edition, it was humanly possible to be in 3-18 range and anything exceeding was superhuman or even God-like and I found that to be an excellent system in my own opinion. The non-fixed ability score range in 3rd Edition made it harder for me to take them seriously. However, the bonuses being spread out evenly is a major plus for it.

    Long story short: 3rd Edition with the ability score range being 3-18 like in 2nd Edition.
  • eltonbarreleltonbarrel Member Posts: 262
    all life. simple, fast, tons of manuals. a good thing to help childs who choose to play d&d.
  • leeho730leeho730 Member Posts: 285
    3.5
Sign In or Register to comment.