I only played the original edition & 2nd Edition. But, I've read 3.5 and I think I would have really enjoyed it. First, I had always wanted to play a gnome paladin, but previous editions wouldn't allow it. Also, looking through 3.5, I would like to play a gnome swashbuckler and then move into a blade bravo prestige class.
Started with AD&D 2nd edition, became a great fan of 3.5 and later Pathfinder. Out of curiosity I checked out the D&D Next playtest and I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised by the material so far.
3.x/Pathfinder supports minis and combat grids, but also details everything in terms of distance. I've happily ran entire campaigns without so much as a single grid or miniature, often just scribbling on a piece of notebook paper as the party explores. In fact, for about 8 years, this was entirely the norm, and then a friend of ours bought a dry-erase grid and wanted to play with it for a while.
2nd edition all the way!! I loved the character creation in Bg1-2. Rolling for your stats. Then i played neverwinter nights 1-2 and icewind dale 2 and as much as i enjoyed playing icewind dale 2 i didnt like the way it handed out a set amount of points to allocate. It killed the character creation for me a little lol Thats just my opinion though
I have a special place in my heat for second edition. For a very long time it was synonymous with a RPG to me. There are time I even regret I tried to play other editions
I love both AD&D second edition and D&D third, especially 3.5. But my vote ultimately landed on D&D third edition simply because all the fun nights me and my friends have had with it. I miss those nights.
Second seems more sensible to me... Yes BG used it, but I played a lot of NWN that used Third... Third was more about different paths of character creation for me. Second allowed a more linear straightforward leveling up of a character... You just leveled and went on... With Third you had to mess about... Two many choices. I understand that some people would want the choice, but everyone went the power gamer route and instead of having the variety everyone wanted you had lots of 38 mage / 2 rogue running about. Yes they went to adding lots of other classes like Arcane Archer etc but this just routed players into looking for more powerful combinations.
I voted 2nd addition for two reasons: You can't properly multi-class in 3rd edition, where you wind up at high level being powerful in both classes. To do efficient character building in multi-classes with 3rd edition, you really have to concentrate on one class and just "splash" the others, because spreading yourself too thin will seriously gimp your abilities when you get to epic level adventures. So, I like 2nd edition because I prefer its handling of multi-class characters.
The other reason is because 2nd edition AD&D rules are what I grew up with, playing tabletop with friends when I was in high school and college.
2nd Edition rocks. We used to play old-school 1st Edition in college. I do think kits and specialty priests tend to get ridiculous and out of hand. Some of the "Complete Book of Races" stuff is also a bit OP... additionally I miss the Monk and Cavalier classes from 1st Ed, and the Paladin and Ranger are unfortunately nerfed a bit *too* much. Still, comparing it to 3rd edition... I like more bare-bone systems because they support making your character unique by role-playing rather by having 26 different abilities and being a weird race and dual-wielding great swords. Get outta here with that stuff!
3E has the advantage of introducing feats, which makes fighter characters more interesting. It also removed many of the arbitrary class/race restrictions.
But the horrible, horrible multi-classing system always turned me off it. You just shouldn't be able to take one level of a random, seemingly unrelated class just for some bonus.
I voted 3rd edition but I'm currently running a Pathfinder game for the first time and it's a ton of fun. I really like the Golarion campaign setting. Plus 3.5 is just too bogged down with a million splatbooks that aren't very balanced, and it encourages stupid builds so you have to have at least three different classes to pull your weight. In Pathfinder they mechanically incentivize just sticking to one class (or maybe one class + one PrC). I like 2e too but it's hard to find anyone to play it. I've heard conflicting things about 5e so I'm just going to wait until I have a chance to try it out to pass judgement. Hopefully they won't screw it up like they did 4e.
AD&D second edition. Mainly for nostalgic reasons as it's been over a decade that I had the change of playing it. 3.5 is very well done as long as you dump all the prestige classes. Haven't tried 4th edition and propably never will.
Me and bunch of friends mainly play 3.5 but i have played 2nd and i certainly prefer it to 3rd, as my friend put it 2nd AD&D is better for roleplaying and 3.5 is more focused on the gameplay (fighting etc) he has no opinion on 4th though.
If trying to handle a big party, like in Baldur's Gate, I prefer the relatively simplicity of 2.5 Edition AD&D, 3.5 is just too complicated. It was okay in NWN (1), though, but you only controlling at most a few characters
I believe one of the reasons people have so many fond memories of 2nd Ed is that is was easy to make the rules system take a backseat to story / roleplaying / immersion. With more recent games, there are so many ways to express your character's individuality within the rules system that the rules begin to speak for your character.
I made a sorcerer class for 2nd Ed done the way that sorcerers SHOULD work, not just the "more different wizards" that WotC made them out to be. If someone can suggest a good site where I can upload a document without signing up for an account, I'll let you guys have what I've got.
I liked the way you could play AD&D 2nd ed entirely in your head; you needed no positioning, no minis, no anything. It's a story you can weave with your friends. I liked the way 4th ed encouraged everyone to be useful, and to work together, and the kind of tactical boardgame/strategy feel it brought. 3rd ed always felt like a dream for obsessive-compulsives and min-maxers and a bloated pain for everyone else.
But the magic of paper is that those who like their edition can still go out and play it, provided they can find someone who agrees.
So far, 4th, for the streamlining. Our group is very roleplaying-strong, so we don't get concerned about weak roleplay... I've always thought that was the responsibility of the DM and players.
Comments
Btw nice peanuts. Always a necessity.
That's actually my Can-o-Dice!
2e. Restrictive but best.
The other reason is because 2nd edition AD&D rules are what I grew up with, playing tabletop with friends when I was in high school and college.
But the horrible, horrible multi-classing system always turned me off it. You just shouldn't be able to take one level of a random, seemingly unrelated class just for some bonus.
I made a sorcerer class for 2nd Ed done the way that sorcerers SHOULD work, not just the "more different wizards" that WotC made them out to be. If someone can suggest a good site where I can upload a document without signing up for an account, I'll let you guys have what I've got.
But the magic of paper is that those who like their edition can still go out and play it, provided they can find someone who agrees.