Which edition is your preference?

I've never played pnp 1e, 2e I found quite awkward and restrictive (I like making unusual characters as 'normal') plus the only time I played the DM was made of fail

3.5e is simple enough to play relatively quickly and is simple to learn. I have grown fond of it over the years myself I probably should attribute this to both Lokken and my friend Rich from uni who were my first 3e DMs

4e... I am not sure on at all. I have read through some of the books briefly (Only had five minutes to read the whole thing ) And wasn't captured. Something about it feels... unneccessarily dumbed down, in some places it feels like the developers didn't really understand 3e and tried to remake it.

 

2e mostly with some 3.5 thrown in, not to sure about 4e.

 

I'm already on the 4e bandwagon. I really hope that I get a chance to play soon...

 

2ed with the skill-system of 3.5ed, and some other tweaks. Mostly though, we have been playing star wars, and the conan rpg by mongoose. Both are better than d&d, really. Makes more sense, here and there.

 

I love 2E, but I find 3.5E to be better balanced, especially because of the skills. It's something I always felt 2E lacked, so while my favourite CRPGs are all 2E I'd much rather play 3.5E when it comes to pen and paper.

 

3.5e. The rules are simple, and fairly unconfining.

However, I prefer 2e as far as lore goes.

 

2nd edition definitively was my fav, but 3/3.5 is far more flexible.

 

3.5 for now, probably the Pathfinder version later. The Beta looks promising, but is unfinished.

2e has too many restrictions for my taste, and 4e too many non-sensical rules.

 

2e, i just love it, its easy to add rules to and its easy to play, its also quick in combat, i feel there is more emphasis on the role play than the combat, also you dont need minis to play it effectively.

 

Does it matter really?

To me it wouldn't matter as long as I am having fun.

I like the old 2E rules because I am more familiar with them and it seems to me there are way too many race and class combinations with the newer eiditions. In fact, I don't mind an old school D&D session when a Dwarf, Elf or Halfing is considered your class.

 

3.0e, mainly because I'm too cheap to buy 3.5e books and too entrenched to spring for 4e.

2e can be fun too, though.

 

i used to be die-hard 2e

but 3e is growing on me i'm afraid..

 

Right now? Other.

I was told to check Paizo's beta version of Pathfinder (the PHB can be downloaded for free), which uses modified 3.5 rules (the system is jokingly called 3.75 Edition) and I must say I am quite impressed. The base classes have been rebalanced so PrCs are no longer all but necessary, and some of the weaker ones have received a decent - and much-needed, imo - boost. Some of the bigger offenders like Polymorph have been limited, as well. With a few choice houserules, Pathfinder is imo the best D&D at the moment, and I'm waiting for the full release with no lack of anticipation.

 

I've been pleasantly impressed by how streamlined and...well, "reasonable" the new 4th edition rules are. Maybe it comes from playing too much NWN, with its 5-second rests, but the idea of at-will vs. encounter powers is the kind of all-too-obvious refinement that shouldn't have taken four editions to implement. I've only played one PnP game so far (with another coming up soon) and so far I like it much better than its predecessor.

 

until more 4E sourcebooks are out, I prefer 3.5E. I really like the way multiclassing works in 3.5E, but I actually like the 4E approache to useble skills unlimited, once pr. encounter and once a day, I think it makes the none magic classes more fun in combat.

As for actual roleplaying, the system doesn't matter to me, but for the combat part and class building, I would prefer a hybrid of 3.5 and 4E

 

3.5 for now. may have a go at pathfinder though.

 

I said 2nd then... but now? 4th edition. It's so simple (make your obvious "YEAH, too simple!" statement faceless foe ).
Someone on YouTube said that the bad downside of 4e seems to be that every character you roll in the same class is the -exact- same guy. That I have to agree with. And that there's no way to justify all the Tieflings (where's the Asimar?) and Dragonborn (migrated Draconians). But other than that it's excellent.

3rd edition? Nah, way too complicated and handmade for munchkin players.

 

I think the FR campaign book (either the campaign setting or the campaign guide, I don't remember which one atm) mentioned them when talking about Mulhorand. I think they are called Deva in this edition.

Personally, I'm ambivalent towards the 4E ruleset, but I consider the 4E FR atrocious. Well, not so much atrocious in itself... but it simply seems like an altogether different setting, not the one I learned about from books and games and respect and enjoy.

 

Its just Diablo 2 mixed with WoW now. Its not d&d at all. Just has the logo on it.