POLL: Favorite D&D version

Remove all ads!

While I'm highly opposed to actually playing D&D these days - I'd still go for 2E, because I'm the most familiar with it. Whether it or 3/3.5 do the job better - I don't really know or especially care.

And though I know almost nothing about it - I'm under the impression that 1E does a good job at the 'kill **** and take their stuff' thing - with minimal waffle. Maybe I'll buy that copy of the 1E PHB that I saw floating around a second hand shop one day to see whether my guess there is right

2E is certainly the best if you want to draw on source material - 3.5 seems to have stabbed most of the other campaign settings (poor Planescape - it's a brilliant setting...).

 

Ok understanding Tal's point I'll just plumb for AD&D as the best my friends and I still play PnP of this but we play it as it should be played, the rules are only guidelines not set in stone; we do have strange things in our games. For instance any god can have a Holy Champion of their alignment, thus paladins aren't restricted to LG, you have to modify some things but it can work (especally if you're neutral and have both prot. from evil and prot. from good as standard features). We have multi-class humans, great dwarven weaponsmiths can cast some enchantments but are usually shunned by other dwarves, we even converted the chuch knights from David Eddings Elenium and Tamuli books into a class for a campaign.

That's the best about the original AD&D I think was that you weren't limited to what the book said but they gave you a firm foundation for the game to be built on; I think the wierdest we ever played was when we all played an aspect of Moorcock's eternal champion, we drew lots for the characters since we all wanted to play Elric and I was lucky enough to be Corum of the Silver Hand. We almost destroyed the world we were meant to save before it ended.

 

This aplies as much to any other ruleset as AD&D really. Unfortunatelly people seem to take anything 3E as set in stone, this anoys me especially about prestige classes (says in DM, Prestige classes lsited are EXAMPLES to make your own Prestige Classes from!). Heck i have altered 3E back and forth so many times now i cant stand play with the core rules if i DM anylonger. Stuff like removing the entire class system etc.

2E has more background material, and a good amount of very interesting Settings (Hail Planescape!), and i still collect and dig up 2E books to find information, especially background stuff. But pure rule mechanics i prefer 3E without a doubt.

Powerplaying is only as far as DM allows it, same as any other system. And from my experience there is actually less powerplaying in 3E than 2E, might be becose all those old powerplayers are the same that refuse to change to the new system

One of my atempts at breaking down the game was making 3E into a psedo 2E ruleset. i removed everything that was not in the 2E ruleset (skills extra hitpoints, modified savingthrows and to hit rolls, changed feats system into a weapon proficiencies system etc) and its still the exact same game at the core. they just made all the dices go the same direction (YAY! my original reason for converting! i hated those thac0 numbers and armor classes in 2E).

Question: you people consider AD&D 2E with, or without extra books ? Basically without the players options books, heh its useless. Everyone i have ever talked to that still palys 2E uses player option books, and consider the game dull without. Funy enough, most of the new things 3E implemented are things based of players options books.

yeah, rant mode off.

 

World of Greyhawk rules. I still have my charts. That would be AD&D edition for those who don't know.

AD&D actually had a few modifications before 2nd edition came out. The original just used the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual and DM's Guide. The game was expanded by Deities and Demigods (gave higher level advancement for characters with godlike abilities and other cool bonuses), Unearthed Arcana (which brought in new classes like barbarian and cavalier), and Oriental Adventures (introduced Kara-Tur and classes like the samuri and ninja).

Forgotten Realms and 2nd Edition were launched to remove Gygax's influence from the game (although he was gotten rid of a couple years before). Cheap knockoffs of the original stuff.

Although management got rid of Gygax in ~1985, they really couldn't get rid of his influence. Even in Amn the greatest prize is the Ring of Gaxx.

 

3.5e all the way. I am familiar with the other versions only through the various CRPGs since 'Pool of Radiance' and found them overly restrictive. Someone mentioned the class restrictions and level caps. They make simply no sense to me.

The best thing about 3rd edition is multiclassing. If I want a fighter with a roguiesh bend, I add a few rogue levels. In 2nd ed. you had kits (or multiclassed demihumans), but you were stuck if you took one.
Or you could forgo the class and learn another as a human, which was dumb, since you don't lose any abilities you learned if you change profession.

Fluffwise, TSR was better than Wizards will ever be. But Wizards rules are superior by far.

[ January 27, 2006, 01:37: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

 

Before playing IWD2 and NWN, I was a diehard fan of 2nd ed. I disliked 3rd edition at first, but as soon as I got used to it, I found it SO much better than the 2nd one. Haven't tried 3.5 yet, I heard there's not much changes in that one.

 

Although I grew up with 2e my fav is 3e cause it has no ridiculius limitations

 

Well, I have to say, I impressed by what I have seen here, I mean I thought most people would it like the "old school" Editions, but on the poll I have 56% going to 3.5 ED for favorite with 22% for 3ED following behind. Ok, now is only 18 people total that had voted and I know that some people that had reply and put there input in this topic, but have not voted (I think I made the post wrong, sorry ), but anyway I?m still amazed by it.

I also have to thank all for the great input put in this topic.

Now I have another question, between the different editions, I been looking on oriental settings, and so I want to know what do you people think about it .Again from classes (like Samurai which I love) to books, history, background...you know the works!

 

Seriously, your party would have been toast! Sure, you've got your rope, lantern, and pole, but what about the tinderbox, man? What about the hammer and 12 iron spikes?

 

Bion, you're right!

And there was something even more crucial than those things: rations! You had to carry your own food.

 

I'm a big fan of 3 and 3.5e. Like most of the other folks here I grew up with (pre) 2e. The thing I think a lot of folks forget is that in 2e everything was a straight jacket. Class, kit, alignment......all of it. An elf, who can live for over 1,000 years is simply not able to become as powerful as a human can. A human will always be a better fighter than a dwarf since he has no level limits and the dwarf does. I think 3e was created for the same reason 2e was created. The prior edition was limiting and the new one was more realistic. Face it folks, 2e had a lot of absurd rules and limitations. Most folks I knew house-ruled them out, but it doesn't change that fact. Stats were static. Progression was static. Many of the limitations imposed by the system were arbitrary. The only thing that 2e has on 3e is that it is easier to understand.

 

All of these rulesets are a balance between playability and flexibility. The original rules were extremely easy to play in PnP because they were so simple. Personally, I can't see how anyone can possibly keep track of everything in 3e in PnP, but I think 3e works really well on computers which can easily keep track of spell resistance, Tumble points, reflex saves, elemental resistances, favoured enemies etc which allow you to have such flexible character options.

 

Okay, I'm getting sick of this 2e bashing.

*Buzz* Wrong. From the DMG, pp.22-23:

But of course, it's always simpler to just throw out the rules you don't like rather than seek a compromise. I usually went with single-triple, and noone ever complained in the slightest. Most characters never make it that high anyways, and I only ever had to apply the rule a couple times. 3e and 3.5e, OTOH, are extremely geared toward uber-characters, so I can see how level limits would have no place there.

Yes, rules can be very limiting, can't they? I wouldn't call 3e or 3.5e more realistic so much as more PC.

And 3e and 3.5e have just as many. Your point?

Wrong again. There are many stat-increasing magical items.

Progression is static. Or is 3.5e progression completely arbitrary? I imagine that'd piss a lot of people off. 2e did it with XP matching the difficulty of the monster and increasing amounts needed for new levels, and 3e does it with Challenge Ratings, which are simply the two parts combined.

As arbitrary as having no limitations at all?

Now don't get me wrong, 3e and 3.5e have a few things that make a slight bit more sense (universal multi-classing, for one), but it's still a step down.

 

When playing CRPGs, the most interesting parts of the game are character generation and levelling up. Because 3e provides more flexibility and interest in these areas, I prefer them to 2e, even though I agree there may be some other silliness in the rules.

 

when Drew said that progression and stats are static I think he was referencing that in 3rd you can upgrade a stat every 4 levels and you can choose what class to improve where as in 2nd you started as a ranger and you end as a ranger (exempting dual class of course).

By the way most people I play with think that 3rd-3.5 is easier as they didnt have to deal with THAC0 which is funny because I thought it was easy but oh well.

 

I think one of the problems is that 2e was written for human beings and 3/3.5 for computers. Yes, I am aware of the fact that human beings play the computer games.

But in p&p you were involved directly and immediately with other people. You had a DM who hopefully knew enough and was flexible enough to challenge the players.

I love the crpg games I have played. Wouldn't be a supporter of SP if I didn't but I learned 2e at a much younger age than I am now. Guess it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Not impossible just hard.

 

I've started lifting weights recently. I've gotten stronger. In 2e this concept doesn't exist. The other folks who posted above me did a good job clarifying my other points. I'm not going to reitterate them myself. Suffice it to say, they got my intended meaning pretty much pegged.

Some of the other things I hated from 2e was the fact that backstab can't be done at range, izards were far too overpowered, ranged combat is pretty weak unless you happened to be an elven archer, two weapon fighting was far more effective than wielding a single blade, (Any experienced swordsman will gladly let you know that it isn't, or at least not for single combat) heavily armored warriors were just as agile as unarmored warriors, only warriors got the benefit of high constitution, and the only person that had half a prayer against a psionicist in battle was another psionicist.

[ January 27, 2006, 07:13: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Felinoid: what exactly in your gaming experience with 3E or 3.5E was so bad?

 

I am a fan of 3rd edition. Every character is unique, and the flexibility can make for good RPing. Being a rogue, the new sneak attack abilities (sneaking with ranged, being able to flank, not having to be hidden, etc.) were a godsend. The multiclassing is incredibly flexible, the opposed skill checks are realistic. IMO nearly every character class in 2e was a carbon copy of the next.

Yeah Fel, what in your gaming experience DOES make 3rd edition so bad?

 

classes were not balanced in 2nd and that lead to the incredibly long list of different xp lists. Further multiclassing while fun and usefull (I always multiclassed) was extremely complicated when you had a high con score. Do you add the con bonus before or after the initial roll, if you are part fighter do you get the better con for both classes or just for the fighter? In BG they only give fighter con to just the fighter levels but in PnP your body is that healthy and you are a warrior why does it magically disapear when you add your level of thief?

To 2nds credit it was a lot of fun and there was a LOT less powergaming in the table top version.