Favorite D&D Edition
Original DnD
0.9% (1)
0.9% (1)
Advanded DnD (1e)
0.9% (1)
0.9% (1)
2nd Edition (AD&D2e)
9.3% (10)
9.3% (10)
3rd Edition (Original)
2.8% (3)
2.8% (3)
3.5 Edition/Pathfinder
33.3% (36)
33.3% (36)
4th Edition
5.6% (6)
5.6% (6)
5th Edition
39.8% (43)
39.8% (43)
This Poll does not have my answer
7.4% (8)
7.4% (8)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Let's Talk about D&D!

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Cause I wanna, you wanna, so lets.

I dont care what, just talk about DnD. I have been extra into DnD lately where I am super eager for it to be Wednesday since that is currently my group's DnD day. Though DnD day changes often. It has been Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Sunday. I dont think it has ever been Saturday though. Huh.

Edit: So, I always put "Poll doesnt have my answer" in polls I make just incase, and cause I hate joke answers that drain actual votes, but I thought I was pretty thorough so I am curious what people intend when the pick it here. Is it "I dont like any edition"? Cause well...why are you here? If not, then I would be curious for elaboration.

I am also looking forward to November's new book which I believe is going to mainly be full of stuff they have refined from all the Unearthed Arcana.

I am looking forward to the Racial Feats, cause it lets Dragonborn have wings. The blurb on the site doesnt mention new races or classes, but I am hoping they have some, likely Mystic and Artificer.

rock falls everyone dies

FUCK D&D, PLAY GURPS!

But real talk though, I'm digging 5e.

Had to vote 2e because I've never actually gotten to play games of 4 or 5 e.

My friend group tended to go the Pathfinder route, which I hate with a burning passion.

undeadsuitor:
rock falls everyone dies

Nuh uh, dex saves.

altnameJag:
Had to vote 2e because I've never actually gotten to play games of 4 or 5 e.

My friend group tended to go the Pathfinder route, which I hate with a burning passion.

Ive played 3.5 and 5th. I do want to play 4th atleast once just to justify hating it. Ive looked through it, but never actually played it.

I also want to play the old editions to say I did, and because with how Wed DM talk about it, seems alot more deadly and I am curious to try that.

I really like 5e though cause it streamlines alot without restricting complexity.

Saelune:

altnameJag:
Had to vote 2e because I've never actually gotten to play games of 4 or 5 e.

My friend group tended to go the Pathfinder route, which I hate with a burning passion.

Ive played 3.5 and 5th. I do want to play 4th atleast once just to justify hating it. Ive looked through it, but never actually played it.

I also want to play the old editions to say I did, and because with how Wed DM talk about it, seems alot more deadly and I am curious to try that.

I really like 5e though cause it streamlines alot without restricting complexity.

D&D is in a weird position because it's 6 completely different games with different underlying assumptions about what kind of game it is, all bundled together under one brand. 4e's greatest "sin", at least in the eyes of the edition warriors, was flattening the mechanical complexity. Or in other words, fighter types got more complex, and magic types got less complex. That also flattened out the power curve, and a lot of people tend to believe whole heartedly in caster supremacy.

Of course, a lot of the failiure point in the next editions of D&D were from trying to appease the old grognards. A lot of the save-or-die/take massive damage spells in 3rd came from 2nd, but while 2nd had some of the same problems in that regard they weren't as pronounced. Why? In 2nd edition, the Fighter had the best saving throws, bar none. You just couldn't count on that Command or Hold Person to land on a Fighter, and there wasn't a feat chain you could take to make that easier. Also, monsters tended to have higher saves, fewer HP, and did less raw damage, making fighters generally more useful than they ended up being in 3rd.

Go back further, and in the original D&D, 4th level fighters were described as "superheroes" under the quasi-wargaming combat rules they had, able to effectively challage entire squads of troops with little risk. 'Course, fighting monsters was always a tricky proposition, but you got XP from loot, not killing. Dungeon Crawls were heists instead of action set pieces.

3rd edition, in a lot of ways, went the Sim Dungeon route, where everything about the guys who could rip holes in reality was so very realistic. I actually have a lot of disdain for this system due to, well, making everybody who didn't have magic conform to some sort of low-magic "realistic" hell, and they're expected to partner up with said realty-hole-rippers and everybody pretends that's a thing that makes sense. Also, there's a billion and a half feats and a billion and a quarter of them are useless.

4e works on the assumption that your party is a group of heroes with a penchant for getting into action set piece battles and are the folks who call out the names of their attacks. Sword slinging is as exactly as mechanically engaging, complex, and powerful as casting spells. That's not to say their aren't problems, but the problems are all math related. Hell, it was finely tuned enough that, if you followed the rules regarding encounter creation, the GM could be actively adversarial towards the players and everything would shake out fine.

Also, it feels like a cross between Final Fantasy Tactics and the (as yet unrealeased) Overwatch as far as it's roles go, so that's pretty fantastic. If you end up in a game of it, I recommend cutting the monster HP in half. Bloated HP totally made the combat feel grindy after the first half dozen rounds.

EDIT: I recommend this guy for talk about D&D in particular and rpg's in general. Tumblr link.

altnameJag:

Saelune:

altnameJag:
Had to vote 2e because I've never actually gotten to play games of 4 or 5 e.

My friend group tended to go the Pathfinder route, which I hate with a burning passion.

Ive played 3.5 and 5th. I do want to play 4th atleast once just to justify hating it. Ive looked through it, but never actually played it.

I also want to play the old editions to say I did, and because with how Wed DM talk about it, seems alot more deadly and I am curious to try that.

I really like 5e though cause it streamlines alot without restricting complexity.

D&D is in a weird position because it's 6 completely different games with different underlying assumptions about what kind of game it is, all bundled together under one brand. 4e's greatest "sin", at least in the eyes of the edition warriors, was flattening the mechanical complexity. Or in other words, fighter types got more complex, and magic types got less complex. That also flattened out the power curve, and a lot of people tend to believe whole heartedly in caster supremacy.

Of course, a lot of the failiure point in the next editions of D&D were from trying to appease the old grognards. A lot of the save-or-die/take massive damage spells in 3rd came from 2nd, but while 2nd had some of the same problems in that regard they weren't as pronounced. Why? In 2nd edition, the Fighter had the best saving throws, bar none. You just couldn't count on that Command or Hold Person to land on a Fighter, and there wasn't a feat chain you could take to make that easier. Also, monsters tended to have higher saves, fewer HP, and did less raw damage, making fighters generally more useful than they ended up being in 3rd.

Go back further, and in the original D&D, 4th level fighters were described as "superheroes" under the quasi-wargaming combat rules they had, able to effectively challage entire squads of troops with little risk. 'Course, fighting monsters was always a tricky proposition, but you got XP from loot, not killing. Dungeon Crawls were heists instead of action set pieces.

3rd edition, in a lot of ways, went the Sim Dungeon route, where everything about the guys who could rip holes in reality was so very realistic. I actually have a lot of disdain for this system due to, well, making everybody who didn't have magic conform to some sort of low-magic "realistic" hell, and they're expected to partner up with said realty-hole-rippers and everybody pretends that's a thing that makes sense. Also, there's a billion and a half feats and a billion and a quarter of them are useless.

4e works on the assumption that your party is a group of heroes with a penchant for getting into action set piece battles and are the folks who call out the names of their attacks. Sword slinging is as exactly as mechanically engaging, complex, and powerful as casting spells. That's not to say their aren't problems, but the problems are all math related. Hell, it was finely tuned enough that, if you followed the rules regarding encounter creation, the GM could be actively adversarial towards the players and everything would shake out fine.

Also, it feels like a cross between Final Fantasy Tactics and the (as yet unrealeased) Overwatch as far as it's roles go, so that's pretty fantastic. If you end up in a game of it, I recommend cutting the monster HP in half. Bloated HP totally made the combat feel grindy after the first half dozen rounds.

EDIT: I recommend this guy for talk about D&D in particular and rpg's in general. Tumblr link.

I like roleplaying, and I like when the mechanics allow roleplay and 4th seemed to not do that. When every class is the same, what is to roleplay with that? My favorite part of 5th is Backgrounds cause it fuses roleplay and in-game mechanics.

You might like 5e. It still wants the players to be Heroes, but each class feels different and unique. Though also cause instead of prestige classes, each class has sub-classes that really make them different. For example, Rogue has Thief, Arcane Trickster and Assassin as its subclasses. And each wizard specialization has very neat very different abilities and they got rid of forbidden spells for them.

I picked 4th, but that's mostly because that was the one I've played the most. I recently got back into D&D and despite my initial hatred of 5th (how dare they change things that I'm used to) I have to admit that its actually good and it seems a lot easier to get people into.

Saelune:

undeadsuitor:
rock falls everyone dies

Nuh uh, dex saves.

Roll a d20

undeadsuitor:

Saelune:

undeadsuitor:
rock falls everyone dies

Nuh uh, dex saves.

Roll a d20

...7...but Im twitchy, so I get plus 2, so 9. :D

I like D&D, though I have to admit that I've only played 5th Edition, it's just what my group is into, I mean I've played other RPGs, for example, I still play Legend of the 5 Rings 4th Edition on a regular basis, and I've played both Pathfinder and Numenera in the past.

In any case, I really like 5th edition though I mostly play Rogues & Bards and do my best to avoid combat.

I've only really played 3.5 and 5th edition, and even those only to a limited extent. I like how 5e streamlined certain elements and cleaned up some mechanics, but the scarcity of feats you get to take does make it feel like once you've formed the basis of your character at the original creation, progression becomes really linear, which is a shame. I get how that makes it much easier to balance the game as a whole, but I look forward to leveling up less when I don't have any actual decisions to make.

Fat Hippo:
I've only really played 3.5 and 5th edition, and even those only to a limited extent. I like how 5e streamlined certain elements and cleaned up some mechanics, but the scarcity of feats you get to take does make it feel like once you've formed the basis of your character at the original creation, progression becomes really linear, which is a shame. I get how that makes it much easier to balance the game as a whole, but I look forward to leveling up less when I don't have any actual decisions to make.

Feats are optional. As someone else who started with 3.5, feats are standard when I DM, but it was designed to be played without feats but here they are if you want them.

I like that the game has more rules and suggestions for other ways to improve your character though. I also like the Downtime Unearthed Arcana which elaborates some more on it, letting players use it to learn languages and proficiencies and stuff. I hope a refined version of it ends up in the new books.

I played all of them, up to 5. Though a lot of my personal favorite moments were in Advanced D&D and 2nd Ed, I voted for 3.5/Pathfinder, because our campaign really has spent the most time in this version of the game (and it was the last iteration where our characters could all be converted more or less), and there were some amazing moments through our games that came to fruition through this set of rules.

We played 4th edition, but it felt a lot like a video game, and that was a con for us, at the time.

Real men play FAPP.

Had to vote for 5E because I've only played D&D once ( a few weeks ago) and it was obviously the latest version. I have always wanted to play but just recently got linked up with a group of friends who have experience/the interest to play as well. Long story short, I FUCKING LOVED IT. My first character is a human Paladin and I am playing with my girlfriend ( a wood elf druid) as well as two of our friends who are a couple who are an Eladrin Paladin and a halfling rogue. Our buddy Chris is our DM and it's his first time as DM so there are a lot of firsts in our group. I am toying with making something a little more unusual like an incredibly obnoxious bard or a blind monk.

Currently wrestling with other people in our friends group who want to get involved but aren't as committed. So we're trying to balance being exclusionary and coming across as rude and giving everyone a chance to play. I just don't want things to get too hectic and unwieldy. I have very little patience for dealing with who can make it this week/who can't get there on time/ etc. Plus it's not fair to our DM who needs to plan ahead for all this.

I voted for AD&D (2nd Ed) as it is the closest to my heart. D&D (1st Ed) was literally kitbashed in a garage and highly unrefined. AD&D was mechanically over-complicated but it was the last edition to have the direct influence of the original creators. I had tons of fun with 2nd Ed, it was the edition of my childhood. The sheer amount of material made it never dull, my group campaigned from the Generic Western Fantasy of Oerth, to the "insert fantasy stereotype land here" map of Faerun, the deserts of Zakhara, the blasted wasteland of Athas, the Hammer Horror land of Ravenloft and everything in between. We fought a bipedal hippopotamas armed with a musket and an inexplicably British accent, realized the value of the Tongues spell when we wound up in Sigil.

Third Edition and its offshoots set off a war to see which of us could twink our character the best. We even did a gestalt campaign where devastating powers were unleashed upon the world due to gestalts making up 10% of the population. Mechanically 3E streamlined and rationalized a lot of the older rulesets which honestly where what Gary Gygax or Dave Arneson could house rule on the spot sometimes.
It started with great ideas but the WotC books lead to immense power creep due to poor quality control and interaction between separate rules. The fact that WotC publishes Magic: the Gathering was not lost on us.

Fourth Edition. My game group does not talk of Fourth Edition. We are old neckbeards, even the women, so we regard it as an abomination unto Man and God. None of us liked it, it felt like an MMOrpg and too "safe". Characters became too samey due to a heavy simplification of the rules system. Sure I can admit that it has its fans but we are not among them.

Fifth Edition has been fun so far, it is something of a hybrid of 4th and 3rd with a dash of 2nd. The setting changes had been less well received since we are set in our ways. Personally I did not like the new magic item system, seems to lose a lot of the wonder from the old set since they have a very strong "adds pluses to rolls" theme compared to the older sets.

Love me some DnD!
This year I've really gotten into true play podcasts and spiraled downwards into Dnd way more that I liked it previously.

I've been making a random Carousing table recently

EDIT: I just thought of the best/worse 5e rule.
Performance check on bardic inspiration on a natural 1 it becomes a vicious mockery spell.
I am an evil Dm

Mechamorph:
Personally I did not like the new magic item system, seems to lose a lot of the wonder from the old set since they have a very strong "adds pluses to rolls" theme compared to the older sets.

Sometimes I use http://www.seventhsanctum.com/generate.php?Genname=magicitem cause it just gives a weird name for magic items, not what it does. So its fun to create a function for them.

Like, what would a "Throwing Axe of Blood and Clairvoyance" do? Sounds like a haunted murder axe to me.

Overall I like 3.5/Pathfinder the most just because of the sheer expressive power of the rules. There's enough content that you can make just about any character concept you want and make them competitive. One of my last characters was a psychic warrior who I designed in such a way that all of his abilities would pretty much be indistinguishable from just being a adept fighter. It fell apart at a certain level due to lack of good power options, but it was a fun concept to play with.

However, 3.5 becomes too much of a number game, and I like how 5e focuses more on your abilities changing the way your character plays as opposed to incrementally making yourself better at things. It's nice how you can pretty much make a whole build around a single feat. It's also a really easy game to introduce people too, which is why I chose it for my current game with a group of people who never really played D&D before.

What stops me from liking 5e better is the lack of customization options, and the way some mechanics get really weird results. For instance, Bards and Rogues are by far the strongest grapplers in the game, a 19th level Bard with 8 strength can have the same grapple bonus as a 19th level Barbarian with 20 strength. Also I think that Advantage and Disadvantage are often too much of a simplification.

The lack of reliance on numbers is nice, but I find there's just so much randomness in the results. Which I suppose is more generally a problem with d20 systems as a whole. I prefer systems that have a better distribution, favoring average results with the extremes coming less likely. It's like playing Fire Emblem when all your attacks have a 30% hit chance, it's hard to strategize.

Overall I like Fate better for what 5e's trying to do, and I think it encapsulates broad circumstances a lot better.

JUMBO PALACE:
Had to vote for 5E because I've only played D&D once ( a few weeks ago) and it was obviously the latest version. I have always wanted to play but just recently got linked up with a group of friends who have experience/the interest to play as well. Long story short, I FUCKING LOVED IT. My first character is a human Paladin and I am playing with my girlfriend ( a wood elf druid) as well as two of our friends who are a couple who are an Eladrin Paladin and a halfling rogue. Our buddy Chris is our DM and it's his first time as DM so there are a lot of firsts in our group. I am toying with making something a little more unusual like an incredibly obnoxious bard or a blind monk.

Currently wrestling with other people in our friends group who want to get involved but aren't as committed. So we're trying to balance being exclusionary and coming across as rude and giving everyone a chance to play. I just don't want things to get too hectic and unwieldy. I have very little patience for dealing with who can make it this week/who can't get there on time/ etc. Plus it's not fair to our DM who needs to plan ahead for all this.

My current campaign got started as a back up cause one player was being unreliable.

It is always interesting when the whole DnD group is new. My first time DMing was after my first game as a player, and was so my brother who DM'd the first two games could be a player. (First game was him and his friends then I got invited on, and have taken over as Primary DM, brother is secondary)

Could let the less reliable players have characters that just show up when the players do, but otherwise just sorta sit back.

Dr.Susse:
Love me some DnD!
This year I've really gotten into true play podcasts and spiraled downwards into Dnd way more that I liked it previously.

I've been making a random Carousing table recently

EDIT: I just thought of the best/worse 5e rule.
Performance check on bardic inspiration on a natural 1 it becomes a vicious mockery spell.
[sub]I am an evil Dm]/sub]

I made a random encounter random table, and a critical fail random table. Need to make a critical hit one now.

The Almighty Aardvark:
Overall I like 3.5/Pathfinder the most just because of the sheer expressive power of the rules. There's enough content that you can make just about any character concept you want and make them competitive. One of my last characters was a psychic warrior who I designed in such a way that all of his abilities would pretty much be indistinguishable from just being a adept fighter. It fell apart at a certain level due to lack of good power options, but it was a fun concept to play with.

However, 3.5 becomes too much of a number game, and I like how 5e focuses more on your abilities changing the way your character plays as opposed to incrementally making yourself better at things. It's nice how you can pretty much make a whole build around a single feat. It's also a really easy game to introduce people too, which is why I chose it for my current game with a group of people who never really played D&D before.

What stops me from liking 5e better is the lack of customization options, and the way some mechanics get really weird results. For instance, Bards and Rogues are by far the strongest grapplers in the game, a 19th level Bard with 8 strength can have the same grapple bonus as a 19th level Barbarian with 20 strength. Also I think that Advantage and Disadvantage are often too much of a simplification.

The lack of reliance on numbers is nice, but I find there's just so much randomness in the results. Which I suppose is more generally a problem with d20 systems as a whole. I prefer systems that have a better distribution, favoring average results with the extremes coming less likely. It's like playing Fire Emblem when all your attacks have a 30% hit chance, it's hard to strategize.

Overall I like Fate better for what 5e's trying to do, and I think it encapsulates broad circumstances a lot better.

Adv/Dis I think are mainly there to help DMs with on the fly situations.

I am mixed on skills. I like the simplification, but I do sometimes miss having characters being crazy good at certain things cause they have +10 or more.

Saelune:

Dr.Susse:
Love me some DnD!
This year I've really gotten into true play podcasts and spiraled downwards into Dnd way more that I liked it previously.

I've been making a random Carousing table recently

EDIT: I just thought of the best/worse 5e rule.
Performance check on bardic inspiration on a natural 1 it becomes a vicious mockery spell.
[sub]I am an evil Dm]/sub]

I made a random encounter random table, and a critical fail random table. Need to make a critical hit one now.

Crit tables always scare me when Dm-img. They can pretty quickly mess up a player's shit.

Dr.Susse:

Saelune:

Dr.Susse:
Love me some DnD!
This year I've really gotten into true play podcasts and spiraled downwards into Dnd way more that I liked it previously.

I've been making a random Carousing table recently

EDIT: I just thought of the best/worse 5e rule.
Performance check on bardic inspiration on a natural 1 it becomes a vicious mockery spell.
[sub]I am an evil Dm]/sub]

I made a random encounter random table, and a critical fail random table. Need to make a critical hit one now.

Crit tables always scare me when Dm-img. They can pretty quickly mess up a player's shit.

I more often use them against creatures than players, but I tend to DM very character driven campaigns where killing off a player essentially ends the game cause it was too specific to them. Something I hope to do less in the future though, cause I want to run some more deadlier sessions down the line.

crimson5pheonix:
FUCK D&D, PLAY GURPS!

Ew.

But real talk though, I'm digging 5e.

5E isn't without problems, but it's a massive step up from 3.5. After a while, 3.5 really started to grate, especially since I ended up playing with stat-padding, munchin twats.

I still find the combat in D&D to be bananas. I don't really like Armor Class, or weapon damage, or the total imbalance of magic. Using firearms makes it substantially worse. But at least there's a reason to play a human character now.

Ironman126:

crimson5pheonix:
FUCK D&D, PLAY GURPS!

Ew.

FUCK YOU, GURPS DA BESTO! L2READ!

But real talk though, I'm digging 5e.

5E isn't without problems, but it's a massive step up from 3.5. After a while, 3.5 really started to grate, especially since I ended up playing with stat-padding, munchin twats.

I still find the combat in D&D to be bananas. I don't really like Armor Class, or weapon damage, or the total imbalance of magic. Using firearms makes it substantially worse. But at least there's a reason to play a human character now.

But half-elves are still just better >.>

But yes, 3.5/Pathfinder end up as exercises in character building. I have the most fun there bending the rules to do dumb concepts. Like a fighter that dual wields shields and serves tea on them because he is also a butler.

I have to go with 2nd Edition, as it is the version I played the most overall. I picked it up just before starting high school and continued with it until 3rd Edition came out. The games I played in high school are still the most memorable to me, so that's what I am nostalgic for. I did appreciate the streamlining that 3rd did for the rules, and the feats were a nice addition, giving the characters more power and some diversity in ability from others of the same class, but in the long run the characters of any class all seemed to become the same as people chose the "best" feats available.

Never played 4th and never heard anything good about it, though I have heard 5th is pretty decent. Don't really have that much of an urge to get into it right now though. There will probably be a 6th or 7th edition by the time I feel the need to play D&D again.

You're all satanists. D&D is of satan.

crimson5pheonix:

Ironman126:

crimson5pheonix:
FUCK D&D, PLAY GURPS!

Ew.

FUCK YOU, GURPS DA BESTO! L2READ!

There is no need to bring my illiteracy into the argument!

But real talk though, I'm digging 5e.

5E isn't without problems, but it's a massive step up from 3.5. After a while, 3.5 really started to grate, especially since I ended up playing with stat-padding, munchin twats.

I still find the combat in D&D to be bananas. I don't really like Armor Class, or weapon damage, or the total imbalance of magic. Using firearms makes it substantially worse. But at least there's a reason to play a human character now.

But half-elves are still just better >.>

Sadly.

But yes, 3.5/Pathfinder end up as exercises in character building. I have the most fun there bending the rules to do dumb concepts. Like a fighter that dual wields shields and serves tea on them because he is also a butler.

I wish my players were half that creative. All they every want to do is make fucking anime characters and whine about how I won't let anyone play characters from extant IPs.

I'll go for 2nd ed, that being the only one I've ever played, albeit not much. I read and owned a fair number of the books though.

Anyway, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay til death! DEEEEAAAATH!!!! (which will arrive swiftly and horribly).

Ironman126:

crimson5pheonix:

Ironman126:

Ew.

FUCK YOU, GURPS DA BESTO! L2READ!

There is no need to bring my illiteracy into the argument!

I will grant that your typing is quite amazing considering...

5E isn't without problems, but it's a massive step up from 3.5. After a while, 3.5 really started to grate, especially since I ended up playing with stat-padding, munchin twats.

I still find the combat in D&D to be bananas. I don't really like Armor Class, or weapon damage, or the total imbalance of magic. Using firearms makes it substantially worse. But at least there's a reason to play a human character now.

But half-elves are still just better >.>

Sadly.

But yes, 3.5/Pathfinder end up as exercises in character building. I have the most fun there bending the rules to do dumb concepts. Like a fighter that dual wields shields and serves tea on them because he is also a butler.

I wish my players were half that creative. All they every want to do is make fucking anime characters and whine about how I won't let anyone play characters from extant IPs.

I have a group that plays WoD games (mostly vampire) and they like to just build "the broken" stuff. I have more fun playing against type. They don't understand why.

Wow this is actually a good thread in the wild west

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here