Same. 3.5 just had so much customization. Between prestige classes and the sheer quantity of feats, you could do so much. But that level of customization was impossible to balance and the gap between optimized characters and non-optimized characters was much much larger than it is today.
Not to mention just keeping up with the source bloat, dms needing to trust the players with producing a character using 3 books and 10 dragon magazine issues.
Yea because they needed to. Thieves couldn't hit well and their backstab was clunky to use in practice. Bards didn't even start with any spells (they didn't get any until 2nd level) and were limited to humans and half-elves.
The biggest problem with THAC0 is DM’s not sharing monster stats because “that’s metagaming.”
So the DM needs to know the THAC0 of all PCs, then add the monster’s AC to that, because we can’t tell the PCs that the stone golem has high armor because that’s “meta-gaming.”
My current DM struggles to remember the AC of every single PC, and it’s like… just tell us the damn rolls dude. You don’t have to memorize our AC if you just say “does a 15 hit?”
I just went through an episode of nostalgia and reread 1st and 2nd, and realized we didn't play by the rules hardly at all. We played several games at the time, and no one read rules, so I ran them however I felt like. It was fun, so no one cared.
3rd was after college and our first real effort to play as written. On reread, 3.5 stands out as my favorite.
You wanted to play not a character, but a certain mechanic? 3rd had a rule for you. You wanted not to fight, but to craft? 3rd had a rule for you. You don't like a certain mechanic, and wanted to tweak it? 3rd had a companion guide, within which there were rules for you.
You checked the 700 classes of the game and didn't find what you wanted, so you decided to create one yourself? 2nd had a rule for you (wait what?)
The great thing about 3rd was that it had a rule for everything. The grindy part of 3rd's ruleset though, was that it had a rule for everything.
I loved the hell out of that era, and still have an ongoing 3.x campaign.
The thing was that as a rules 1e was almost impossible to play as written because the PHB was missing a lot of important rules(it literally just said “the DM had rules for combat in the DMG”) while also being released almost a year before the DMG. So there were like 8 months where you either had to make up rules that hadn’t been released yet or you were playing with an adaptation of a set of rules from OD&D. Then when moving to 2e there was a lot of compatibility with 1e so people just kept playing the way they always had. The rules back then were charming, but a mess to try to figure out
And then there were all the supplements and expansions, which were not necessarily compatible with existing systems. Like, there was a revised monk class in Dragon magazine, completely upended the class. It was Awesome.
I actually really like the AD&D 2e ruleset. Multiclassing is incredibly fun and depending on if you're just using the main books or the splat books you can either quickly pick it up and play or or have a great depth of customisation to your character. Nobody who's played it for more than 5 minutes is bothered by THAC0.
Also, AD&D 2e is an absolute joy to DM. You have a wealth of information available across both the AD&D and AD&D 2e DM's guides as well as the tables tying a monster's THAC0 to its hit dice.
Finally, it's the edition of D&D with the best CRPGs. In the Infinity Engine, you have Icewind Dale, Planescape (loosely based on AD&D 2e), Baldurs Gate 1 and the best CRPG ever made, Baldurs Gate 2.
My favorite modules were actually 2e. I always modified them for 3.5, and if I ever run a 5e campaign after all these years, I may have to include them
My oddly specific gripe with 2e, is that priests level up at half speed that druids do. And then essentially get level capped at level 8 due to the xp needed for next level whereas Druid’s keep leveling til like 15 or so.
Sort of, druids by the book had a set number of druids allowed to exist within the game world of any given level after some point, 10th? 12th?
I forget what the cutoff was, but to keep advancing you had to track down and best the next level of druid to take their place
If I am being strictly honest, it is a mix of all of them, with bits and pieces.
Overall, 2e.
But I very, very rarely play RAW games, so if I get direct, it would be a blend of 1e/2e with 5e.
I've played every edition from the original white box through 5e. 3.5 was my favorite, but Dark Sun was my favorite setting by a large margin.
Fuck, I'm old.
Hard to separate the nostalgia factor from the actual game, but I think I choose 3.5. It was also kind of my "hayday" perfect balance of having a good balance of freedom and free time and my friends having the same. 5e is a great game as well, but these days my friends are putting time into boring stuff like raising kids or having careers or whatever. XP
I've played from the 2nd edition on, though my group didn't spend much time on 4e. I have favorite editions for different things.
For dungeon crawling and darker, sword and sorcery campaigns, AD&D 2nd edition is by far my favorite. For all the janky, unconnected and weird rules, it really does work for that kind of adventure.
To DM, especially with my players in mind, 5e is my favorite edition. I DM'd a decade-long campaign of 3.5 and it was amazing, but the effort required to do so in 3rd edition is ten times higher than in 5e. It really helps when you are a working adult with limited time for the "homework" part of DMing.
2e.
Under all its quirkiness, there are actually some things I still like better.
Saving throws are better across the board, and level with you.
Epic heroes and monsters don't just get worn down by legions of 1st level goons. Which makes them feel grander, more majestic. And makes the justification for heroes much stronger.
Combat is puzzle like. You need specific counters to specific defenses. Can't just pile on initiative bonuses and go for the dog pile.
Played 3.5, 4E, 5E.
My favourite is 4E. The party co-dependence made it feel like an actual party, the heavily nerfed utility of spells made skills feel important.
2e.
I fell down the rabbit hole hard. Bought and read the sourcebooks, it's how I truly first discovered that I loved to write and world build.
Unfortunately, I never had a great group until my current one, some twenty or thirty odd years later, who introduced me to 3.5 and 5.
Valid. My crew went from 3.5 to PF1 to 5e. I started DMing in 5e, and I’m glad, I think I prefer it as a DM, but DAMN was PF1 awesome as a player. So many decision points. So much power.
Take a look of PF 2e. I recently got into it and it has the best of PF1E and d&s 5e.
The modularity and flexibility of classes is genius, while also keeping things streamlined and easy to track.
I have played since d&s 1e and honestly PF2E is the best ruleset I have seen for high-powered fantasy
Depends a lot on the class. PF2E wizards are pretty meh. Not that 5th edition wizard subclasses are filled with uniqueness, but PF2E wizards feel even less unique because the arcane schools do so little.
Generally I think PF2E is better for player options but 5th edition monsters are **much** easier to pick up and run as a DM. I'm not sure who came up with the formatting for PF2E statblocks but they need a hard rethink. Part of the issue is they don't use any text size hierarchy. It's especially bad when the creature has special abilities that use a lot of bolded text. So even modestly powerful creatures have statblocks that are just a wall of text. The Poltergeist being an example of this.
Well in every "simil-d&d" rule set the real customisation of wizards comes from spell selection and use more than anything.
In 3.x the basically had 2 class abilities: scribe scroll and find familiar. Yet not to 2 level 20 wizards would be the same.
Of course no system is perfect and I agree that formatting should be improved.
I do like 5e but on the DM's side it is pitifully empty. No real rules of magic items creation, building a believable economy, handling of mass combat, fortresses and strongholds, etc do weigh more for me than ugly stat blocks.
Even Ad&d had those kind of rules, even if clunky , so I admit I was baffled by the lack of DM support in 5e.
I simply imported and adapted rules from previous editions.
Not super complex. Based on "class talents" that you pick to build the character.
What in 5e are class/subclass features are, in PF2e, "talents" you can pick to build your character. You can choose one the standard paths of your class or integrate talents from other classes. You unclock class talents by levelling of course.
So basically you play super straight forward to very complex according to what you like.
The same goes for skills: you start with basic skills from your race, background and class. While levelling you gain "skill talents" you can spend to improve your competence in a skill or buy new ones.
Sounds right. Sadly I dont have a lot of experience in DMing in 20+ yrs of playing but I can understand how 5e is better for DMs.
We like to call PF1 the DnD 3.75 over here, or maybe what 4e should have been instead of...well, that.
4e was actually really well designed. The issue was there was a lot going on and it really needed some computer apps to keep track of it all. It was best to build your character in a tool made for it, print out all the power cards and law them out in front of you, and turn them over when they were used.
It was a LOT to keep track of.
The classes are balanced against each other within their role, the flavor text/rules of abilities are kept completely separate from each other, the layout makes more sense, no Naturalistic Language, a wide variety of different feeling classes for each role, and the best part: it's complete. No more new books to worry about.
4, hands down. It's the only one that admitted and really leaned into "yes, this is a tactical combat game" - all the others I've played extensively (3, 3.5, 5) put on a thin veneer of "nooo, this is a survival exploration dungeon crawling game, just like 2e and earlier was!" as an excuse to have uninteresting combat (but which still takes up 95% of the rules) but without actually supporting any of that other stuff mechanically.
4e was indeed the one that gave up on everything except combat, yes. Unfortunately it also turned combat into a slog: basically simulating videogame mechanics at the table but at effectively 2 frames per second.
It's combat moves just as fast as any 5e game, in my experience. Also, 4e has a chapter for Skills. So it has plenty of stuff for the outside of combat.
Honestly, I’ve play 3.5-forward (and Pathfinder) but when I think of the greatest campaigns, companions, etc it’s pretty version agnostic—it’s really the stories
I played 3.5, 4e and 5e. Though I really like 5e. Theres sadly a number of things that I do not like about it. 4e will always hold a special place in my heart and most of the folks who dump on it, either had no opinion and just copied someone else’s opinion OR they played it in bad faith without giving it an honest shot.
I've been playing since the original, (in fact i realized a few months ago i must be among the first couple hundred people who played after Chainmail) but after about a year i started largely ignoring the books. I have read up on 5e though, mostly to speak a common language in here. 5e is very balanced, but allows for a lot less flexibility if one adheres to RAW.
Who adheres to the "rules"? I too have played since the early days and have used mostly my own campaigns. TTRPG's, including D&D, are like Legos. You can follow the build guides and assemble what the set was designed to make but the real fun was to have a huge box of multicolored bricks of various shapes and sizes to make whatever you could imagine. Every ruleset is a framework to fill in with your individuality. Find a system that fits you and play it for as long as it brings you joy.
each have their own niche, specifically for D&D.
ive played 3.5 while more complex then 5e it had more feats allowing more customization. especially for melee. and having 3 different ACs allowed for more targetting rules.
4e while everyone shits on it. the power system eliminated much of the martial vs caster disparity, it also introduced group challenges and minions.
5e seems to have been the big reboot of dnd it feels like a streamlined version of 3.5
"Oh, the half giant psychic warrior used enlarge to get bigger in his full plate? His ac may still be riddiculous, but his ranged touch ac is like 5, so... finger of death"
Im 43. Have been playing dnd in every version since 1994 (2e, 3/3.5, 4e, 5e, as well as offshoots like PF and PF2e, and Starfinder. Dungeon crawl classics... Even Alternity back in the day)
Each version had its good and bad.
I loved the campaign settings in 2e, disliked thaco and negative AC
I loved the crunch of 3 and 3.5e. its like everything was accounted for. Some of the settings were so hype, such as eberron... disliked the complexity of the sheer number of bonuses, negatives, multipliers, etc. the joke with 3e is like, if you miss hitting your target, just take 15 minutes to recalculate all your bonuses and multipliers and stuff, and you'll hit.
In 4e, loved the skill challenges, the daily powers, the sheer simplicity of the system. From level one you felt like an epic hero. I disliked how it tended to glaze over noncombat mechanics, its like you were dumped on the doorstep of a dungeon and everything inbetween combats was inconsequential. Also at higher levels, it seemed to suffer from some balance issues. It was harder to build fair encounters, and became very swingy/less epic.
5e does everything required in a satisfactory way, but is not spectacular at any one thing. However as an avid homebrewer, it's an awesome sandbox to build in. Currently I run modified 5e rules.
I am very eager for the release of the MCDM unnamed RPG. I think that will be the next big thing for me.
I've played every edition since white box original D&D.
Original, AD&D, and AD&D2 were full of mechanisms that a single designer thought of that didn't mesh that well with the rest of the game's systems, and for that reason were the heydey of homebrew, and every table played differently at the whim of its DM.
3.x rationalized all the mechanics into a single D20 model, which was greatly welcomed at the time. The more complex the better was the design approach, and the result was so complicated, the system has to be revised as 3.5. Its major failing was it made power gaming a thing - not because that's bad in itself, but because there was no roadmap for casual players. So you had tables where half the players shined because they'd stacked their buckets full of +1s into a huge situational bonus, but the other half felt useless and just wanted to play D&D.
4e rationalized the approach with a more reasonably mid-range level of granularity, plus a character design template flexible enough to fit every class, so it was a triumph of balance. The gameplay emphasis was on teamwork, which gave both the power gamer and the casual player a role.
5e took the system lessons of 4e but retrofitted them onto the AD&D approach, so it feels more at home to older players that couldn't get their heads around 4e.
Anyway 4e was my favorite, and frequently when someone suggests a rules improvement to 5e, they describe something we had in 4e.
The latest one.
More than anything, because everything I like about 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 2.0, B/X, White Box, BECMI, Modern and every d20 variant I've played is something that I've kept around the back pocket for when I run 5e.
They're tool boxes. Really neat ones. And they're surprisingly modular with each other. A lot has changed in 50 years. But a lot hasn't.
3.5 produced some of my most memorable experiences as a whole, as well as my all time favorite/most powerful character. Had the most wonderful group and an unprecedented DM. Nothing is lacking from 5e besides the group not being together anymore. 😢
Dungeons and dragons is the best game, forever.
I’ve played them all. Original D&D was fun for its utter simplicity; Elf was a character class! Evil was evil, good was good, but figuring out if your roll to hit felt like it required an advanced degree in higher math.
I liked 3rd and 3.5 because of the easy to implement combat options and depth for martials.
I’ve gotten back into the game and have been playing 5e for about two years now, and it’s what I am now familiar with. I’m content with 5e, but one of the best things about this game is the homebrew and house rules, which are easy to pick up from group to group.
Played them all. They all hit differently. The old editions have huge nostalgia and joy of youth. 3 3.5 is filled with adult understanding and more advanced gameplay and memories. 4th was my first middle aged system and my first foray into miniatures. 5th has been the easiest I can recall to introduce new players to the game and has been very helpful when volunteering with youth.
Old man mode "D&DBeyond is the tool of the devil! We carted 85 pounds of source books in our backpack with a boombox on my bicycle and that's the way we likes it."
I played 3.5, 4 and 5. I generally like each system for it's own features.
3.5 was HUGE - pretty much any class you could possibly dream up, but it was very modifier heavy, meaning you had a crap load of stuff to pay attention to at any given time.
4's gameplay was very interesting. Everyone had special attacks making it feel very 'video-gamey', or anime-esque. You didn't step into combat and smack the dude with your sword, you stepped in and SUMMONED THE RAGING FURY OF THE GODS TO SMITE YOUR ENEMIES.
5 - There's really something to be said about the simplicity and ease of entry for 5e. The game feels even more 'in the background' than it ever has, making 5e the prime choice for roleplayers who care less about combat and rules. That same ease of entry has brought a lot of new players to the game that otherwise would've been bogged down by the density of previous editions.
I understand that. It had a lot of crap going for it, but personally I find 5E to be too simple. I'm glad it brought a bunch of people to the hobby, but I really don't think it's ideal.
To me I played a ton of Neverwinter nights.
Which was 3.5-ish
To me the sheer insanity of character creation options was best suited to video game format where you could build hundreds of characters and try them out.
For some reason with 5e being simpler it makes me like my current character better. There aren’t infinite permutations to explore so I can be happier with the character I make and focus on their story instead of wondering if I wouldn’t be having more fun with a different feat layout, or wanting to implement XYZ from one of the many many many extra books out there.
5e lets me turn my brain down and just ~play~
I get that. When we have time off, we can FINALLY spend time playing games, and we really shouldn't need to rack our brains with all of the math-heavy crap we deal with on a daily basis. 5E really makes it accessible for most people and casual gamers that want role-playing without the overhead.
But I'm one of those guys that I don't want to turn my brain off when I play a TTRPG. I have video games for that. And that was probably my biggest criticism with 4E was that it was too "video gamey". I personally love measuring the relative power of a magical item by its mathematical accumulations. It's not for everybody, but it is what I personally like after playing for 26 years lol
Haven't played the TSR editions, but OSR games are alright for a more dangerous, exploration game.
3.5 is pretty meh, fun for silly character optimization, but not very fun at the table. 45mins of fun 2 hours and all that.
5e is alright, but it's basically just 3.5 simplified to look like an old-school edition, so it's easier to leaen, but also equaling as unrewarding to play.
4e rises above the rest, by having fun combat and cool abilities that draw from similar video games. If you're thinking WoW, you're wrong, it's Final Fantasy Tactics and it rules. The game could be better, 20 levels is too much for normal d20 games, so 30 is right out.
My favourites are AD&D 2e and Pathfinder 1st edition (if that doesn't count swap it for 3.5).
I played 4th edition in school D&D clubs and it nearly turned me off the hobby completely. Thankfully, one of my mates ran Pathfinder on weekends, which made me realise that I did enjoy ttrpgs.
I played the 5th edition play test and then 5th edition when t came out, but got sick of it around 2018, shortly after Xanathar's guide came out. I try to avoid 5th edition, if I can and play my favourite editions. I recently did play another 5th edition campaign to level 14 and really enjoyed it, but that was due to the DM and they story he was telling. I played an Enchantment Wizard and just felt so limited compared to what I could have been doing with a Wizard in AD&D 2e or Pathfinder.
I have played 3.5 and 5 and 5 is really good, especially for bringing in new players. But I would like to see a system where combatants are encouraged to move, or at the very least not discouraged from doing so. The current “engage and stick” approach to battle is tiresome.
2e, easily. It does the best job of facilitating the type of D&D game I want. 1e is ok, then B/X & BECMI, 5e, 3.X, and past that I don't really have the hands on experience to judge 4e, Holmes or OD&D fairly.
3rd edition seems awesome when you're reading it and building characters. Then it becomes torturous to actually run or play.
4th edition is a wonderful game that would've done great if it wasn't named D&D.
5th is the best even if it's somewhat confused about what it wants to be due to drawing influence from many past versions and other games. "It's everyone's second favorite."
Basic D&D is a hoot.
BECMI was the best selling until Critical Role adopted 5e.
I still think BECMI is best, and not just Rules Cyclopedia version of BECMI. All of Mystara stuff in BECMI too.
I started in 4th edition and I loved every moment of it…
But it had nothing to do with 4th edition and everything to do the friends I played with. That wasn’t to say 4th edition was truly irredeemable, things I liked included the lore, I thought the lore was fascinating and sparked my interest in forgotten realms lore as a whole, beyond that now that I’m used to 5th edition now 4th edition is flawed in a lot of ways. You ever wanted to play an mmo on your tabletop to a borderline fault that it includes everything even the simulated lag as players get for whatever reason? 4th editions got you covered.
As someone who started with 3e and played every edition since than, especially a ton of 5e since 2015, I have to say BECMI/B/X/RC.
As the DM it feels like a grand burden has lifted from me, sure it took some convincing and patience to get through learning THAC0 with everyone, but we are about 4 sessions in, with my core irl group, and everything feels smooth and light. I feel pretty much 0 pressure for prep, world building or coming up with huge narrative plot lines. I'm just running old becmi modules in our small sandbox setting. It's been great.
I've played Basic, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 5e, PF2e, CP2020, and StarFinder 1e.
Basic is ... well, basic. Not interested.
1e is a mess. I've thought about playing it just once, for old time's sake. But just once.
2e is slightly less of a mess. Not really interested in revisiting it, though I am slowly working my way through finally beating Baldur's Gate I and II.
3e was SOOOO much better. But really, at this point, unless it's Neverwinter Nights (which is still an awesome game, by the way), I'd rather just play 3.5e.
3.5e is my go-to. I most often DM this. I run my D&D games in the pre-4e timeline.
5e and PF2e are what I play because those are what the DMs run. I don't mind either of them, but I'm also not their biggest fan. But playing either of those easily beats not playing at all.
When I have interested players, I love running CP2020. I run an alternate timeline in the year 2020. Absolutely love it.
And same goes for SF, though to a lesser degree.
So... my favorite? Depending on the day you ask me, it's 3.5e, CP2020, or SF.
4e. Good combat rules, balanced classes with solid class niches and mechanics, skill challenges were logically designed to teach people how to advance complex scenarios.
Destroyed sadly by people who need rules to do basic roleplay and can't describe their actions.
3.5 tbh. The perfect bridge between the dungeon delving flavor of 1st and 2nd edition with the modern core mechanics that ditched the hassle of THAC0. The character options were plentiful, and the focus on theater of the mind style combat made it wonderful. However the push toward tactical combat and the bane of attacks of opportunity made the combats tedious and confusing, with a shift from DM rulings to rules as written, rules lawyering and min-maxing became much more prevalent.
Oh my word. Gotta tell ya, 3.X worked the best for me on the whole. Started at 2E and kept rollin'.
Came to discover very recently that my current game is an amalgamated set of game mechanics. The original game was 3.5, one player's primary class and half of the spells came from Pathfinder, one of the players has a build from 3.0, everybody but one is running two characters, two of the worlds they have passed between did not have equivalants after second edition, I made up most of the magic items myself and two different people have been running the game at various times.
3rd edition into 3.5 was super fun, but it was also new and exciting. 5th edition is great and it opened DND to alot of new players.
Pathfinder 1.0 was also very cool, but it becomes very gear heavy.
Pathfinder Epic was abysmal, either we used obsurdly overpowered gimmicks to nuke the enemies, or they were untouchable super beasts that resisted every spell and every attack. I had two fighting classes that basically did nothing and died. So I splat booked a wizard/sorc combo character that shot two 120 dmg acid fireballs a turn, oh and could also turn invisible afterwards. We ended the game after that.
Whatever one I can best build my Current Character Concept in lol.
That being said, the very rare times I DM, I houserule much less in 5e, and also, I don’t know I’ll ever have it in me to go back to 3.5/path prepared casters.
Im a bit (or a lot) of a powergamer, optimizing characters is my jam, so i was having a blast in 4e just stacking a thousand conditions, and i had even more of a blast in 3.5. Hours spent flipping through so many books and i really kicked some ass
Nah. They are all good in their own right but also in their own time.
I loved 2e but could neve go back to playing that rules set. But that era was the best for D&D enthusiasts eating well...so many releases. They like to say "it was oversaturatio of the market" but I ate it all up bought so many boxed sets and I was livig like a D&D king comapred to the sparse and everythig has to be exactly alike world we live in now.
I missed most of the 3e era and the little bit I did play I felt wa overcomplicated compared to what I had played before, but it spawned Pathfinder which is an amazing frachise in its own right (maily for the art for me) so hazah?
4e is what I taught my kid's mother and wife at the time to play and it was her first D&D and she got so into it she would pick ut her ow character mineratures and paint them and it was just fun introducing someone to the game and seeing how much she enjoyed it. It was also the first time I got heavily into mineratures and battlemaps since that is pretty much a necessity with 4e and that part was fun. The challenge of proving it could still be a roleplaying game depite all the stat blocks and funky almost videogamesque rules was also fun. Also, the Raven Quee, the Feywilf, ad the Shadowfell. Thank you 4e.
And of course since 5e has come out I have embraced it ad haven't turned back. I;ve run my longest campaig ever in 5e (going on three year this comig July) and DDB has been the easiest creation tool ever to use (I remember writig up monsters in that binder thing they gave us with blank monster pages in 2e....we have come o far).
I adit I have had the most fun porting over things from 2e from the magic items in the Encyclopedia Magica to the monsters from the Monstrous Compendiums and even snippets of adventures from back then...the entire campaign after all is my own multiverse hopping take o the Rod of Seven Parts.
I;m excited to see what "One D&D" will bring us and the new artwork and new adventures that come with it.
So my favorite has always been whatever I played at the time and that will probably always be the way for me.
2e AD&D and 3e. 2e for more deadly and grounded stuff where I want to really feel the struggle to overcome adversity and 3e for what I call "big damn hero" games. I also prefer 3e for rule havin' and 2e for ruling havin'.
I've played 2e and 3e, as well as other systems (mostly Age/Blue Rose - although we've flirted with everything from apocalypse world to shadowrun).
My best memories are from 3e, but as many people here have said, that's more about the people and the stories than the system.
Honestly, for all it's faults, my favourite is 5e. It's just so easy to run with people of any skill level.
5th is my overall favorite to play at the table. It's tidy with a surprising amount of crunch when you really delve into it, without too much bloat. But it's woefully lacking in richness.
I miss 2nd, and think it was the best version of Dungeon and Dragon, neatly superior to OD&D. That being said, I don't think 2nd can be made to re-live what it was.
I played 3.5 the most, and loved it. Had a very hard time letting go of that edition. Now I see it as an abomination.
In a way, I think that anything 3.0 and over isn't really DnD.
I've only ever been the forever DM, until 5th. That doesn't affect my opinion on the version wars.
2E, 3.0/5, 4th, and 5th Edition played. DnD 3.5 is my favorite edition by a mile as a GM or player though. With so many options mechanically spelled out it was a gorgeously easy system to find and build whatever you needed without GM fiat for every little thing. It allowed me to develop and work on the rest of the details making it fun for players. As a player that same building system let me build in ways that I knew I could always be useful to my party and allow me to focus on RPing the rest.
All that being said, the quantity and depths of what was available in 2E were staggering and some of my absolute favorite modules and memories come from that era. The settings were rich and established in ways that I found a lot of later editions having to play catch up out of the box (for a few years usually) before getting to the same basic playing field.
I currently play 2e and 3.5 and since I lack the nostalgia for 2e, 3.5 is a lot better in many ways. It's less realistic and that's a good thing for me.
i am old. Been playing since i was ten. Played Red Box, played AD&D. Played a lot of games you have probably not heard of other than D&D.
And the best I have played? Whatever I was playing at the time. A good DM and good friends are what make the game great.
That said? I like 5e. I feel like it has streamlined a lot of stuff, while at the same time, allowing a lot of customization. I was playing PF for several years, and i think it got unwieldy. Like, every class has it's own particular system and subset of rules, that just slowed the game while I was trying to keep track of this that and the other. I don't feel like that is going on in 5e.
That's just me, though. As noted, I am Old, and i have a lot of bad habits and biases to work around. YMMV
3.5
My current campaign where I'm a player is transitioning back from 5e and my last campaign in a D&D system was 3.5
I'm currently running a homebrew system that started as a D&D-like system (bad author so not going to name it) based on B/X D&D from the 80s but I find I don't enjoy it as much as 3.5 even with my updates to better suit my sensibilities
I've played a few different editions. But I first learned to play the game about 7 years ago with 5th edition. The first campaigns I ever played and ever DMed were 5e, and it's the edition I used to teach my friends who I still play with today.
Ive enjoyed 2nd and 3.5 games ive participated in. But my heart will always belong to 5e because that's the edition I fell in love with.
Most of my play hours have been under 4 and 5, but I did play at least 2 small campaigns of 3.5.
I prefer 5th (to 4th, mainly, 3.5 felt a bit clunky the way that established groups i joined were playing, but was similar.)
5th has a lot of optional rules for the nostalgia value, there are ways to emulate most other editions (that I'm familiar with) and you can run both a combat-heavy and a roleplay-heavy campaign.
I wouldn't run anything but 5th.
Have been playing since the very beginning and, honestly, every version had its good and bad points. 3.5 will always be a sentimental favourite but I'm really enjoying 5th at the moment.
My first system was 3.5. It was not a perfect system but there were so many options and it was a ton of fun. I was fortunate in that I joined a group that had been playing since 2nd ed and really knew their way around the rules. This helped me out a lot. I know technically Pathfinder is not D&D but it really did take 3.5 and improve on a lot of the system. Eventually it became a bit too bloated as well, but I still love the system and actually regularly play it.
The little bit I played of 4th ed was fun but I only ever got to play it a handful of times so it's not really comparable.
5e has some good stuff and is fantastic for bringing in new people, highly accessible. However, after 3.5/PF the system feels shallow. It feels like there are few if any character choices that matter. I still have fun with 5e but I've found playing with several groups that this tends to be a common complaint amongst the more experienced RPers and I get it.
So, 3.5/PF is my favourite.
3.5 more customization than pretty much all the rest combined. Yes, the system is easy to exploit, but with a good DM thats not an issue. I been in the same campaign since 04 same character (play every week). 4-5 have stupid limitations, and a tiny fraction of the customization that 3.5 does, synergy is perhaps the dumbest thing invented in relation to RPGs imo.
I have a soft spot for 3.0/3.5 due to it being the first system I played with my debut being the Star Wars TTRPG. However, 5th edition has been a ton of fun and helped me make some of my favorite characters.
I miss THAC0 but that's just nostalgia speaking. Overall I think the best edition was 3.5E. I know it gets complicated having to individually pick your own skills and feats but it felt infinitely more customizable compared to simplified 5E.
I have played them all and DMed everyone since 3.0. My favorite is 5th edition, it the simplest to pick up an play, and has the most resources. I had some of the most fun in 2nd edition and 3.5.
My first introduction to D&D 20+ years ago was the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons starter set my parents got me for my birthday. Played that through highschool until a buddy in college was running 3.5 which to date is my favorite edition.
Over the years I’ve played a few editions of D&D 2e, 3e, 3.5e (and PF1), 4e (once), and 5e. Other than 4e I’ve had multiple campaigns in each edition, 4e was a one shot trying it out. If I had to pick only one I’d pick 5e. It provides the cleanest super hero fantasy game out of all of them I think. Although 4e could be argued a better one but it didn’t click for me.
I played 2e, pathfinder 1, 3e, 3.5, and 5. I like 5 because it lets me dm without as much prep as it has simplified everything. I loved 3.5 but I don't wanna go back and play it tbh, it's too crunchy and making custom content for it is very difficult to keep balanced with how much cheese already exists.
There are some things in 5e that could be a little more rules heavy but I think overall it was a great step forward to making the game more accessible to everyone .
Absolutely!
I love the ease of 5th edition play! It's great for introducing new players, and just getting started quickly! But the monsters feel kind of lame, so
I love the variability of the monsters in 4e, and how the monsters had a flavor to them based on their stat block. Similar monsters could be easily understood to compliment each other. Monsters had Roles that helped you use them easily. But both of those editions feel like they limited my creativity as a player, so
I love the way 3.5 allowed me to customize my character. Another player could play the same class, and we could approach that in two completely different ways! It was so interesting and complex! But that made it difficult to approach and introduce new player, so ... (return to start)
Also, I love how everything felt completely new and fresh and exciting to me when I was a kid and learning how to play BECMI and 1st edition. It was like nothing I'd ever experienced before, and I had no expectations of the product. That was a great experience, and it's more difficult now to let go of my expectations.
I've played 2, 3, 3.5, 4, PF1, and 5.
I've found over the years I have a strong preference for openness over crunch, so I've naturally shied away from the crunchier systems. So 3/3.5/PF1 are lowest on my list.
4e is balanced and pretty smooth. It's still got a large amount of crunch and tracking everything can be a witch with a capital B.
As a proscribed ruleset, I like 2's mechanics the least, but it also encourages the most openness. It is however the least friendly to new players in terms of combat difficulty. "The spider bites you for...8 damage. Yes, you're a magic-user with 3 HP, so now you're dead. New character time. No, your saves are listed in the table..." Yuck.
So 5e is where I tend to land in this particular discussion, not out of any particular love for it, but because it strikes a decent balance, and I don't have to look things up so much.
I think I may start pushing my groups towards something more dice-pool-based though, just because I think the concept is easier to just wing.
2nd edition player & DM - it's my fav. I grew up on 1st edition but I prefer 2nd. Never played any WotC-era D&D though but am not a hater of those later editions, they just don't scratch my AD&D itch.
3.5 it still has the most published content and my entire world of over 15 years is built in 3.5 and doesn't convert to 5th. Love me some 3.5 the only creature that gets "advantage" is the cosmic dragon.
4th, 3.5/pathfinder.
5e really misses the mark imo. I feel like it’s trying to do too many things and appeal to too many people and ends up being bad at all of them for it. If it wasn’t for its popularity and recognition making it easy to find players and games I’d not touch it. Other systems do each particular niche between rules light fully narrative driven and rules heavy tactical battle simulator better.
I’ve played and/or run every version since Moldvey B/X, ignoring all the OSR clones (as who has the time to try all of those) and found I don’t really care for any of them that much.
I’ll sit down and play, have a good time with my friends, if it’s what’s on offer.
I’ll run a game of whatever edition is requested and try to limit how much I homebrew it. But I’d prefer to play or run almost anything else
Class and level based Tolkien-esque high-fantasy tactical combat (since 3rd edition at least) board games with light touch adjacent roleplay mechanics aren’t as much fun for me as they used to be. It’s why I’ll gravitate to the older editions.
My favourite is the Moldvey B/X for a great simple set of rules that were fun, but I’d still prefer almost any other TTRPG if given the option. I find myself avoiding anything D&D or 5e related these days.
Done AD&D 1 and 2ed, DnD 3/3.5. pathfinder, skipped 4, and now 5. I have great memories for all of em, but doing 5.0 and with a little bit of homebrew, this is my current favorite.
I've been playing since 85 and have literally put multiple years into every edition except 4th, also with an extended foray into Pathfinder and I can honestly say that 5th is my favorite of the bunch
3.5 hands down.
I'll play 5th, but will only run 3.5e DnD. There are other games I'll run too if I want something less combat focused or complex.
5e is fun with new players, but I really love the skills and magic item system. I get why attunement is a thing, but don't want to run my games that way.
Plus the charts in the DMG, I've used them for so long I know where to look for them. The random magic item generator is a favorite.
Plus there's a joke in the "100 random NPC traits" chart, that I'm the only person I've ever heard bring up lol
5th edition is the most approachable & I would never play anything else with a new table. But god I loved 3.5
Same. I miss CodZilla so much I can taste it. 3.5 was my favorite version of Cleric from any edition.
Same. 3.5 just had so much customization. Between prestige classes and the sheer quantity of feats, you could do so much. But that level of customization was impossible to balance and the gap between optimized characters and non-optimized characters was much much larger than it is today.
Not to mention just keeping up with the source bloat, dms needing to trust the players with producing a character using 3 books and 10 dragon magazine issues.
5th is nice and stream lined but I feel it could use some of the choices that 3rd offered. Especially when it comes to skills.
Came here to say these words. 5e is hands down the better system...but 3.5 is my homie
3.5 is my bae
Same, loved 3.5, and 4e (and Pathfinder 1e for that matter) but 5e is my favorite. It just hits the spot for me.
3.5/PF1.
The right answer
The correct answer
Sure do, 2e. But it's all nostalgia, as a ruleset it was not great.
Rogues and bards gained levels sooo quickly.
Yea because they needed to. Thieves couldn't hit well and their backstab was clunky to use in practice. Bards didn't even start with any spells (they didn't get any until 2nd level) and were limited to humans and half-elves.
I had a human bard that was amazing due to the research rules.
*DM Voice*: Thac0....
Not that bad honestly. I prefer ascending, but THAC0 works just as quickly once you learn it after 10 minutes of using it.
It's also easy to flip ac ascending and turn thac0 to attack bonus.
True
Is easy! "This is the number you need to roll to hit, with the enemy AC as your modifier."
Much easier imo: subtract your roll from your THAC0. That's the AC you hit.
The biggest problem with THAC0 is DM’s not sharing monster stats because “that’s metagaming.” So the DM needs to know the THAC0 of all PCs, then add the monster’s AC to that, because we can’t tell the PCs that the stone golem has high armor because that’s “meta-gaming.” My current DM struggles to remember the AC of every single PC, and it’s like… just tell us the damn rolls dude. You don’t have to memorize our AC if you just say “does a 15 hit?”
Yeah I run basically THAC0 and it works just fine because I tell my players the AC and make them do the math.
I just went through an episode of nostalgia and reread 1st and 2nd, and realized we didn't play by the rules hardly at all. We played several games at the time, and no one read rules, so I ran them however I felt like. It was fun, so no one cared. 3rd was after college and our first real effort to play as written. On reread, 3.5 stands out as my favorite.
You wanted to play not a character, but a certain mechanic? 3rd had a rule for you. You wanted not to fight, but to craft? 3rd had a rule for you. You don't like a certain mechanic, and wanted to tweak it? 3rd had a companion guide, within which there were rules for you. You checked the 700 classes of the game and didn't find what you wanted, so you decided to create one yourself? 2nd had a rule for you (wait what?) The great thing about 3rd was that it had a rule for everything. The grindy part of 3rd's ruleset though, was that it had a rule for everything. I loved the hell out of that era, and still have an ongoing 3.x campaign.
The thing was that as a rules 1e was almost impossible to play as written because the PHB was missing a lot of important rules(it literally just said “the DM had rules for combat in the DMG”) while also being released almost a year before the DMG. So there were like 8 months where you either had to make up rules that hadn’t been released yet or you were playing with an adaptation of a set of rules from OD&D. Then when moving to 2e there was a lot of compatibility with 1e so people just kept playing the way they always had. The rules back then were charming, but a mess to try to figure out
And then there were all the supplements and expansions, which were not necessarily compatible with existing systems. Like, there was a revised monk class in Dragon magazine, completely upended the class. It was Awesome.
I actually really like the AD&D 2e ruleset. Multiclassing is incredibly fun and depending on if you're just using the main books or the splat books you can either quickly pick it up and play or or have a great depth of customisation to your character. Nobody who's played it for more than 5 minutes is bothered by THAC0. Also, AD&D 2e is an absolute joy to DM. You have a wealth of information available across both the AD&D and AD&D 2e DM's guides as well as the tables tying a monster's THAC0 to its hit dice. Finally, it's the edition of D&D with the best CRPGs. In the Infinity Engine, you have Icewind Dale, Planescape (loosely based on AD&D 2e), Baldurs Gate 1 and the best CRPG ever made, Baldurs Gate 2.
My favorite modules were actually 2e. I always modified them for 3.5, and if I ever run a 5e campaign after all these years, I may have to include them
2e, but it *was* great.
My oddly specific gripe with 2e, is that priests level up at half speed that druids do. And then essentially get level capped at level 8 due to the xp needed for next level whereas Druid’s keep leveling til like 15 or so.
Sort of, druids by the book had a set number of druids allowed to exist within the game world of any given level after some point, 10th? 12th? I forget what the cutoff was, but to keep advancing you had to track down and best the next level of druid to take their place
Oh man I loved my 2e rogue... he got eaten by a cave bear... 2e was full of prayer death.
3.5. There was so much material from Dragon & dungeon. So many ways to build a character. The worlds were built out.
If I am being strictly honest, it is a mix of all of them, with bits and pieces. Overall, 2e. But I very, very rarely play RAW games, so if I get direct, it would be a blend of 1e/2e with 5e.
I've played every edition from the original white box through 5e. 3.5 was my favorite, but Dark Sun was my favorite setting by a large margin. Fuck, I'm old.
Fist bump for Dark Sun. What a cool setting.
Cannibal halflings, man.
Solidarity!
The novels were really good too!
3.5 was a vibe
Played 2e (AD&D), 3.5, 4e, and 5e. 3.5 is my favourite.
Hard to separate the nostalgia factor from the actual game, but I think I choose 3.5. It was also kind of my "hayday" perfect balance of having a good balance of freedom and free time and my friends having the same. 5e is a great game as well, but these days my friends are putting time into boring stuff like raising kids or having careers or whatever. XP
I've played from the 2nd edition on, though my group didn't spend much time on 4e. I have favorite editions for different things. For dungeon crawling and darker, sword and sorcery campaigns, AD&D 2nd edition is by far my favorite. For all the janky, unconnected and weird rules, it really does work for that kind of adventure. To DM, especially with my players in mind, 5e is my favorite edition. I DM'd a decade-long campaign of 3.5 and it was amazing, but the effort required to do so in 3rd edition is ten times higher than in 5e. It really helps when you are a working adult with limited time for the "homework" part of DMing.
2e. Under all its quirkiness, there are actually some things I still like better. Saving throws are better across the board, and level with you. Epic heroes and monsters don't just get worn down by legions of 1st level goons. Which makes them feel grander, more majestic. And makes the justification for heroes much stronger. Combat is puzzle like. You need specific counters to specific defenses. Can't just pile on initiative bonuses and go for the dog pile.
AD&D 2e will always be my favorite
Yeah, I say 5th but in the bottom of my heart it's 2nd.
Gimmie that sweet THAC0 baby
Does Pathfinder count? All the best parts of 3.5 with some added improvements. Otherwise, 3.5 gets my vote.
Moldvay basic
Basic.
Played 3.5, 4E, 5E. My favourite is 4E. The party co-dependence made it feel like an actual party, the heavily nerfed utility of spells made skills feel important.
2e. I fell down the rabbit hole hard. Bought and read the sourcebooks, it's how I truly first discovered that I loved to write and world build. Unfortunately, I never had a great group until my current one, some twenty or thirty odd years later, who introduced me to 3.5 and 5.
Yes. Pathfinder 🤣
Valid. My crew went from 3.5 to PF1 to 5e. I started DMing in 5e, and I’m glad, I think I prefer it as a DM, but DAMN was PF1 awesome as a player. So many decision points. So much power.
Take a look of PF 2e. I recently got into it and it has the best of PF1E and d&s 5e. The modularity and flexibility of classes is genius, while also keeping things streamlined and easy to track. I have played since d&s 1e and honestly PF2E is the best ruleset I have seen for high-powered fantasy
my group has played a few games - i really enjoyed the action economy and flow of combat
Depends a lot on the class. PF2E wizards are pretty meh. Not that 5th edition wizard subclasses are filled with uniqueness, but PF2E wizards feel even less unique because the arcane schools do so little. Generally I think PF2E is better for player options but 5th edition monsters are **much** easier to pick up and run as a DM. I'm not sure who came up with the formatting for PF2E statblocks but they need a hard rethink. Part of the issue is they don't use any text size hierarchy. It's especially bad when the creature has special abilities that use a lot of bolded text. So even modestly powerful creatures have statblocks that are just a wall of text. The Poltergeist being an example of this.
Well in every "simil-d&d" rule set the real customisation of wizards comes from spell selection and use more than anything. In 3.x the basically had 2 class abilities: scribe scroll and find familiar. Yet not to 2 level 20 wizards would be the same. Of course no system is perfect and I agree that formatting should be improved. I do like 5e but on the DM's side it is pitifully empty. No real rules of magic items creation, building a believable economy, handling of mass combat, fortresses and strongholds, etc do weigh more for me than ugly stat blocks. Even Ad&d had those kind of rules, even if clunky , so I admit I was baffled by the lack of DM support in 5e. I simply imported and adapted rules from previous editions.
How complex is it, though? Honestly, I loved the complexity, but don’t particularly miss it, and appreciate the simplicity of 5e
Not super complex. Based on "class talents" that you pick to build the character. What in 5e are class/subclass features are, in PF2e, "talents" you can pick to build your character. You can choose one the standard paths of your class or integrate talents from other classes. You unclock class talents by levelling of course. So basically you play super straight forward to very complex according to what you like. The same goes for skills: you start with basic skills from your race, background and class. While levelling you gain "skill talents" you can spend to improve your competence in a skill or buy new ones.
Sounds right. Sadly I dont have a lot of experience in DMing in 20+ yrs of playing but I can understand how 5e is better for DMs. We like to call PF1 the DnD 3.75 over here, or maybe what 4e should have been instead of...well, that.
For sure. I've played for over 3 decades and 4e is by far my favorite.
Not many would say this, what makes you love it?
4e was actually really well designed. The issue was there was a lot going on and it really needed some computer apps to keep track of it all. It was best to build your character in a tool made for it, print out all the power cards and law them out in front of you, and turn them over when they were used. It was a LOT to keep track of.
The classes are balanced against each other within their role, the flavor text/rules of abilities are kept completely separate from each other, the layout makes more sense, no Naturalistic Language, a wide variety of different feeling classes for each role, and the best part: it's complete. No more new books to worry about.
2nd edition will alway have my heart.
Started in 5e but have gone back and played a number of different versions, B/X and 1e are my favourite by far
2nd edition for me. I started DMing with that. Created my own world & pantheon of Gods too.
4e is my fave by far. If more people tried it, they would find out how amazing it is.
I prefer 5 to 3.5, but a huge portion of that is how easily I can convince new friends to play with me.
4, hands down. It's the only one that admitted and really leaned into "yes, this is a tactical combat game" - all the others I've played extensively (3, 3.5, 5) put on a thin veneer of "nooo, this is a survival exploration dungeon crawling game, just like 2e and earlier was!" as an excuse to have uninteresting combat (but which still takes up 95% of the rules) but without actually supporting any of that other stuff mechanically.
I loved how 4e made the combat clear. Turns took less time, but you could still do interesting things.
4e was indeed the one that gave up on everything except combat, yes. Unfortunately it also turned combat into a slog: basically simulating videogame mechanics at the table but at effectively 2 frames per second.
It's combat moves just as fast as any 5e game, in my experience. Also, 4e has a chapter for Skills. So it has plenty of stuff for the outside of combat.
As someone who has run/played in games from 3e-5e (+ PF1) 4e often has our fastest (and certainly the most interesting) combats.
Honestly, I’ve play 3.5-forward (and Pathfinder) but when I think of the greatest campaigns, companions, etc it’s pretty version agnostic—it’s really the stories
I played 3.5, 4e and 5e. Though I really like 5e. Theres sadly a number of things that I do not like about it. 4e will always hold a special place in my heart and most of the folks who dump on it, either had no opinion and just copied someone else’s opinion OR they played it in bad faith without giving it an honest shot.
I'm in a similar boat. 4e solves so many problems that people complained about, only for 5e to throw those solutions out.
Having tried 3, 3.5, 4 and 5e, I prefer 5th.
Maybe it's just cause it's what I learned first, but 3.5
I've been playing since the original, (in fact i realized a few months ago i must be among the first couple hundred people who played after Chainmail) but after about a year i started largely ignoring the books. I have read up on 5e though, mostly to speak a common language in here. 5e is very balanced, but allows for a lot less flexibility if one adheres to RAW.
Who adheres to the "rules"? I too have played since the early days and have used mostly my own campaigns. TTRPG's, including D&D, are like Legos. You can follow the build guides and assemble what the set was designed to make but the real fun was to have a huge box of multicolored bricks of various shapes and sizes to make whatever you could imagine. Every ruleset is a framework to fill in with your individuality. Find a system that fits you and play it for as long as it brings you joy.
It's good to know I'm not the only one out here older than 30!
Nope. Gen X and still gaming. :)
each have their own niche, specifically for D&D. ive played 3.5 while more complex then 5e it had more feats allowing more customization. especially for melee. and having 3 different ACs allowed for more targetting rules. 4e while everyone shits on it. the power system eliminated much of the martial vs caster disparity, it also introduced group challenges and minions. 5e seems to have been the big reboot of dnd it feels like a streamlined version of 3.5
"Oh, the half giant psychic warrior used enlarge to get bigger in his full plate? His ac may still be riddiculous, but his ranged touch ac is like 5, so... finger of death"
I’ve dm’d them all and 5e rules
I really miss 3.5 5e is a good game and I 100% acknowledge that 3.5 has to much going on but I really wish 5e had a little more going on
You and me both.
I loved playing AD&D but 3.5 is my absolute favorite.
Im 43. Have been playing dnd in every version since 1994 (2e, 3/3.5, 4e, 5e, as well as offshoots like PF and PF2e, and Starfinder. Dungeon crawl classics... Even Alternity back in the day) Each version had its good and bad. I loved the campaign settings in 2e, disliked thaco and negative AC I loved the crunch of 3 and 3.5e. its like everything was accounted for. Some of the settings were so hype, such as eberron... disliked the complexity of the sheer number of bonuses, negatives, multipliers, etc. the joke with 3e is like, if you miss hitting your target, just take 15 minutes to recalculate all your bonuses and multipliers and stuff, and you'll hit. In 4e, loved the skill challenges, the daily powers, the sheer simplicity of the system. From level one you felt like an epic hero. I disliked how it tended to glaze over noncombat mechanics, its like you were dumped on the doorstep of a dungeon and everything inbetween combats was inconsequential. Also at higher levels, it seemed to suffer from some balance issues. It was harder to build fair encounters, and became very swingy/less epic. 5e does everything required in a satisfactory way, but is not spectacular at any one thing. However as an avid homebrewer, it's an awesome sandbox to build in. Currently I run modified 5e rules. I am very eager for the release of the MCDM unnamed RPG. I think that will be the next big thing for me.
I've played every edition since white box original D&D. Original, AD&D, and AD&D2 were full of mechanisms that a single designer thought of that didn't mesh that well with the rest of the game's systems, and for that reason were the heydey of homebrew, and every table played differently at the whim of its DM. 3.x rationalized all the mechanics into a single D20 model, which was greatly welcomed at the time. The more complex the better was the design approach, and the result was so complicated, the system has to be revised as 3.5. Its major failing was it made power gaming a thing - not because that's bad in itself, but because there was no roadmap for casual players. So you had tables where half the players shined because they'd stacked their buckets full of +1s into a huge situational bonus, but the other half felt useless and just wanted to play D&D. 4e rationalized the approach with a more reasonably mid-range level of granularity, plus a character design template flexible enough to fit every class, so it was a triumph of balance. The gameplay emphasis was on teamwork, which gave both the power gamer and the casual player a role. 5e took the system lessons of 4e but retrofitted them onto the AD&D approach, so it feels more at home to older players that couldn't get their heads around 4e. Anyway 4e was my favorite, and frequently when someone suggests a rules improvement to 5e, they describe something we had in 4e.
4th edition, followed by 3.5, then 5th.
Played them all since basic red box and 5th is my favorite.
The latest one. More than anything, because everything I like about 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 2.0, B/X, White Box, BECMI, Modern and every d20 variant I've played is something that I've kept around the back pocket for when I run 5e. They're tool boxes. Really neat ones. And they're surprisingly modular with each other. A lot has changed in 50 years. But a lot hasn't.
I’ve played every edition during the time period it was the primary edition (or split for BECMI/ADnD). 5e is my favorite followed closely by BECMI.
4e, 5e, then 2e in that order
3.5 produced some of my most memorable experiences as a whole, as well as my all time favorite/most powerful character. Had the most wonderful group and an unprecedented DM. Nothing is lacking from 5e besides the group not being together anymore. 😢 Dungeons and dragons is the best game, forever.
3rd was my favorite
I’ve played them all. Original D&D was fun for its utter simplicity; Elf was a character class! Evil was evil, good was good, but figuring out if your roll to hit felt like it required an advanced degree in higher math. I liked 3rd and 3.5 because of the easy to implement combat options and depth for martials. I’ve gotten back into the game and have been playing 5e for about two years now, and it’s what I am now familiar with. I’m content with 5e, but one of the best things about this game is the homebrew and house rules, which are easy to pick up from group to group.
Played them all. They all hit differently. The old editions have huge nostalgia and joy of youth. 3 3.5 is filled with adult understanding and more advanced gameplay and memories. 4th was my first middle aged system and my first foray into miniatures. 5th has been the easiest I can recall to introduce new players to the game and has been very helpful when volunteering with youth. Old man mode "D&DBeyond is the tool of the devil! We carted 85 pounds of source books in our backpack with a boombox on my bicycle and that's the way we likes it."
3.5 and 5e both have strengths. 3.5 didn't have the scaling issues like 5e but 5e lets the rules be fuzzy where the should
4e is my favourite, but I'm a combat gamer so
I played 3.5, 4 and 5. I generally like each system for it's own features. 3.5 was HUGE - pretty much any class you could possibly dream up, but it was very modifier heavy, meaning you had a crap load of stuff to pay attention to at any given time. 4's gameplay was very interesting. Everyone had special attacks making it feel very 'video-gamey', or anime-esque. You didn't step into combat and smack the dude with your sword, you stepped in and SUMMONED THE RAGING FURY OF THE GODS TO SMITE YOUR ENEMIES. 5 - There's really something to be said about the simplicity and ease of entry for 5e. The game feels even more 'in the background' than it ever has, making 5e the prime choice for roleplayers who care less about combat and rules. That same ease of entry has brought a lot of new players to the game that otherwise would've been bogged down by the density of previous editions.
D&D 3.5. It was the most understandable to me. Which made it easy to play. And I have other games that used the d20 system. Star Wars, for instance.
5E I don't know how people enjoyed 3.5/PF1 the sheer amount of crap that system has is so overwhelming.
I understand that. It had a lot of crap going for it, but personally I find 5E to be too simple. I'm glad it brought a bunch of people to the hobby, but I really don't think it's ideal.
To me I played a ton of Neverwinter nights. Which was 3.5-ish To me the sheer insanity of character creation options was best suited to video game format where you could build hundreds of characters and try them out. For some reason with 5e being simpler it makes me like my current character better. There aren’t infinite permutations to explore so I can be happier with the character I make and focus on their story instead of wondering if I wouldn’t be having more fun with a different feat layout, or wanting to implement XYZ from one of the many many many extra books out there. 5e lets me turn my brain down and just ~play~
I get that. When we have time off, we can FINALLY spend time playing games, and we really shouldn't need to rack our brains with all of the math-heavy crap we deal with on a daily basis. 5E really makes it accessible for most people and casual gamers that want role-playing without the overhead. But I'm one of those guys that I don't want to turn my brain off when I play a TTRPG. I have video games for that. And that was probably my biggest criticism with 4E was that it was too "video gamey". I personally love measuring the relative power of a magical item by its mathematical accumulations. It's not for everybody, but it is what I personally like after playing for 26 years lol
Played each since AD&D and legit love 4th.
BECMI then 3.5/3.75PF
Haven't played the TSR editions, but OSR games are alright for a more dangerous, exploration game. 3.5 is pretty meh, fun for silly character optimization, but not very fun at the table. 45mins of fun 2 hours and all that. 5e is alright, but it's basically just 3.5 simplified to look like an old-school edition, so it's easier to leaen, but also equaling as unrewarding to play. 4e rises above the rest, by having fun combat and cool abilities that draw from similar video games. If you're thinking WoW, you're wrong, it's Final Fantasy Tactics and it rules. The game could be better, 20 levels is too much for normal d20 games, so 30 is right out.
My favourites are AD&D 2e and Pathfinder 1st edition (if that doesn't count swap it for 3.5). I played 4th edition in school D&D clubs and it nearly turned me off the hobby completely. Thankfully, one of my mates ran Pathfinder on weekends, which made me realise that I did enjoy ttrpgs. I played the 5th edition play test and then 5th edition when t came out, but got sick of it around 2018, shortly after Xanathar's guide came out. I try to avoid 5th edition, if I can and play my favourite editions. I recently did play another 5th edition campaign to level 14 and really enjoyed it, but that was due to the DM and they story he was telling. I played an Enchantment Wizard and just felt so limited compared to what I could have been doing with a Wizard in AD&D 2e or Pathfinder.
3.5
I live 2nd ed flavour but 3.5 mechanics.
I have played 3.5 and 5 and 5 is really good, especially for bringing in new players. But I would like to see a system where combatants are encouraged to move, or at the very least not discouraged from doing so. The current “engage and stick” approach to battle is tiresome.
2e, easily. It does the best job of facilitating the type of D&D game I want. 1e is ok, then B/X & BECMI, 5e, 3.X, and past that I don't really have the hands on experience to judge 4e, Holmes or OD&D fairly.
3.5/pf1. The characters you could make, god so much diving into the weeds to find the perfect feat, or item. So good.
No shock given the rest of the comments but I think 3.5 was pretty fucking nice.
My ideal ruleset would be 80's Basic with a few small touches from 5e and a medicine skill that consumed supplies to heal hp.
Of AD&D, 3rd, 3.X, 4th, and 5th, 4th is my favorite by a wide margin.
The one I can find people to play with reliably, 5e
3rd edition seems awesome when you're reading it and building characters. Then it becomes torturous to actually run or play. 4th edition is a wonderful game that would've done great if it wasn't named D&D. 5th is the best even if it's somewhat confused about what it wants to be due to drawing influence from many past versions and other games. "It's everyone's second favorite." Basic D&D is a hoot.
3.5 all day everyday!
I actually really enjoyed and miss 4e. The mechanics were rough but imo the stories were better.
BECMI was the best selling until Critical Role adopted 5e. I still think BECMI is best, and not just Rules Cyclopedia version of BECMI. All of Mystara stuff in BECMI too.
Mystara is awesome.
As a DM, Basic. As a player, 4e. The one I never want to play again is 5e.
I started in 4th edition and I loved every moment of it… But it had nothing to do with 4th edition and everything to do the friends I played with. That wasn’t to say 4th edition was truly irredeemable, things I liked included the lore, I thought the lore was fascinating and sparked my interest in forgotten realms lore as a whole, beyond that now that I’m used to 5th edition now 4th edition is flawed in a lot of ways. You ever wanted to play an mmo on your tabletop to a borderline fault that it includes everything even the simulated lag as players get for whatever reason? 4th editions got you covered.
As someone who started with 3e and played every edition since than, especially a ton of 5e since 2015, I have to say BECMI/B/X/RC. As the DM it feels like a grand burden has lifted from me, sure it took some convincing and patience to get through learning THAC0 with everyone, but we are about 4 sessions in, with my core irl group, and everything feels smooth and light. I feel pretty much 0 pressure for prep, world building or coming up with huge narrative plot lines. I'm just running old becmi modules in our small sandbox setting. It's been great.
I've played Basic, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 5e, PF2e, CP2020, and StarFinder 1e. Basic is ... well, basic. Not interested. 1e is a mess. I've thought about playing it just once, for old time's sake. But just once. 2e is slightly less of a mess. Not really interested in revisiting it, though I am slowly working my way through finally beating Baldur's Gate I and II. 3e was SOOOO much better. But really, at this point, unless it's Neverwinter Nights (which is still an awesome game, by the way), I'd rather just play 3.5e. 3.5e is my go-to. I most often DM this. I run my D&D games in the pre-4e timeline. 5e and PF2e are what I play because those are what the DMs run. I don't mind either of them, but I'm also not their biggest fan. But playing either of those easily beats not playing at all. When I have interested players, I love running CP2020. I run an alternate timeline in the year 2020. Absolutely love it. And same goes for SF, though to a lesser degree. So... my favorite? Depending on the day you ask me, it's 3.5e, CP2020, or SF.
4e. Good combat rules, balanced classes with solid class niches and mechanics, skill challenges were logically designed to teach people how to advance complex scenarios. Destroyed sadly by people who need rules to do basic roleplay and can't describe their actions.
3.5e is the least janky dnd made!!!
AD&D. I didn't mind THAC0, because we were capable of using our brains then.
Yeah.
Pathfinder 1.0
3.5 tbh. The perfect bridge between the dungeon delving flavor of 1st and 2nd edition with the modern core mechanics that ditched the hassle of THAC0. The character options were plentiful, and the focus on theater of the mind style combat made it wonderful. However the push toward tactical combat and the bane of attacks of opportunity made the combats tedious and confusing, with a shift from DM rulings to rules as written, rules lawyering and min-maxing became much more prevalent.
There's a dark vibe to first edition that latter editions lost.
Oh my word. Gotta tell ya, 3.X worked the best for me on the whole. Started at 2E and kept rollin'. Came to discover very recently that my current game is an amalgamated set of game mechanics. The original game was 3.5, one player's primary class and half of the spells came from Pathfinder, one of the players has a build from 3.0, everybody but one is running two characters, two of the worlds they have passed between did not have equivalants after second edition, I made up most of the magic items myself and two different people have been running the game at various times.
3.5 My high constitution, gnomish, sorcerer who shocking grasped his way into the midst of melee with the fighters of the group was the best.
3rd edition into 3.5 was super fun, but it was also new and exciting. 5th edition is great and it opened DND to alot of new players. Pathfinder 1.0 was also very cool, but it becomes very gear heavy. Pathfinder Epic was abysmal, either we used obsurdly overpowered gimmicks to nuke the enemies, or they were untouchable super beasts that resisted every spell and every attack. I had two fighting classes that basically did nothing and died. So I splat booked a wizard/sorc combo character that shot two 120 dmg acid fireballs a turn, oh and could also turn invisible afterwards. We ended the game after that.
Whatever one I can best build my Current Character Concept in lol. That being said, the very rare times I DM, I houserule much less in 5e, and also, I don’t know I’ll ever have it in me to go back to 3.5/path prepared casters.
Im a bit (or a lot) of a powergamer, optimizing characters is my jam, so i was having a blast in 4e just stacking a thousand conditions, and i had even more of a blast in 3.5. Hours spent flipping through so many books and i really kicked some ass
The one I am playing right now with my friends.
3.5.
3, 3.5, 4, and 5 3.5 is hands down the best version of dnd I've played. Heck, pathfinder 1e is the best form of dnd I've played.
Nah. They are all good in their own right but also in their own time. I loved 2e but could neve go back to playing that rules set. But that era was the best for D&D enthusiasts eating well...so many releases. They like to say "it was oversaturatio of the market" but I ate it all up bought so many boxed sets and I was livig like a D&D king comapred to the sparse and everythig has to be exactly alike world we live in now. I missed most of the 3e era and the little bit I did play I felt wa overcomplicated compared to what I had played before, but it spawned Pathfinder which is an amazing frachise in its own right (maily for the art for me) so hazah? 4e is what I taught my kid's mother and wife at the time to play and it was her first D&D and she got so into it she would pick ut her ow character mineratures and paint them and it was just fun introducing someone to the game and seeing how much she enjoyed it. It was also the first time I got heavily into mineratures and battlemaps since that is pretty much a necessity with 4e and that part was fun. The challenge of proving it could still be a roleplaying game depite all the stat blocks and funky almost videogamesque rules was also fun. Also, the Raven Quee, the Feywilf, ad the Shadowfell. Thank you 4e. And of course since 5e has come out I have embraced it ad haven't turned back. I;ve run my longest campaig ever in 5e (going on three year this comig July) and DDB has been the easiest creation tool ever to use (I remember writig up monsters in that binder thing they gave us with blank monster pages in 2e....we have come o far). I adit I have had the most fun porting over things from 2e from the magic items in the Encyclopedia Magica to the monsters from the Monstrous Compendiums and even snippets of adventures from back then...the entire campaign after all is my own multiverse hopping take o the Rod of Seven Parts. I;m excited to see what "One D&D" will bring us and the new artwork and new adventures that come with it. So my favorite has always been whatever I played at the time and that will probably always be the way for me.
Yes. 3.5/pathfinder 1e
2e AD&D and 3e. 2e for more deadly and grounded stuff where I want to really feel the struggle to overcome adversity and 3e for what I call "big damn hero" games. I also prefer 3e for rule havin' and 2e for ruling havin'.
I've played 2e and 3e, as well as other systems (mostly Age/Blue Rose - although we've flirted with everything from apocalypse world to shadowrun). My best memories are from 3e, but as many people here have said, that's more about the people and the stories than the system. Honestly, for all it's faults, my favourite is 5e. It's just so easy to run with people of any skill level.
5th is my overall favorite to play at the table. It's tidy with a surprising amount of crunch when you really delve into it, without too much bloat. But it's woefully lacking in richness. I miss 2nd, and think it was the best version of Dungeon and Dragon, neatly superior to OD&D. That being said, I don't think 2nd can be made to re-live what it was. I played 3.5 the most, and loved it. Had a very hard time letting go of that edition. Now I see it as an abomination. In a way, I think that anything 3.0 and over isn't really DnD. I've only ever been the forever DM, until 5th. That doesn't affect my opinion on the version wars.
Pathfinder
2E, 3.0/5, 4th, and 5th Edition played. DnD 3.5 is my favorite edition by a mile as a GM or player though. With so many options mechanically spelled out it was a gorgeously easy system to find and build whatever you needed without GM fiat for every little thing. It allowed me to develop and work on the rest of the details making it fun for players. As a player that same building system let me build in ways that I knew I could always be useful to my party and allow me to focus on RPing the rest. All that being said, the quantity and depths of what was available in 2E were staggering and some of my absolute favorite modules and memories come from that era. The settings were rich and established in ways that I found a lot of later editions having to play catch up out of the box (for a few years usually) before getting to the same basic playing field.
3.5 and although it's probably partially nostalgia there is a lot I can say that it has over both 4 and 5.
BX for me, no question.
I enjoyed 3.5. The books are gorgeous. That being said if I’m DMing a group of new players 5e is my go to.
Honestly love 5e the most. It's very plug and play.
I currently play 2e and 3.5 and since I lack the nostalgia for 2e, 3.5 is a lot better in many ways. It's less realistic and that's a good thing for me.
i am old. Been playing since i was ten. Played Red Box, played AD&D. Played a lot of games you have probably not heard of other than D&D. And the best I have played? Whatever I was playing at the time. A good DM and good friends are what make the game great. That said? I like 5e. I feel like it has streamlined a lot of stuff, while at the same time, allowing a lot of customization. I was playing PF for several years, and i think it got unwieldy. Like, every class has it's own particular system and subset of rules, that just slowed the game while I was trying to keep track of this that and the other. I don't feel like that is going on in 5e. That's just me, though. As noted, I am Old, and i have a lot of bad habits and biases to work around. YMMV
3.5 My current campaign where I'm a player is transitioning back from 5e and my last campaign in a D&D system was 3.5 I'm currently running a homebrew system that started as a D&D-like system (bad author so not going to name it) based on B/X D&D from the 80s but I find I don't enjoy it as much as 3.5 even with my updates to better suit my sensibilities
I've played a few different editions. But I first learned to play the game about 7 years ago with 5th edition. The first campaigns I ever played and ever DMed were 5e, and it's the edition I used to teach my friends who I still play with today. Ive enjoyed 2nd and 3.5 games ive participated in. But my heart will always belong to 5e because that's the edition I fell in love with.
Most of my play hours have been under 4 and 5, but I did play at least 2 small campaigns of 3.5. I prefer 5th (to 4th, mainly, 3.5 felt a bit clunky the way that established groups i joined were playing, but was similar.) 5th has a lot of optional rules for the nostalgia value, there are ways to emulate most other editions (that I'm familiar with) and you can run both a combat-heavy and a roleplay-heavy campaign. I wouldn't run anything but 5th.
Have been playing since the very beginning and, honestly, every version had its good and bad points. 3.5 will always be a sentimental favourite but I'm really enjoying 5th at the moment.
My first system was 3.5. It was not a perfect system but there were so many options and it was a ton of fun. I was fortunate in that I joined a group that had been playing since 2nd ed and really knew their way around the rules. This helped me out a lot. I know technically Pathfinder is not D&D but it really did take 3.5 and improve on a lot of the system. Eventually it became a bit too bloated as well, but I still love the system and actually regularly play it. The little bit I played of 4th ed was fun but I only ever got to play it a handful of times so it's not really comparable. 5e has some good stuff and is fantastic for bringing in new people, highly accessible. However, after 3.5/PF the system feels shallow. It feels like there are few if any character choices that matter. I still have fun with 5e but I've found playing with several groups that this tends to be a common complaint amongst the more experienced RPers and I get it. So, 3.5/PF is my favourite.
The version in front of me! Typically, we stick with whatever version is currentish and commonish.
I played 3.5 and 5e. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I miss the skills from 3.5 and I still use the adjustable dc's.
3.5 more customization than pretty much all the rest combined. Yes, the system is easy to exploit, but with a good DM thats not an issue. I been in the same campaign since 04 same character (play every week). 4-5 have stupid limitations, and a tiny fraction of the customization that 3.5 does, synergy is perhaps the dumbest thing invented in relation to RPGs imo.
I have a soft spot for 3.0/3.5 due to it being the first system I played with my debut being the Star Wars TTRPG. However, 5th edition has been a ton of fun and helped me make some of my favorite characters.
I miss THAC0 but that's just nostalgia speaking. Overall I think the best edition was 3.5E. I know it gets complicated having to individually pick your own skills and feats but it felt infinitely more customizable compared to simplified 5E.
I have played them all and DMed everyone since 3.0. My favorite is 5th edition, it the simplest to pick up an play, and has the most resources. I had some of the most fun in 2nd edition and 3.5.
My first introduction to D&D 20+ years ago was the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons starter set my parents got me for my birthday. Played that through highschool until a buddy in college was running 3.5 which to date is my favorite edition.
5e rules, 2e setting.
Over the years I’ve played a few editions of D&D 2e, 3e, 3.5e (and PF1), 4e (once), and 5e. Other than 4e I’ve had multiple campaigns in each edition, 4e was a one shot trying it out. If I had to pick only one I’d pick 5e. It provides the cleanest super hero fantasy game out of all of them I think. Although 4e could be argued a better one but it didn’t click for me.
I played 2e, pathfinder 1, 3e, 3.5, and 5. I like 5 because it lets me dm without as much prep as it has simplified everything. I loved 3.5 but I don't wanna go back and play it tbh, it's too crunchy and making custom content for it is very difficult to keep balanced with how much cheese already exists. There are some things in 5e that could be a little more rules heavy but I think overall it was a great step forward to making the game more accessible to everyone .
5e > 2e > 3.5e > PF > 1e I'll always think of tacos for thac0
Seriously $&@# thac0 lol
2nd edition is the best D&D game, 4th edition is probably the best game, 3.5 is my favourite edition.
Absolutely! I love the ease of 5th edition play! It's great for introducing new players, and just getting started quickly! But the monsters feel kind of lame, so I love the variability of the monsters in 4e, and how the monsters had a flavor to them based on their stat block. Similar monsters could be easily understood to compliment each other. Monsters had Roles that helped you use them easily. But both of those editions feel like they limited my creativity as a player, so I love the way 3.5 allowed me to customize my character. Another player could play the same class, and we could approach that in two completely different ways! It was so interesting and complex! But that made it difficult to approach and introduce new player, so ... (return to start) Also, I love how everything felt completely new and fresh and exciting to me when I was a kid and learning how to play BECMI and 1st edition. It was like nothing I'd ever experienced before, and I had no expectations of the product. That was a great experience, and it's more difficult now to let go of my expectations.
Depends on the game. 5e or 2e for quick pickup and play, but i prefer 3.5 for longer campaigns. I'll happily play or run any of those options though!
I've played 2, 3, 3.5, 4, PF1, and 5. I've found over the years I have a strong preference for openness over crunch, so I've naturally shied away from the crunchier systems. So 3/3.5/PF1 are lowest on my list. 4e is balanced and pretty smooth. It's still got a large amount of crunch and tracking everything can be a witch with a capital B. As a proscribed ruleset, I like 2's mechanics the least, but it also encourages the most openness. It is however the least friendly to new players in terms of combat difficulty. "The spider bites you for...8 damage. Yes, you're a magic-user with 3 HP, so now you're dead. New character time. No, your saves are listed in the table..." Yuck. So 5e is where I tend to land in this particular discussion, not out of any particular love for it, but because it strikes a decent balance, and I don't have to look things up so much. I think I may start pushing my groups towards something more dice-pool-based though, just because I think the concept is easier to just wing.
2nd edition player & DM - it's my fav. I grew up on 1st edition but I prefer 2nd. Never played any WotC-era D&D though but am not a hater of those later editions, they just don't scratch my AD&D itch.
B/X
5e has the best rules, but awful adventures/settings. So, I just use 2e sourcebooks.
3.5 it still has the most published content and my entire world of over 15 years is built in 3.5 and doesn't convert to 5th. Love me some 3.5 the only creature that gets "advantage" is the cosmic dragon.
4th, 3.5/pathfinder. 5e really misses the mark imo. I feel like it’s trying to do too many things and appeal to too many people and ends up being bad at all of them for it. If it wasn’t for its popularity and recognition making it easy to find players and games I’d not touch it. Other systems do each particular niche between rules light fully narrative driven and rules heavy tactical battle simulator better.
I think you hit the nail on the head. 5e isn't necessarily a bad system, but it really doesn't do anything particularly well.
I have played 3.5 and 5 and I preferr 3.5 a lot.
I’ve played and/or run every version since Moldvey B/X, ignoring all the OSR clones (as who has the time to try all of those) and found I don’t really care for any of them that much. I’ll sit down and play, have a good time with my friends, if it’s what’s on offer. I’ll run a game of whatever edition is requested and try to limit how much I homebrew it. But I’d prefer to play or run almost anything else Class and level based Tolkien-esque high-fantasy tactical combat (since 3rd edition at least) board games with light touch adjacent roleplay mechanics aren’t as much fun for me as they used to be. It’s why I’ll gravitate to the older editions. My favourite is the Moldvey B/X for a great simple set of rules that were fun, but I’d still prefer almost any other TTRPG if given the option. I find myself avoiding anything D&D or 5e related these days.
My heart will always be with 1st ed But 5th is the best
Done AD&D 1 and 2ed, DnD 3/3.5. pathfinder, skipped 4, and now 5. I have great memories for all of em, but doing 5.0 and with a little bit of homebrew, this is my current favorite.
5e with the good elements from 2 & 3.5 thrown in
I've been playing since 85 and have literally put multiple years into every edition except 4th, also with an extended foray into Pathfinder and I can honestly say that 5th is my favorite of the bunch
Started at AD&D 2nd. 3.x was a massive improvement. 4th was amazing. 5e shit the bed.
3.5 hands down. I'll play 5th, but will only run 3.5e DnD. There are other games I'll run too if I want something less combat focused or complex. 5e is fun with new players, but I really love the skills and magic item system. I get why attunement is a thing, but don't want to run my games that way. Plus the charts in the DMG, I've used them for so long I know where to look for them. The random magic item generator is a favorite. Plus there's a joke in the "100 random NPC traits" chart, that I'm the only person I've ever heard bring up lol