What's your favorite version of DND. I count pathfinder as DND.

Probably 2nd edition AD&D. It mostly receives favorite status for the settings, and being the version I played most. If I were to run a campaign I'd probably default to it over 3.X.

Fourth and Fifth editions just didn't catch my interest.

I don't like 5e dnd. It's to simple. My favorite version is pathfinder. But I use DND 3.5 and pathfinder interchangeably.

AD&D 2nd edition for me.

Agreed with LaughingKefka in that it is primarily due to the setting support that the edition received.

I admit that the main reason AD&D2e earns the spot for me since that is the system I started with.

My dad started with 2nde.

Without a doubt, the house-ruled version of 1E that I played for many years in the late 70's and into the 80's.

Since it really doesn't exist anymore, I would have to say 5E as it is the game that I play the most now.

Not to be rude or anything but I don't like 5e. It's to simple for me.

In reply to glaxton (msg # 7):

I love that the game has stayed alive. 5e is well supported and bringing in new players. But its not my D&D.

In reply to glaxton (msg # 7):

It's not rude to not like a game! For example, I intensely dislike 3.xE!

I returned to D&D when 3E came out (I even met Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams) and I liked it. But as more books were produced and even more third-party products came out I came to dislike the never-ending modifiers and bonuses that needed to be calculated.

It's the joy of gaming, there's something for everyone! :-)
This message was last edited by the user at 00:14, Tue 28 Feb 2023.

I started playing with Moldvay Basic D&D back in the day, and have played every version of D&D (yes even 4E) as well as both versions of Pathfinder.

Personally, I think 5E is the best version. I understand some people believe 5E is too simple, but I'm guessing that's because they started with 3E. I loved 3/3.5E when it first came out, but it just got way too bloated with all of the various options and splatbooks, and in my opinion went the way of a Palladium game.

4E was a great tabletop MMO simulator, it just shouldn't have been called D&D.

Here are my primary reasons I believe 5E is the best edition:

1) It's actually a roleplaying game :) I had some IRL friends I used to game with who primarily played White Wolf as well as various indie/story games. And one of them posited that D&D (and his experience was primarily 3/3.5E and 4E) is not a roleplaying game, because there is absolutely no incentive in the game for roleplaying. Meaning there are no rules for giving you extra XP for good roleplay or in-game bonuses for a really good description of what your character is doing, etc. And it's true. 5E at least has the Inspiration system to promote roleplay.

2) The overhaul of the Vancian magic system. I love how you only need to prepare a spell once even if you want to cast it multiple times. I love that spells are now scalable, so you only have to prepare Cure Wounds and can cast it at any level. I'm also a big fan of ritual magic.

3) I am a big fan of the advantage/disadvantage rule. It makes it much easier to handle various situations rather than random pluses and minuses that you have to memorize or constantly look up.

4) I like the tactical system better. I like that you can move around a creature without provoking.

5) I actually like that the game is simpler. The barrier to entry is much lower for new players. Because it's not all about buying all of the right splatbooks in order to build the perfect, uber min/maxed character, it's a lot harder for a new player to make a suboptimal character, which is good.

6) I like that as a player you have to make a conscious decision about whether to take an ASI or pick a feat. It makes feats that much more special, and their aren't literally hundreds you have to know in order to make a good character.

In reply to Prince of Boredom (msg # 10):

Saves me from posting a rational :) I'd clone all of that except 4e which I never played.

Yes. Simplicity in the 5E game engine supports more complex role-playing.

You met Monte Cook! What did he look like? He's like my favorite. I'm actually running a Ptolus campaign and my dad is running two Ptolus campaigns. If you don't know what Ptolus is it's a adventure module that Monte Cook made. It's HUGE.
This message was last edited by the user at 01:04, Tue 28 Feb 2023.

Honestly?
The one that lets me sit around a table with my friends and have a good night.

In reply to dybbuk67 (msg # 13):

I like doing table top DND but I never have the time that is why I love RPOL. You get a little bit of DND every day as my dad says.

In reply to glaxton (msg # 12):

He looked like his photos in 2001/2002! :-D

I went to my one and only GenCon in 2002 and attended some design and writing workshops he put on. But in fall 2002 (or maybe 2003) he and his fellow co-designers came to V-Con in Vancouver, BC.

I played Lego Junkyard Wars against Monte and his (then) wife, Sue. Yakked in design workshops with only about a dozen people; had beers with Skip!

They're all really great people.

And to riff off Prince of Boredom, V1510n, and dybbuk67: any edition is the right edition if you can get together and play a game with friends. I would even play 3.5 or PF if that's what the group wanted (but I would not DM)!!

I started with Basic-with-1e-supplements, did some 2nd edition and now do 5e. Skipped 4e entirely, only kinda played 3.5. I mainly play non-D&D games.

Honestly, it's a 'right time, right place' thing. Like, I'm not the hugest fan of 3.5, but there's a GM online I like who's been running a 3.5 campaign for over a decade (starting newer ones in 5e). If I was offered a seat, my enthusiasm for the game itself would overcome my disinterest in 3.5.

In general though, I have no complaints about 5, and right now it's really easy to find people who like to play it.

It has to be a toss up between 2nd and 3.5 I love both of these systems.
4th was a nightmare for me, though I tried to learn it, I just never got the swing of it.
I have been learning 5th edition.

I'm with Greymist...I really enjoyed the old-school 1E, even if we did have to make a lot of house rules or rely on DM hand-waves and fiats to get us through some of the games.  A lot of the stuff my group (same guys I started playing with in Jr. High played together until we all went to different schools for college) was completely outside the scope of anything the rules had written up, but our DM was always good for a "Roll this, and if you beat this number, it works" on those crazy ideas.

I've tried 2E, 3.5, and 5, and none of them came close to recapturing that simplicity that let us focus on role-playing, instead of number-crunching (although I do consider 5E the best among the three).

But my experience has been that who you're playing with is more important than what you're playing.  If you have that chemistry with the DM and other players, any edition of any game can be fun.  Some games, however, and especially some editions of games REALLY make that chemistry a necessity to enjoy it.

I'll be weird and say the only edition of DnD I really like is Fourth - everything is nice and straightforward, everyone gets cool stuff to do (rather than the Fighter standing there going "I hit it" while the Wizard is busy remaking the universe), there's much less class imbalance, etc. I've played bits and pieces of other editions and watched a lot of Fifth played, which is plenty enough to put me off ever wanting to actually try it. I'll stick with my edition that has actually fun combat, thanks :D. The rest of the mechanics are much the same across all editions, since the rules and mechanics of DnD have always primarily focused on combat. Back when it started (based on what I've heard from someone who was there) it sounds like it was kind of like an ARPG, really (like Diablo) - go to town, meet NPC, get quest, go to dungeon, kill everything, get loot and exp, return to town, hand in quest, repeat until no more quests, go to new town, repeat.

There are other systems I'd like to get (back) into but it's hard enough finding a group, let alone a good group. Who is okay with doing something outside of DnD (and then usually Fifh Edition, sigh). Meanwhile I have several DnD characters from games that fizzled out very early on, waiting for their stories to be told.

4e is my favorite overall. The killing curse was the save system. When I play 4e I HATE that part. And I mean HATE it. It is the end of the system' use. and sadly my group's fix (when I hada a group around 2021-ish) was very poor, the save system is built to be random, and our fix was to apply bumps, which can lead to embarassing results.

I love 4e though. I would love 35, and did but I exhausted it, much like Exalted 1e and 1.5. I did it ALL, and I mean I played Samurai from 1st to 24th. Wizards and clerics dozens, plural dozen, of each to epic. I played a wizard in Living Greyhawk to 12th, and while I didn't max out level, I maxed out Intelligence and then some. 3.5 was a blast, but I'm tired of it. PF is objectively more filled in. Better? I think for me it would have been, if it existed at in tandem to 3.5, as if it was choice between the two while both developed. To me, however, it (PF) just scratches the same itch that was there for 3.5, that I feel has been rubbed raw.

I like 2e, but it feels like an even more expansive 3.5, in that is was made with love, unlike many 3.5 books...but there are sooooo many! I think if I wanted to play D&D, 2e would be my next attempt. I like "dead" systems, that is starting to play systems (now, not always) that have been retired, so I start from day 1 with all content. It's what I did with Exalted 2e, and D&D 4e.

Dragonstrike doesn't have full replayability. Especially the VHS, but I feel very privileged to have played that a few times (we only watched the VHS a total of twice, one in more bizarre fascination, the other to fully realize the cultural humor). I played each scenario a few times, and we broke it, but for a board game, made so long ago, prior to many interactions, I loved it!

4e though is a labor, but one I'm still inspired by and driven to use...D&D asa whole just isn't on the height it was during RPGA's run of Living Greyhawk. For me, that ship sailed, and I was lucky to be on it. As a memory, I enjoyed 3.5 most. 50 hours each each for over 15 years. I had a great exposure to new people at conventions with LG, and a dedicated playgroup for just around 20 years. 4e is "new" to me. It allows me to explore forced moved, even though I have to slog, and I mean slog, through the save system. Forced movement in 4e feels right, and 3.5 forced movement sucked. I love the movement based effects (restrained, immobilized, etc...) in 4e, so much I endure saving against effects that become queued and very time consuming.

So my favorite of the systems is 3.5 is easier for me to follow, I have enjoyed all versions even 4th had some good features, but I felt it was less writing friendly I don't know how to best describe it. I love the lore that 2nd edition brought us, and I often tweak my 3.5 games with lore from the 2nd edition ones. Since most of my games are AU to the setting, I don't follow the book exactly but I do use elements heavily from it for lore.

After some sleep and capability to process brain power XD .
This message was last edited by the user at 20:05, Tue 28 Feb 2023.

I would still love to see them bring Darksun and al-Quadim forward from 2nd ed!

My favorite is the BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia version. I've heard others say that the Rules Cyclopedia is very likely the most perfect and detailed D&D RP book for its size, and I wholeheartedly agree.

AD&D 2nd edition is probably my second favorite edition. I very much enjoy the quirkiness of the 1st edition, but do think most of the streamlining that 2nd edition brought made it more approachable and easier to use, without sacrificing as much of that quirkiness later editions did away with.

5e. Mainly because I feel it brought back some of the good streamlining of the original 1st Ed., while also carrying forward popular elements of other versions (skill proficiencies, feats, encounter XP budgets, class specializations) that made the game better over time. For me 2nd Ed., 3rd Ed., and 3.5 were good, but became too bloated and "cadillac-y" to be fully functional, and they suffered from greater power creep than we've seen in 5e.
This message was last edited by the user at 04:47, Wed 01 Mar 2023.

For me its 3.5 - it gave me my chance to play monsters, use templates to enhance normal races and do truly unique characters.

2nd fave are the classic 1st & 2nd edition.