Okay, Veeky Forums, we have threads arguing over best edition every week. It's time for a twist

pic related

I'll only comment on the editions I've actually played

>AD&D 2E
If you want crunchy, but gritty and realistic but still magical medieval adventuring, look no further. Boy does it have its problems, but it's fun, even beyond the nostalgia factor

>3e/3.5/PF
I can't say I enjoy playing this game, HOWEVER, building a character in the game is REALLY fun. It's fun enough to be a game in and of itself. It gives you the same satisfaction you get after building a top tier deck for a CCG. Much like building a top tier deck, playing quickly becomes dry after you've seen your gimmick/combo "go off," but DAMN if it isn't fun to build.

>4e
Combat is fun enough to be a game in and of itself. Crunch is not tied to fluff, so re-fluffing is the easiest thing in the world, making countless character concepts that once were not possible possible.

Similarly, it is the easiest edition to DM, requiring almost no prep time, and is, by m count, the only edition of D&D ever to have a functioning encounter balancing mechnanic that makes hitting the sweet spot between "party uses no resources" and "TPK, everyone go home and stop having fun with your friends" easy.j Just like with character concepts, the seperation between fluff and crunch means you can throw literally ANYTHING at your players by a quick re-fluffing and elemental-damage-type switch-out

>5e
It plays pretty much like 3e, but with duct-tape. This makes it kind of a middle ground. It's easier than some others to DM, but not as easy as 4e, because it requires much more prep. It's fun to build, but not as fun to build as 3e, because there isn't quite as much cheese. The adventuring realism is there, but not as good, because it's not nearly as crunchy. The only thing it's the BEST at is ease of finding a RL game. Personally, I just don't care for the game at all, but I guess I can see how it's something everyone can agree upon... Dennys for D&D: you can always find one that's open, and while it's not BAD

>I can see how it's something everyone can agree upon...
When you have 4E-style padded sumo combat without the tactical combat to justify its existence, no, no I will not agree to play it.

>When you have 4E-style padded sumo combat without the tactical combat to justify its existence, no, no I will not agree to play it.

Yeah Ironically the monster HP bloat in 4e was meant to encourage the players to fight tactically and take advantage of the interesting synergy the various class abilities allowed. You needed to uses teamwork to take down solos.

In practice most parties just spammed heals and poke untill it died over several hours.

Sort of reminders about everyone bitching about the bullet sponges enemies in Tom Clancy's The Division.

3.5 is basically a game that people don't understand. You can read the rules, but you don't understand what the game is.

The game is about making interesting characters and doing interesting things. Power is as relevant as you want it to be, it's basically a bucket of random legos to fuck around with. It's a system to play around with and I find it immensely fun to do so.

>In practice most parties just spammed heals and poke untill it died over several hours.
I'm just going to go ahead and say, your group must not have been very good, or at-least not good at 4e. "Poke and heal" might be the strongest solo-strategy, but 4e is not for solo play. In almost every situation, the synergy/teamwork option is the most effective.

Plus you CAN'T heal more than a few turns anyway, since you'll run out of encounter heals and second winds.

Plus a lot of solo monsters hit real fricking hard, and that+ recharging powers makes it risky to extend combat.

No they won't particularly good, but they won't particularly bad either.

I admit when the party was working together it played like a dream, but those moments were few and far between.

'The combat takes too long' complaint was technically more the fault of player base ragther then the game but the end result was the same. The game was boring to play.

That might have something to do with why fans of 3e (which was very much about individual PC exceptionalism over synergy) couldn't get into 4e, but I've met LOTS of 2e grogs (2e being much more teamwork based than 3e) who absolutely love 4e.... actually my current 4e group is more 2e grogs than not. I guess the big difference between 2e is that you need to cooperate to survive, and in 4e you need to cooperate to make the game run as intended and be fun.

I can only comment on editions I have experience with. All is imho
AD&D 2nd had the best art and the best settings. Each setting had it's own feel and the rules were often tweaked to express that. Also, DMG rules for class based experience awards was a hold standard for encouraging activities related to one's actual class. I've used that as a basis ever since.

3finder was accessible. Anything you wanted, you could find, if not a first party supplement, then a third party one. It also pushed the hobby into the limelight. Quantity and granularity in spades. Also, the game offered significant rewards for system mastery. All of the little widgets could be fine tuned to create something far more than the sum of it's parts.

4e was very easy to DM. Extremely well organized and clear to read. The entire system was, after a fashion, laid bare before the DM with all the working parts clearly labeled and enumerated. The math was relatively tight and players had an excellent idea of what their characters could reasonably accomplish. World influencing power was accessible to all pcs regardless of class, and starting characters felt like heroes. Points of Light as a setting was an interesting take on a world on the brink of post apocalyptic.

5e I am still getting used to behind the screen. Not a large amount of quality material to judge it on yet. The math seems fairly firm. Classes feel distinct without being over ridden with subsystems. Codification of Lair actions and certain Legendary actions are a very nice touch. Combat can be as simple or as deep as the DM and Players want it to be. Post Lev 20 advancement is very customizable, as is general access to training for proficiencies.

>Most parties just spammed heals and poke
Then most parties were filled with imbeciles.
Not sure how they had enough heals to keep that up as most HP restoration was encounter or daily...

>>granularity in spades
.x

You are kidding right? I have seen it described as "the Least Granular Point Buy" many times.

The "least granular point buy" comments is about how everything in 3.5 costs levels (powerful races are levels, money increases with levels, lots of things are templates which are levels and so on) which made point-buyers see it as a point buy game with 1 level = 1 point. Thus, for character building, it is like a low-granularity point buy.

However, what the person you are replying to is talking about granularity of design. 3.5 is customisable to a very fine degree, such that what the DM is running can be adjusted to his liking using existing rules.

That said, 3.5 is still less granular than point-buy games. It is, however, the most granular D&D game.

I don't think you know what granular means...

The Before Times (Chainmail through 2e): Lego before it started focusing on IP licensing. You got reams of charts and lists and spells and settings and very little help turning them into a playable game. The game rose or fell on how well the DM managed it, which meant every table was completely different. everyone felt completely victimized by everyone else.

3.0: Lego after it started focusing on IPs. Attempted to create a rule or sub-system for everything possible and moved as much as possible from DM fiat to dice. Was playtested horribly. Three(6) is playable. Everyone felt victimized by an unfeeling corporation.

3.5: Those stupid cake molds that let you make cakes shaped like lego bricks. A classic case-study in solving the wrong problems. Failed to understand what had gone wrong and thus made the actual problems even worse. Fun if you like character creation and group-ending arguments. Everyone felt personally victimized by Monty Cook.

PF: Same as 3.5 but the molds advertise themselves as tools for making Lego-shaped Jello Jigglers.

4e: Bionicle. Looks stupid and expensive to everybody who grew up on the earlier stuff. Is actually pretty smart and expensive. Fun if you're already into it and fairly wealthy. Both fanbases felt victimized by each other.

5e: Lego-branded video games based on other people's IPs. Simple, a bit lowbrow, works out of the box, and a lot of fun. A bit on the solid-but-casual side provided you don't try to install mods. Works best when you accept that replay-ability might get a bit sketchy if you aren't willing to make 1-2 new purchases a year to freshen up your collection. Really easy to recruit other players. Actually victimizes 3.PF fans who insist 3.PF's balance issues are necessary for a d20 game to be fun.

bump

OD&D: A historical artifact at this point. Not even simple enough to play a beer-n-pretzels pickup game.

AD&D: great for crunchy dungeon crawls / hex crawls. Almost enough random charts to run solo.

Basic: AD&D for people who want to keep race-as-class, one-axis alignment, and other OD&D bits. OTOH, actual *does* run well as a beer-and-pretzels pickup game.

2e: Had better settings than AD&D. Planescape was especially fun.

3/3.5/pf: Too much crunch, but I do like how the new multiclassing system let you play the character you wanted, rather than one of a half-dozen stereotyped roles. Too bad the minmaxers ruined everything. Additive armor class, and having only three save types streamlined the basic engine a bit.

4e; Did not play.

5e: Have not played.

6e: Does not exist yet.

>new multiclassing system

By the end of 1e, errybody was pretty much playing multiclass characters, with the level limits houseruled away, anyway.

The difference between the two is that damage in 4E eventually caught up to monster survivability thanks to the playerbase making it extremely evident that the designers fucked up, plus monster damage went up by a very significant amount. That's not going to happen in 5E.

Never played any of the Basic stuff, either (sorry Arneson). The most I can say about them is that I quite dig the idea of 'race = class'. In a roundabout way I almost feel like it makes races more distinctive, not less.

>0e
Old, clunky, mostly a listing of rules that were hard to figure out if you were not a wargamer.
>1e
Gygax attempting to expand and modify the game and cut Arneson out of royalty checks. Very clunky and contradictory (said you would find no rules for keeping women weak, a few pages later caps womens strength below men).
>Basic/BECMI/RC
Was originally meant to guide players into the game and then into AD&D, was repurposed very quickly that way Arneson would stop suing. Went on to expand the game way past what was intended, all the way to immortal ranks where levels mean dick. Also, race-as-class.
>2e
An attempt to kick Gygax to the curb, had the best settings, some of the best splats, but also very broken due to little to no playtesting (thanks Lorraine...).
>3._e
Rules, rules, rules! Bloat as far as the eye could see and all of it with an "Ivory Tower"/system mastety intent. While it reenergized the industry it also introduced full-blown caster supremacy. At least level limits were scrapped, right?
>4e
Want a grid-based miniature battles game? Then this is for you! Handidly the most balanced of the systems, it's radical departure led to the infamous edition wars and the rise of not only the OSR movement but also Pathfinder. Still, if you dump skill challenges and just, you know, roleplay, then it's very solid.
>5e
Holding off splat and a whole lot of rules (many if not most are purely optional) with many, many shout-outs to older editions and adventures, it's not as balanced as 4e but not broken either. They are also holding back on the splatbook wave, sticking instead to free Unearthed Arcana online and about 2 adventure paths/year. Easy to pick up if a complete newbie to D&D (especially with the Starter Box set).

> Basic D&D as a path to Advanced D&D
Funny enough, the B/X retroclone Labyrinth Lord has an Advanced rulebook that essentially turns the game into a retroclone of AD&D 1e.

Now if only there was a retroclone that made BECMI/RC transition into AD&D 2e...

Protip, your players are not meant to realize they're in a skill challenge.

I'd pay for it. That said, most of those older games have a kinda similar rules set (thief skills, faster scaling thaco for fighters, clerics get spells at 2nd level, wizards level more slowly, etc.) so if they could blend AD&D with my favorite aspect of BECMI (weapon talents) and add the Proficiency and Advantage/Disadvantage system of 5E then that would be a fuck awesome OSR game

But old multi-classing was like 3e's gestalt system. So yes, 3e had a new version of that system. The closest think in AD&D would be Dual Classing but even that isn't really that close to 3e style multiclassing.

Underrated

Pictured 2e's method to create new classes allowed a party of 1 or 2 characters that could cover all roles- the penalty was slower xp progression.

...

>2e

The settings. More specifically they married the mechanics to the settings well. They innovated without changing the paradigm to thoroughly.

I like 4e for what it is, but they fucked up on Dark Sun. I could really give a shit about the other settings at this point. .

The core books were easy to reference.

>3e

Ascending AC, condensed saving throws, bigger versatility in multiclassing. The SRD was a net positive.

>4e

Made a great system for tactical combat.

I really think if they called it D&D tactics or something else besides 4th it would have taken out so much of the asspain.

>5e

Good marketing apparently since they convinced people to buy yet another edition of D&D.

>D&D Tactics

100% agreed. It's not half bad, but it was just too radical of a departure from the past editions to be uncontroversial.

>Good marketing apparently since they convinced people to buy yet another edition of D&D.

There's been basically no marketing though.

The big upshots of 5e in my opinion are how it gives you a degree of character freedom/choice that's second only to 3.5 (while also being a bit more balanced - still not perfect, but nothing ever is), a power progression more similar to the classic editions of D&D (which is admittedly a matter of taste), and wraps it up in a nice, simple ruleset.

The main downside of 5e is that the organization of the core books is abysmal.

>There's been basically no marketing though.

Honestly I have no interest in it, so I just assumed it was marketing.

I was trying to say something nice about it. I looked at the book once when I buddy brought it over and I thought the art was terrible and ghoulish.

I wasn't sure if calling it a commercial success would have been controversial since sales number are hard to come by and it seems like a topic that gets people riled up, so I assumed it was marketed well.

It's definitely popular. The bookstore where I work got a ton of 3e/Pathfinder stuff in recently, all from people dumping those systems in favor of 5e.

5E is actually really well made. Sure, the art may not be the best but it is far better than most seen in 3e or 4e imho. It strikes the nice chord of being similar to all the previous editions. Hell, the playtesting used mostly the older adventure modules like Keep on the Borderland, Isle of Dread and others.

>I personally disliked the loss of the linear warriors/quadratic wizards
Serious question: why?

I don't understand why you would want one type of character to grow stronger than another, even if it started off reversed. Same level (or, in this case, same XP total) should mean about the same level of power.

By granularity I meant the game had tiny bits of crunch to cover every little eventuality. Rules for everything. For some gamers this is a boon, especially on the simulationist side. For others it is anathema.

AD&D: Balanced classes, effective monks, casters needed martial support to survive becauseo how initiative and casting combined.

2e: Not much different from AD&D but the very best settings.

3.5: Versatility and popularity.

3.PF Options and current content production, and a variety of options to take it into epic levels/side growth systems (mythic, unchained, etc).

4e: Balanced and well put together for the most part.

5e: Haven't played it.

AD&D, Fluff

What more do you need?

>effective monks

OD&D Psionic Fighting Men with Body Weaponry and Body Equilibrium were the only effective monks. Maybe 4e monks too, I guess. But AD&D 1st edition had the absolute worst monks out of any edition.

Just a personal preference. It was really, really hard for a Wizard to get anywhere in 2e because of their fragility, shitty spell growth, and agonizing experience requirements. It takes some serious patience, dedication, and attachment to survive long enough to be worthwhile, so a certain camaraderie forms between them and the martials (not in every group, of course). I find it very appealing when the wimpy loser grows into their own and finally makes something of themselves--delayed gratification, I suppose. They got absurdly powerful, but it took so much time and effort that it felt justified, and ultimately the martials could pass the torch onto the mages. The general difficulties in playing them also encouraged a lot of creativity, in my opinion.

Make no mistake: I only really liked it in the older editions. In 3.X it was a fucking nightmare because they kept AD&D levels of power gain on a linear scale equal to martials. It's part of why I dislike the system.

I agree that parity between mages/martials is the ideal, but I eat linear/quadratic shit for breakfast if I think it's done well.

Close enough to on topic for me to ask here I think; I've come into possession of a very large old dnd collection (2 actually so a few duplicates). It's mostly adnd and adnd2e, and with the minis ways more than a literal ton. Either way with adnd2e now being the majority of books I own I really want to try running a game.
What are the main pitfalls of the system? My only exposure has been baldurs gate.

>I agree that parity between mages/martials is the ideal, but I eat linear/quadratic shit for breakfast if I think it's done well.

Linear/quadratic works if campaigns zoom by but it kinda sucks for extended campaigns I think. You probably enjoy that now that you are level ~10 you can tell physics to get the fuck out of here and build a secret moonbase you can telelport to/from when you need some rest, but there's 10 more levels in the game left for everyone else to play that will be mostly about following your wacky wizard hijinks.

It also breaks down the moment where you start at level X.

That said, it could be cool for short, few session campaigns with fast leveling.

Try the OSR thread if this thread yields no results.

ADnD 2 had good monks, since 'fighting monk' was a full-on cleric with additioonal kung fu.

Lack of a single resolution mechanic. Sometimes you want to roll high, sometimes low, sometimes high but still under your stat.

Combat can be boring if you don't GM and play it like OSR. Kits and specialist priests require a good working knowledge of the system to implement well.

It needs a solid, fleshed-out, rich setting to marry the crunch to, is pretty dull otherwise.

But the art direction (not!Wayne Reynolds) was the best part about 5e.

>essentials as separate from 4e

It should be, judging from the fan reaction. Essentials wasn't so much an expansion as an attempt to 3e-ify the system to pull in the Pathfinder guys. A really stupid move that alienated the existing playerbase and failed to attract anyone else with its "me-too" sales pitch.

Thanks, I've never played OSR either, started on a bastard mismash of 3rd and 3.5 with a players handbook from each and not realizing they were different. Lots of arguments.

Could you elaborate on how to have combat not be boring?

OSR combat thrives on detailed interactions, improvisation, and quick thinking. There are very few to zero 'manoeuvres' or 'combat actions' with rules for them, so your job is to provide detailed descriptions of what's happening, and to quickly and fair adjudicate the player's actions. Their job, on the other hand, is to be specific about their intent and detailed in their interactions so you can do the judging.

2e differs slightly in that it offers some rules for specific actions, but the worst thing you can do is to assume that those are all you can do in combat.

There's a very accurate "D&D Editions in Lego" image but I can't get it from the archives.

Literally ten seconds in google.

>3e
Minmaxer mathnerd heaven, especially with supplements

>4e
Good tactical sense combined with MMO-style rock-paper-scissors role simplification (figurines were encouraged)

5e
Considerably faster combat time and DCs due to abilities and skills being consolidated, which offers a lot to out of combat role playing

Hmm ok, thank you. Do you think doing up a bit of a custom dm screen ahead of time just so I can keep bonuses, penalties, and effects consistent would be a good idea?

I'd say skip it. Keep a light touch on the bonuses and penalties in order to keep things flowing, and you'll develop your own feel for it after a while. And let players make a case for bonuses and penalties, too.

Oh, I thought warosu was down.

I guess I can see where you're coming from, but I'm with on this.

It can be done well but I like the ability to mix things up; start at higher levels, end at whatever level I feel appropriate, and so on. As such, it makes things so much easier if everyone is in the same vicinity power-wise at each level.

>since 'fighting monk' was a full-on cleric
Priest. And they lost armor use and significant amounts of Sphere access.
>with additioonal kung fu.
They got extra weapon proficiency slots, and that was pretty much it.
They could more deeply specialize in Unarmed Combat than other Priest, but not as much as Fighters.
And even Priests who weren't Fighting-Monks could specialize in Unarmed Combat.
Beyond that, Unarmed Combat proficiency was really only useful for wrestling.

So all in all, the Fighting-Monk had a really weird aesthetic.
If you were trying to get your fix of Wuxia, you would have to look elsewhere.

I can dig it. It's definitely not something for everyone. I think part of why I liked it in 2e was because I liked the idea of classes/races having different experience growths. Made it feel a bit grittier when characters didn't all level up identically. Not the exact EXECUTION, mind you--class restrictions on races was silly--but the IDEA interested me.

I agree that starting at different levels throws the entire arrangement out the window. For our group it was a non-issue since AD&D sort of assumes you'll be starting from behind if your character dies (which is another way to "balance" the quadratic wizard). I doubt there are many other ways to make that work, but what we used worked for us.

(As for the "10 more levels in the game left" thing, our campaign went on for years and my Wizard never got past 5, so that's probably party-specific, as well. Never got far enough to see the problems firsthand)

Rules Cyclopedia Basic D&D
>Simple and easy to pick up. Every part of the game is just fast. Fast is good. Super easy to homerule. Favorite edition.

AD&D 1st/2nd
>Settings overshadow everything else. Shit like Dark Sun and Spelljammer.

3.PF
>As much grief as I give this, I really love the multitude of character options. I used to sit around and just make characters for funzies. My players always ended up with unique NPC villains to fight.

4e
>Super fun for low-level play, and great for combat. Focus on organization in design left nothing to be argued about. Powers were fun and play-diversifying if you were a martial, but so much simpler and easier to use if you were a caster.

5e
>Attempted to capture what we liked most about the previous editions. It largely succeeded.

The big thing was that they could spend those two slots on Advanced Martial Arts, GM-permitting, which had plenty of useful moves.

Is that the one with the stun charts?
I'd have sworn Wrestling was the one with the stun chart.
Well, whatever. I'll take you word for it.

0e: It's laser-focused on dungeon-crawls and sandboxes. Practically DMs the game for you.

1e: That weird Gygaxian vibe that's never been replicated elsewhere.

2e: The one edition that truly puts story and character above everything else.

3e: The only good thing I can say about this edition is that if you stick to the core rulebooks, it's a fairly inoffensive cleanup of 2nd edition's clunkier aspects.

4e: Never played, no comment. Looks like a fun tactical skirmish game.

5e: Played it a little bit. It's basically 3e done right—a cleanup of 2nd edition's clunkier bits that actually has some merit, especially in the restrained spellcasting system.

I gotta take notes. This thread has been informative.

No, that's the one with wuxia shit like SPEED, levitation, death attack, and weapon breaking.