What's your favorite edition of D&D, Veeky Forums?

Maybe to you. For me, it felt more like what I'd always wanted or hoped for D&D to be than any edition before or since.

I'm with them. I like 4E best.

While I love B/X best, I would appreciate a good retroclone of 4e. Maybe done up how Essentials should have been, with book 1 being Levels 1-10 or so, all the core races and classes, with extra books increasing the level range, adding in races, classes, monsters, whatever.

>Convince me otherwise
I'm not sure this is possible, since anyone this far down the WotC hole is pretty much unrecoverable. But I'll try, if not for you, for other anons who might be reading.

I began playing in the 3.5 era (the first Wizards of the Coast edition). God damn, that edition was a mess. I don't have to mention all the broken things about it. But, you know, despite its flaws, it was also amazing in a way. There was lots of pure shit, but there was also some pretty cool stuff. Probably, nobody else remembers the Mindbender - a cute little prestige class in the DMG that centered itself around mind-controlling enemies. Eventually, you could make an enemy your thrall PERMANENTLY. That was SO COOL to me. And like the mindbender, there were many other prestige classes: the arcane archer, the exemplar, the archmage, the alienist, the blood mage, the hexblade, the spellthief, the transmogrificator, the dread necromancer... I've never played any of those, yet their names stuck with me, because they had flavor. Mechanically, 3.5 is probably the worst edition. But I honestly think that a 3.5 campaign where everyone agrees they're there not to break the system but to have fun creating cool characters can be a blast.

I've never played 4e and barely even glanced at the books. Though from what I've seen and heard, it's the perfect game if what draws you to D&D is battling monsters. It's like chess with monsters & magic, and you also get some RP stuff on top of that. It's probably pretty fun, but not my cup of tea personally.

I'll lump the OSR and TSR editions from OD&D to AD&D 2e together for the sake of brevity, for their core mechanics are the same and what changes is the peripherals connected. I'll speak mainly about B/X D&D, because that's probably the most widespread of those editons nowadays. People say these games are 'rules light'. They are, compared to WoTC's editions, but I like to say they have rules in the right place.

1/?

There aren't, for example, rules on how high your character can jump. Who gives a shit if you can jump 50 or 55 centimetres high? What matters is whether you can leap across that chasm, and that's something that's up to the DM to determine (since he could have said the chasm is 6 metres across anyway). They have, for example, rules for exploring the wilderness, for searching and moving through the dungeon, for building a stronghold, to lead armies, all sorts of crazy shit. And there's a purpose behind the mechanics, like, for example XP for gold. I could literally talk for hours about the things these games did well. Of course, all that shines is gold - there's some shit I dislike. But given how simple these games are, it's super simple to houserule (and everyone does it).
One thing I'd like to talk about, however, is the lack of skills. When I first learned about this, I rejected it like just about every post-TSR D&D player ever. But turns out, it works out just fine in practice. You simply cut out the boring "roll to search for traps" and replace it with "okay, so there's a devil face on the wall, what do you do?". And if there's a need for chance, just pick a chance in 6 and roll a d6.
And finally, there's just *something* about the old TSR books. You just have to pick one up and read it to see. They're steeped in adventure. They don't mean to teach you how to play a board game. They're here to give you ideas - to tell you that maybe you could make a potion of flying with a griffon's feather the first teardrop of winter.

2/?

5e, in my honest opinion, THE worst D&D edition. I don't say this as a disgruntled grognard, angry that kids nowadays don't subject themselves to Tomb of Horrors over and over; as I said I started with 3.5 and my campaigns probably resemble the average 5e campaign more than most OSR campaigns, besides the fact that I played 5e for two years straight. It's not that it's bad because a particular element of it is especially grating - it's because it didn't take one single risk. It's the RPG equivalent of 'summer hit' music.
There's no blatantly broken stuff, but also nothing new, nothing exciting. It's designed to constantly give the players a dopamine boost, with quick leveling and new 'features' every level; and there's no losing: dying is pretty uncommon, and you can get rezzed with no consequences at all. It's got the familiar 3.5 mechanics... but got marketed as 'return to the roots' and they said you could do 'old school play' with it (HAHA NO).
Many of it's core things suck (at least for me). For example, it doesn't know whether it wants to be epic or 'down-to-earth': HP inflation gives high level characters ridiculous HP, while check modifiers barely increase [and they start with very low bonuses, which renders any difference between characters nearly meaningless]. 3.5's absurdly big modifiers made sense, because by 20th level you're fucking jumping on clouds and convincing kings that you are their lost father. BX's HPs make sense, because while powerful a 14th level fighter is just a guy that's really good with the sword. The worst part, honestly, is how the game is designed around the "adventuring day". When put into the perspective of a world, the characters' mechanics don't make a hint of sense, whether it's uses of abilities, spell power and levels...
3/4

You can see that they don't really know how this game works with things like Tomb of Annihilation, which they say is just like the old hexcrawls. Which it's not, because all the interesting places are like 60 miles apart from each other, and 'hexcrawling' through that would mean sessions upon sessions of nothing but random encounters. Or how they simply run their adventures completely differently from how THEY THEMSELVES wrote them (see: Dice Camera Action, where Perkins runs the old mill place totally differently from how that encounter is meant to be in the book). Not to mention the dearth of content for this edition...
All in all, I think there's a lot of things wrong with 5e. But the real problem is that is just flat out boring. Nothing new, nothing interesting, just generic stuff with mass appeal.
4/4

ACKS (off-brand B/X)

As much as I find 5e's lowest common denominator design distasteful, you can't say it hasn't been successful. Playing it safe, actively avoiding innovation and going for vague rulings so you can project whatever you think D&D is onto the system turned out to be a winning formula for their primary fanbase.

It's very irritating. Like the popularity of McDonalds despite being both terribly unhealthy and not that tasty.

As with most things, what is most popular is rarely the highest quality example.

Honestly? Dungeon Crawl Classics.

Rules Cyclopedia followed by OD&D.

Top five:

OD&D without supplements, B/X, Gamma World 7e But Rethemed For Fantasy, 4e, and, uh, #5 is something I can't really think of, since I'm deliberately ignoring OSR and third-party stuff. Maybe Holmes or RC or BECMI.

>I'll speak mainly about B/X D&D, because that's probably the most widespread of those editons nowadays.
That's still AD&D. B/X is makes grafting changes the easiest and most noticeable, so bloggers like talking about it more.

Damn user, you put into words exactly how I feel about 5e.

>OD&D
i like because of it's simplicity (once you translate the arcane bullshit garry and dave wrote) and just how the system gets out of the way. There really isn't a lot of moving parts but almost everything works and what doesn't you can house rule in seconds. It's a goddamn trip if you've only ever played 3.0 and up D&D. I ran a one shot of it for my group and that one guy who is kinda a power gamer had a fucking heart attack when he realized he's fighter doesn't get a million anime abilities and only really gains more HP.

>AD&D
never played it hear it's a middle ground between 2e and OD&D

>AD&D 2e
had a special place in my heart because i started with that edition. Shits a little to complex at times but it's still lethal and the characters arent meant to be disposable like in OD&D.

>3.PF
Played only like 3 one shots and i cant say i liked it. Maybe i need to play more but it just seemed like the games basic systems where always once dice roll or stat increase from breaking.

>4e
It's a trash role playing game but a REALLY fun war skirmish/ dungeon crawling game. Reminds me of really low point Warhammer games. I run it every once in a while but when i do it usually lasts for months and i just homebrew more social abilities in the form of feats or skills.

>5e
I've been running it for 4 years now and i cant tell if i like or hate it. Low level play (lvl1-5) is really fun and reminds me of 2e in someways but past that the classes either grow exponentially more powerful or exponentially more shit. Wizards cant seem to settle on a method of release for their splats and are just cranking out dog shit untested UA material and throwing it into a hardback release every 6 months. No new classes have been officially added and 2 that came out in UA are shit and should just be sub classes to wizard and monk. I really want to like you 5e, i like the advantage/disadvantage system and the backgrounds. But the majority of shit i'm luke warm on or just hate

Attached: EhuTNCP.png (458x427, 341K)

Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Swords & Wizardry Complete
So oD&D and D&D B/X I guess.

>i gazed into your eyes and knew you were my nigga

although you havent played 1e you should, you pretty much have he right idea about it. when our group isnt playing 5e, were playing a 'homebrew' library - basically 1e, but with 2e expansions like the book of artifacts, oriental, and al-quadim, and then come material from OD&D like gargantuan dragons, their amazing mass combat tables, and some other small things

5e.

Pathfinder and 2e get an honorable mention, depending on what kind of game you are trying to play, as well as the players.

AD&D 2e without a doubt. A bit of it's nostalgia, but it's complex and we had great times

Hexblade Spellthief and Dread Necromancer are all base classes not prestige classes.

>you havent played 1e you should
i want to but never had the chance or the money.

What do you think about 4e and 5e?

I unironically and unapologetically like 4e best. The 4e Fighter and the 4e Warlord are basically my favorite classes ever. It did so many things that I like to see; it really blew my mind why anyone would _not_ like it (though I understand why now; not everyone shares the same design philosophy as I have).

It's a perfectly servicible game, with strengths and weaknesses, just like any system. If you haven't played it, give it a try with an open mind. I thought I would hate it, but it ended up being my favorite.

I play in 5e's system, but I mine 2e for fluff and 3.x for monsters and spells.

Add another one for 4e. I've ran all editions and it's the only one I actually have fun DMing.

Advanced 2nd edition with them spelljammer campaigns. Shit had some of the coolest most deadly monsters

I know that feel, man.

4th edition, hands down, no questions, no qualms.
>Martials that can finally do interesting stuff, instead of being something you try to dip into to give your casters some extra survivability whilst they're low-level and suck.
>Casters neither suck at low level nor grow into game-wrecking gods.
>Casters have unique lists of spells that really distinguish their identities, instead of mostly everybody sharing a common pool of spells.
>Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies really mesh well with the idea of growing from humble beginnings to somebody of true importance.
>Better support for races outside of the Neo-Tolkien paradigm than in any edition before or since.
>Great fluff and awesome new "default" setting.

from the 2 editions I have played

5e over PF any day of the week

>Gamma World 7e But Rethemed For Fantasy

Did you just change the fluff, or did you also do some mechanical work? Because I find the idea very intriguing.

It's too reliant on supplements for my tastes. If the optional rule systems in PHB2 and DMG2 were in core I think I would have been much happier with the game. Wouldn't have been a favorite either way because I still find the way it handles things a little chafing, personally. I prefer how Gamma World 7e streamlines the general design while making it conceptually more diverse with what the different elements can mean to a character.

Speaking of, there's this game called Open Legend which has a sort of ad hoc power system thing going on because of how you attach special effects and area-targeting to attack actions, and it handles defenses in a very similar way but with the twist that defenses are also damage reduction--you do damage based on how much you exceed the target number by with your attack roll.
It's reminded me of 4e, but a little like Gamma World 7e it's more fluid with how you define or frame characters and their abilities. I've been enjoying it quite a bit, but of course, mileage may vary.

>the optional rule systems in PHB2 and DMG2
optional rules? this is news to me! Can i ask what they do? I'm on my way out to run errands.

Attached: 1516186608619.jpg (1099x800, 97K)

>Open Legend

I liked what I saw when it came out, but it always felt a bit... unfinished. How is it nowadays?

Pathfinder/ 3.5.

OSRIC (off-brand 1e), and BFRPG.

The alternative reward mechanics and monster emplates/themes of DMG2, as well as hybrid characters and the expanded background mechanics from PHB2.
Although now that I think about it I think the hybrid class rules were PHB3.

We only started playing after the rules were locked for whenever they'll do print copies, but so far we haven't run into any patchiness aside from a little confusion over some phrasing with its effect-on-a-miss mechanics, and the fact that on a poor enough action roll you can actually fail to gain health when you drink a potion.

I think it was a bit lackluster on the Dm's side, but in all honesty I didn't even know they were doing a print edition. I'll go look it up one of these days.

You might be confusing Legend with Open Legend.

Legend was a d20 fantasy thing with a focus on powerful characters and over the top action where the project fell apart midway through, never completing a proper monster manual or GM's guide as the main guy behind it got hired to another project with a non-compete clause.

I have a soft spot for AD&D 2e because is where I cut my teeth (along with Rolemaster) but I could not get back to it. I do treasure the setting books though.

Never liked 3e, I appreciate what 4e does but is not my thing.

5e does a lot of things I like (I am using advantage/disadvantage in older editions to have less bonus to worry about), but I have to refluff a lot of stuff to drive away the blandness.

Nowadays I prefer to run B/X, more exactly an unholy amalgamation of B/X-BFRPG and the bits I like of 5e + houserules. BECMI also works, but my campaigns don't go beyond level 10 something. So just B/X is fine.

And to confuse things even more, there's Legend by Rule of Cool, which is what you're talking about, and Legend by Mongoose which is just a reformatting of Runequest II's core rules for different settings.

And that's not getting into all the various game which have 'Legend' or 'Legends' in the title or tagline.

At this point it's basically a word to avoid when naming a game.

>Legend by Rule of Cool
Ok, THIS is the one I was thinking about. So Open Legend is something else I have to check out. Thanks anons.

I’ve only played Pathfinder, 5e, and one session of 4e but that was with a pretty shit DM so I withhold judgement on 4e. 5e is my favorite so far.

4e>BECMI/RC>5e>2e>BX>1e>3(.5)>Basic>Oe

Most of the meme complaints you hear about 4e actually started with 3e.

4e actually has the best DMG('s). Followed closely by 1e.

Most of the meme complaints you hear about 4e actually come from fuckers who never touched a book.

D&D Tiers

Great Tier
B/X
BECMI
Rules Cyclopedia

Good Tier
4e
2e

Meh Tier
5e
1e

Bad Tier
OD&D

Whaleshit Tier
3.0
3.5
Pathfinder

3e codified way too many rules and part of the games approach was to codify everything and shifting the game to the idea that you should "build a character".

Gr
D&D, B/X

Go
AD&D, 4e

M
5e, 2e, RC

B
BECMI, 3.5

W
3e

3.P the other editions are far too shallow.

So what are the distinguishing elements between B/X, BECMI, and RC?

B/X caps at 14
BECMI and RC cap at 36 mortal levels plus another 36 Immortal levels
RC includes a ton of optional content from various sources of BECMI and makes a few other subtle changes.

BECMI is also modular. It stands for Basic Expert Companion Masters Immortals, covering the levels of 1-3, 4-14, 15-25, 26-36 and 36+ respectively. So if you never go above 14 youo only need the first two books.

Serious question: is that not what Strike! is supposed to be?

Strike, while closely related, is a very different beast to 4e.

OK how? I never played either.

A shitty game that one faggot can't stop shilling.

This, FPBP

Nailed it.

>I honestly think that a 3.5 campaign where everyone agrees they're there not to break the system but to have fun creating cool characters can be a blast.

This is pretty much the only reason I'm not in AD&D right now. My party doesn't break stuff, so it doesn't need fixing.

Yeah, and 4e rolled back a lot of that. But the meme complaints (doesn't feel like D&D, all classes are the same, muh fightan magic, muh MMORPG) don't have anything to do with that.

Strike is someome looking at 4e and going "you know what? This shit has too much fluff. Let's take it away". It's a game built on the assumption that autistic number crunching is the only part of an RPG that is worth playing, and basically incarnates all the memes haters use against 4e. It's trash and people who shill it are trash.

The best D&D is D&D you homebrew to fit to your specific vision.

Started with 2e
Grognarded hard at 3e, which drove me to other systems and "old-school" versions for almost a decade.
Found my home with 4e
Was disappointed in 5e, but not enthusiastically so.

TLDR: 4e

Original D&D with only greyhawk expansion

Close: Original D&D plus Greyhawk, the monk from Blackmoor, and the bard from the Strategic Review.