Best D&D edition

Lost One · Post by **Lost One** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 1:44 am

Alright, this thread is about which of the D&D editions, 1st, 2nd or 3rd you think is the best, and for what reasons?

To refresh the mind of the older players or those simply unfamiliar with D&D 1st edition, you could be just a few classes in this game. You did not choose race and class. Rather, you chose wizard, thief, fighter, cleric, elf and mystic (with the D&D encyclopedia). At level 9, your fighter could become a paladin if he wished. Likewise, a cleric could choose to become a druid. There were no skills and feats, just powers, abilities and spells.

The 2nd edition (AD&D) then came out, and to tell the truth, I never really got to playing it until the revised, AD&D 2nd edition came out, and this is where a lot of popular games are based on, such as Baldur's Gate. AD&D introduced skills, race/class combinations, and character kits (like Wizard Slayer or Archer), not to mention a more complex system.

The 3rd edition, more recently, being released by Wizards of the Coast who took over TSR, introduced feats, a somewhat different system (changes to AC, combat, XP gain, etc...) and more. 3.5 then came out as a revision, and made a few, if not significant, changes (eg. such as toning up rangers/bards, modifying the previously cheesy harm spell, etc...).

Anyway, that's just a real quick summary of what the editions were like. But the question is, which of them did you like the best? I know most people here can at least choose between the 2nd or the 3rd.

Frankly, I'm going to vote for 1st edition. I enjoyed its simplicity, making a character sheet was very quick, and other people who didn't know about the game found it easy to join. It was more of a board game too, I think, in the sense that prepared adventures would usually come with a grid map, allowing you to walk around with your miniatures. You could even become more proficient with your weapon, and become expert, master, grandmaster, if you had enough gold & time to use a trainer. I think the later editions, with all its added options and complexity, just created a load of problems, particularly with the unbalance in power (eg. powergaming). What do you think?

Magpie · Post by **Magpie** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 2:32 pm

Some of my freinds play Advanced D&D. IMO it is pretty effective and fun. However, I don't like the character sheet and the monster manuel is way to specific in giving experience and the pictures suck.

Thats why my bread and butter is 3rd edition. Its all you need

Jamini · Post by **Jamini** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:55 am

I really liked where they were going with the Skills and Powers with 2nd Edition it made it so you could round out your toon more instead of haveing set skills and attacks.It also made it more like real life in that you gained skill each level rather than only at set lvls. I have heard some say it was not specific so it caused arguments but you only have arguments if the DM allowed them. All the people I ever played with thought of the books as a guide. The DM had the say as to weather or not you could do something and to come up with a roll for a feat.

And know for the truth... I have only glanced at 3rd edition and have alot of money in 2nd and don't want to spend the money all over again... so makes it hard to want to get into 3rd but rally sucks that they have pulled all the 2nd edition off the shelf.

Mr.Waesel · Post by **Mr.Waesel** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 4:21 am

There is such a huge gap in quality between 3.0 and 3.5 that you should put them as separate entries.

Paranitis · Post by **Paranitis** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:37 pm

There is such a huge gap in quality between 3.0 and 3.5 that you should put them as separate entries.

That's not true. 3.5 is a fixed version of 3.0, if you play 3.0 you can easily get into 3.5 since nothing but balance issues were changed..if you are from 3.5 and pick up a 3.0 book by accident, you can still 100% understand what it is talking about.

I personally started playing D&D with 3.0 being out, but I started playing the pc games when AD&D was out (such as bg). It was actually pretty tough for me to learn the rules when dealing with BG..first I had to learn what THAC0 was, then I see that lower AC is better..and that just confused the crap out of me.

When I first started 3.0 I looked over everything and it all made sense to me right from the beginning..higher numbers were better than lower numbers, feats made sense, skill raising each level made sense..and there were no terms like "THAC0" to figure out.

I say that from a rules standpoint 3.0/3.5 is better and easier to understand than the other versions..but I have heard from friends that AD&D had better stories, like some book of elves or book of gnomes and halflings..and filler material like that.

Mr.Waesel · Post by **Mr.Waesel** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:44 am

[QUOTE=Paranitis]nothing but balance issues were changed..[/QUOTE]

You mean, like:

- Shapechange now allows (su) abilities
- You get the animal type when wildshaping
- You can wield any ranged weapon regardless of size
- The ride-by attack feat now not working ever

?

I don't think 3.5 was a great improvement over 3.0, and D&D could have gone on without it.

Jamini · Post by **Jamini** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:54 am

WOOHOO! I started a Trend! 2nd Edition is catching up in the poll.... HEHE

anyway to add to the poll

Maybe a seletion of "If you play D&D any edition your a WINNER!"

The Great Hairy · Post by **The Great Hairy** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:30 pm

Gidday all,

[QUOTE=Lost One]Alright, this thread is about which of the D&D editions, 1st, 2nd or 3rd you think is the best, and for what reasons?[/QUOTE]

3rd Ed (with 3.5 additions) by far. I'll explain below why I think this is so.

[QUOTE=Lost One]To refresh the mind of the older players or those simply unfamiliar with D&D 1st edition, you could be just a few classes in this game. You did not choose race and class. Rather, you chose wizard, thief, fighter, cleric, elf and mystic (with the D&D encyclopedia). At level 9, your fighter could become a paladin if he wished. Likewise, a cleric could choose to become a druid. There were no skills and feats, just powers, abilities and spells.[/QUOTE]

Incorrect. You're talking about Basic DnD, not Advanced 1st Ed. In 1st Ed (and I'm talking actual first edition here, not Chainmail) the player chose a race and then a class. There were class limitations based on race. In other words, a paladin had to be human, all races could be thieves, etc. Furthermore, different races were limited to what levels in certain classes they could achieve (most people threw this rule out). There were also dozens of other changes, which I won't go into here.

[QUOTE=Lost One]The 2nd edition (AD&D) then came out, and to tell the truth, I never really got to playing it until the revised, AD&D 2nd edition came out, and this is where a lot of popular games are based on, such as Baldur's Gate. AD&D introduced skills, race/class combinations, and character kits (like Wizard Slayer or Archer), not to mention a more complex system.[/QUOTE]

2nd Ed also had a huge amount of wastage. So many books - like the kits books - which were really low quality and poorly done. Many broke core rules, and destroyed game limits.

3rd Ed is by far the best edition. 1st Ed had too many limitations, non weapon proficiencies were basically useless, fighters with specialisation were overpowered, etc., etc. 2nd Ed broke a great deal more than it fixed - no Monks, Assassins, etc. Changing demons to batzeu (fie! fie!!!!).

I'm voting 3rd. I've been playing and GMing DnD since 1978, and 3rd is by far the easiest, quickest and simplest to get a game up and running with.

Cheers all!
TGHO

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:02 am

[QUOTE=The Great Hairy]I'm voting 3rd. I've been playing and GMing DnD since 1978, and 3rd is by far the easiest, quickest and simplest to get a game up and running with.

Cheers all!
TGHO[/QUOTE]

This is, for me, the most important point.
A game needs to be fantasy, not math.

In my group, 4 of 5 would stop playing if we would use grids, to many rolls and generall calculation.

Galuf the Dwarf · Post by **Galuf the Dwarf** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:04 pm

Definitely 3rd Edition as well, though I've found 3.5 Edition to be more of my bread and butter.

The Ranger class has been nicely balanced out, particularly with the Combat Style feature.
Numerous species are being more and more considered for actual races, such as orcs and goblinoids. *
The primary races have more encouragement to have levels in other classes. For instance, you're more likely to see Dwarf Paladins, Elf Fighters, or Half-Orc Clerics than ever before.
Classes have become less bland. For instance, Clerics are more encouraged to fight in melee, and Wizards and Sorcerers both have distinct advantages and disadvantages over each other.
Non-human races are given a hint more uniqueness in equipment options, particularly in the line of racial familiar with weapons, armor and certain equipment. Dwarven Waraxes, Gnome Hooked Hammers, and Orcish Double-Axes are as dangerous as they are different.

Note: * Whether this is as true with the Forgotten Realms setting or not is yet to be determined.

The Great Hairy · Post by **The Great Hairy** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 4:42 pm

Gidday Galuf,

I don't use all of 3.5. The game I am currently running has a heap of house rules, which change a fair number of the 3.0 and 3.5 rules. There are some things I don't like about both systems, so it's a mishmash of the two.

Cheers,
TGHO

Galuf the Dwarf · Post by **Galuf the Dwarf** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 4:55 pm

[QUOTE=The Great Hairy]Gidday Galuf,

I don't use all of 3.5. The game I am currently running has a heap of house rules, which change a fair number of the 3.0 and 3.5 rules. There are some things I don't like about both systems, so it's a mishmash of the two.

Cheers,
TGHO[/QUOTE]

Hmmm...
I kind-of understand what you're saying. Then again, even the "best" things in life have their flaws, so it's cool.

Jamini · Post by **Jamini** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:34 am

[QUOTE=The Great Hairy]Gidday Galuf,

I don't use all of 3.5. The game I am currently running has a heap of house rules, which change a fair number of the 3.0 and 3.5 rules. There are some things I don't like about both systems, so it's a mishmash of the two.

Cheers,
TGHO[/QUOTE]

Besides if you stick only to the books then where is your imagination. I feel this game is ment to make execising your mind fun.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:50 am

Amen on that!

Books are ment to give you inspiration, not limit it.
Fac is though, that all players need to understand the basic rules of combat and skills. Otherwise you get arguements between players and the DM.

Mr.Waesel · Post by **Mr.Waesel** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:01 pm

Hahaha...I've had DM's "exercise their mind" before. Until someone broke the game, it was teh funny. XD

Taffer · Post by **Taffer** » Wed May 11, 2005 8:12 am

I'd have to say my favourite edition being the 1st ad&d edition. I found 2nd ed too 'generic', although the larger list of non-com prof's was a good idea, and 3rd ed is too combat heavy. I guess I'm a roll-player at heart, I guess.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Wed May 11, 2005 9:34 am

I voted for 2nd ed because I loved the detail and complexity. My best memories of gaming are from 2nd ed. With that said...

3rd ed is a much better system. I agree with TGH completely- conflicting rules, silly resource books, complicated systems... they all plagued 2nd ed. Plus it was so easy to abuse- for example, did anyone ever play a Specialized Cleric of Tempus? Or a Templar (I think that was the class)? They were essentially full blown fighters with all the cleric abilities! Ridiculous!

Like Jamini said, the Players/DM's Option books were a good attempt at much-needed reform, but it was probably better to fundamentally change things.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Wed May 11, 2005 11:29 pm

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]I voted for 2nd ed because I loved the detail and complexity. My best memories of gaming are from 2nd ed. With that said...

3rd ed is a much better system.[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%. There's nothing like 2nd edition, BUT 3rd edition is better combat wise. Downside of that is that 3rd edition is much more combat based and combat orientated

Ripe · Post by **Ripe** » Thu May 12, 2005 12:58 am

I'd say AD&D 2nd ed but only if you play using Skills & Powers optional rulebook.

Math Mannaman · Post by **Math Mannaman** » Thu May 12, 2005 11:33 pm

I too have been playing D&D for at least 20 years. My first experience with D&D was a pink box, with a dragon on the front. I was fairly young at this point, but just the picture pulled much wonder and inspiration out of me, that I was able to put in the energy to figure out the game with some friends.

AD&D was a huge step, and 2E totally refined the game, which brought lots of freedom, and realism, into the game. The books were filled with incredible oil paintings, truly creative ideas, and lots of snid-bits of historical information, which brought historical context to the game. The draws from mythology and legend, to me is what made D&D so likeable, the role-playing element was there, almost in our past.

There are lots of good and interesting points in this thread. I still play 2E. We use all the “option” and other source books, and it works just fine. If you read carefully in the 1st and 2E DM’s guide, there is plenty of discussion about the books as being non-definitive. That’s why it is a “Guide” not a tournament rulebook. I believe the initial designers really wanted a product that could give people what they themselves had created, an engine for great role playing – but with lots of flexibility for specific campaigns.

As far as which is better, this argument between 2E and 3E, I will say this first.

It’s all preference.

But here is what I think about 3E. I’m not that impressed. Not because I don’t think it is a good game. 3E feels like a different game to me; the d20 system, the numbers, its schematically different. Rolls, checks, even the language of the game (i.e. skills – proficiencies, domains schools feats kits prestige classes etc.) I feel like it was rude to change the way the whole game functions and change the product. As some other posts point out, there was a lot of money invested in the Books – which now to continue in most Champaign settings are obsolete (other than for source material).

I’m very disappointed with the artwork also. I feel it looks like it wants to be japanamation/techno/fantasy. Most of it looks rushed and quickly sketched. Now granted a lot of Gygax’s sketches were rough too, however, the amazing Oil paintings and wood block pictures in the 2E books are high quality art pieces IMHO.

I’ve come to terms with this though. As someone else pointed out – a new company has taken over. The demographic has changed. Although the core fantasy dorks (buffs) of the seventies and eighties are consistent, we aren’t the prime capital. The new edition is aimed at a different generation of gamers. The art and game style has to attract new players from a new base. And that is why I think 3E is what it is today.

This is all good. It doesn’t matter because it IS Still D&D – from a role-playing prospective. Me and my crew don’t want to bother with learning a new game, were doing just fine.

GameBanshee Forums

Best D&D edition

What is the best D&D edition?

Best D&D edition