I voted 3.*
I played 1st edition for years and loved it and think the adventures were great - some of which are still better than most stuff around at the moment. But the mechanics of the 3rd ed. rules are so much better. I remember using The Wilderness Guide for thinks like swimming and the Dungeoneer's Guide for climbing etc. It was a pain and all too often arbitrary.
There are things that I don't like about 3, but on the whole it is, IMO, a much improved version and one I really enjoy playing
I don't have an opinion on 2nd edition as it completely passed me by (my drunken years...).
Best D&D edition
- thekyngdoms
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:37 pm
- Contact:
- AarronIkarus
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:21 pm
- Location: Washington state
- Contact:
[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]
I beg to differ...vehemently! This does NOT describe 1st edition. As many older gamers will recall, 1st edition was better known simply as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, or AD&D for short. There were many classes and subclasses as well as races available for players to choose from. What was described came much later as a way to make it easier for beginning players to understand the basic rules and be able to play with some of the older players. I would definitely not say that this later "1st edition" is one of my favorites. But enough of the rant...I would have to say that all three editions have their good points. I like the 1st ed DMG for the random dungeon table in the back. I used them many times in my early days. 2nd edition came out with the various class specific books that opened up whole new options for players. I liked the idea, although I never used any of them. I have not played 3rd, or 3.5, other than on the computer, but I do like their method of multi classing. the only down side I can see is the tendency towards powergaming, intentional or otherwise.
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]
I beg to differ...vehemently! This does NOT describe 1st edition. As many older gamers will recall, 1st edition was better known simply as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, or AD&D for short. There were many classes and subclasses as well as races available for players to choose from. What was described came much later as a way to make it easier for beginning players to understand the basic rules and be able to play with some of the older players. I would definitely not say that this later "1st edition" is one of my favorites. But enough of the rant...I would have to say that all three editions have their good points. I like the 1st ed DMG for the random dungeon table in the back. I used them many times in my early days. 2nd edition came out with the various class specific books that opened up whole new options for players. I liked the idea, although I never used any of them. I have not played 3rd, or 3.5, other than on the computer, but I do like their method of multi classing. the only down side I can see is the tendency towards powergaming, intentional or otherwise.
Live fast. Fight hard. Die in a blaze of glory.
- Math Mannaman
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:53 pm
- Contact:
We used to play classic D&D (That was over ten years ago), I don't which edition it was but it surely wasn't AD&D. It had four rulebooks for players and immortal rules. The basic hit die was d8 instead of d10 and there were also other slight differences with it. Actually the rules were more complex than the of AD&D, with weapon specialization on higher levels etc. We also had AD&D rulebooks, but this was definetely better.
I'm not sure about 3ed. Maybe that would be the choice nowadays, but I don't know any people that play pen and paper RPG's anymore and maybe I'm too also too old already.
I'm not sure about 3ed. Maybe that would be the choice nowadays, but I don't know any people that play pen and paper RPG's anymore and maybe I'm too also too old already.
I played a bit 2nd and now play and DM 3rd. 2nd was annoying, because you could always fail. No matter how simple a task (lifting a stone), you could fail. in the stone example, with a strength of 18, its pretty certain you can lift, over your head, most stones. It will vary a few pounds each day, but lighter than that is guaranteed to succeed, not so in 2nd (could've been just my DM).
3rd did solve that. There are some sore points with 3rd too, but I like the skill and ability checks a lot better.
3rd did solve that. There are some sore points with 3rd too, but I like the skill and ability checks a lot better.
If something can go wrong, it will go wrong
Always prepare for the worst
Never let experience guide you: every day is different
Antagonist
Always prepare for the worst
Never let experience guide you: every day is different
Antagonist
Missing the boat
You are all missing out. The original basic d&d is by far the best there is much more distiction between characters fighters fight clerics heal theives theive and mages do magic. It is more interesting then the later games more work for a DM but a much more interesting to play.
Discus
You are all missing out. The original basic d&d is by far the best there is much more distiction between characters fighters fight clerics heal theives theive and mages do magic. It is more interesting then the later games more work for a DM but a much more interesting to play.
Discus
I have been playing since 1978 as well and I vote on 1st edition (maybe its just nostalgia) with second edition coming a close second. Third edition made me lose interest in the game. Old D&D made you use your imagination AND helped you with your math skills! Of course I am 35 years old and maybe I am having difficulty adapting to a new system. Who knows... I will say that the 1st edition modules were much better.
"Korax thinks you look very tasty today...
- TismeVader
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:25 am
- Contact: