D&D

>>50258753
5e is without a doubt the best-designed edition, but I played 2e AD&D the most and had the most fun with it and have the fondest memories with it.

>>50258799
I have he fondest memories of 3rd and 3.5, and I've heard a lot of people liking 2nd. Idk about 5th though, haven't played much at all.

>>50258753
>he
3
HAS
NO STYLE
IT HAS NO GRACE
THIS EDITION
IS A FUCKING DISGRACE

File: mfw 5e phb.png (290KB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 540x304px

5e.

>>50258799
>5e is without a doubt the best-designed edition
4e is mechanically best, 2e is setting-wise best.

>>50258753
Beyond the Wall

>>50258753

Mentzer.

File: I came here to laugh at you.jpg (44KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 375x375px

>>50258838
yus

>>50258856
Personal complaints about 4e aside, I am inclined to agree with you.

>>50258856
>D&D
>setting
>best or acceptable in any way
i have no reaction

4e. The reception to it just proved that D&D's audience hates good mechanics or coherent game design.

4e

I regret nothing.

File: bbbbbbbbb.jpg (2KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 160x160px

>>50258856
>4e
OH MY GOD, JC A BOMB

>>50258895
>the only D&D setting I know about is Forgotten Realms

>>50258888
congratz, you got quads

File: 1478973760185.jpg (141KB, 543x405px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 543x405px

>>50258856
>2e is setting-wise best

If we are judging the editions by retarded factors like setting we might as well say the Original Dungeons and Dragons is the best because it's the one that started it all.

3.5

>>50259023
The only thing OD&D is good at is being a poorly-explained mess.

>>50258753
Whichever one I first played.

>>50258753
Honestly, they're all pretty shit. 1e has the right feel, but the rules are a fucking mess. 2e is a little better, but it's still a mess. 3.X is superhero shit that managed to break the game in entirely new ways. 4e isn't D&D. 5e is just okay.

A really fine-tuned 2e would be best, and it's called Wayfarers. Great RPG.

>>50258753
2e is perhaps the most fun, but as for the smoothest that'd be 5e. 3.PF has quite a few redeeming features but requires the entire party and DM to be in agreement as to what is allowed.

>>50258753
AD&D, alternately B/X

>>50258939
Wasn't 2E's default setting Mystara though? And 4E was POL. Your insult doesn't even make sense.

5e is fun

>>50259241

>4e isn't D&D

Yes it is.

>>50259241
4e might not be dnd but I'd stay it isn't shit.

I'll probably still be playing Baldur's Gate until I draw my last breath; so 2e by a considerable margin. Pretty much mechanical perfection.

Though the only 2 editions I'm actually familiar with are 2 and 3. 3 is not good.

>>50259358
2E didn't have a default setting. Mystara is Basic.

>>50258903

Well… yes. If you're playing D&D to engage with the combat mechanics rather than subvert them at every possible opportunity, you're just not seeing the forest through the trees.

File: conanswing.gif (385KB, 400x175px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 400x175px

The best D&D edition is Rune Quest

>>50259523

Nothing in 4e stops you subverting the combat mechanics. The only difference is that when combat happens it's actually good.

1st Edition with Greyhawk

>D&D

>>50259523

>Well… yes. If you're playing D&D to engage with the combat mechanics rather than subvert them at every possible opportunity, you're just not seeing the forest through the trees.

Horseshit. Every edition of D&D has dedicated most of its pagecount to the combat.

This means that either the system is primarily about combat, or that it's a badly designed system which wasted a significant portion of its wordcount on unnecessary complexity.

File: 95hO0W6.jpg (38KB, 480x638px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x638px

>>50258888
QUADS OF TRUTH

3.PF. Bar-none. Blah-blah caster edition blah martials get nothing blah-blah. You've heard it all before.

I quit using 3.Xe when I realized just how arbitrary the rules for magic item creation are. Something with a mid-range effect, depending on the effect in question, can run you hundreds of thousands of gp, while a powerful effect can cost next to nothing. I guess I should've realized it earlier. Like, say, when I realized one of the lines in item creation basically said, "we have no idea and kinda just gave them what prices we thought they should have; just wing it."

>>50259358

2e didn't have a default setting; if it did, it was either Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk.

Technically, Planescape meant that ALL the settings in 2e were the 'default setting'. It created more of a multiverse than any RPG I've ever seen.

Also

>insulting Dark Sun

Get the FUCK out of /tg/

>>50258753
I love 4e. It's still my favorite edition, and I still run a regular game of it. As a player, I can understand (though still respectfully disagree with) the arguments for the merits of other games, but as a DM 4e is an absolute DREAM.

Also, has anyone else noticed a large overlap between actual 2e grognards and being 4e fans. Pretty consistently, even with revolving players, and shifting campaigns, a solid 1/2 of my players have consistently been old 2e players who never really bought into 3.PF... myself included.

File: laughing-spiderman.jpg (53KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x368px

>/tg/, the last place on the Internet where anyone cares even the slightest about 4e

>>50260352
But 4e is pretty good at what it sets out to do. I'd much rather play 4e than play 3.PF again.

t. OSR guy

File: 1425743485794.jpg (115KB, 370x500px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 370x500px

>>50258888
quads of truth

4e was the best overall, it was mechanically sound with a lot of depth and had good character creation. Skill challenges were great when executed well and if you're the roleplaying type offer some opportunities while still managing to streamline what could be an hour of just trying shit until something works. You can make a character that yells so loudly he scares the wounds off of people.

5e is mechanically sound but has some issues with the wording in some rules thanks to the new writing style. Character creation can be fun with some classes having a ton of options, and some classes (rogue) having literally one choice to make in their entire career, maybe two if you want to take a feat somewhere in your build. They got rid of a bunch of trap options and simplified out the unnecessary shit that didn't really give any good choice in 3e, but in doing so forgot that some classes were nothing but trap options and illusory choices and now have nothing left in their builds. There's nothing particularly wrong with 5e that waiting for more OGL content can't fix.

I never really got into 3e/3.5 like I got into PF. 3e and its variants are a huge steaming pile mechanically, but Pathfinder offers a lot of fun character creation simply because of the amount of shit you can try to cram into a build. But then the 6 feats to tie your shoe meme kicks in and you realize that you can't actually do anything fun and combat is a complete mess.

>>50260476

I've only played 3.5/PF and 4e and I just couldn't get into 4e. I didn't have the same fun making a character as I did in 3.5 and I just didn't have the same fun playing characters. I want to try 5e and I think I'll really like it so that's a matter of if it'll be 1st or 2nd to 3.5

OD&D is best at simplicity.
2e is best at settings.
3.PF is best at munchkining.
4e is best mechanically.
5e is best at being least offensive.

>>50260261
>we have no idea and kinda just gave them what prices we thought they should have; just wing it
But this is obviously the correct way to do magic item pricing. Assess the power of the item, then slap on a fair price (not that they always got it right). Any purely formulaic system turns into an optimization problem.

WHFRP 2e

>>50258753
3.5

D&D Tiers

God Tier
B/X
BECMI
Rules Cyclopedia

Good Tier
1e
4e
2e

Meh Tier
5e

Bad Tier
OD&D

Lower than Whaleshit Tier
3.x

Bonus Tiers

Wannabe Tier
Palladium Fantasy

Wannabe Whaleshit Tier
Pathfinder

>>50261735
>Basic anything
>above good
You also forgot Holmes Basic.

>>50261778
I didn't forget it. I simply haven't played it so I can't really rate it.

>>50261735
>pathfinder
>not good tier
discarded

>>50258753
5e. It's the one that works best mechanically while still feeling like D&D.
4e is very well designed but feels like a different game entirely. 3.5 is a horrible kludge of trap options and overcomplexity, but at least it's not 3.0 or Pathfinder.
No comment on earlier editions, though I'd like to try them.

File: dnd_Box1st.jpg (50KB, 390x585px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 390x585px

>>50258753
Dungeons & Dragons

>>50261925
As opposed to Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons & Dragons, or Dungeons & Dragons?

File: 1461724163500.jpg (41KB, 760x571px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 760x571px

>>50261735
>Hipster Tier
This list

>>50258753
Almost certainly some version of Basic.

I'm seeing a surge of 4e fans in /tg/ in recent years. Where the hell have you been during its heyday? I needed you, god dammit.

>>50262026
We couldn't have any threads here because of trolls, and the idiots who fed them (and yes, I'm also guilty of that).

But hey, you still got the 4eg, and now there's funin.space to go with your cbloader.

>>50262026
Either hipsters or people who attended high school late in the edition's life.

Shit lost a lot of people on release. You might have just missed the player base that eventually formed.

File: 1427273668291.jpg (7MB, 2000x2558px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 2000x2558px

I would rank 2e at the top for a couple of reasons.
Best settings (dark sun, planescape , spelljammer)
All the books(building books, city books, class books, race books) add so much content to the game and are a joy to read

Biggest reason!
Tables, Rules, Charts, Details!
Anything you can think of is covered, If i wanted to free from roleplay i would play white wolf games .


probably nostalgia but i prefer 3.5 to 5e.
Content,
Character creation (very enjoyable and lots of options),
Spells,
Skills,
5e fixed some classes but do not like their choices on others,
It can be broken on purpose with a little reading but it relies on your dm being super relaxed on the rules/character creation & you being autistic by making the game not fun for the other players you will be playing with.

>>50258753
AD&D. Sure it's a mess, but I like it and I'm use to it.

File: 1423634795007.png (114KB, 368x298px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 368x298px

>>50262026
>going to a 4chingchong containment board for people who don't like 4e with the sole intention of talking about 4e

File: wow.jpg (901KB, 901x1495px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 901x1495px

>>50258753
The latest one.

>>50260616
Agreed...

Forever DM here, 5ed is the easiest, and I prefer it, but, ..... 2nd ed has sooooo many options and tables, and I miss the depth it has.

File: 1451852705713.jpg (13KB, 196x178px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 196x178px

>>50259427
>mechanical perfection
>2e

File: 1440860788346.jpg (95KB, 500x870px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 500x870px

>>50258753

2e is the most fun, but it's far from perfect
4e has system mechanics that are pretty well-tuned, but is way too gamey, which takes a lot of people "out of it"
5e is the best of collection album

Honestly, I'd homebrew all of them before I let the players play, but I personally like 2e/Rules Cyclopedia the most.

>>50259389
No, it isn't.

>>50260261
3.PF is trash.

>>50262026
>4e fans
>Where the hell have you been?

They were children when they started D&D, hence 4e. They're only now just old enough to post here.

>>50260209
>getting married in H&H
toppest of keks

>>50262026
3eaboos shat really hard on 4e because it was different. As a result most people began to assume that it wasn't good without even giving it a try. Word of mouth is pretty powerful.

>>50258753
4E.

>>50262026
Not playing it due to the trainwreck it was until Expertise feats + the MM3/MV overhaul happened. I don't care much for 4E's accuracy vs defense post-fix, but before it it was actively pissing me the fuck off nonstop due to the sheer amount of turns where half of the party would waste their actions unless the party leader was a Warlord.

>>50258753
Original D&D with greyhawk and blackmoor supplement only, NO HOUSERULES

>>50258753
5e, without a shadow of a doubt.

4e was mechanically solid, but didn't play much like any other edition of D&D before or since.

You're all wrong. The best edition is a homebrew franken-edition put together by a god-tier DM.

>>50260525
I've played every edition from AD&D 2e to 5e as well as Basic at this point. 3.PF was awful for probably the very reason many love it - the massive amounts of character options and optimization and heavy imbalance of class capabilities make it a well you can always return to when you're thinking 'how do I make concept x?'

That same massive library of character options and class strength split is also what kills it. It's too easy to fuck up and have a useless character. It's too hard to balance an encounter for a party that includes T1 and T5 classes in it. Pathfinder and 3.5 in particular have a giant hate on for martials too, so it's particularly shitty in that respect.

4e is my favorite for unified design and a spread of options that is large, but manageable. The character creator was very helpful in this regard, unlike 3e's character creator.

5e is a good edition. It doesn't have the really awesome unified design of 4 roles, 4 power sources - but it's still good, cribbing a lot from 4e rulewise.

File: 1471255057014.jpg (384KB, 1140x922px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1140x922px

OD&D is awesome because it established roleplaying nationally.

Basic/BX/BECMI/RC is awesome because it introduced people to the game in an easy to learn format and introduced a large number of concepts such as immortality and a large number of monsters.

AD&D 1e is awesome because it truly brought D&D into the mainstream with things like the demon scare and shit, introduction of separation of race and class (to a minor degree), and numerous spells and monsters.

D&D 2e brought us D&D's best settings and optional rules out the ass. Constant rule tweaks, the 'unification' of the numerous settings and such, and much much more.

D&D 3/3.5 was incredible for bringing in thousands (if not millions) of new players into the hobby, brought us 'official' house rules via the SRD and finally brought about the elimination of race-class restrictions.

D&D 4e was the most balanced edition and finally made "epic" play core, as well as presenting large amounts of constant character choices via feats, powers, equipment and more.

D&D 5e brings us the best of the previous editions, distilling the best of the best into a fun and functional system with few mistakes (I'm looking at you 4 Elements monk and Beastmaster Ranger) but on the whole is well maintained and growing into it's own very, very well.

If you don't exclusively play the original Chainmail rules, you're a pleb.

>>50258753
3.5, unironically
I just love character creation. I've yet to see an edition with such a great variety of options and combinations, it's like a puzzle game for me. The power you can tap into with a well designed character is pretty titillating as well.

>>50264260
DnD is not Pokemon, there has not been a continuous, steady stream of mechanical improvements across every generation

>>50271368
I had more fun creating characters in games like Shadowrun and Mutants & Masterminds than I ever did in 3.5.

Basic. The playstyle just can't be beat, and it does what it sets out to do effectively.

Otherwise GURPS Dungeon Fantasy.

>I like to roleplay but also kill things sometimes
5e

>I like dungeon crawling
4e

>I want to win D&D during character creation
3.5/PF

>>50258753
5e, but I don't have a ton of experience.

I've only played 3e (and 3.5 + Pathfinder), 5e, and a little bit of 2e AD&D.

I haven't played 4e but everyone I've personally talked to disliked it, and I didn't like the idea of it based on what I read, but I can't judge how it feels to play.

AD&D seemed pretty fun, but a different game than we have now. I kind of like that they didn't try to make the classes balanced. If I remember correctly you needed higher rolls to play stuff like Paladins and Wizards, while lower rolls could get you a Cleric, Fighter or Rogue.

5e

File: D&D-Versions.jpg (235KB, 1600x800px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1600x800px

A bit outdated

>>50271742
>but I can't judge how it feels to play.
Like Final Fantasy Tactics, but multiplayer, with a semblance of balance between classes, and more obvious class roles.

>>50258753
1e: Don't play this, because 2e exists.

2e: More coherent than 1e, a wholesale improvement.

3e: Playable if your players aren't munchkins and you throw out the entire CR system. Playing with optimizers? Suicide is preferable.

4e: This is not D&D, it's M:tG. Suicide is preferable.

PF: Still more D&D than 4e. Same cash-grabby garbage fire as 3e, but with a more reliable CR system.

5e: Best version. Modern sensibilities, 2e vibe. 8/10 system.

>>50259533
But seriously; this.

File: 1474579197602.jpg (194KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 640x480px

I've always been a fan of 3.5

Been running it and playing it for 10+ years. Never had an issue with balance or anything alone those lines. And I own almost every splat book they made.

On paper people complain about optimization and too many options and too easy to be useless,

But all of these problems become moot if you lack a shitty player to abuse any of these, and have a good DM that helps everyone in a party shine, and writes a good game.

I've never had a wizard try to break the game, and if they did, it was in a way the party could get behind, and it because plot relevant.


That being said 4e and 5e are both good games and I've enjoyed games of both.

AD&D-2e were a little before my time. I've played them, but never got too involved.

I also play and run other games like tWoD, DH, Exalted, RIFTS, and others. All fun games, all workable when run properly.

D&D 3.5 will just always be my go-to because I grew up with it, and I just love the endless amounts of options and characters customization. It's not for everyone, but I know I can always round a group to play if I want to.

I'm even introducing a group that is 100% new to TTRPG's to D&D with 3.5, and they've been enjoying every minute of it. It's all about starting slow, and working with the characters to iron out the concepts they want to see happen. (Many start with vidya characters as their inspirations, but hey, whatever is fun for you)

>>50260109

Confirmed for babby who started with 3rd edition.

5e

>>50272924
And by the same token, I played 3.X for nearly 10 years and had balance issues crop up non-fucking-stop if even one player in the group was on a different page than the others. The problem with 3.5 isn't how easy it is to abuse, because while I think it's an incredibly shitty way to handle a broken game for several reasons it can still be curbed by simply telling players no, it's how easy it is to make a useless or broken character without intending to. There are a lot of players out there that don't WANT advice from more experienced players because they want to figure it out themselves, or worse, write your concerns off as 'minmaxing bullshit', and then end up being a huge detriment to the party.

And then on the other end of the spectrum, there are players who look at CoDzilla and think it's appropriate because it's part of the game/they need to do whatever they can to survive(actually a very popular opinion when talking to AD&D vets)/they think they're missing something and it's obviously not as broken as it looks.

And then on top of all of that bullshit, there's no guarantee that something that functions well at low levels will continue doing so a few levels later.

It makes it a very, very shitty experience for an inexperienced DM, almost on par with running clusterfuck games like Shadowrun when you barely know the rules.