POLL: Favorite D&D version

Remove all ads!

Ok, so I am curious what everyone here thinks about the different Edition/versions of D&D that there is being throughout all these years?
I personally have never actually have play PnP, but I have the Baldur?s Gate series and also NWN, and so that way is that I became interested on ?real? D&D.

Anyway, I have five questions; the first one is your all time favorite Edition, and the other four are, if you have to choose between two different versions, which would you preferred.

The reason behind this question is two fold:
1. ?cause I want to create a mod for new classes/kit for the Baldur?s Gate series that follow as close as possible the rules of D&D
2. I have always wanted to get more involve, and I think that this is the perfect opportunity to start getting more familiar with this

I would really appreciate any comments and/or ideas about this topic, also I will like to know the reasons that you like a specific Edition of D&D (anything from rules, histories, classes/kits, books?anything! ).

Poll Information
This poll contains 5 question(s). 30 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Favorite D&D version (30 votes.)

Favorite edition (Choose 1)
* 1st Edition - 10% (3)
* 2nd Edition - 27% (8)
* 3rd Edition - 20% (6)
* 3.5 Edition - 43% (13)

Choose preferred edition (Choose 1)
* 3rd Edition - 40% (12)
* 3.5 Edition - 60% (18)

Choose preferred edition (Choose 1)
* 1st Edition - 27% (8)
* 3rd Edition - 73% (22)

Choose preferred edition (Choose 1)
* 2nd Edition - 37% (11)
* 3rd Edition - 63% (19)

Choose preferred edition (Choose 1)
* 2nd Edition - 43% (13)
* 3.5 Edition - 57% (17)

 

I'd vote, but I refuse to answer the second question, as 3e and 3.5e are not truly D&D. When WotC took over, they changed it into something else and stole the name. I refuse to play anything after that, and do not recognize them as D&D at all.
[/personal rant; feel free to disregard]

2e is my favorite of all time, mostly because it's what I grew up with. I never put the effort into it to understand D&D or original AD&D, but they're infinitely closer to 2e (and vice-versa) than the bastard 3.5e and 3e.

 

Wait, so WotC weren't the creator of D&D???
Well, that just shows how much i know about D&D.

so, who created D&D or AD&D???

 

Good ol' TSR ... which WotC ate. If you've played BG1, you can see the logo that the big dragon burns onto the screen in an intro movie.

 

To the best of my knowledge, D&D was started by Gary Gygax and some other guy. As with Felinoid, my favourite D&D is the one I grew up with, which was the version that came in the Red (Basic), Blue (Expert), Green (Companion), and Black (Master) boxes. The company that ran D&D in those days was TSR. There was no such thing as Wizards of the Coast back then.

This version had no kits, no multi-classing, no feats, and no Paladins. Every character had to carry some rope, a lantern, and 10 foot pole (for checking for traps).

 

From Planet ADnD:

For the curious, here is the link.

I couldn't vote as I don't know if you want my choices based on PnP or CRPG. The only PnP rules I've used are 3.5e. 2e is all of my CRPG - I can't find the right way to get through NWN solo yet and taking a hench(wo)man seems silly. 3e was very annoying to me. Although, I like the 1e bard myself.

 

So was this 1st Edition??, if it is then I'm confused with the classes avalible then; I fund this web page that listed all the different classes, but I see other classes or should I say kits, like Samurai or Assassin under 1st Edition; I even see paladin under Supplement I - Greyhawk, Supplement II - Blackmoor, Suplement III - Eldritch Wizardry and The Strategic Review !


Also, if this information is correct, I don't get the fact that they had stuff like Samurai on 1st ED, "drop it" on 2nd and then bring back on 3/3.5?

 

D&D came first, AD&D later, and finally 2e after that. Three different versions.

Samurais are in 2e as well. They are a fighter kit, and are detailed in the Complete Fighter's Handbook. If they did initially drop it in 2e, they definitely brought it back.

 

Well, I guess the list on my previous link is wrong !!

@Fel-

So the good stuff is found from the first three versions... and then once WotC came "they" just mess everything

Now, aside from Fel is there anybody that likes 3rd ED and above??? or am I

 

Well the first rulesets I played was 3E, never played 2E, it's my favourite only because I haven't played the others. Still it's fun enough, despite the real easyness to create uber-character.

However I've heard some thing about AD&D 2E and the maximum level and class restrictions for non-human doesn't make sens to me. Why should a dwarf be prohibited to be a wizard? How can they make magical weapon then? It's silly

 

So, your poll is actually missing the real first edition of D&D which was "D&D". All this 1e, 2e, 3e business is "AD&D" which came after D&D. So, effectively, there are 5 versions to consider:

D&D - the original rules that came in the 4 coloured boxes. Each box had only two books: a player book and a DM book. This had 7 classes: Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, Cleric, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling. These are the only rules under which I have played PnP D&D.

AD&D 1: The first "Advanced D&D" that had more classes (like Barbarians, Bards, and Druids) and more books (like the monster manual)

AD&D 2: The upon which the Baldur's Gate games are based

AD&D 3: The rules upon which Icewind Dale 2 and NWN are 'based', with a different approach to multi-classing and feats.

AD&D 3.5: The rules under which Temple of Elemental Evil is based, including more complicated controversial combat options.

 

Actually, that was meant to encourage races into their "proper" roles and make humans a more appetizing alternative. Most players just ignored it, especially since it didn't come up often. Really, it's a lot easier to make adventures for low levels than higher levels. Even Baldur's Gate (the original) never made it to the level caps, and that's nearly a score of adventures' worth.

No, it's not. Dwarves are a very anti-arcane race in 2e; they even have a 20% chance for a malfunction of an item that is not specifically suited for their class. It is only because of their non-magical nature that they get bonuses to their saves against spells. You have to have a downside to have an upside. Also, there is one subrace of dwarves that is allowed to become mages; the derro are adept in magic, and their savants are treated as mages. They also don't get the saving throw bonuses that most dwarves get, due to having to let down their guard to get the magic to work.

Also, dwarves do not trust magical weapons and thus do not make them...ever. BUT, their unbelieveable workmanship goes a long way toward making a magical weapon, and sages looking to make a very good magical weapon seek out dwarven craftsmanship to make their job easier. Dwarves will not touch it themselves, but if someone wants to make a magical weapon out of their goods, they don't care. (Well, most of the ones who've had contact with the outside world don't, but others can't get past their superstitions.) What few "magical" weapons they will wield are those that have been blessed by clerical magic, which is the only type that they respect, as they are a very spiritual race.

 

@Harbourboy -

Sorry, again that shows just how much I knew about D&D and AD&D.

@Ofelix -

Now, this is an example that I was looking for, I have to agree with you. If one of the main skills of a dwarf is bieng a "smithy" then why wouldn't be allow to learn/be a wizard, after all you will want someone whi can have some brackground on your magical armor or weapon.

 

I can't vote. I guess you have to answer every question to get your vote to register. My reply is pretty much what Fel said except:

1) I was grown when D&D, AD&D was born. Had a brief spin with it.

2) I have played 3.5 rules. I don't understand them and get a headache when I try.

Arcanum was not a AD&D game but it did follow many/some of the rules of the original. Dwarfs are technicians. They do not make or use magical weapons. There is a dwarf wizard in Arcanum but he doesn't make weapons. In Arcanum the magical qualities are added by a wizard to the weapons created by a smith.

 

Again I would have voted but for question 2.

Like HB I played the original, my sister bought me the red box in 1974 when I was 15, I played PnP games and then moved to the real game AD&D. Played this loads PnP both as small groups of friends and each of us taking turns as DM and also tournament play at conventions etc. Imo 2e made the game better and the first crpgs the Eye of the Beholder series, Hillsfar, Pools of Radiance etc were all 2e and quite good for their time.

As for 3e and 3.5e I'm not a big fan mainly because of the way Wizards are trying to change the game, however (and Fel will hate me for this) I do think mutli-classing is more fun and easier and at the same time silly, e.g. taking one level of Ranger so you acn dual-wield is silly when you think about it.

 

@Tal-

Thank you for explaining this since I was confused, myself with the whole change between D&D and AD&D.

Also, Tal is there a change that I can edit the poll itself; unknown by me the choices that I give in the poll does not demonstrate what most people feel, I mean they do not want to use it because I did not give the choice to not "choose" an answer from 2-5.
@DarkStrider-

Again, this is a great example.
Even thought must people state that they like the original (before WotC), there?s still some people that can find some "use" to the changes made in 3/3.5 ED.

@ Fel and Nakia
I'll thank you both to clear the information concerning dwarfs and there "smithy" skills

 

@Tal there was a second edition AD&D where they polled players, groups etc, it was at this stage that the monk and barabrian became classes intheir own right as opposed to being sub-classes of the fighter. I think I'm also right in thinking that the Druid was able to progress beyond 14th level in 2e.