[baronzemo]

Right now I am playing in a 3.5 game, but I prefer 1st edtion games. But role playing is role playing no matter what system you are running/playing in.

[baronzemo]

??? I put 4e on the poll as well but nothing. Just give a thumbs up if you play 4th edtion.

[Lanthorn]

Do I really need to state the obvious, for me?

For those of you new to the boards... 2e! I do infuse some 1e rules into my game, however.

Maybe I should start a "2e Club" or something.

-Lanthorn, 2e Cheerleader yeah, rah!

[jamesdglick]

D&D 3.5, but with bits and pieces from AD&D1 and AD&D2, particularly Comeliness, "Speak Language" as a variable skill, a lot of stuff from C&T, and the faster-than-walking speeds of the older stuff. And PCs still have to roll for hit points at 1st level, and rolling "basic hit points" (better of either).

[Mystic-Scholar]

I have been playing and DMing 3.5 for a group of gamers recently, but my personal preference is 2e.

And I can state here that Maldin prefers 2e as well.
_________________
Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/

[SirXaris]

No option for Pathfinder?

I was happy to advance through the editions until 4e stopped me cold. I really liked every earlier edition, though, especially 3.5. However, once I began playing Pathfinder, I liked it even more.

So, Pathfinder (D&D Edition 3.75) is my preferred variation of the game.

SirXaris

[nerdcav]

Over the entire course of my career, 2E has been the primary edition, but I find myself upgrading a lot of rules to 3.5 versions. If something seems clumsy or out of whack, I'll defer up to 3.5E or down to 1E as needed.
_________________
No place is safe, only safer.

[PaulN6]

Every edition has its pros and cons. We currently play 4e but took some time out to run a level 1-3 2e adventure and it was shocking to recall how awful all low level classes except specialised fighters were.

DDN does seem to be incorporating a lot of element from 2e with some 3e and 4e mixed in. I like front-loaded characters who have multiple options and wont die in one hit. I l love rogues who don't suck at their skills until level 5+. I love clerics whose healing is the gravy on otherwise interesting abilities and I love wizard with at-will spells and rituals.

I can't say for sure until the full level 1-5 playtest comes out this month but i think that DDN/5e is going to be my favourite.
_________________
<a href="http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=97631" target="_blank">http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=97631</a>

[Icarus]

Well ... this thread is frought with danger of the Edition War, but, it seems sedate for now.

I, too, prefer Pathfinder ... in lieu of that, I put "3.5"

Baron Zemo ... you should be able to edit the original post, and put other options ... although, I guess that if you did, it might invalidate some of the results, since some of us already voted.
_________________
Artwork of Icarus thread, here on Canonfire!
Gallery of Art, on my own DB site.

[grodog]

1e, but of course.
_________________
Allan Grohe (grodog@gmail.com)
http://www.greyhawkonline.com/grodog/greyhawk.html

[Lanthorn]

[smillan_31]

[TwiceBorn]

[Argon]

OK,

If I had to choose 2e overall. It corrected a lot of inconsistencies with 1e while still keeping to its roots in 1e. While I play 3.5e it has many 2e rules in it. However, if push came to shove 2e would win for me. I mean come on it was the Sargent era of hawk. Now not taking anything away from the other editions as we can agree basic and 1e were solid systems and 3-3.5 developed on the skill system very well. I can't comment much on 4e though much of that had to do with a lack of games and some disputes I have over some of the things I've seen in the product. Though I guess you would have to play it in order to give an accurate or fair judgment. Much can be said of PF for me as well, though it seems to hinge very closely to 3.5 rules.

Later

Argon

[Lanthorn]

[Argon]

2e players options was the ground work for what became 3rd edition. So technically speaking most 3e fans can see the roots in 2e.

Later

Argon

[Cebrion]

I sort of like all of the game editions, though Basic and even 4E appeal less to me than the others; each for different reasons.
_________________
- Moderator/Admin/Member

[Sutemi]

I prefer 3.5 but AD&D 2nd edition had the best campaign worlds (Planescape, Dark Sun, Planescape). It's possible to get those campaign worlds to 3.5 too but it's not so incredibly deep as it was in the2nd edition with a horde of great supplements. 3.5 supplements just don't have the same guts.

[jamesdglick]

[Icarus]

[Nellisir]

I like 2e, but there were so many fiddly bits I houseruled that it would have to undergo major revisions before I'd use it again RAW. I also liked 3e, but the complexity is more than I want to deal with now. Some kind of 0e/2e/3e bastardization, I guess.

[jtylerk]

This is going to be completely lame, but I played each edition listed, and really enjoyed each one. I never played 4e.

Each system has definite areas where it is stronger than the other systems, and I honestly do not favor one over another.

[Lanthorn]

Looks like the new edition is gaining the advantage. C'mon, old schoolers, let's RALLY!

-Lanthorn

[Icarus]

Ha! Those darned kids! Young whippersnappers! Upstarts!

... who do you think you are? Oh, wait ... I voted with the kids! Does that mean I'm hip and cool? ... Or does that make me "that old guy" that's hanging out at the bar, still going to college, and kicking it with people half his age? Crap.

Can I change my vote now? I wanna be a grognard. :)
_________________
Artwork of Icarus thread, here on Canonfire!
Gallery of Art, on my own DB site.

[Nellisir]