What is your least favorite version of DND? I created the thread What's your favorite version of DND and thought why don't I make the opposite of that thread.

My least favorite system is DND 5e.

4e

The original boxed set. I didn't like the way it was set up. Started with 1st Ed. AD&D in '81, so the original D&D set was a step backwards, in my opinion (especially when I tried it back in the 80s).

4th edition hands down

In reply to Davy Jones (msg # 4):

Ah, yes.   Save vs Death (or die)...and no resurrection spells.   Not a fan.

I've played everything from red box to 3.5e.   I haven't looked at 5e yet, but I suspect it'd be my first choice.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:22, Tue 28 Feb 2023.

4e.

Why does no one like 4e. I've never played it before so maybe it really is quite bad.

I've played it before, and thought it was fun.  But, I don't think it really felt like D&D.

Tough call... None of the editions would rank my least favorite since they all have issues. However, here's my high level laundry list if you'd like.

• 1e/2e (included AD&D) due to level caps and stat caps for races and even genders. Longest-lived elves can't be high-level clerics? Dual class only for humans, but strict multi-class with those pesky level caps. THAC0 and AC were annoying to math out, multi-attacks were unclear 3/2 (Most every only allowed 2 attacks after the first attack so that made combat longer) And several different saves to track. (Seven IIRC). By far the strictest of the game systems as far as class, you're stuck, and good luck if you wanted to play a cavalier or bard! Work hard
• 3e Character building requires preplanning for all skills and feats to achieve your desired end character and way too many exploits by bad designs and horrible wording (Look at any rules forum and get blasted by RULES AS INTENDED vs. RULES AS WRITTEN debates). Oh, and let's make magic items so formulaic that they are required and are just swapped out like candy at the magic mart. Let's not forget the rise of un-ending splat books to comb through and the optimization boards for insane builds...
• Star Wars d20 - Force was run off of vitality, so use your powers too much and a single hit would take your Jedi down like a chump! Let's not forget the Vitality / Wound system where a single crit could down you instantly.
• 3.5e - suffered the same issues as 3e, though some cleanup, but hey at least DR was easier to manage.
• Pathfinder - Archetypes and Racial traits for an endless variety of swaps which led to several splat books. We kept issues found in 3e, but refined others.
• Saga Edition - Precursor to 4e, need I say more? Easy to build but all defense just levels up... The powers system was card or something weird (sorry memory is hazy, we didn't play this one for long)
• 4e - Cookie-cutter classes, pretty much decide on what power(s) not to have and there you go. Too much emphasis on combat and no incentive for role-playing. Magic items are now player wish list items the GM hands out like presents. Tiers are okay I suppose.
• 5e - improvement but less variety. simplistic building means less customization. (Would recommend this for newbies looking for an entry but for those who enjoy nuanced builds, this system would hinder that). Some customizations with the 3rd-level selection of a subclass, but that's about it.

And yes, the vast majority of the games I run are 3.5e-based, but I use a classless system to eliminate the need for owning several splat books.

this <--
It didn't feel like dungeons and dragons and the creation was wonky to me.
It felt more like I was creating a video game character, which isn't terrible in itself but it subtracted for me from the feel of Dungeons & Dragons.

5e. /hisses and throws holy water

Affectionately known in my circles as 'DnD for Dummies'.

There's a fine line between TOO MUCH customization and TOO SIMPLE, and 5e lands solidly on the latter side of said line.

I haven't played any of them except AD&D (1E) long enough to really have an educated opinion about them, as far as which I prefer or don't prefer.  I always felt like D&D dedicated too much focus to "kill the bad guys and get the gold" and didn't really reward much of anything else, and I haven't seen anything that's changed that opinion.  It's a big part of why I stopped playing it in the first place.

Simply put all versions are broken in some manner. I got whole files of rants about the levels of stupid that went in to building D&D, including finding information on creatures they state are real but they never published any information beyond this on them. Or magic items with incomplete descriptions (example, the parallelization effect from the staff of the magi - No listing for how long the spell last). All kinds of little things that don't add up and some down right stupid things that really put forth that the writers who made the system did not research anything in reality before making blatant rules to cover stuff they had no understanding of. Lots of ARG through out all the systems. Still I play a heavily modified 2cd edition (I removed the level caps and multi-class restrictions, for one. But then I added in possible super powers to - I put a quirk chart out a few times, if anyone is interested.)

In reply to glaxton (msg # 1):

C'mon, this isn't likely to improve the level of good feelings here, even if people stay civil.

In reply to engine (msg # 15):

???

In reply to glaxton (msg # 16):

Suspect he's talking about the edition wars that spring up from time to time across various forums.

A war!

I like to think that the RPoL community (for the most part, at least) is mature enough to accept that others like and/or dislike things that they don't.

I wouldn't play 5E (or 4E, or really anything other than 3.5) if you paid me real solid cash - but I accept that other people love it(them). Good on those people! There's plenty of other people that like it too for them to play with. I'm just not one of them.

The nice thing about RPoL is that there's a plethora of games across every possible edition of any game that has multiple editions (DnD is just one of several), so with enough patience you can find practically anything your heart desires.

Controversial opinion: 3.0/3.5

I get that in a lot of ways it was a huge improvement over AD&D but to me it felt completely overengineered and 90% of the character traits were broken traps.

I just remember playing with a big group of people. Most of us just had okay characters. A couple of the players played these super optimized min/maxed wizards that would just dominate every encounter and then the one player who wanted to be creative and do cool things (I'm gonna Monkey Grip Dual-Wield Battle Axes) was just always left in the dust because he would fall for all the feats or abilities that just plain sucked.

Everyone praises 3.5 with its depth forgetting that except in extremely niche circumstances 90% of those choices were just clutter.

It also introduced the system of "Feat taxes" where cool stuff was locked behind garbage that I saw pervade into other systems and that is just unforgivable.

Every system has its flaws, sure, but 3.0 was so ungodly broken on launch and 3.5 was just a crude band aid put on top of it.

In reply to SunRuanEr (msg # 19):

Well said

I will start by echoing what others have said here. Every version of every game out there is going to be someone's favourite and someone else's least favourite. And everyone is going to have a favourite and least favourite genre/setting/rule system/gaming philosophy.

Personally, the very first RPG I ever played was D&D (the 1983 Red Box). Started buying the AD&D hardcovers with my Christmas and birthday money pretty soon after that. As a teen, I loved it, and it literally changed my life (no joke), but even then I saw its limitations. I've either owned or read the rules of every edition since, but rarely if ever played. What I realized was that the part of gaming that I loved the most was storytelling and D&D is almost exclusively a combat rules system. Almost everything is geared towards winning combat encounters and being rewarded for it.

To illustrate: the last time I DMed a game of D&D (3.5 I think), one of my players was a paladin. In every battle, he would chase down fleeing enemies and cut them down. Once the encounter was over and I asked, "What do you do now?" he would be the first to pipe up: "I roll the bodies." Because of course he would. The only way he gets rewarded with XP is by killing enemies, and the only way he gets loot is if he grabs it off the bloody corpses of the enemies he just slaughtered. Role-playing a lawful good holy warrior be damned.

Now of course I'm exaggerating for effect here, but not by much.

I've found a lot of RPGs fall into this category. It just isn't my thing, but I will never criticize anyone who enjoys this kind of play. The thrill of a good combat encounter is awesome, and D&D has offered this for decades with varying levels of crunch. But me, I want the fluff, so I look elsewhere.

So to summarize: I guess my least favourite version is..all of them? With maybe the original basic ruleset having a special place in my heart for its positive and long-lasting effect on my life (but I wouldn't ever play it again).

Again: no disrespect to anyone who loves D&D, or any other game system, for that matter. De gustibus non disputandum est.

One of the more interesting things in original D&D that got lost was that you earned XP by getting gold. Therefore it didn't matter if you killed the enemies or snuck past them or convinced them to go take a lunch break, as long as you got the gold your character advanced.

This was also where adventures were designed much more around sandbox styles. Some of the most iconic adventure modules went house by house in a village detailing where the peasants had hidden their few copper pieces because the idea was that the thief in the party would want to get some thieving done and this was an important source of XP for them: stealing from all the peasants in the villages they were going to save :P

Never played fourth. I really don't like the book setup / pdfs for fifth.

I liked 3.5 simply because the SRD was the very first time blind folks could gain access to the rules.  That's the only reason why i'll have good memories of 3.5.   The rules had problems, for it, sure, and there were plenty of things that still  didn't make sense, but at least it was easy to use and get info from. Even with  pdf books, the open source material was the easiest to work with to date.