TheAlkaizer
Game Designer
3rd edition: My best memories of 3E diving in a random supplement book and going over different options. There was so much material. Even though I would not want to go back to Prestige classes, there was something satisfying about seeing all the possible options ahead of you and being excited for them. I don't remember all the names, but most 3rd edition adventures that I played were very fun. Overall, no one can argue that it was in any way, but as I mentioned in another thread, I would not go back and play 3rd edition.
4th edition: I've got so many good things to say about 4th edition.
Mechanics-wise I loved the Bloodied condition, I loved the healing surges and their interactions with healing spells. I loved that there was very few dead levels, my players always had something to be excited about. I liked that it dived 100% into magic items and it was expected to give cool stuff to your players. I really liked having saving throws be tied to two ability scores. Like most people, I loved the Warlord class. I thought the power sources and roles, albeit a bit gimmicky, made it very simple to differentiate classes for newer players. I liked the Shadow power source.
Many people really disliked the martial classes having powers, but many now suggest to give the battlemaster's manoeuvers to all fighters. Fighters were as exciting and resourceful to play as wizards and casters. I think using a different wording and presenting them a bit differently might have helped people accept them as manoeuvers or martial techniques. I loved the use of keywords.
Overall, I think what I liked the most is that 4th edition knew very well what it wanted to achieve and went for it. There were no half-measures. It went into a different direction and it went hard. The experience it offered was different and refreshing. It really felt heroic, action-packed. The art really supported what the game wanted to be; like it or not, it was perfect for the product.
But the edition's biggest strength, in my opinion, was that it was so good to DMs. The encounter building rules are absolutely golden. It was easy, fun and it felt creative to put encounters together. There were some clear tables about what the normal progression should be, and that made it easy to gauge the difficulty. Oh, and minions is one of the edition's best feature; its so fitting with the heroic tone.
It had its issues, but overall the layout and editing was fantastic. Clear color-code, repeating motifs and layouts. It's always so easy for me to go back and dive in these books. The language used for powers and mechanical aspect was technical, short and to the point. You knew exactly what it did, what was the range. To me, 4th edition books are in many ways, the best presentation I've had for D&D books.
5th edition: I love how it managed to capture the essence and feel of D&D while also modernizing the game. It really just feels like a more streamlined, elegant and modern version of the game. I still think some aspects were streamlined a bit too much, but they landed pretty close to the sweet spot in my opinion.
I didn't like the content drought that we had before Tasha's when it came to player options, but I like the release frequency of 5E much more than 4E and 3E. There's less bloat in books, and every book with content feels impactful. It refreshes the game. But, more monsters please?
After 4E, it also felt good to have more spells and features be oriented towards social or exploration situations as opposed to strictly combat.
The advantage/disadvantage mechanic is absolutely a step in the right direction when it comes to the level of complexity/depth of core mechanics. It makes playing the game so much easier to understand, faster and just better. Playing Starfinder last year made me realize how much I don't miss stacking bonuses and minuses from different source.
I like that it leaned towards ambiguity and leaving the DM in control as opposed to having very detailed rules for the use of skills and other rules. More games should leave more in the hands of the DM in my opinion.
I like that they felt comfortable exploring a bit outside the archetypes when it comes to player options. We're getting some weird stuff like Clockwork Soul, Swarm Ranger, etc. They're not all great and some don't stick, but I prefer them being a bit bold and trying to bring cool stuff.
4th edition: I've got so many good things to say about 4th edition.
Mechanics-wise I loved the Bloodied condition, I loved the healing surges and their interactions with healing spells. I loved that there was very few dead levels, my players always had something to be excited about. I liked that it dived 100% into magic items and it was expected to give cool stuff to your players. I really liked having saving throws be tied to two ability scores. Like most people, I loved the Warlord class. I thought the power sources and roles, albeit a bit gimmicky, made it very simple to differentiate classes for newer players. I liked the Shadow power source.
Many people really disliked the martial classes having powers, but many now suggest to give the battlemaster's manoeuvers to all fighters. Fighters were as exciting and resourceful to play as wizards and casters. I think using a different wording and presenting them a bit differently might have helped people accept them as manoeuvers or martial techniques. I loved the use of keywords.
Overall, I think what I liked the most is that 4th edition knew very well what it wanted to achieve and went for it. There were no half-measures. It went into a different direction and it went hard. The experience it offered was different and refreshing. It really felt heroic, action-packed. The art really supported what the game wanted to be; like it or not, it was perfect for the product.
But the edition's biggest strength, in my opinion, was that it was so good to DMs. The encounter building rules are absolutely golden. It was easy, fun and it felt creative to put encounters together. There were some clear tables about what the normal progression should be, and that made it easy to gauge the difficulty. Oh, and minions is one of the edition's best feature; its so fitting with the heroic tone.
It had its issues, but overall the layout and editing was fantastic. Clear color-code, repeating motifs and layouts. It's always so easy for me to go back and dive in these books. The language used for powers and mechanical aspect was technical, short and to the point. You knew exactly what it did, what was the range. To me, 4th edition books are in many ways, the best presentation I've had for D&D books.
5th edition: I love how it managed to capture the essence and feel of D&D while also modernizing the game. It really just feels like a more streamlined, elegant and modern version of the game. I still think some aspects were streamlined a bit too much, but they landed pretty close to the sweet spot in my opinion.
I didn't like the content drought that we had before Tasha's when it came to player options, but I like the release frequency of 5E much more than 4E and 3E. There's less bloat in books, and every book with content feels impactful. It refreshes the game. But, more monsters please?
After 4E, it also felt good to have more spells and features be oriented towards social or exploration situations as opposed to strictly combat.
The advantage/disadvantage mechanic is absolutely a step in the right direction when it comes to the level of complexity/depth of core mechanics. It makes playing the game so much easier to understand, faster and just better. Playing Starfinder last year made me realize how much I don't miss stacking bonuses and minuses from different source.
I like that it leaned towards ambiguity and leaving the DM in control as opposed to having very detailed rules for the use of skills and other rules. More games should leave more in the hands of the DM in my opinion.
I like that they felt comfortable exploring a bit outside the archetypes when it comes to player options. We're getting some weird stuff like Clockwork Soul, Swarm Ranger, etc. They're not all great and some don't stick, but I prefer them being a bit bold and trying to bring cool stuff.
. Fun worlds, fun adventures and so much to try. 
