>
>I won't argue that 3.x is easier to do for beginners, because that's
>just untrue. But you can't tell me that 5e is BETTER than 3.x.
>

Coming back to this late...

I won't say that it's better - just that it has its own flaws.

The main variation between versions of D&D is about Control vs. Flexibility. The more Flexibility the player has, the more fun can be had - but it weakens Control of what the GM, game designer, and module writer can expect.

In my opinion, First and Second edition D&D had a moderate tendency towards Control, Fourth Edition pushed the scale about as far towards Control as possible without having everybody play the exact same character, and Fifth Edition has a slight tendency towards Control.

Third Edition, especially with all the prestige classes and feats from the expansion books, became a rampaging beast of Flexibility. (See: Pun-pun the kobold.) I used it to create fun things, as did my best friend. (Half-elf pacifist diplomat.) Other people created combat monsters.

The effect this had on the Living campaigns can not be understated. Any adventure that was national was generally geared towards challenging the combat monsters, which meant that my characters, which were capable but not at that level, died like flies unless we made sure at least one member of the party was a combat monster. The effect was more often than not like being in a UF mission team of Neo, Gryphon, Hellbringer, and three bluesuiters.

I prefer 3E, and the Pathfinder system that is its descendant, but I think they're still looking for that sweet spot between Control and Flexibility.

Peter Eng
--
Insert humorous comment here.