Blending the D&Ds

[Zardnaar]

3E multiclassing was nearly perfect, and would have worked just fine if they hadn't have added PrCs and made just a few small tweaks.

3.X MCing was more abusable than the old dual classing rules from AD&D.

 

[Celebrim]

3.X MCing was more abusable than the old dual classing rules form AD&D

Not even remotely. The only thing that kept dual classing in check was it was almost impossible to have a character that could qualify to do it without cheating.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So basically if you made a clone, a new edition, or even a .5 or .75 edition of D&D what would you take? I like the 2E Priest Sphere system (Spells and Magic over the 2E PHB) for example. You don't have to use it as is either just conceptually or you can lift the basic idea but fix the execution of it.

Assuming I was building my own D&D remix, and I didn't actually have to do the work involved:

• I would start with the race and class framework from 4E, but I'd frontload the classes so that you get most of your powers at first level, like in older editions. I would also nix any powers that were substantially redundant or narratively unclear, to make them more distinct.
• I'd remove the assumption of wealth (like 5E), but also tweak the magical items, so they didn't mess with accuracy when they show up.
• I'd implement pseudo-classes for monsters, so that they behave consistently with character classes (like in 3E).
• I'd keep the standardized progression for attacks and saves (from 4E), but I'd cap stats at 20 (like 5E) to prevent the math from getting out of control within a given level. Everyone should have a chance against same-level foes, but it's perfectly fine for high-level heroes to clown on low-level chumps.
• Fold the warlord into the fighter, and fold the ranger into the rogue. If you want to be a warlord, then pick the warlord powers for your fighter.
• Kill off the concept of specialty clerics. Traditional clerics, druids, and warlocks are your three flavors of divine spellcaster.
• Restore the pacing of AD&D, by instituting slow natural healing, while retaining the lack of pure healing from the 4E cleric. Combat doesn't need to be an everyday activity, and if you get in more than one fight per day, you should run out of steam quickly. If you want a long workday, then clerics and warlords can stem the attrition through temporary HP.

Of course, that's just me, and I really like the 4E multiclass feats (which stop making sense when removed from the 4E power structure).

 

[Zardnaar]

Not even remotely. The only thing that kept dual classing in check was it was almost impossible to have a character that could qualify to do it without cheating.

Rolling a 17 wasn't that hard.

 

[GreyLord]

I haven't created my own D&D but I did do a 5e version which translated the rules for OD&D, BECM, and AD&D to be used with 5e rules (5e Old School on DMsGuild).

Basically made is those who wanted to play the classes or in the style of the older games could do so using the 5e rules we have today.

If I were to make my OWN mixture of D&D....and wanted to keep it blended with Old School...

I'd probably keep AD&D ability score modifiers but use AD&D 2e racial limits (yes, I like the racial limits. I know people hate them, but I think when you have 1000+ year old elves, 500 year old dwarves, but less than 120 year old humans it raises too many questions for me). It lets them get to a pretty high level, but humans can always get higher than that. I'd probably use 1e spell tables for wizards (which can in theory be logically extended up to level 36 or 37 if you follow the patter it establishes...though 2e also had tables that went up to level 30 for High Level, or 40 if you used the Forgotten Realms version).

I'd also use the Save system from AD&D.

I'd let characters use the XP tables to rise in levels as 2e (so, it would be variable XP tables).

This would be tough, but I'd also use 3e style multi-classing but in order to do that, the characters would probably need to use whatever XP table is the MOST to raise up to the next level (so someone who is a Magic-User/Fighter would be using the M-U XP tables).

I'd make most spells able to be rituals as talked about in 4e (so, more of the magic would be rituals than any other version of D&D, even 4e).

Though characters would have variable combat proficiency (as in 2e, I'd probably use that formula for how well they improved in combat), otherwise I'd use 5e combat rules.

I'd also use Inspiration from 5e.

In addition, I'd use the way 5e uses skills, but let characters choose which 4 skills they want from the beginning.

To recompense Thieves for this, I'd give them expertise (at the appropriate levels as 5e) as 5e, as well as Bards. With Bards they'd only get HALF the skills to use with Expertise overall (rounded up for which ever archetype I'd go with on the skills front).

 

[Advilaar]

3E multiclassing was nearly perfect, and would have worked just fine if they hadn't have added PrCs and made just a few small tweaks.

3e Multiclassing was a very positive step away from the level limit demihuman multiclassing and nonsense dual class rules of 1/2 e. But, 3e left itself prone to "cherry picking" since many classes, like the fighter were heavily front loaded with class features.

I'd use 5e's multiclassing. You get the good saves of the first class. If both classes were spell casting classes, the spell slots stack somewhat and stay relevant even at higher levels since the effectiveness is not based on spellcaster level, but on ability modifier. Unlike 4e hybrid/ multiclass rules, you get to keep most of the first and second classes features nor gimp yourself past level 10. The classes are not so front loaded, but you still get good benefits from taking a level or five of a class.

I am guessing most here that had 1e/2e stuck all with campaigns below level 5 or 6. Where 1e/2e truly shined was it's wargamer roots. At level 10 or so, you got cool things like lordships, followers, organizations, and gangs. If you read through some old Dungeon magazines and modules, a lot of these encounters were like mass tacticals.

 

[Garthanos]

My teen years were back with the blue book in 70s and I liked each edition better than the last till 5e came out. There are sweet bits in 5e even though not enough for me to like it better than 4e. Not sure how to grab the things from 5e for 4e I like. I loved the class descriptions in the 2e Player's Handbook. And some rich flavor and martial style from the Tome of Battle in 3e. I will say there are elements of 2e /1e I am figuring out how to bring in to 4e, even if they take on a distinct form.

 

[Sadras]

My teen years were back with the blue book in 70s and I liked each edition better than the last till 5e came out. There are sweet bits in 5e even though not enough for me to like it better than 4e. Not sure how to grab the things from 5e for 4e I like. I loved the class descriptions in the 2e Player's Handbook. And some rich flavor and martial style from the Tome of Battle in 3e. I will say there are elements of 2e /1e I am figuring out how to bring in to 4e, even if they take on a distinct form.

Similar to your experience, except I began to dislike 4e the more I played it and I love 5e. However unlike your obstacle where I agree with you it appears harder to port 5e'isms into 4e, 4e'isms are easier to integrate into 5e and much of that is already done via the designers.
For my 5e blend I would take from earlier editions...

From 4e skill challenges, expand on the multiclass feats.
From 3.x/pathfinder I would include more variability on racial design.
Again from 3e - I would include touch attacks for ethereal/spectral undead.
From earlier editions I would take racial and biological sex ability caps, with variable compensation for the latter, ability modifiers for age.
Also spell failure, spell learning, resurrection survival, class ability requirements - translated for 5e of course so not a straight import.

There is probably more.

 

[Celebrim]

3e Multiclassing was a very positive step away from the level limit demihuman multiclassing and nonsense dual class rules of 1/2 e. But, 3e left itself prone to "cherry picking" since many classes, like the fighter were heavily front loaded with class features.

The fighter being heavily front loaded was not a flaw of 3e multiclassing, but a flaw of the fighter. It's the reason the fighter is a great class at low levels but is considered by many to be a tier 5 class - that is to say, an excessively narrow class which does not even perform well at it's stated party roll (in this case fighting). You have to fix the front loading of the fighter and give more reason to play that class in the long run in order to really fix 3e, regardless of whether or not that fixed multi-classing.

Secondly, cherry-picking classes was only a thing worth commenting on since a) they introduced Prestige Classes and b) allowed a character to have more than one Prestige Class and c) Prestige Classes did not count against your racial multi-classing restrictions. All three of those things were terrible bad no good horrible decisions. Prestige Classes were a dumb idea in the first place, because they had no unified principle, and served from everything from a kludge fix to the multi-classing rules to deliberately unbalanced classes that were essentially base classes with more bonus feat equivalents per level than the class they extended. But, if you were going to introduce Prestige Classes then thematically a character should only be allowed a single "advanced class". If the weak justification of a Prestige Class is it increases character flavor and hooks them into the campaign world, then we should destroy that design justification by turning prestige classes into a mechanical buffet. And finally, Prestige Classes should still be restricted by the rule that any class but your races favored class had to be within 1 level of every other class or you'd receive a 10% penalty to XP. The breach of that rule both by designers and in common practice set up the cherry picking insanity.

Personally, my very first house rule for 3.0e was to ban all PrCs from the game. For a while I thought I needed to make an exception for the PrC's that existed to facilitate multi-classing between spell-casters and non-spellcasters, but then I ended up with a homebrew solution to that involving feats that accomplished almost the same thing without needing like twenty classes to be created.

 

[Advilaar]

From earlier editions I would take racial and biological sex ability caps,

I might be wrong, but I don't think biological sex ability caps were a thing in any edition. As far as racial, yes, there have always been some pluses and minuses. The only caps I know of were 18 for most PCs in 1/2e and the soft caps of 20 and 30 in 5e. But those applied everywhere at least for PCs with some notable exceptions.

I do recall a lot of debates in printed magazines in the letters section about it back in the day and the occasional message board debate or house rule, but never anything official. I also remember those debates erupting in a lot of hard feelings. Also, I am not sure it really adds anything to the game.

Personally, someone wants a Xena, warrior princess in my campaign and either rolls or point buys those stats (depending on method) and the power level of that campaign is compatible, I am down. Someone wants a Don Juan who hops in and out of bed with wealthy heiresses to fund his expensive magic item and adventure habit, so be it.

It limits player freedom, does not contribute to immersion.