Blending the D&Ds

[Celebrim]

I might be wrong, but I don't think biological sex ability caps were a thing in any edition.

Let's not derail the thread with this little bit of explosive controversy. In 1e AD&D fighters could have exceptional strength. The only gender restrictions the game has ever had was the maximum exceptional strength of starting fighter class character was limited by race and gender. Thus, female gnome fighters maximum strength was lower than male half-orcs fighters (but actually higher than all non-fighter half-orcs), and so forth. In practice, if you weren't cheating this probably never came up in your game, since fighter exceptional strength that was high enough to break the cap (and force you to play a male character) was exceptionally rare to begin with.

I personally don't think D&D is a system that is doing genre emulation that needs gender roles or realistic gender dimorphism hard coded into it. But I also really don't think it's something worth debating, because it always gets angry.

 

[Advilaar]

Well put, Celebrim. The trolls are not entertaining and do not contribute to the goal of producing the ultimate DnD edition hybrid! The original promise of being able to honor a character of any edition or at least taking the best from all.

Here's my somewhat incomplete take (which I have implemented in my campaigns, which have gone on for years.)

From 1/2e
- Henchmen, minions, and followers if the PC want them. 1/2e encounters were designed around this, particularly for the mid levels which I thought as the sweet spot. I use a variation on this when planning encounters.
- Ability caps just to keep out the insane power creep of 3/4 e but with a few upper limits to better support epic and demipower level play.

from 3e
- With Savage Species rules, you can play ANYTHING! Sentient gelatinous ooze with dragonbane rocket launchers? Sure.. as long as the DM allows it and it meshes with the campaign. Not for everyone, but i love that freedom. I have had campaigns in my homebrew 5e where people have played dragons with class levels. It was fun and epic to run for.
- Paragons, demigods, and deities possible for PCs. Not auto given like in 4e Epic Destiny or unavailable like 5e.
- 10th level spells and tablets. Though the spell seeds and hard math of the Epic Level Handbook should be in the trash.
- Magic item creation system, but minus the XP cost. 4e has risiduum. Much better.

From 4e
- Residuum and disenchanting. Residuum is a great resource and makes loot time a lot more interesting.
- Skill challenges, but more freeform and fleshed out.

From 5e
- Everything except the beastmaster class which can be fixed merely by giving the beast all it's actions.

Just to name a few.

However, would not want to bore the forums by dumping pages of house rules...lol!

 

[cbwjm]

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.

1e had strength limits for women. It was a dumb rule and, had I played 1e, would have been one of the first things I'd drop. They were probably grasping for some sort of realism when they wrote the limits which I find crazy considering all the unrealistic stuff in the game.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I think I would go in the opposite way from a lot of people here, using mostly 5e rules for core character advancement, but with the keeps and followers rules adapted from 1e including battlesystem (and maybe 2e? I forget how much that kept). You have a sort of mega campaign, where you'd start in a typical fashion while leveling up to the teens (or maybe all the way to twenty). Then your main characters would mostly stop adventuring and settle down to make a keep or castle, and work on ruling a land. Could be taking over part of an existing world, or you could be colonizing an area on an alternate material plane or trying to control something on the astral or an outer plane. While leveling your characters would train and equip trusted henchmen, and later recruit armies, and deal with allies. Games would then be a mix of lower level adventures directly controlling your henchmen (who could call on 'high level you' for aid) and large scale mass battles. Once in a while you could break the old main characters out of retirement for dealing with an especially big threat. Would be pretty magnificent if you could pull it off, though I suspect real life would get in the way.

1e had strength limits for women. It was a dumb rule and, had I played 1e, would have been one of the first things I'd drop. They were probably grasping for some sort of realism when they wrote the limits which I find crazy considering all the unrealistic stuff in the game.

It's utterly baffling to me that people are fine with shape-shifting demons, reality bending magic, and weird non-biological creatures, but draw the line at women being effective fighters. Especially when historically it was not exactly rare for women to pose as men and fight as soldiers for years.

 

[Advilaar]

I know how 4e is considered, but I wanted to touch more about how I think residuum and disenchantment is a GREAT idea, and I am not sure why they did not keep it going into 5th.

How many times, particularly in 2e or 3e or 5e did you run into a cool treasure like magic stuff you could not use?

PC Paladin: "Great! That was a tough fight versus the Evil Cleric and his cult. What does evil bad guy have for loot"?
PC Wizard: "I go through my detect magic/ curse/ identify routine"

DM: "Well, the plate is +3 full plate, necrotic resist."

PC Paladin: "Whoot! Beats my stuff! Upgrade tiiiime! Can I wear it"?
PC Fighter: "Hey, I could use some Plate, too. This +1 chain mail is looking kind of worn..."

DM: (feeling generous, but not too generous) "Well, with a good armorsmith's services you could probably do alterations. You know, when they make armor like plate, they custom fit them to the wearer. But there is a problem..."
PCs: "Huh?"
DM: "The evil battle cleric that wore it worshiped BIG EVIL EMO DEATH GOD. It's got skull pauldrons, a big emblazoned I LOVE B.E.E.D.G. symbol on the chest, and matching skull knee caps. If you wear it, you'll be stigmatized wherever you go..."
PCs: "well... bummer"
PC Rogue: "party loot (sigh)...Guess it goes in the bag of holding/ vault/ pawned off on some Temple of Goodie-Goodieness for disposal or whatever...."

BETTER.....

PC Wizard: "Hey... this gaudy plate that screams Evil Emo God Fanboy? I might get a few bags of residuum out of it. After all, Mr. Paladin, couldn't you use a ring of necrotic resist when we go after that undead shadow dragon who is behind it all next month? With the dark residuum from that, I could craft us a few rings with the help of a master jeweler! I have tool proficiency : enchanting and the level 2 Disenchant ritual! "

PC Rogue: "Awesome... Hey, DM, do I know any jewelers? My background says I was a fence"
DM rolls some dice...

DM: "Yes... you do. She lives in a statue garden in the undermarket. You have never seen her face, only a door with a slit to exchange money and items. They say the statues are of customers that never paid...."

 

[Advilaar]

I think I would go in the opposite way from a lot of people here, using mostly 5e rules for core character advancement, but with the keeps and followers rules adapted from 1e including battlesystem (and maybe 2e? I forget how much that kept). You have a sort of mega campaign, where you'd start in a typical fashion while leveling up to the teens (or maybe all the way to twenty). Then your main characters would mostly stop adventuring and settle down to make a keep or castle, and work on ruling a land. Could be taking over part of an existing world, or you could be colonizing an area on an alternate material plane or trying to control something on the astral or an outer plane. While leveling your characters would train and equip trusted henchmen, and later recruit armies, and deal with allies. Games would then be a mix of lower level adventures directly controlling your henchmen (who could call on 'high level you' for aid) and large scale mass battles. Once in a while you could break the old main characters out of retirement for dealing with an especially big threat. Would be pretty magnificent if you could pull it off, though I suspect real life would get in the way.



It's utterly baffling to me that people are fine with shape-shifting demons, reality bending magic, and weird non-biological creatures, but draw the line at women being effective fighters. Especially when historically it was not exactly rare for women to pose as men and fight as soldiers for years.

This is EXACTLY the spirit of 2e/1e style without all the baggage. Your high level characters have henchmen and followers and the epic campaign spans... just like 2e.

A playstyle lost 4e on up.

5e progression and ability and level caps are fine unless we are talking ultra high epic (epic boons/ levels beyond 20) and demipower level which 5e has poor support for (and is another talk for another thread).

 

[Dessert Nomad]

This is EXACTLY the spirit of 2e/1e style without all the baggage. Your high level characters have henchmen and followers and the epic campaign spans... just like 2e.


A playstyle lost 4e on up.

It makes sense to me that they removed this from the core game, since it's a pretty niche interest; most 1e games that I remember focused on adventurers adventuring, and WOTC has definitely determined what moves the core game. I'm surprised that there's not been any WOTC supplement or major 3rd party book/series supporting keeps/kingdoms/empires/armies/etc. though. While it's obviously not the dominant mode of play, it seems like the kind of thing that a decent number of people would buy, even if they just intended to use it one day.

Oh... I did forget one other combined thing. I'd replace some of the martial 'extra attacks', 'sharpshooter/polearm master/great weapon master/two weapon fighter', and 'fighting style' progression with something based on the weapon specialization rules in BECMI. I wouldn't keep the 'you must pick one or two weapons' thing, but I like the idea of characters getting higher damage dice and special abilities based on the weapon(s) they use as they get better. Converting the fighting styles and feats into something that directly works with improving weapons would give marital characters a bit of depth that they lack compared to casters.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I know how 4e is considered, but I wanted to touch more about how I think residuum and disenchantment is a GREAT idea, and I am not sure why they did not keep it going into 5th.

How many times, particularly in 2e or 3e or 5e did you run into a cool treasure like magic stuff you could not use?

YMMV, but based purely on personal experience, 3E/Pathfinder/4E gives me a vastly different experience with magic items than either 2E or 5E does.

In 2E or 5E, since enchanting is difficult/impossible, my first thought upon finding a magic item is to wonder what we can do with it. If we find a Circlet of Blasting, then we'll question whether the paladin or the rogue can make better use of it, or whether it will clash with the fighter's aesthetic. Even if I would have preferred to find a +2 sword, it's not like we're losing out on anything by finding a Circlet, since +2 swords and Circlets of Blasting are not comparable in any way. It's not like the sword was even necessarily an option, when that long-forgotten enchanter decided to make the Circlet. For all I know, they had some magic diamonds lying around, and decided to make the most of it.

When playing 3E or Pathfinder, most of the times when I would find a magic item, I would just be disappointed. Remember that the vast majority of magic items were absolute garbage, from a value standpoint, which were designed to trick you into wasting money that would better go toward enhancement bonuses. If I found a Circlet of Blasting, my immediate reaction would not be to wonder how the party could best use it; but to wonder which gibbering moron would waste valuable resources to enchant it in the first place, before stuffing it into a Handy Haversack in order to sell to some other idiot in the next major city. Fourth edition offered a minor improvement to this process, by letting us convert the item directly to cash value.

Residuum is great if you're running a game where magical item selling and creation were going to be major aspects anyway, but adding it to a game where magic items are rare would only turn it into an exercise in optimization.

 

[Advilaar]

It makes sense to me that they removed this from the core game, since it's a pretty niche interest; most 1e games that I remember focused on adventurers adventuring, and WOTC has definitely determined what moves the core game. I'm surprised that there's not been any WOTC supplement or major 3rd party book/series supporting keeps/kingdoms/empires/armies/etc. though. While it's obviously not the dominant mode of play, it seems like the kind of thing that a decent number of people would buy, even if they just intended to use it one day.

Oh... I did forget one other combined thing. I'd replace some of the martial 'extra attacks', 'sharpshooter/polearm master/great weapon master/two weapon fighter', and 'fighting style' progression with something based on the weapon specialization rules in BECMI. I wouldn't keep the 'you must pick one or two weapons' thing, but I like the idea of characters getting higher damage dice and special abilities based on the weapon(s) they use as they get better. Converting the fighting styles and feats into something that directly works with improving weapons would give marital characters a bit of depth that they lack compared to casters.

From talking around, most campaigns -now and back then -fell apart then restart well before level 6 on average. Well before that kind of stuff came into play. That, and a lot of DMs (from my experience) did not like the hassle.


I guess me and my crew are a bit weird.


It's the reason "blending the editions" I really have no choice but to do to support me and my players. A great problem to have

Now, as far as "extra attacks", fighting style, and various feats I agree you should be able to improve on your weapon more if you choose invest in it. Yes, Sir Lancelot may use a sword and board very well, but he is not a Miyamoto Musashi.

Is this worth losing under a 5e base system ability score increases is the only issue. Now, battlemaster in 5e has maneuvers and such (some of them hearkening back to the excellent warlord class of 4e) and you can always select a feat to give any character some maneuvers. Some of these have extra effects and dice for damage or to hit. A lot of players do not read all the maneuvers, though, when reading the list of PHB feats unless they are playing a BM fighter.

I do miss some of the martial stances of 4e. I would not mind adding some of those in as feats. I would bend if a player pushed and asked, unlikely as it is since most folks are not voracious readers of old editions as we are

 

[Zardnaar]

1e had strength limits for women. It was a dumb rule and, had I played 1e, would have been one of the first things I'd drop. They were probably grasping for some sort of realism when they wrote the limits which I find crazy considering all the unrealistic stuff in the game.

I could handle it in theory if they were going for a realistic/gritty type game. I would like to run 1E as is but if anyone had a problem with it I would dump it. My wife doesn't like the idea so in effect this means if I did run 1E it would be goneburger but she might change her mind if I let her run a female Drow perhaps (they get higher stats and Drow are Op anyway).

Unfortunately the numbers they used were within the realm of possibility for RL women. In short the strongest females in the world IRL could have 18/00 strength. So even from a simulation PoV it was stupid. 1E was the only D&D to do this and it was dropped in 2E and B/X did not use it at least the later ones not sure about Holmes.