Would you be interested in a 3e / 4e hybrid (evolution)?

[Greg K]

Well, it would depend upon the options.

Option 1 definitely does not interest me.

Option 2 might interest me depending upon the specific elements. However, given the changes mentioned in option 2, I wouldn't be interested. I, personally, don't like Book of 9 Swords. I am also not a fan of the removal of skill points in both 4e and Star Wars nor am I fan of the skill consolidation (especially, in 4e).

I do, however, like Star Wars talent trees and condition track. From 4e, I like the removal of both level drain and xp costs, heroic tier multiclassing, and the disease track.

My real preference would be for something closer to Savage Worlds or, for class level based, True20. No hit points. Armor modifies damage. SW Bennies or True20 Conviction.

 

[scruffygrognard]

I actually don't understand why anyone would want a simpler game. Everyone thinks kids need simple games to understand it, and quite the opposite is true, my kids think Pathfinder is too simple.

I'm not sure if you were referring to my line about 5th edition needing to be a "faster, leaner, less rule-intensive game that makes entry into the hobby far easier than 3rd or 4th edition made it."

If so I don't mean make the game simple. I mean don't have rules for every possible eventuality. Allow the players the chance to think outside of the box and not always rely on (or need) specific skills, feats and/or powers to handle each and every task.

Elegantly simple rules challenge the players and DM to be creative and come up with solutions to problems without resorting to a simple die roll, and provide helpful guidelines to get peoples' creative juices flowing.

Simpler rules do not equate to a simpler game.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Wow.

I am totally fine with being wrong, but I'll admit that I'm surprised by HOW undesirable this idea is.


I guess, when it comes down to it, 3e and 4e just really aren't the same game / compatible?


Ze game is not ze same?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Aberzanzorax,

It would appear what you think is good in 4e and what I think are it's redeeming features are two entirely different things. Thus trying to mash together the two editions is bound to fail and fracture given the widespread dissatisfaction with various elements that people have with both editions. I think the fracture lines are in fact quite deep between the two editions with "those geeks butchering the game that us nerds nurtured" being the catchcry.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Wow.

I am totally fine with being wrong, but I'll admit that I'm surprised by HOW undesirable this idea is.


I guess, when it comes down to it, 3e and 4e just really aren't the same game / compatible?


Ze game is not ze same?

Naw, it's easier then that.

People who moved to 4e by and large did so because they felt it's a better game.

People who stayed in 3e by and large did so because they felt it's a better game.

Trying to find a middle ground really won't work. Both sides will want the game to more overwhelmingly be their edition of choice, to the point where they'll likely just throw up their hands and go back to their edition instead.

Of course, the extremist rhetoric one can see in this very thread certainly doesn't help.

 

[Ahnehnois]

1. Thing one: Playing during the Forgotten Realms spellplague. Watching/participating/causing the deaths of major FR characters...roleplaying events...destroying and building canon.

If I played in FR, I'd stick to the 3e version and pretend none of that ever happened.

2. Thing two: What about a hybrid of 3e and 4e? I'm thinking something that smells like SAGA edition starwars mixed with Book of Nine Swords and some neat 4e implementations (such as minions, solo BBEGS, etc). Basically, pull the best of both editions.

No. Frankly I think the book of 9 swords was the worst of 3rd edition. I'd be interested in rules that addressed inconsistencies or inadequacies with the 3.5 system and improved it. There are several companies that have tried this with varying degrees of success, Pathfinder and Trailblazer being the most notable of these efforts.

Above and beyond that, you can count me as one of the people who wouldn't buy a WotC release even if the content appealed to me.

 

[humble minion]

Thing one I've got absolutely zero interest in, and I'd hazard a guess that not many would. Even those who play in FR seem to avoid official NPCs etc as much as they can, as far as I've been able to tell, and the problem with playing during the Spellplague is that during the Spellplague it's quite hard to tell a story that's not primarily about the spellplague.

Thing 2 - well, that's a bit more complicated. Personally I still play 3.5 (mostly because I didn't want to convert the ongoing campaign), but I'm very aware of the problems in the 3e system and think that 4th ed was probably about due. WotC and I seem to agree about a lot of things when it comes to the problems with 3.x (DM prep time, very complex high-level bad guys, magic item christmas tree syndrome, my personal stylistic dislike of the 'layering-buffs' style of play, etc), but we have real differences about the best way to solve them, despite my deep love of minion rules, the disease track, and a bunch of other 4e features. Instead of the 4e that we got, I would have loved to get a slightly-more-3.xish-4e like the 'compromise' ruleset you're talking about, but now I think the horse has bolted. The 3.x holdovers seem to be slowly heading Pathfinderwards, the 4e supporters have overwhelmingly already tried 3e and will never go back, and I think the opportunity for incremental change has passed. Everyone has their own little niche arranged and defended, the OGL genie is out of the bottle and whatever WotC does the pathfinder splinter community is strongly independant now and seems unlikely to return to the fold. I'd certainly give a hybrid 3e/4e system a look and I'm sure many others would too, but I don't think at this point in the community's life it's going to do much good.

I expect 5e, when it comes along, to be at least as different to 4e as 4e was to 3.x. And maybe that will be a good thing, because as Pathfinder (particularly in later Pathfinder editions, which will surely come in time) and the 'official' D&D rulebase diverge and the wounds of the 4e transition and the community split fade, maybe we can just start to see two games as two games, which emphasise and focus on different subgenres and which each have their place.

It's a bit funny really, in a slightly sad way. There's a lot of people on here who use one game system (whether it be Pathfinder or some D&D edition or other) for their fantasy gaming and another system for their superhero/sci-fi/horror/pulp/whatever games as appropriate, but very few who seem to use 4e for one style of fantasy game and 3.x/Pathfinder for another. It'd be nice if this started to change, over the next 5-10 years.

 

[Ourph]

I'd like WotC to continue publishing good 4e books or online content. Given that the publication of physical books seems to be something they are moving away from due to low ROI, the last thing I want is for them to waste money and effort publishing a product that is, at best, a compromise for the vast majority of their past and present customers.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

1. I have no idea what the spellplague even is, so no. I couldn't care less about canon, or about making more gamers accept canon.

2. I don't even care for Essentials, so no. I don't even need one hand to count the things I miss from 3e, so it's highly unlikely that I'd enjoy a 3.75 ruleset over good ol' 4e.

Wow, I just referred to 4e as "good ol'." Am I becoming a grognard, or is the hobby just regressing?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

With the success of the Penny Arcade podcasts, they could always take a note from Japan and release some replays

Hell, when I was in Aki, I visited Yellow Sub, and I swear they had more replays then they did actual RPGs.