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

[gamerprinter]

As somebody who plays AD&D 1e almost exclusively (I also play a little OD&D), I couldn't disagree more. In fact, the specific reason that I choose to play 1e is because it's less complicated than D&D 3x or D&D 4e. I also know that I'm not alone here. In fact, I suspect that people who view 1e as more complicated than recent editions of the game are in the minority.

Perhaps, I am misremembering the experience, I played AD&D 2e, for the longest of any edition of the game - from the late 80's up until about 7 years ago, before I switched to 3x. I can't agree that feats seem more complex than weapon and non-weapon proficiencies, kits are no simpler than the plethora of new classes just a different flavor. Kits seem more like archetypes for Pathfinder.

I will say, that I've only really played the basic 3x game, since I never had more than six books - not the endless splat scenario that others have. So all the exotica in classes and features, including the awful Bo9S, is something alien to my 3x game. And I won't touch 4e at all.

Looked at as a whole, 3x is probably more complicated, but as said, I never played the larger 3x, only ever the basic game, so in my eyes isn't more complicated than 2e.

Final point, I never understood the game better than Pathfinder. As a developer, PF is the perfect balance of rules and fluff to create my game. Though I was a successful DM in all editions, I never could 'wing it' as well as I do now with Pathfinder. Is it because I understand the game better, or that is easier for me to understand? I think both, so I can't agree with your point of view, based on that.

 

[Dausuul]

This would be 5E, no matter what you called it, and there isn't room for 5E right now. Neither 4E nor Pathfinder has yet reached the point of fan burnout where people would be ready to move to a new game en masse. Try back in a few years.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

As somebody who plays AD&D 1e almost exclusively (I also play a little OD&D), I couldn't disagree more. In fact, the specific reason that I choose to play 1e is because it's less complicated than D&D 3x or D&D 4e. I also know that I'm not alone here. Now, I'm not going to say that 1e is more unified than recent editions of D&D. It isn't. But being less unified doesn't necessarily make something more complicated.

You know what I'd love to see D&D do? Birth an edition that's unified, balanced and rules light. I'm not sure, but that just might be the best game ever.

(Don't think it'll ever happen though. More likely, I'll write my own fantasy heartbreaker to be those things. )

 

[caudor]

I voted no interest.

I like 4e for what it is and think it is an improved version of D&D. I enjoyed 3/3.5 before 4e, but I would not want to go back.

If WotC moves the cancelled content to the DDI (as they indicated), that's fine with me. I'll adapt. I'd like to see more adventurers in any format. Adventures are the heart of the game.

What I don't want WotC to do is morph the game into a board game or a CCG horror. That's not what D&D has been in the past and should not be in the future. They can make board games if they want to make board games, but leave D&D alone.

I do realize I have a choice to shop elsewhere should WotC fail, but I am going to wait to see what happens at DDXP. I'm hoping 4e succeeds.

WotC does need to improve communication. Sudden changes with no useful communication is disconcerting.

 

[Walking Dad]

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?

Not the same rules, anyway.

You would perhaps have got a more positive reaction by asking:
"Would you be interested in 3e with a best of from 4e and SWSE added?"

...

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....

I wouldn't say that. Divine Metamagic was in another book, for example...

...

2. I don't even care for Essentials, so no.

...

That is a very good point. I think Essentials was a try to bring the unified 4e character progression back to 3e diversity.

 

[gamerprinter]

You know what I'd love to see D&D do? Birth an edition that's unified, balanced and rules light. I'm not sure, but that just might be the best game ever.

Eh, I wouldn't play that game. Rules lite is not the way I nor my group would ever go. We love the fiddly complexities of 3x, it allows for so much variety in game style. That's why we find Pathfinder already the perfect game for us.

But however D&D ever changes in the future, their publisher has already lost us as customers, so it really doesn't matter what they come up with next, its already not the game I want to play.

I don't see them 'renegging' their current direction, that would be a blow to those that follow their ideas. No, D&D is dead to me, long live Pathfinder.

GP

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It is both a terible idea and one that holds not interest.
First off the Spell plague will happen so it is an imutable event in the campaign, no adventure (path) should have immutable events.

Second, while I regard 3.x and 4e as pretty gamist and i can ignore that having the mechanics change as i play is really shoving the mechanics in my face. I really cannot see that as a good idea either.

 

[Dungeoneer]

a matter of taste

Such alarming honesty wrt a stupendous bias such as this, is... refreshing, I guess.

Different, anyway.

Bias?! What has that got to do with it?

My preference for 4e's game style is no more odd than my preference for Coke over Pepsi. I have nothing against 3e and if you want to play it I wish you well. But I personally have no interest in it. There's not really a rational reason for this. I just do.

 

[Diamond Cross]

No. I have zero interest in this kind of thing.

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

I think they should just have two separate, but compatible, lines and call them, say, Advanced 4e and Essentials 4e. Advanced 4e would include the greater options that previous editions had (including a variety of Unearthed Arcana style houserule options), while Essentials 4e would be the more-limited but easier-to-balance options that 4e currently has. DMs could mix and match Advanced and Essetials options to create their own world (which would be classified as an Advanced campaign), while "official" campaigns (like Encounters and such) would exclude Advanced features.

The Advanced 4e line would be able to make that bridge to 3.x.

I like 4e, with its lack of just "I attack," "I ran out of spells, so I get out my crossbow," and "Do I attack or heal . . . should I take this great utility spell or this attack spell?," but the options outside of combat, with character building, feels lacking compared to 3.x. I think it is because WotC is playing it too safe, too "inside the box," with character options. No Savage Species, no Unearthed Arcana, etc. It is oftentimes too mundane in its fantasy.