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

[Celtavian]

re

The only way I am ever coming back to D&D is if they scrap this idea of balance over all else concept they incorporated into 4E and make arcane and divine casters what they were prior. The wielding of arcane magic and divine power granted from gods should be very different and more powerful than wielding a regular sword, period.

That is fantasy.

You don't hear Aragorn complaining that Elrond and Gandalf have their rings or are wielding powers far in excess of him. You don't hear Raistlin's brother complaining about Raistlin being an uber powerful wizard. You don't hear the fighter and rogue types in Shannara complaining about Alanon.

Balance in a game designed around fantasy causes the game to lose its flavor. I'll have no part of a "fantasy" game designed around gamist theory based on balance. I want my game based on the fantasy books, movies, and mythologies that I grew up reading. They are the first reason I play fantasy RPGs, not because the games were made.

If D&D were gone tomorrow, I'd still love fantasy. I'd still read fantasy books and watch fantasy movies. I want my game designed on the tropes of fantasy, not to be a well-balanced game first.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The only way I am ever coming back to D&D is if they scrap this idea of balance over all else concept they incorporated into 4E and make arcane and divine casters what they were prior. The wielding of arcane magic and divine power granted from gods should be very different and more powerful than wielding a regular sword, period.

That is fantasy.

I disagree very strongly on this being "fantasy."

You don't hear Aragorn complaining that Elrond and Gandalf have their rings or are wielding powers far in excess of him. You don't hear Raistlin's brother complaining about Raistlin being an uber powerful wizard. You don't hear the fighter and rogue types in Shannara complaining about Alanon.

I'm totally down for this so long as wizards can cast as much as Elrond and Gandalf and Raistlin do.

Which is "barely if at all."

 

[MoxieFu]

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.

I think this is a horrible idea. It still leaves out EVERYONE who prefers previous editions.

It reminds me of the line from The Blues Brothers:

"We have both kinds of music, Country AND Western!"

 

[Jhaelen]

The only way I am ever coming back to D&D is if they scrap this idea of balance over all else concept they incorporated into 4E and make arcane and divine casters what they were prior. The wielding of arcane magic and divine power granted from gods should be very different and more powerful than wielding a regular sword, period.

I disagree, period.

That is fantasy.

Then why have rules at all?

You don't hear Aragorn complaining that Elrond and Gandalf have their rings or are wielding powers far in excess of him. You don't hear Raistlin's brother complaining about Raistlin being an uber powerful wizard. You don't hear the fighter and rogue types in Shannara complaining about Alanon.

Yeah, but what about Aragorn's player complaining about the power his fellow player with the Gandalf pc has?

Balance in a game designed around fantasy causes the game to lose its flavor. I'll have no part of a "fantasy" game designed around gamist theory based on balance. I want my game based on the fantasy books, movies, and mythologies that I grew up reading. They are the first reason I play fantasy RPGs, not because the games were made.

There's no causal connection between 'balance' and 'flavor'. The absence of either doesn't mean you'll get the other in abundance. You could also have both or you could have neither. In _my_ 4e games, I have both.

If D&D were gone tomorrow, I'd still love fantasy. I'd still read fantasy books and watch fantasy movies. I want my game designed on the tropes of fantasy, not to be a well-balanced game first.

A game is firstmost a game. It has to have good rules otherwise it's a bad game. If the game sucks it doesn't matter what book or movie inspired it's creation; not even hardcore fans of the source material will stay interested for long.

 

[Psikus]

What if WotC were to publish a "bridge"?

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.

I'm quite content with 4E as it is, so I wouldn't have any interest in playing such a hybrid. That said, the question of how that intermediate edition could look like is intriguing, from a game design standpoint (warning: wall of text incoming).

In my opinion, this hybrid edition would have to meet the following requirements:

• Incompatible with both 3E and 4E. Both editions are different enough that keeping compatibility with one would prevent adding anything but cosmetic elements from the other.
• Somehow appeals to both 3E and 4E fans. Or at least is tolerable to both. This is impossible to achieve with 100% success, but I think there are compromises that could be made.
• Game balance is halfway between editions. Generally speaking, virtually any 3E element you add to the 4E system is going to reduce balance. Improving the level of balance in 3E may be desirable, but fans of that edition are willing to accept imperfect balance to preserve the feeling of the game.

With that in mind, a possible implementation could have the following properties. I indicate between parentheses the edition each idea is borrowed from:

1. (4E) PC and Monster stats follow predictable, linear progressions. This leaves aside spells/powers, but overall damage values, hit bonuses and defenses (or saves) have known average values for a given level. It would be nice to add skills to the mix, even though neither edition really succeeds in that department.
2. (4E) Simple monsters. The default method for monster construction would be 4E style, with known baseline stats, rather than generating them like PCs. Monsters could have roles, and also be solos, standard monsters, or minions (the default assumption being 4-5 monsters per encounter). Except special cases, monsters would only have very limited spell lists, with the full spell rules described in their stat block.
3. (3E, mostly) PCs have no uniform At-will/Encounter/Daily power structure. Diferences in resource systems across classes exceed those in 4E Essentials - the core classes would resemble 3E ones, with minor changes. At-will attacks for arcane/divine classes could be acceptable, as long as these remained based on lots of daily spells, and lacked encounters. Likewise, martial classes could have at-will stances, and maybe encounter attacks. Spell lists could resemble those of 3E, though specific implementation of most spells would receive an overhaul.
4. (4E) There is differentiation between attack resources and utility resources. For spellcasters, this means spell slots are divided between offensive spells and utility ones. In addition, the game would separate between combat feats and utility feats, so martial classes could gain dedicated utility feat slots.
5. (4E) Healing Surges exist, and strongly affect healing, but do not cover all of it. Surgeless healing is possible only with magic (and potions!), but even magic healing becomes stronger when spending surges. On the other hand, characters have second wind and other means to heal without magic. A warlord class can exist. Most healing abilities do NOT prevent a character from attacking.
6. (4E) Class roles exist, though they are associated with builds rather than classes (and there's even more flexibility in this regard than in 4E Essentials). The mechanics associated with each role are more loosely defined than in 4E, and vary strongly with power source: leaders have by far the strongest heals and buffs, controllers have action negation and area attacks, defenders have strong opportunity attacks and other punishing mechanics (though likely not 4E marks), and strikers have mobility and raw damage.
7. (3E) Class structure and multiclassing would follow the 3E method of picking separate levels of different classes, with each level providing different benefits. However, there would be one big difference: at any given time, one of the character's classes would be labeled as his main class, and provide one or more special features that couldn't be obtained any other way. These would typically be role-related. Likewise, there would be Prestige classes accessible at higher levels, though their requirements would be much looser than those of their 3E counterparts, and they would provide niche, unique benefits (rather than being just like regular classes, only better). Note that because of point 1),classes couldn't have different Base Attack Bonuses, so martial classes would focus on improving attack damage (and perhaps gaining extra attacks) rather than hit.
8. (4E) Some random things that 4E did well: save or die spells are gone, or hugely nerfed. Modifiers to base abilities are gone: buffs and nerfs affect stats like attack, AC, damage and spell slots, but never Strenght or Intelligence scores. Also, almost all bonuses and penalties in the game are typed. Level adjustment doesn't exist, but races in general are stronger, and you could take racial levels instead of class levels, for certain races. Magic item costs are tied to level.

Basically, this would take a 3E core with a lot of 4E ideas on top of it (becouse I don't think the opposite is feasible). Looking at the list, it may seem that there is not much of 3E in there, but power and class structure are the critical points for fans of that edition, from what I've seen. In fact, this could almost be made compatible with 3E if not for point 1 (which is the one thing I wouldn't be willing to give up as a 4E player and DM, though opinions may vary). Overall, this probably wouldn't result in a game that players would prefer over their current favorite editions, but it might be enough to sit a 3E player and a 4E player on the same table.

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

I think this is a horrible idea. It still leaves out EVERYONE who prefers previous editions.

It reminds me of the line from The Blues Brothers:

"We have both kinds of music, Country AND Western!"

What do those people prefer from previous editions? What about those preferences that can't be handled via Unearthed Arcana type rules? I specifically added what I prefer from previous editions (because I know what I prefer; I don't know what others prefer), but I could have easily added other things that an Advanced 4e could include as alternative rules.

Do people prefer relying on "auto-attacks" rather than always having special attacks available? Do casters prefer running out of spells and rely on crossbow attacks? Do healers prefer sacrificing any offensive capabilities (other than auto-attacking with a mace) just so they can have their utility spells (and usually having to scrap those for healing anyway)? Those are what I personally see as the good points of 4e, which are big enough parts of 4e (and alien enough to 3.x) to logically modify 4e with stuff from earlier editions, rather than modifying 3.x with the good parts of 4e.

 

[jmucchiello]

The sad thing about the OP's second question is that if 4e had been released under the OGL one or more 3pps would have done this by now. And instead of asking what if, the OP would be asking which mix of 3e and 4e is the best mix.

As for making 4e less regimented, I still think that, with minor tweaking, an AD&D1 magic-user could play side-by-side with a party of 4e characters level for level. The 1e char would need a few more hit points, access to some skills and of course healing surges. But other than that, armed with a 1e spell list (and on the fly conversion of 1 minute 1e rounds to 4e rounds, yards to feet, etc.) it would be an interesting experiment.

 

[MoxieFu]

What do those people prefer from previous editions? What about those preferences that can't be handled via Unearthed Arcana type rules? I specifically added what I prefer from previous editions (because I know what I prefer; I don't know what others prefer), but I could have easily added other things that an Advanced 4e could include as alternative rules.

Do people prefer relying on "auto-attacks" rather than always having special attacks available? Do casters prefer running out of spells and rely on crossbow attacks? Do healers prefer sacrificing any offensive capabilities (other than auto-attacking with a mace) just so they can have their utility spells (and usually having to scrap those for healing anyway)? Those are what I personally see as the good points of 4e, which are big enough parts of 4e (and alien enough to 3.x) to logically modify 4e with stuff from earlier editions, rather than modifying 3.x with the good parts of 4e.

I don't know what you mean by "auto attacks". I have played or read all previous editions to 4E. Is this something in 4E and if not, why do you have it in quotes?

Just because you don't understand how someone else can appreciate different aspects of a game, you seem to think NO ONE should have access to those aspects of the game. You seem to enjoy the game you are playing, but don't deny others the game they enjoy just because you personally don't. The term "badwrongfun" springs to mind.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I don't know what you mean by "auto attacks". I have played or read all previous editions to 4E. Is this something in 4E and if not, why do you have it in quotes?

Pre-Tome of Battle, the contribution of fighting classes was, 90% of the time, nothing more then "I attack."

It's somewhat MMO terminology. Auto-attack is what you do when you aren't using any spells or special abilities. For most of D&D's legacy, as fighting classes didn't have any special abilities, "auto-attack" was what they were somewhat bound to.

 

[MoxieFu]

Pre-Tome of Battle, the contribution of fighting classes was, 90% of the time, nothing more then "I attack."

It's somewhat MMO terminology. Auto-attack is what you do when you aren't using any spells or special abilities. For most of D&D's legacy, as fighting classes didn't have any special abilities, "auto-attack" was what they were somewhat bound to.

"It's somewhat MMO terminology."

Ah, that explains it right there. Thanks!

I only just started playing Guild Wars a couple weeks ago, having given up on CRPGs well over a decade ago. The mass of jargon is bewildering. It's what happens when an old fart tries to play with new toys. Culture shock!