4E/Earlier Editions Hybrids: Why the difficulty?

[Estlor]

I think there is a reasonably large amount of compatibility between the two; in fact, a look at Malhavoc Press's Iron Heroes and WotC's Tome of Battle and you see the roots of 4E already being tried out in 3.X. The biggest difference isn't healing surges or "lack" of Vancian magic (aside: Vancian magic didn't go away, it expanded to every class). The biggest difference is the tactical aspect of 4E. A lot of the spells available to 3.X would break the assumptions made by 4E.

If you were going to do a 3E/4E hybrid, you'd almost need to adopt the base assumption of either 3E combat or 4E combat and go from there. Honestly, if you took 4E whole cloth, diversified the rituals and created more that could be cast "on the fly" as it were, and gave wizards/invokers/druids more utility powers, you'd have the 3E/4E hybrid without any significant work.

In other words, 4E's apple didn't fall as far from the D&D tree as some of its detractors would have you believe. Honestly, after playing 4E's classes, I never want to go back to 3.X's.

 

[Mallus]

Is this really true, folks?

Of course not.

For example, want old-school 4e? Don't roll use skill checks/challenges for social encounters (or puzzles). The character's words are the player's words. Ditto with puzzle solutions.

We just did this recently in our 4e campaign. We decided to 'roll old-school' (by not rolling) and played out several days worth of meetings and scheming without a single die being cast.

 

[Mercurius]

From a designer's perspective--and from the point of view of a lot of players--4E is (or should be) a hybrid of all previous editions of D&D with continued structural evolution and some new bells and whistles added on. This is not to say that every edition doesn't have its own unique vibe and strengths and weaknesses, but that--in theory, at least--the most recent edition should include the best of previous editions. I would think that would be design goal #1. Whether or not they succeeded is another matter that I won't comment on, at least right now...

 

[Kask]

Everyone keeps telling me that 4E is totally incompatible with earlier editions.
Is this really true, folks?

Yes, it is incompatible. You CAN tweak and use a concept but you 1st have to convert it to fit with the rule mechanics.

 

[Estlor]

Yes, it is incompatible. You CAN tweak and use a concept but you 1st have to convert it to fit with the rule mechanics.

Honestly, how? If I'm taking a 4E kobold into a 3E game, I just flip to the kobold page of the 3.5 monster manual and use those hit points instead of the 4E ones. From there, I can use everything in the 4E stats exactly as written. 3E PCs still have AC, and if I'm attacking their Fort/Ref/Will I can either roll an attack and make that the save DC or just assign it a DC of 10 + the monster's attack bonus.

Likewise, if there's a monster I really like from 3E that isn't in 4E, all I need to do is find a monster of similar level/role and use their hit points. If I need a defense other than AC, I either make it 10 + their save bonus or if I think that's way out of line, I just pull a number comparable to my PCs.

At the end of the day, everybody has hit points, everybody has AC, Fort, Ref, Will. Everybody has the same 6 ability scores. Everybody expresses attacks as a roll of a d20. Who cares if the specific rules aren't 100% the same. As the DM, if it isn't quite working right, I just fudge and roll with it so long as the party has fun. If I need a status ailment, I use whatever rule set's version of that I'm playing under.

Honestly, the biggest disservice 3.X ever did was make people assume everything has to work exactly the same to be compatible. That was never the case in BECMI, 1E, or 2E. If anything, 3E is the abberation in this, not 4E.

And I always shake my head when people state the alignment system as being "incomplete" or "incompatible" or just strange. It's the BECMI alignment system with the addition of good and evil. Heck, 4E is like a cleaned-up BECMI in almost every way.

 

[Kask]

Honestly, how? If I'm taking a 4E kobold into a 3E game, I just flip to the kobold page of the 3.5 monster manual and use those hit points instead of the 4E ones.

Bingo! You use the 3.5 stats & mechanics because 4.0 isn't compatible.

It would be like saying Mac software X is compatible with Window, all I have to do is rewrite the source code and recompile....

 

[caudor]

Everyone keeps telling me that 4E is totally incompatible with earlier editions.
Is this really true, folks? ...

Who says a hybrid is impossible? Not me.
Yet most others say it is. Would someone lay out why?

Edena_of_Neith

If someone is willing to put in work, then it is not impossible. However, evidence suggests that it is not practical at all. How could one conclude this?

4e has been out for almost a year now. Can anyone point to one...just one...previous edition adventure that has been completely converted to 4e? I've looked (hard) and have yet to find at single completed effort.

Sure, there are numerous efforts in various stages of completion. This highlights that converting an material from previous editions to 4e is not like dusting crops; so much so, that it is pratically impossible. If conversion is this difficult, then it stands to reason that hybrids are not feasible.

 

[TerraDave]

Hybrid? Sure. SW Saga could be seen as such a hybrid, and as noted later 3E products are also basically hybrids. Necro is doing one.

I guess the question is, why and what kind of hybrid? E.g., maybe you want to (like Necro) bring 1E elements into 4E. This might just be issues of style and flavor, it might be about making the game a little more deadly and limiting recovery, it might be about making the cavelier and assasin classes, it might, as suggested, be about having more utility powers and rituals for casters, and maybe less emphasis on powers for "non-magical" classes. You can do all of those things.

But what do you want to do?

 

[arscott]

If someone is willing to put in work, then it is not impossible. However, evidence suggests that it is not practical at all. How could one conclude this?

4e has been out for almost a year now. Can anyone point to one...just one...previous edition adventure that has been completely converted to 4e? I've looked (hard) and have yet to find at single completed effort.

Sure, there are numerous efforts in various stages of completion. This highlights that converting an material from previous editions to 4e is not like dusting crops; so much so, that it is pratically impossible. If conversion is this difficult, then it stands to reason that hybrids are not feasible.

For Starters, Dragon Magazine has released several adventures in both 3e and 4e. I'm not quite clear whether those were 3e adventures updated to 4e, or 4e adventures that were converted for 3e, but either way it makes the point that such a conversion is possible.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

(reads all of the posts above)

Thank you for the feedback, everyone. I'll look at the links presented, too. Thanks for those.