D&D General Make a Frankedition!
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
If starting from scratch, what would I take from each edition as a basis?
0e/Basic/BECMI (these all kinda blur together for me) - short spell lists, simple randomized char-gen, stand-alone adventure modules, general sense of whimsy and-or gonzo, lethality and danger are a constant fact of life, underlying philosophy of guidelines-not-rules
1e - the PC race selection, most of the pre-UA classes plus Cavalier (specifically including the 1e Ranger!), clerics-v-undead subsystem, individual weapon proficiencies, variable xp progression by class, strongholds etc. at higher level, training rules, risky magic e.g. expanding fireballs or possible death in teleport, saving throws that depend on what is being saved against
2e - open-ended but slow class advancement, death at -10, many spells (but severely curated for each campaign or style), magic item compendia, alignment, slow recovery rates for spells and hit points
3e/3.5e - sorcerer casting system (slots but no pre-memorization) for all casting classes, Bards that can start at 1st, NPCs and PCs on the same chassis, various magic items
4e - geographical and tactical set-piece encounter design, terrain rules, bloodied condition for everyone, points-of-light style setting
5e - advantage-disadvantage in certain situations, bounded accuracy but only to a point
There would be a base 1e-like set of classes intended for all games plus a similar-length list of options that could be added or not to any given campaign or setting.
I would also harvest a selection of monsters from each edition's various MMs - hell, what am I saying? I'd just use them all.
0e/Basic/BECMI (these all kinda blur together for me) - short spell lists, simple randomized char-gen, stand-alone adventure modules, general sense of whimsy and-or gonzo, lethality and danger are a constant fact of life, underlying philosophy of guidelines-not-rules
1e - the PC race selection, most of the pre-UA classes plus Cavalier (specifically including the 1e Ranger!), clerics-v-undead subsystem, individual weapon proficiencies, variable xp progression by class, strongholds etc. at higher level, training rules, risky magic e.g. expanding fireballs or possible death in teleport, saving throws that depend on what is being saved against
2e - open-ended but slow class advancement, death at -10, many spells (but severely curated for each campaign or style), magic item compendia, alignment, slow recovery rates for spells and hit points
3e/3.5e - sorcerer casting system (slots but no pre-memorization) for all casting classes, Bards that can start at 1st, NPCs and PCs on the same chassis, various magic items
4e - geographical and tactical set-piece encounter design, terrain rules, bloodied condition for everyone, points-of-light style setting
5e - advantage-disadvantage in certain situations, bounded accuracy but only to a point
There would be a base 1e-like set of classes intended for all games plus a similar-length list of options that could be added or not to any given campaign or setting.
I would also harvest a selection of monsters from each edition's various MMs - hell, what am I saying? I'd just use them all.
Original D&D--being a game that emulates genre fiction, not a self-referential one
Basic--the deliberate effort at simplicity; as in the short monster and spell lists
AD&D 1E--the class list
AD&D 2E--Dark Sun, and generosity in setting publication generally
3.x--man, I'm drawing a blank, I can't think of anything it does that 5e doesn't do better, maybe the faux in-setting object book covers
4E--replacing saves with defenses
5E--the d20 resolution system with its bounded accuracy, advantage, and disadvantage
Do I have inconsistent and conflicting preferences there? Yes.
Basic--the deliberate effort at simplicity; as in the short monster and spell lists
AD&D 1E--the class list
AD&D 2E--Dark Sun, and generosity in setting publication generally
3.x--man, I'm drawing a blank, I can't think of anything it does that 5e doesn't do better, maybe the faux in-setting object book covers
4E--replacing saves with defenses
5E--the d20 resolution system with its bounded accuracy, advantage, and disadvantage
Do I have inconsistent and conflicting preferences there? Yes.
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Original D&D: Law/Chaos only alignment axis. Adding a Good/Evil axis in later editions created more problems than it solved.
Basic (Holmes, B/X, BECMI): Skills from the Rules Cyclopedia. The best implementation of skills in D&D for my money.
AD&D 1E: Weapon types versus armor types. Probably re-worked mechanically, but I really like the idea, if not the implementation.
AD&D 2E: Specialty priests/clerics. It makes more sense than all clerics casting from the exact same spell list as they do in many editions.
3.x: Unified task resolution mechanic. Roll 1d20+Ability+Skill vs Difficulty.
4E: Skill challenges (final form). WotC had a lot of trouble getting this right, but when they did it was pretty awesome.
5E: Advantage and Disadvantage. Such a simple, elegant, mechanic that eliminates so much of the boring, pointless, modifier math introduced in D&D 3x.
Basic (Holmes, B/X, BECMI): Skills from the Rules Cyclopedia. The best implementation of skills in D&D for my money.
AD&D 1E: Weapon types versus armor types. Probably re-worked mechanically, but I really like the idea, if not the implementation.
AD&D 2E: Specialty priests/clerics. It makes more sense than all clerics casting from the exact same spell list as they do in many editions.
3.x: Unified task resolution mechanic. Roll 1d20+Ability+Skill vs Difficulty.
4E: Skill challenges (final form). WotC had a lot of trouble getting this right, but when they did it was pretty awesome.
5E: Advantage and Disadvantage. Such a simple, elegant, mechanic that eliminates so much of the boring, pointless, modifier math introduced in D&D 3x.
