There is no edition of D&D that is the right one for me, but I see glimpses of the D&D edition that I want. However, every edition gives me something that I want with the right hand, but takes it away with the left.
We can work within those parameters. I think it would be easiest to start with 4e and work backwards.
Some examples...
1) Tiers of play that divide into dungeon crawling heroic adventures, paragons of legendary heroes, and epic god-like mythological battles. Always present in D&D, but solidified as a trope in 4e.
However, I want to mix it with...
From 1e/2e - Combat abilities (such as Hit Dice and Amour Class) largely cap at level 10, but a play style continues afterward that involves politics, wargaming and mass battles, and realm management.
As long as attacks and damage also cap (or slow down, quite a bit), this should not change much in the way of balance, but at that point, what's the point?
If, on the other hand, you wish to make higher-level threats more deadly by
not scaling the attacks/damage to match, consider that (later) 4e already has ways of doing this.
If the point is one of tone, it is certainly possible, but would require a
lot of math (unless you took an
E6 approach, but made it E10).
If you still like your characters and want to continue, why would you want to spend all 30 levels doing the exact same thing? That's 1-3 years of real time, and it always gets stale for me 6 months - 1 year in. So why not change the assumptions of the game to keep it fresh? If all you want to do is dungeon crawl, 10th level is a good place to kill the BBEG and retire at the top of the heap with your keep.
If however you want something different, then after 10 levels of enjoying playing Heroes of Might and Magic III-V on the tabletop, you can get freaky with epic apotheosis. However, the most interesting epic destinies don't require a ceaseless dungeon crawl to get there in my opinion. Immortal Trickster, Demi-god, Eternal King, Saint, Archmage etc. all seem to imply a political career and lots of social interaction beforehand, not just dungeon crawling. Plus, if you are god-like beings, why do you still act like an adventuring party? Shouldn't your game mechanics involve meddling with mortals and causing the Trojan War or Ragnogarok?
I think 4e kind of encourages this already (especially with the lack of epic creature-threats out there). Simply highlight these thematic tones in your adventure-design, and you should pretty easily be able to pull it off.
2) I want ascending AC... but I want to cap that at AC 30 and cap my to-hit bonus at +20. Why? I want the feeling that you are getting more skilled at hitting things at higher levels, not a ceaseless grind with the same miss chance.
I don't understand. If you cap them both, the miss chance becomes static. Perhaps what would work better is if you capped defenses, but allowed bonuses to increase (at a slowed rate (perhaps 1/3-1/5 levels, instead of 1/2).
3) I want minis combat... but I don't want it every single time we fight. Setting up minis and tiles is tedious, and while it is fun and interesting for climactic battles, it isn't interesting for dungeon crawling. Dungeon crawling has pretty much died with my 4e game, because my players can't grok to adapting their powers for non-minis play.
I don't want to go back to minis combat that doesn't take full advantage of minis (so 3.5 and earlier are not robust enough rules systems for me) but I want rules that I can run combats without busting out any special equipment (so 3e and 4e aren't satisfying either). 3e and Pathfinder are actually the worst of both worlds for me, because minis are essential enough that you need them (or some sort of marking tokens) but they don't take full advantage of the tabletop minis format like 4e.
I'm with you on this one. May I suggest that you work with your players to create abstract descriptions of their powers, especially At-Wills (for instance, Tide of Iron="When I hit an opponent, I get to push him back, and step right on up in his face."), to reference during the more minor battles. Abstract monster abilities in a similar way and you can probably do most of your combats without a map (as long as you don't have a player that insists on tactical accuracy).
4) I hate the diplomacy skill. I don't mind the other social skills (intimidate, bluff, insight) because it is a single action in the narrative. But diplomacy is about persuading someone or convincing them to "like you". That's a whole conversation that is reduced to a single dice roll. The logic in bringing it in was that less socially adept or shy players have limitations of playing charismatic characters, and need the assistance. Well, after 10 years, I'd like to call this experiment a failure, because shy or socially inept players still can't play charismatic heroes, and it just encourages players to run roughshod over plot. Intimidate is good for expressing your will forcefully, bluff allows you to sell your position to the person you are trying to persuade, and insight is good for getting hints from the DM on what the NPC's want to hear. Even the most socially inept PC's are able to piece together the clues and make a convincing case, rather than reaching for the Diplomacy skill right off the bat. The roleplaying aspect of the game was better off without diplomacy in it, though better when it includes the other social skills.
I think if you simply required that your PCs describe their skill uses before rolling, you would eliminate this (and other) problems associated with them. "Describe" does not necessarily mean "role-play," but could. If you did away with Diplomacy completely, however, it would probably not break the game...
5) I hate the DC system. Most specifically, I hate the fact that you assign a difficulty class based on how easy or hard a PC finds a skill or task. If you are going to assign a difficulty low enough that they are pretty much assured success, then why not just let them do it? If you are going to make it impossible for them to succeed, just tell the PC's it is impossible. If you are going to make it somewhat likely that they will succeed, just have a pass/fail mechanic like rolling saving throws. Figuring out DC's is just a waste of time.
So where I'm odd here is that I want a resolution mechanic similar to what they used in proficiencies, but with the skill system of post-3e.
The skill design of 4e really can easily be turned into an automatic pass/fail mechanic (much more so than 3.x could), since training is a flat enhancement (which opens up options). I would still have a record of bonuses to use as a reference, but this kind of thing can
easily be winged. Personally, I would weigh training more heavily than numbers with an automatic pass/fail mechanic. Just don't forget about opposed checks.
6) I love conditions, unreservedly. I have yet to see any monster attack or character ability that can't be mimicked adequately by using conditions, and they are very simple and quick to implement. Crippling wound? Slowed and ongoing damage. Someone threw dirt in your eyes? Blinded. Hit exceptionally hard upside the head? Dazed. Shadow drained your strength? Weakened.
Cool. Keep them in mind when you abstract powers (as described above).
7) I hate the powers system, unreservedly. At-wills are too repetitive. Encounter powers are front-loaded in encounters, and thus the combat drags after they are spent. Dailies are hoarded all day, and you have the sheer disappointment of knowing you'll have to wait 1-4 weeks before you can try it again. Plus, every power is built on the very flexible system of combining damage, a condition, and an attack type (melee, ranged, area burst etc.). It could be so much more fluid if we could flexibly build these special attacks instead of relying on a straight jacket of choosing a single attack every level or two.
But I haven't seen too many complaints about how the powers system was implemented, just a pox on the existence of powers in general.
As for At-Wills, I recommend that you encourage your players to do
similar things that are dependent on their environment and situation. If they are having trouble getting out of the mindset of spamming powers over and over, reward them +1 to hit with a slightly altered (on the fly) At-Will that takes advantage of environment/situation at hand. That should provide the incentive to get them started.
As for Dailies, consider giving them back at the end of a short rest if they missed during combat. Do note, however, that this approach
will definitely effect the length of time they can go between extended rests (and, also, that most dailies either grant
something on a miss, or are reliable.
8) But.... I love the idea of powers. I don't want to go back to the case where only wizards have special attacks. It doesn't make any sense why a wizard has a disintegrate spell that causes someone to instantly die, but a rogue doesn't have a "knife to the head" attack that does the same thing. It doesn't make sense that wizards can become godlike arcanists, but fighters can't become super soldier kung fu assassins that can cut giants in half with a single blow or leap tall buildings in a single bound. Powers also allow players to have a more exciting and descriptive experience with combat, rather than "I hit and hit again". True, you can describe an abstract attack roll however you wish, but it helps if you aren't just doing damage to a single creature. Being able to target multiple opponents, trip them, slow them, blind them, daze them or whatever helps sell the experience. Just not if you do the same injuries in every encounter, or (even worse) round to round with your at-wills.
This is the main reason I suggest starting with 4e and working backwards, instead of the other way around.
Good luck. If you implement any of these suggestions, I'd love to hear how they work out.
but the others might suffice.
