Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psikus" data-source="post: 5434810" data-attributes="member: 66049">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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> 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.</li> </ul>With that in mind, a possible implementation could have the following properties. I indicate between parentheses the edition each idea is borrowed from:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">(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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> (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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">(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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> (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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> (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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> (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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> (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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"> (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.</li> </ol>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.</blockquote>

Verification