Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Daybreaker Jul 02, 2008 15:30:21	My group is quite divided on 4th edition. And not just the group as individuals, but the individuals themselves are divided. I'm divided. I like a lot of stuff in 4e but I don't want to give up a bunch of stuff that was in 3.5e, either. At this point, it seems likely that we're going to end up with a blend between the editions. But will it be closer to 3.5e, or will it be closer to 4e? Will be it 3.5e with some 4e mixed in (3.7e), or will it be 4e with some 3.5e added back in (3.8e)? Personally, I'm leaning more toward 3.8e, since the class structure is so very different and it's the new stuff that will continue to be supported for ... well, probably another decade, give or take, if we're lucky. So I'm basically thinking to take 4e and add back in the things I miss, like grappling, disarms, a whole bunch of wizard spells, and so on. Have any of you figured out good ways of integrating the editions a bit? What's the best way of doing it? I'm looking to have my cake and eat it, too.
#2 pennstud77 Jul 02, 2008 15:54:35	After playing 3.5 (or really 3.X) for about a decade, and then 4e for a month, you are on the fence about the new system you haven't given a fighting chance and now want to ruin the concepts of 4e by blending with an older version that is (frankly, IMHO) not at all compatible??? I think you should let 4e have a fighting chance (by giving it a little more time; of course it's not going to stack up to that which you know inside out... YET), or just go back to 3.5 entirely. Because the answer to your question is that I think you're going to have a really hard time blending, if you can at all... the simple act of increasing the spells of wizards will fundamentally unbalance the classes that 4e has taken great pains to balance (finally); just look around the boards at the dozens of posts explaining this in detail. As for grapple, it's there (grab), and I think there's a good reason (that I don't know off the top of my head) why disarm is missing.
#3 tequila_sunrise Jul 02, 2008 16:36:04	Have any of you figured out good ways of integrating the editions a bit? What's the best way of doing it? I'm looking to have my cake and eat it, too. In a general sense, yes. My current project is the creation of new powers and feats that make alignment mean something again. If you want to add something to 4e, just do it. Want to have a grapple or disarm option? Homebrew a few new powers. It might be tricky balancing your new powers with published powers, but more options are never inherently unbalanced. TS
#4 darksongbird Jul 02, 2008 19:09:53	I happen to like 4E for it's simplicity, and i think complicating it more with old 3E stuff will end up breaking it. But if oyu try to complicate it with new 4e stuff at the very least you can tell your players you are playtesting your concepts on them and that they are subject to change. If you give them an old 3.5 rule they already know, they are going to expect it to span the editions and will be disapointed if it doesn't play like they expect it to. I'm not saying make a power and run with it like the wind right to your group though.. don't playtest first think later.. or they'll get resentful cause something they could do was awesome.. but you knwo it was TOO awesome. Or something they could do was too weak so they aren't even thinking about it now that you've fixed it. In essence, I'm saying take a slow morph method and build layers, IMO. If you don't agree, feel free to tell me so and why, as I always appreciate different POVs.
#5 saul_durian Jul 03, 2008 1:17:56	My group has decided to stay 3.x and bring in the stuff we like from 4e. We have done a few games so far, and so far it has worked pretty awesomely. I have a post floating around about it somewheres 4e/3e/hybrid. But i'm not sure it's very popular.:P
#6 Gimric Jul 04, 2008 16:17:16	After playing 3.5 (or really 3.X) for about a decade, and then 4e for a month, you are on the fence about the new system you haven't given a fighting chance and now want to ruin the concepts of 4e by blending with an older version that is (frankly, IMHO) not at all compatible??? I think you should let 4e have a fighting chance (by giving it a little more time; of course it's not going to stack up to that which you know inside out... YET), or just go back to 3.5 entirely. Because the answer to your question is that I think you're going to have a really hard time blending, if you can at all... the simple act of increasing the spells of wizards will fundamentally unbalance the classes that 4e has taken great pains to balance (finally); just look around the boards at the dozens of posts explaining this in detail. As for grapple, it's there (grab), and I think there's a good reason (that I don't know off the top of my head) why disarm is missing. First I apologize for my inability to add anything constructive to Daybreaker's question other than my own rant against the rude and obnoxious reply quoted above. Now to my rant. Having spent a decade giving 3.0/3.5 a chance and finally getting it, I personally am not willing to give it up on a new edition that despite changes I like for changes that I do not like, besides at the moment I cannot go out and drop a load on a new game system. I understand Wizards has moved on but these forums should be open to the fact that it is intrinsic in human nature that change is not easy, that many intelligent players, do not and can not learn a new system at the drop of a hat due to time, monetary, or other issues. I got full time into to the gaming hobby with OD&D and despite the simplifications made in 4e OD&D is still by far the simpler system. I played and started a 2nd edition campaign because I liked elements of AD&D and could not purchase 1st ed books any longer and as I skimmed the books the changes were not so great that I could not work around those changes. With the advent of 3/3.5 that changed and now with 4 out so soon after 3.5 I have to say enough. I stay on these forums for ideas. But it is becoming obvious that some people do not like the idea that some people will not shell out money for a new system... probably the same people who want me to convert to a new game system also expect me to spend an extra $100 to fill up my fairly new car each week or spend an extra hour trying to get to appointments and my job. Grow up and expect people not to completely go gaga over anything and everything new and instead of ridiculing them find constructive ways to ease their transition into the new system, because it is obvious by the OP and even mine that we are not so totally against some of the changes. Just trying to continue playing with out everyone starting ALL over again! And maybe, just maybe converting over to 4.0 when everyone is ready? Great job of peer sales there bucko.
#7 Daybreaker Jul 06, 2008 16:40:46	Because the answer to your question is that I think you're going to have a really hard time blending, if you can at all... the simple act of increasing the spells of wizards will fundamentally unbalance the classes that 4e has taken great pains to balance (finally); just look around the boards at the dozens of posts explaining this in detail. As for grapple, it's there (grab), and I think there's a good reason (that I don't know off the top of my head) why disarm is missing. The wizard spells issue is a tricky one. I've seen other people using the method of including old wizard (and cleric and druid and so on) spells back in as rituals, but do I really want just anybody to be able to do Wish? On the other hand ... why not? I think I could actually write a story around that. As for grabbing, it doesn't really do what grappling did. I understand the logic of trying to condense it down to a very simple Strength vs. Fortitude roll, and that's good, but it just doesn't accomplish all of the things that grappling does. 'Cause when it comes down it, "grappling" is your basic form of human combat. We're more designed for it than we are for punching or kicking things, even. And almost all of us practice it to some degree as children. I mean, as humans, we have wussy jaws and not the best teeth for combat, but we've got these limbs, man, honed for climbing trees and manipulating objects and hauling our wussy-jawed butts around. Combine the limbs with the brains and you've got, well, grappling, aka Human Combat 101. Yes, it can really screw with a DM who forgets to include in his ultimate bad guy's bag of tricks some kind of defense against somebody knocking him down and sitting on him. But since every successful bad guy in non-fictional history has had to come up with some sort of defense against being knocked down and sat upon, is it really so much to ask? Vlad the Impaler had multiple defenses against being knocked down and sat on: the terror of being impaled, also a big army of impalers. Jack the Ripper had the simple advantage that nobody knew who he was so they couldn't knock him down and sit on him. It's not that much work. Just think to yourself as you're designing a villain, "How does this guy keep people from knocking him down and sitting on him in order to stop his reign of terror?" If there are no such countermeasures in place, the Evil Plan needs some refinement.
#8 Daybreaker Jul 06, 2008 16:43:49	If you want to add something to 4e, just do it. This is the tack I'm generally taking. I'm just one of those people that likes to hear as many thoughts as possible on something before making a decision. I'm like the Captain Kirk of my game, see, and I'm appointing all of you as McCoys and Spocks. Feed me options that I might save the day.
#9 greylurker_dup Jul 07, 2008 7:30:13	I'd look at Green Ronin's True 20 system. It streamlines the 3.5 system significantly while leaving you the freedom to create your characters the way you want to instead of forcing you into a preconcieved version of each class the way 4E dose. Plus you can still use all your 3.5 books