D&D Next without a new edition (Mostly a question)

[Perseus]

So I'm going to run a game soon where each player has two characters, each from a different edition. They will be picking a mundane and a caster.

I'm going to see how what it will take to allow each person to run their character in D&D without the use of an entirely new edition.

Notes:

Everyone will use accending armor class, I like thaco but it is easier to convert 2e to accending than the other two to thaco.

We will be using no multiclassing of any kind. Straight classes only.

Races will come from 4e for the most part. A 2e Fighter would gain extra NWP or WP for the bonus power and bonus feat. Small uniformed racea and stuff like that so that we can teat just the classes.

Problem: Math in later editions turn the game into a addition war whereas 2e didn't have a ton of bonuses. We will have to uniform the to-hit bonuses somehow. The biggest problem is being 2e, they will be serverly out paced.

Problem: Monster HP/abilities . In my experience 3.5/4e fights last longer than 2e. But with the massive bonuses from 3.5/4e if you keep monster HP low... You may as well have minions.

(Potential solution, use 2e ability score as a base for attack bonuses and such)

Slight annoyance: Traps...

Problem: Money... And the Christmas tree, I guess if you use different monsters and such against 3e/4e players then they don't need the items (slight solution, inherent bonus system from 4e)

Problem: levels... Will probably only take this to level 10. Level 11 to 15 will be epic. 3.5 characters may be the most versatile and powerful. Maybe level limits based on edition?

Question: What all do you see going wrong, there should be a lot and I haven't posted everything. Having other eyes on this may help rough out the edges.

The group all knows each other so we aren't worried about in party fighting.

Power gaming will be kept to reasonable levels, no pun pun but the 3.5 wizard may take good spell selection.

[Scow2]

4e characters would start off front-loaded in survivability, but not be able to keep up with other classes at higher levels - at least in terms of HP.

It sounds like trying to resolve the separate system's rules would be a headache.

[Aasimar]

Seems like you're more interested in messing around with the system than in running a game.

I wouldn't play with a DM like that.

[Kurald Galain]

Question: What all do you see going wrong, there should be a lot and I haven't posted everything. Having other eyes on this may help rough out the edges.

What I see going wrong is everything. 2E and 3E aren't even remotely compatible with 4E, and at higher levels aren't compatible with each other either. I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish with this.

[erikun]

I am not quite sure what you are trying to do here. It sounds like you want to compare characters from different systems, but somehow use parts of the same system for each. Sounds confusing, especially when you're redesigning core features of each class.

Well, have fun playing anyways.

[Perseus]

What I see going wrong is everything. 2E and 3E aren't even remotely compatible with 4E, and at higher levels aren't compatible with each other either. I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish with this.

At the core of each game is the same basic mechanic.

Roll die + bonuses versus DC.

2e and 3e are the same game for the most part, 3e just gives bigger numbers and a Christmas tree. Attacker rolls versus AC and defender rolls their own saving throws. 2e gives a ta le for Acending armor class. The biggest difference is the type of saving throws and and different ways of customizing (2e is very "hey do this if you want, if DM is cool with it" whereas 3e is "no you can't do that unless you have a feat or class feature").

The things is that 3e has rules for having saving throws become a defense and the magic users roll for attacks.

Which is 4e's main "difference".

So the systems aren't all that different. The main difference is what you get from your ability scores. 2e has smaller numbers all around whereas the later editions are all about stacking numbers. Earlier editions were also way more lethal but Ive found that to be a DM issue.

I should have mentioned this before but I'm really not concerned with anything passed 12th level (3.5)/10th level (4.0), or 12 ish level (2e). Or maybe less.

[Knaight]

At the core of each game is the same basic mechanic.

Roll die + bonuses versus DC.

2e and 3e are the same game for the most part, 3e just gives bigger numbers and a Christmas tree. Attacker rolls versus AC and defender rolls their own saving throws. 2e gives a ta le for Acending armor class. The biggest difference is the type of saving throws and and different ways of customizing (2e is very "hey do this if you want, if DM is cool with it" whereas 3e is "no you can't do that unless you have a feat or class feature").

...

So the systems aren't all that different. The main difference is what you get from your ability scores. 2e has smaller numbers all around whereas the later editions are all about stacking numbers. Earlier editions were also way more lethal but Ive found that to be a DM issue.

The same core mechanic (restricted to d20) is also in things like Mutants and Masterminds, that doesn't mean that it works with D&D. There are substantial rule changes (spells scaling by ability scores, the existence of skills, combat techniques, character abilities) even between 2e and 3e, and 4e is a completely different beast. The numbers are even further off - HP values vary highly between editions, damage values vary highly between editions, ability scores vary highly, skill rolls vary highly (when they even exist), so on and so forth. Lets take a look at level 10 fighters from 2e and 4e, in a few aspects.

Damage: The 2e fighter might be rolling 1d8 for damage. The 4e fighter could easily be rolling 3d10 routinely.

Skills: NWP are fairly minor, the 2e fighter is basically rolling straight ability scores. The 4e one could easily get +10 on top of that.

HP: The 4e fighter is basically guaranteed to have at least 30 points more of this.

Then you get to the matter of how to resolve their interactions that aren't more complex, where things get messier still. This looks like a trainwreck waiting to happen.

[Kurald Galain]

[QUOTE=Perseus;16414733]
So the systems aren't all that different./QUOTE]

No, so you have found one thing that the systems all have in common, i.e. that they use d20s. Other than that, the systems are extremely different. Heck, there isn't even a character conversion method to import 3E characters to 4E.

[obryn]

Damage: The 2e fighter might be rolling 1d8 for damage. The 4e fighter could easily be rolling 3d10 routinely.

Not routinely. But the numbers are different in scale, for certain.

Heck, there isn't even a character conversion method to import 3E characters to 4E.

That's not really relevant. You can't convert a 2e Fighter to a 2e Wizard, but they play at the same table.

-O

[Knaight]

No, so you have found one thing that the systems all have in common, i.e. that they use d20s. Other than that, the systems are extremely different. Heck, there isn't even a character conversion method to import 3E characters to 4E.

They have a lot more than that in common. Calling them similar games is correct, as all the editions are much closer to eachother than they are to, say, Burning Wheel, let alone something like Dread or Microscope. The issue is that 'similar' and 'fully compatible' are two very, very different things.

To use an analogy to taxonomy*, D&D is basically a genus. It's within the broader family of d20, and the individual games are analogous to species. This project is some sort of bizarre crossbreeding, but it is at least within things that are relatively similar, where there are other roleplaying games that are so different as to be distinct Phylums.

*Admittedly, it's somewhat outdated taxonomy with holes in it.

[Kurald Galain]

To use an analogy to taxonomy*, D&D is basically a genus. It's within the broader family of d20, and the individual games are analogous to species.

So what you're saying is that if you crossbreed two or more of them, the result will be infertile

[Knaight]

So what you're saying is that if you crossbreed two or more of them, the result will be infertile

With fertility working decently as an analog to functionality.

Though part of the reason the taxonomic hierarchy I was using is outdated is that species boundaries are pretty fuzzy, and there are cases of distinct species which can nonetheless sometimes produce fertile offspring because of this fuzziness.