to accomplish this you need a couple things.
A group of players who are experts in dnd next and pathfinder
A subset of that group willing to sit down and hammer out the combination of the two they all agree on.
That same group must be willing to learn this 3rd new system.
A subset of that group must be willing to put in similar effort to update all new material, or the group has to be willing to do without said material.
The same goes for any support material, it will all have to be vetted and where necessary converted.
I personally dont see it as worth the effort. If you can do that, go create your own system and make some money off it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry could you be more specific on what you enjoyed about D&D NEXT?
When I looked over the rules, I found nothing particularly exciting about them.
Part of the simplicity of the D&D Next you played is that (a) it was 1st-2nd level, where characters don't have a lot of abilities, and (b) you were given pre-gens (I think), which means there wasn't any character creation complexity.
I had a similar experience when I went through a D&D Next playtest as 1st level.
It is, as yet, unclear to me how simple it remains as one reaches higher levels.
I saw little in the way of scaling. It seemed to me that you were always a slave to the d20 and could never become proficient enough to guarantee that you could kill a rat in one hit. And then spell casters would start getting 1 slot per level.
All in all it seemed like a lazy system where player success depended more on the ability to roll high than anything else.
Interesting topic.
So I came up with an idea. Why not just combine the best mechanics of the two games ? Has no one ever thought of this?
People think of such things all the time. I myself have done this. Here's the problem I had EVERY SINGLE TIME when new players were involved:
You find yourself having to explain what you took and where you took it from, and how you intended it to fit together. In short, you end up explaining both systems to new players anyway, and sometimes even to veterans who want to know what the heck you were thinking.
So, can it be fun to cram two things together? Sure. But you're going to do a lot of work to make it all fit, do even more work canonizing it in a document so you don't forget anything, and then doing yet more work explaining yourself after the fact.
Personally, I think bounded accuracy was a brilliant idea and the sole saving grace of the system when last I checked. I was totally in love with the first playtest, and really liked the second. Then every version after that annoyed me more and more as they added more and more resources to manage and removed all the really clever things I enjoyed (HP Thresholds on spells, so they became finishers rather than all or nothing openers, for example--or when they started giving monsters 4e style entries and powers, since monster design was my least favorite part of 4e and probably the deal breaker as to why I don't play it).
I was so disappointed when they took the awesome and unique Fighter's feature that I loved (Expertise Dice) and gave them to the Rogue (and crap, now almost every class has it) that I stopped following the playtest. I think now they have a monk and other weird crap?
I'll give it a shot when it's done, but I really got sick of having everything I liked wiped away with each new test, while everything I hated got reinforced.
Personally, I think bounded accuracy was a brilliant idea and the sole saving grace of the system when last I checked. I was totally in love with the first playtest, and really liked the second. Then every version after that annoyed me more and more as they added more and more resources to manage and removed all the really clever things I enjoyed (HP Thresholds on spells, so they became finishers rather than all or nothing openers, for example--or when they started giving monsters 4e style entries and powers, since monster design was my least favorite part of 4e and probably the deal breaker as to why I don't play it).
I was so disappointed when they took the awesome and unique Fighter's feature that I loved (Expertise Dice) and gave them to the Rogue (and crap, now almost every class has it) that I stopped following the playtest. I think now they have a monk and other weird crap?
I'll give it a shot when it's done, but I really got sick of having everything I liked wiped away with each new test, while everything I hated got reinforced.
Yeah I had a similair experience...shrug...it looks like a ok system that if a friend wants to run I'll be ok with it...but never going to buy any of the books...
As to mixing PF with D&D Next...I don't think it is worth the work...but good luck with it.
Yes because teaching someone new a system they have to look things up in two different rule sets that they can never be sure which games rules cover their question. Lets also added a big layer of house rules that no one seems to write down to cram those systems together.
How close is D&D Next to release? I have to admit I'm curious. I tried 4e and hated it, mainly because they removed the vast bulk of the depth of 3.5 for a far simpler, more homogenized experience. I hated that the mechanics for playing all the classes were essentially the same.
It sounds like Next may be making the same (for me anyway) mistake. Pity.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D Next is interesting and could be fun, but I play Pathfinder more because I like Paizo than liking the ruleset. If I didn't like what the company was doing - their flavour and their world - I'd have just stuck with 3.5e. It would have been significantly cheaper to say the least.
I think D&D Next might become might "alt" system. Whenever I need a PF break or a filler game I might play some 5th Edition.
But I can't see myself going "all in" and swapping. I just have too many problems with WotC. Not the staff working on the game, as they all seem like cool people and skilled writers, but the corporate attitude. There's layers and layers of management detached from the game and oblivious to the fanbase.
On topic, I have used advantage and disadvantage in my game. It's very easily added and has often replaced "the GM's best friend" in my toolbox. It's nice to be able to retroactively say "you know what, that really should have succeeded so Imma let you roll again."
|
|
How close is D&D Next to release? I have to admit I'm curious. I tried 4e and hated it, mainly because they removed the vast bulk of the depth of 3.5 for a far simpler, more homogenized experience. I hated that the mechanics for playing all the classes were essentially the same.
It sounds like Next may be making the same (for me anyway) mistake. Pity.
It's estimated at a year away from release.
GenCon 2014 is the easy money. But prior to last year's GenCon everyone was betting on GenCon 2013. So who knows. I imagine we'll find out in a couple weeks.
Next is very different from 4e. The classes all do their own thing. I find it much more similar to earlier editions and have run a few 1st Edition modules as playtests, updating on the fly and the system has handled those quite easily.
Download the rules and judge for yourself. The playtest is free.
|
|
The most recent playtest rolled back back some things that I was kind of enjoying such as the skills and is presenting an alternate approach that is way more like 2E nonweapon proficiencies than 3E+ skills.
I'm following the playtest with each new release and generally I like the direction they are going with it and it seems like it will end up landing, rules-wise, somewhere between 2E and 3E and I'm okay with that. I prefer more rules light systems such as World of Darkness (easily my favorite RPG) so I like the direction it is going so far, but on the same token I followed the design process of 4E and liked where they were going but then they went way too far and ended up with something I felt was a mess of a system. I'm going to wait until the books are out and I get to see the final version of the game before I drop any money on it however.
To address the OP, cherry picking your favorite bits from different systems can be very rewarding or very frustrating. If the rules sets are similar enough, and PF and Next certainly are, it is easier but does require some system mastery by the GM to ensure the rules run smoothly. I can see some elements of Next working great with PF, such as advantage/disadvantage or non-scaling DC. I'm interested to see where your thought experiment goes and if it works in application.
How close is D&D Next to release?
I was at (one of?) the D&D Next Q&A at Origins. They specifically refused to speculate on a release date. They feel they have the core mechanics down, but the stuff on top of that (classes, spells, etc.) are in flux.
I, personally, don't think they'll make GenCon 2014 without rushing.
I borrow good d20 type rules for my PF game all the time. And if there are things to steal I'll grab them.
Some terminology I've adopted. In the Mythic Playtest there were a number of "roll two dice and take the best" abilities*, I just call that Advantage (and Disadvantage for the opposite).
* As opposed to roll and decide to reroll.
D&D Next.
I currently ran a game of D&D next at level 1 and 2. I found that it was a very flexible system, Combat ran smoothly, and tracking of the rules etc was easy to do.
Unfortunately as a playtest it does lack customization etc etc for classes skills...
Pathfinder
However unless my players and me are keeping absoulute tracking of skills, buffs etc is can be a bog for me to GM to do Pathfinder. I find trying to teach new players this game is just a nightmare. If you don't build a character right, he can downright become useless in comparison to anyone with system mastery of the game.
So I came up with an idea. Why not just combine the best mechanics of the two games ?
Levels 1 & 2 are so easy to do and balance. Who's to say it stay that way to 20th?
Yes, buffs are a bit of a bog. But not at level 1 & 2. What's there's to keep track of, Bless?
And, why are two characters in competition with another? Are you doing PvP? Arena combat? Two PC's doing the same role? It's a team game.
The only time I have seen a character not able to fully contribute is one guy we have who hasn't even bothered to update his characters with new feats or skills or anything but HP for the last couple of levels.
You don't need system mastery to have fun and contribute in D&D, that's a complete myth that is promulgated by a few here on the message boards. And, why isn't the player with "mastery" helping the other guy ON HIS TEAM?
And, there'd be a HUGE disagreement over exactly which are the "best mechanics". Take saving throws. There are some that like D20's way and others that prefer 4th Editions 'defenses" (which I despise, but that's just my opinion) and there are still others that still prefer the AD&D saving throw matrix. So, which of the three is 'the best"?
So far, I have seen nothing from 5th Ed that strikes me as a "must do" altho I admit i am intrigued by several ideas.