Building the perfect Frankenstein Edition of Dungeons and Dragons
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лис 2024
- Every edition of D&D had its merits and its flaws. So what happens if you take the best parts of each edition and merge them into a single cohesive edition? You create the best D&D edition by splicing together the best parts. Customizable characters with unique weapons, a skill system that is both simplistic yet comprehensive. Fighting styles that capture the skills and experience of characters on their way to grandmastery. A system that is both simple and complex in equal parts, easy enough for the beginner but challenging enough for the veteran.
1:10- Ability Scores (OD&D)
3:45- Classes (1e+2e)
6:33- Saving Throws (3.x)
7:00- Combat (BECMI...and maybe other stuff, this one was kind of long)
9:30- Weapons (3e+5e)
10:00- Magic (?)
11:00-Alignment (2e+3e alignment items)
12:10-Mooks (4e? but with BECMI hit point scales)
13:45-Experience
14:50-Skills
16:20-Weapon proficency (2e)
This was brilliant, I regret I can't like this more than once. You've inspired me to attempt to build this Franken-edition in quarantine.
Just make some throwaway accounts. Boom, you can like the video multiple times.
I like this alot... i wish this was a real edition
To be honest, my GM made armor as DR (damage reduction) and we rolled vs 10+Dex mod. Then all we did was roll D20+mod to hit. We also added damage modifiers based on type.
I can see some improvements still to be made for this hybrid edition, which some of which would be the need for good mechanics for exploration and socialisation as they are bear bones and the easiest way to get more people to do things other than kill problems is provide other ways to deal with them, also not a lot of exploration happens in d&d and I think it is because dms are not given ways to do it well.
This is great I've watched it several times. I don't much about previous editions but everything you said makes sense. I really like Barbarians and Rangers them being better would be great.
That dime piece halfling at 6:05 was the cover girl of an issue of Dragon I described as: "Issue of Dragon voted most likely to be held with one hand."
Remember boys and girls this is what halflings *used* to look like before they became misshapen tavern rats.
There's a 3rd edition piece of art where the halfling rogue icon is pulling down her pants to look at a tattoo that happens to be on a statue in front of her. Probably the biggest piece of cheesecake in all of D&D. Now all the halflings look like Quizboy Billy from the Venture Brothers.
@@Mr_Welch I'll have to try and find that one on line.
EDIT: Found it and you weren't kidding.
@@danmorgan3685 link?
I love d&d cheese cake but halflings being sezy is ugh
@@ronniejdio9411 Image search Lidda the Halfling. It's the first image that pops up.
I would totally play this. You should publish it!
One change I'd make: skill system from Pathfinder 1st Edition. I know that's no longer a popular opinion, but I really felt like they solved the cross-class problem.
Agreed. I hate the trained/untrained binary of the proficiency system back in ADD2nd, and 4e going back to that drove my groups away from D&D and into Pathfinder's arms. So Pathfinder 2e's method... is an interesting compromise, but I'm not sure quite yet.
@@templarw20 Yeah, I glanced through the PF2 playtest and hated the skill system, but I had to admit when I glanced at the finished version it did look like a big improvement.
That said, I strongly disagree with Mr. Welch's complete dismissal of class skills as a thing. It makes sense that the Perform skill is part of a Bard's basic training, while a Fighter who knows it at first level learned it in his spare time, so of course the Bard is better at it!
That said, 3.5's problem was that the Fighter had to burn so many skill points to keep up even after First Level.
@@SerpenThrope by class skills I meant in 3rd edition if you tried to take a skill that they didn't feel was necessary to your class you were penalized for it. So if your Barbarian wanted to learn the tuba you were never very good at it. Fighters couldn't be persuasive despite what the dread pirate Roberts says. Wizards couldn't be intimidating despite the fact they kill with words. Certain classes should start with certain skills but if you want to pick up other skills you shouldn't be dissuaded
@@Mr_Welch In the case of Pathfinder I believe you got a +4 when you put your first point in a class skill, and no further advantages. So the gap became smaller and smaller the more you adventured.
@@SerpenThrope
it was a bonus of +3 on top of your 1 invested point when you first invest in a class skill
the intent was to simplify the SPx4 at first level of 3/3.5e
you can get this bonus at any character level instead of just the first one, allowing you to get that +3 in a skill you skipped at level 1. It even applies if you take a second class, allowing you to greatly expand your viable skill set
Good video
I like the idea of making the ultimate edition.
I like the original bard, Fighter, Thief and then MU
The alighnment is a must.
I really like 3.5 and 1AD&D
Write it and I would buy it
You’re channel is so interesting.
I’d so almost none of that shit (beyond Fortitude Reflex and will)
But you’re opinion is harshest ive seen about the newest editions and im always about finding flaws in the media i love. So this really cool.
Quick note on training with an exact weapon is if your DM doesn't give out a magical weapon that you've been training with will be very irritating. Maybe have weapons put into certain categories so that it covers a group of let's say swords of a certain size or maces and morningstars. Something to think about or maybe you covered that.
2nd edition did that. It had Broad and narrow weapon proficiencies. It was basically a discount, four points at character creation would get you Proficiency in 6 to 10 weapon depending on the weapon. Two points would usually get you three to five weapons.
I'm gonna grab all of my D&D heartbreakers and slam them together and see what happens!
+Legendary Lives/Lost souls
+Darkurthe Legends
+Senzar
This is brilliant, everything seems to be on an even scale. You must have been DMing as long as I have to know all the editions so well. Unfortunately you forgot one thing, the creators don't want a perfect game, it evident in the editions. That mean instead of 10 years to the next edition, it's 40 years. I don't think that they would let a fantastic idea like yours get by without royally screwing it up. You will probably have to do a kick-starter with different names for everything to get this off the ground.
I absolutely agree with you. Minions were the best part of 4e.
What are your thoughts on Pathfinder 2e?
Have only glazed over it, and it was a bit too simplified for me.
i have to ask, how would you handle demihumans, should they be there own class like becmi or have level limits like advanced. if they have level limits, how much should it be raised to stay with the level 36 cap
Elven and Dwarven society as described in most lore all the way back to the beginning of d&d presents them as more rigid societies, So I had no issue with the class railroading and limitations. When 3rd came out I hated that you could have rigid society races be any class. I limited it, players hated me for it. I yielded for a while. Then the onslaught of splatbooks in 3rd fixed the issue. I limited the demihuman classes again with my groups, but using good world building and the exclusivity reverse psychology trick (make something seem exclusive and out of reach so people want it more), I allowed demihumans and only them to have access to some particular classes. So for example Elves could be Wizards or Fighters, but they could also be Duskblades and nobody else could. Making limitations have exclusive benefits is the sweet spot for most players.
Keep it completely open with the caveat its up to the DM to decide what races, classes and combinations are allowed in the campaign. Have to explain clearly leaving stuff out is important in a campaign if its important in the background of the setting
the original bard was a prestige class.
pathfinder 1e got rid of the 3e crossclass/class skills by making the class skills giving a bonus to certain skills when you added ranks.
Weapons mastery system in mystery original d&d in riles encyclopedia was best
So... 1st edition Pathfinder with a more granular weapon style system instead of the massive feat trees?
Combat, skills and classes are taken from other Editions
It sounds like your unaltered edition of choice would be 3rd. I say that because you seem to keep more elements of 3rd edition in your Frankenstein than other editions.
One of the problems with 3rd was rules bloat though. It wasn't the worst foundation but it's complexity kept increasing by orders of magnitude.
Add to that the power creep...yeah. Not the foundation of choice.
Throw into it the nerfing of martial classes, the ungodly amount races, the magic items creation feats, and the absolutely obscene amount of magical items you can wear and aquire, power creep was bound to be a problem.
3rd had a lot of positives but it broke under the weight of its rules. The skills system was trash, and the constant number of modifiers got tedious. It had a lot of Merit but it had a lot of flaws
This is great, altho IMO there should be more classes, so that concepts can be kept distinct. Multi-classing should be replaced by hybrid classes with their own features.
For example, the warrior class can’t use heavy armor, while the knight class can but has an oath. Then a paladin class is a hybrid of knight & cleric, with the paladin's traditional protections but the further burden of a holy order.
The problem with that skill system, is just because i have an 18 Dex, i can cut gems better than a master gem cutter that has been doing it for 20 years!
You can still raise your skill by spending prof points. Stat just determines starting level. So master gem cutter might put 10 points in the skill to showcase his skill.
As much as I'd like something like this to happen, I would rather stick with the flawed 5th Edition and modify it as necessary, than have there be another edition. Thanks to the OGL and sites like the DM's Guild, more material has already been made for 5th Edition, than all others combined. Unless there's some kind of quick conversion, where X in 5e = Y in 6e, things will get even more complicated.
I don't really care too much for Alignment (though I admit it's fantastic for setting up the Multiverse); I prefer things like Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws for mortal characters. I have other nitpicks, like preferring Pathfinder's 4 sources of magic over DnD's 2, but overall, I'm a fan of almost everything else here. In particular, the sheer variety it gives to each class. Rangers aren't magical types unless the player decides they should be. Barbarians aren't a class that's hard to fit into civilized societies or the default of "primitive" ones. It's really good.
Just don't play 5th edition. Stick to BECMI. Or since you are taking a lot from 3rd just play that. Cobbling them all together is too much bother.