Elegant Rules (Forked From: Inconsistant/Arbitrary rules...)

[Lanefan]

Forked from: Inconsistant/Arbitrary rules...

Some of the more elegant rules to come out of each edition:

1e - turning undead. It's been done many times since, but never as neatly and simply as the roll-d20-vs.-a-table system in 1e.

Resurrection survival and system shock % rolls. Wonderfully simple, and much more granular than a straight d20. And the system shock roll made polymorph a risky business; removing it later is what broke polymorph, IMO.

2e - others with more knowledge can speak here.

3e - the Sorcerer class, and how it does its spells. I despised it to begin with, but eventually came to realize this is the way *all* caster-types should work. No more of this annoying pre-memorization stuff.

Familiars. Still not my favourite things, but 3e handled them way better than any other edition.

Others will mention here the d20 mechanic; and while I can see the elegance, the designers tried to shoehorn too many things into the one mechanic (see turns and resurrect, above, for examples) and thus to me somewhat wrecked it.

4e - I haven't played it yet, but I *think* 4e might be on to something by cutting back on what each character can do each turn, to keep things moving.

Lanefan

 

[mach1.9pants]

Yeah I'll agree on the 'economy of actions' system in 4E, Standard>Move>Minor per round; and each one can stand in for one lower. It is also great how PC summoned/controlled/etc things cost something, to keep this economy (and not have the necromancer taking turns for numerous undead, while everyone else snoozes!).

I also like the 2 ability score for every defence thing in 4E, and think it should be taken further so no ability score is better than another...i.e. best of 2 scores for HP, initiative, melee and ranged basic attacks, even for carrying capacity. Yes it really stretches verisimilitude (and I dunno which 2 to use for each) but it would be very 'elegant' IMO and stop imbalance.

Unlike others I like the arcane spell failure in 3E, stopped the 'you CANNOT cast spells in armour' of previous editions and (at the opposite end of the scale) 'every wizard etc in 4E has leather proficiency'! You can take the risk for better defence or, maybe, spend some 'power' by taking levels in something that reduced this failure.

 

[Ktulu]

I would go so far as to say 4e's familiar system even rocks out 3e's version. It's elegant, simple, and even answers the "pop-in" "pop-out" of players forgetting their familiars, too!


3e, the BAB Saves system. It was the first time it was made universal and despite being a little bit of a headache when multiclassing, it was sooo much better than previous systems. Though I think 4e has improved the system, 3e deserves credit for the creation.

 

[mach1.9pants]

3e, the BAB Saves system. It was the first time it was made universal and despite being a little bit of a headache when multiclassing, it was sooo much better than previous systems. Though I think 4e has improved the system, 3e deserves credit for the creation.

I'd agree with this, when it was modded (in UA? or maybe just my house rule) to give a .75 (or whatever, round down) to stop multi-class stupidities.

 

[Particle_Man]

3e - the Sorcerer class, and how it does its spells. I despised it to begin with, but eventually came to realize this is the way *all* caster-types should work. No more of this annoying pre-memorization stuff.

I like the 3.5 Warlock even more, for exactly the same reasons, and adding the "not having to keep track of what was used up" no paperwork reason.

 

[Greg K]

Some of the more elegant rules to come out of each edition:

1e - turning undead. It's been done many times since, but never as neatly and simply as the roll-d20-vs.-a-table system in 1e.

Resurrection survival and system shock % rolls. Wonderfully simple, and much more granular than a straight d20. And the system shock roll made polymorph a risky business; removing it later is what broke polymorph, IMO.

I don't find the above elegant. I was glad to see them go

3e - the Sorcerer class, and how it does its spells. I despised it to begin with, but eventually came to realize this is the way *all* caster-types should work. No more of this annoying pre-memorization stuff.

Here I agree. One of the first thing that I implemented from Unearthed Arcana was spontaneous divine casters.

Familiars. Still not my favourite things, but 3e handled them way better than any other edition.

I agree. I just wish that they were not hard coded into the classes

4e - I haven't played it yet, but I *think* 4e might be on to something by cutting back on what each character can do each turn, to keep things moving.

I am mixed here. I like it except for the beast masters animal companions.

 

[Greg K]

My choices

1e: I really can't think of anything

2e:
- Specialty priests
- PO: Combat and Tactics crit confirmation in which it was a single roll, but you had to successfully hit by five or more.
-

3e
- Unified progression of ability score modifiers
- all classes receive the same bonuse for identical ability scores
- a unfied resolution mechanic (roll d20+ stat bonus + other bonuses vs. a DC)
- sorcerer's spontaneous casting
- 3 save categories
- skill points
- monsters finally have ability scores
- breaking down monster AC's
- Unearthed Arcana Death and Dying
- Unearthed Arcana Spontaneous Divine Magic

4e
- Removing non-biological racial abilities (e.g, bonuses vs. giants or kobolds , and racial weapon familiarity ) and making them feats.
- classes share a single unified defense progression
- class defense bonuses are a one time bonus granted to first level characters.
- class armor and weapon proficiencies are only gained to a first level character. New proficiencies are then gained by feats
- con score affects starting hit points. No con modifier per level
- set hit points per level rather than rolling

 

[Jhaelen]

Some of the more elegant rules to come out of each edition:

1e - turning undead. It's been done many times since, but never as neatly and simply as the roll-d20-vs.-a-table system in 1e.

Actually, I consider this to be a prime example for an inelegant rule. Looking up tables is something I absolutely dislike in a pen&paper rpg. If there's no way to easily memorize a rule, the rule isn't elegant.

It may be simple and/or fast (if you happen to know where the table is located or have it handy) but elegant it isn't.

 

[Tilenas]

I also like the 2 ability score for every defence thing in 4E, and think it should be taken further so no ability score is better than another...i.e. best of 2 scores for HP, initiative, melee and ranged basic attacks, even for carrying capacity. Yes it really stretches verisimilitude (and I dunno which 2 to use for each) but it would be very 'elegant' IMO and stop imbalance.

Unlike others I like the arcane spell failure in 3E, stopped the 'you CANNOT cast spells in armour' of previous editions and (at the opposite end of the scale) 'every wizard etc in 4E has leather proficiency'! You can take the risk for better defence or, maybe, spend some 'power' by taking levels in something that reduced this failure.

I'm with you on the second, but not on the first. They tried too hard to make it balanced that the final system eliminates anything that sets the classes apart mechanically, i.e. good AC/REF for Rogue-type characters. Now, everyone is like "I've got no DEX, but that's okay, because I've got INT". No one has both anymore unless you happen to need them for your powers and even then I hear people complaining about their low FORT and WILL. The new system gives you the either/or treatment: You can have either WIS or CHA, but about equal scores in those will cost you.
Now, about the good stuff: While I don't like the percentile, arcane spell failure is a good feature that lets you wear armor when you desperately need it without automatically taking away your spellcasting ability. It's a shame they later made so many classes that flat out ignore ASF (and thus weakening the Combat Casting feat).

3e, the BAB Saves system. It was the first time it was made universal and despite being a little bit of a headache when multiclassing, it was sooo much better than previous systems. Though I think 4e has improved the system, 3e deserves credit for the creation.

Agreed. 3.0 is the foundation, but the Level Modifier combined with starting bonuses on level 1 is superior, getting rid of the total discrepancy at higher levels (Now we only complain about characters not keeping up with monsters, not archetype A not keeping up with archetype B in situation X).

 

[Henrix]

I would go so far as to say 4e's familiar system even rocks out 3e's version. It's elegant, simple, and even answers the "pop-in" "pop-out" of players forgetting their familiars, too!

Indeed! It makes familiars useful, without being a burden.