Going from the core three handbooks, and focusing exclusively on combat:
Conditions - There are 50 basic conditions for a character or on a battlefield. Could this be narrowed down to 10 conditions, with differing "degrees"? I think so. Tactical feats that have condition triggers then can be based off of those conditions. There can be a whole sub-system on how differring conditions interact. Again, another good use for skills (improving one's combat condition). There are over 50 magic items, and 40 types of spells that can alter conditions on the field, or for the participants in a combat. Coming up with a more effective way to track these conditions would also be beneficial (ie, a common language/symbol) to represent different conditions on a character or on a battlefield. A great deal of confusion around AOO has to do with the non-elegance of the existing "condition" system, including actually listing out whole tables to detail how you can end up in just this ONE condition...further the condition can actually break a fundamental rule of combat...actions occur only on your turn.
Initiative works pretty well, and is much more locked down.
Combat Actions - There are 47 types of basic combat actions. Plus another 20 based on feats, 20 based on class, and 20 from magic items. Yep, throw in combat actions by "line of spell" and you've got another 50. Whew! That's versatility, but I'm not sure how elegant it is. Perhaps more combat action modifiers, and less combat actions? I think we could narrow this down to about 40 basic combat actions (10 for each major type of class) and another 5 - 10 specialized combat actions for those who specialize in a type of combat action (ie, more power, less versatility). Or perhaps these combat actions could be tied directly to a class, to much further streamline abilities/complexity.
Movement - this system actually is pretty elegant, and works fairly well. Not too much tinkering. Clear advantages for some classes over others. 20 movement actions. Not many variations on those actions, primarily only modifiers to the existing actions. A model for an effective and elegant system in 4e. The only area for improvement here is really tied to "condition" (see above) and clearer understanding/marking.
Attack Bonus - 18 basic modifiers that compute the attack bonus. Not too bad. There's a small opportunity to streamline here. I would say the greater emphasis would be put on ensuring consistency and constraint when it comes to modifiers. Making it part of the core rules and d20 license (thereby locking down the total bonus modifiers) would go a long way toward ensuring consistency and balance in the 4e environment.
Defense (AC) - 26 basic modifiers form armor class in the game. Too much to keep track of, so there is a big opportunity here. The system is far more elegant, however, in that there are not a whole competing set of "defensive" combat actions. The "intterupt" component must be eliminated in a more elegant 4e. Adding this unnecessary level of complexity DOUBLES the number of steps in the combat process. There are 14 as it is. Yikes!
Calculating Damage - Elegant? No. Calculus? Yes. Weapon Damage, Energy Damage, Bane (alignment or creature type), Force, Magic (non-classed/non-DR), Condition Trigger: Sneak Attack/Precise Strike, Non-lethal, Attribute, and Negative Level, Critical. 10 basic types of damage, with significant "sub" types of damage. Lots of modifiers to these base damages, including going in three dimensions (modifiers AND multipliers). Overall, this is a nice process. A few recommendations to streamline and make more elegant: defenses need to be across an entire type (not at the sub-type level) (too complex), or reduce the number of types of damage. The critical mulitpliers shouldn't go up to x4, under any circumstance. How did this make it through playtesting? There is a significant difference in x2 and x3 crit multipliers, and it should be dependent upon a combination of skill AND weapon. Not, just type of weapon (ideally). This is particularly challenging to balance at the higher levels, with so many modifiers. Also, the same kind of note applies as attack (see above) regarding putting a hard cap on the type and maximum # of modifiers to ensure balance.
Damage Resolution - Nice system. Flesh this out a little bit more, and it would be even better. Damage Avoidance, Damage Reduction, and Damage Immunity. Very nice! Sub types are clearly broken down (low, mod, high - 25%, 50%, 100% and 5/-, 10/-, and 15/-). Basically perfect. For basic damage reduction, get rid of alignment and adopt the low, medium, high using silver, magic, cold iron, and go universal with it.
How's this for a start to a more elegant 4E?
Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? I invite a dialogue, as I think these threads will be a great foundation for the author's of 4E to begin with, and standing up to tests from peers would be a great measure of an improvement's veracity!
Conditions - There are 50 basic conditions for a character or on a battlefield. Could this be narrowed down to 10 conditions, with differing "degrees"? I think so. Tactical feats that have condition triggers then can be based off of those conditions. There can be a whole sub-system on how differring conditions interact. Again, another good use for skills (improving one's combat condition). There are over 50 magic items, and 40 types of spells that can alter conditions on the field, or for the participants in a combat. Coming up with a more effective way to track these conditions would also be beneficial (ie, a common language/symbol) to represent different conditions on a character or on a battlefield. A great deal of confusion around AOO has to do with the non-elegance of the existing "condition" system, including actually listing out whole tables to detail how you can end up in just this ONE condition...further the condition can actually break a fundamental rule of combat...actions occur only on your turn.
Initiative works pretty well, and is much more locked down.
Combat Actions - There are 47 types of basic combat actions. Plus another 20 based on feats, 20 based on class, and 20 from magic items. Yep, throw in combat actions by "line of spell" and you've got another 50. Whew! That's versatility, but I'm not sure how elegant it is. Perhaps more combat action modifiers, and less combat actions? I think we could narrow this down to about 40 basic combat actions (10 for each major type of class) and another 5 - 10 specialized combat actions for those who specialize in a type of combat action (ie, more power, less versatility). Or perhaps these combat actions could be tied directly to a class, to much further streamline abilities/complexity.
Movement - this system actually is pretty elegant, and works fairly well. Not too much tinkering. Clear advantages for some classes over others. 20 movement actions. Not many variations on those actions, primarily only modifiers to the existing actions. A model for an effective and elegant system in 4e. The only area for improvement here is really tied to "condition" (see above) and clearer understanding/marking.
Attack Bonus - 18 basic modifiers that compute the attack bonus. Not too bad. There's a small opportunity to streamline here. I would say the greater emphasis would be put on ensuring consistency and constraint when it comes to modifiers. Making it part of the core rules and d20 license (thereby locking down the total bonus modifiers) would go a long way toward ensuring consistency and balance in the 4e environment.
Defense (AC) - 26 basic modifiers form armor class in the game. Too much to keep track of, so there is a big opportunity here. The system is far more elegant, however, in that there are not a whole competing set of "defensive" combat actions. The "intterupt" component must be eliminated in a more elegant 4e. Adding this unnecessary level of complexity DOUBLES the number of steps in the combat process. There are 14 as it is. Yikes!
Calculating Damage - Elegant? No. Calculus? Yes. Weapon Damage, Energy Damage, Bane (alignment or creature type), Force, Magic (non-classed/non-DR), Condition Trigger: Sneak Attack/Precise Strike, Non-lethal, Attribute, and Negative Level, Critical. 10 basic types of damage, with significant "sub" types of damage. Lots of modifiers to these base damages, including going in three dimensions (modifiers AND multipliers). Overall, this is a nice process. A few recommendations to streamline and make more elegant: defenses need to be across an entire type (not at the sub-type level) (too complex), or reduce the number of types of damage. The critical mulitpliers shouldn't go up to x4, under any circumstance. How did this make it through playtesting? There is a significant difference in x2 and x3 crit multipliers, and it should be dependent upon a combination of skill AND weapon. Not, just type of weapon (ideally). This is particularly challenging to balance at the higher levels, with so many modifiers. Also, the same kind of note applies as attack (see above) regarding putting a hard cap on the type and maximum # of modifiers to ensure balance.
Damage Resolution - Nice system. Flesh this out a little bit more, and it would be even better. Damage Avoidance, Damage Reduction, and Damage Immunity. Very nice! Sub types are clearly broken down (low, mod, high - 25%, 50%, 100% and 5/-, 10/-, and 15/-). Basically perfect. For basic damage reduction, get rid of alignment and adopt the low, medium, high using silver, magic, cold iron, and go universal with it.
How's this for a start to a more elegant 4E?
Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? I invite a dialogue, as I think these threads will be a great foundation for the author's of 4E to begin with, and standing up to tests from peers would be a great measure of an improvement's veracity!
