3e has a lot of issues, and yes, option bloat is one of them. That doesn’t mean options are an inherently bad thing, it just means 3e managed its options poorly.
This is getting too abstract to talk about meaningfully. What kind of choice are you picturing that is created by the character having several options to choose from for their action, causes a conflict between tactical advantage and character motivation, and requires the player to make the decision based on information the character doesn’t have? Cause I can’t think of any actual play scenario like that.
Try this: we both have characters in an established adventuring party. Within the party there's a long history of your character and mine being close friends (we're both front-line warriors), meanwhile neither of us have any time for wizard character C and would prefer he not be in the group. So, now the party's in a rolling open-field battle with a bunch of tougher-than-expected foes and aren't doing very well. Character C in particular is overwhelmed, while you look to be holding your own and I've just freed myself up to join another fight.
Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C whose spells, if free to cast them, could quickly turn the tide.
In-character choice: I come and help free you up, confident that between us we can mop this up, and let character C sink or swim on his own. We can always find another wizard.
Now, to add in the missing-info aspect: there's also a rogue character D in the party, a decent sort. In this battle D is also getting snowed under, only from my position on the field my character can't see this due to some obstacle or other. I-as-player, however, can look at the minis on the grid and see that D is toast unless someone bails him out.
So now we have three options:
Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C.
In-character choice: I come and help free you up and let character C sink or swim on his own.
Metagame-driven choice: I go and bail out character D.
I don’t really care how 0e did it.
Fair enough, but kind of self-defeating when discussing comparables between all 5 (actually 6 if 0e counts) editions.
Subclass is another decision point in the character building process, which is exactly what I wish 5e had more of. If you get to make the decision after character creation, so much the better. That’s my issue with character creation in 5e - not enough decision points, and most of the ones you do have are made at character creation. 3e was the other side of the coin, where there were plenty of decision points, but the options were so interreliant and complex that you had to make them all at character creation or risk making a useless character. 4e hit the sweet spot where you had lots of decision points, and you weren’t punished for making those decisions as you went, picking your new power from a few options when you level up.
Hmmm...we'll have a hard time finding common ground on this one, methinks.
Personally, I want level-up to be as simple and straightforward as possible - roll h.p., gain whatever locked-in abilities the new level gives me, and carry on. I also prefer initial char-gen to be as simple as possible, simple enough that it can be done on the fly during a session by someone who's just lost a character and has an upcoming opportunity to bring in a replacement. If it takes longer than half an hour, including spell selection and mundane equipment loading, that's too long.
Not that it matters, but I started playing with 3.5, didn’t really like it, got into the game in earnest in 4e.
This is helpful in understanding your views - thanks.
And actually it does matter, in that that experience gives you a quite different perspective than that of someone who, say, only played 1e and-or 2e then got out and only just now came back. To that person 5e would be arguably a more radical departure from what they're used to than it would for you, who is used to 4e and a bit of 3e.
Lanefan said:
Problem is, they also needed to player-proof the system so that things like optimization forums and ridiculous game-breaking "builds" could become relics of the past.
Why?
Because they're bad for the game, perhaps?
Lanefan
