4th edition's relative rules complexity

[Aus_Snow]

One gamer (at least) has stated that, based on the information available at this stage, 4th edition D&D is undeniably more complex, rules-wise, than any previous edition.

Now, while I'm not in the habit of defending 4e, this seems a little odd to me. Because, from what I've seen so far, the system doesn't look any more complex than 3e's. In fact, monster statblocks (for instance) seem quite a bit simpler to me. Not that I happen to like that, but that's really neither here nor there - and I'm aware that's apparently a minority view, well and truly.

Um. Could someone who shares the stated opinion shed some light on this, please?

 

[pogre]

It is more complicated in the sense that players have a lot more choices tactically in combat. If you have a group where the wizard takes forever choosing which spell to cast 4E might make you miserable. On every other level, I do not think 4e is more complicated.

I do think they should have made a greater effort to smooth out combat though. If one of the design goals was to make combat go more quickly in real time, I think the rules will fail in this regard.

 

[Aus_Snow]

More choices. OK, I can grok that. Is this something to do with having per encounter + at will + per day abilities, or anything like that?

 

[Alnag]

It might be "more complex" than just 3e with only core rulebooks, but if you add all the possibilities from sourcebooks, there is nothing that can beat 3e vast of options.

 

[neceros]

In fact 4e is not more complex. It is different and new. However, the rules are universal in the sanes of Attack roll vs Defense stat. That's all you need to learn that differs, besides flavor and abilities.

Yes, classes have new abilities, but once you know what these abilities are it's easier to play and more smooth.

People are confusing more complex with new and unidentified.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I'm gonna call it as simpler overall.

Martial characters are going to have more options, at least at higher levels, but mages will have fewer/more obvious choices.

Monsters and encounter management look simpler, however, so that should more than pan out. Not too mention fewer headaches over treasure and loot.

I'm also gonna call out some variables:

*We don't know how the social encounter system is going to gum up the works. It could be simple enough to fly under the radar. It could be as complicated as Exalted. Who knows?

*There may also be other out of combat abilities like Wizard Rituals that might complicate the game.

*The level of complexity could vary wildly by level, on both the character and DM front. This, at least, is true now.

*Simpler don't always mean faster. Feng Shui is simple but the amount of description each character gives for each action can really draw out the battles. Especially for large groups.

 

[The Merciful]

It is more complicated in the sense that players have a lot more choices tactically in combat.

That's what I would call good complexity. It might not be to everyone's tastes, but it has a purpose. Bad complexity would not offer meaningful options, but merely be confusing. As far I have seen, there is no sign of bad complexity in 4th Ed., and even the good complexity doesn't seem to be abundant or overwhelming. Of course 3rd Ed removed a lot of previous editions bad complexity, but added it's own questionable complexities. We will see how the new edition turns out...

ps. I hope my comment wasn't too complex.

 

[Someone]

I found the paladin's smites writeups very telegraphic; that may steep up the earning curve and make the impression that the system is more complicated.

 

[delericho]

Is it not rather absurd to say that "game X, which we have not played, is more complex than D&D 3.5"? Is it not equally absurd to say that "game X, which we have not played, is less complex than D&D 3.5"?

Surely, we need to wait until we actually have the rules, and have a chance to play the game, before we can make any sensible comment on relative complexities?

 

[shilsen]

Is it not rather absurd to say that "game X, which we have not played, is more complex than D&D 3.5"? Is it not equally absurd to say that "game X, which we have not played, is less complex than D&D 3.5"?

Surely, we need to wait until we actually have the rules, and have a chance to play the game, before we can make any sensible comment on relative complexities?

Bah - I'll have you know we have no need for your level-headed good sense here!