3e 18 months in

[fanboy2000]

I really don't see 4E as being less complex than 3E. Due to the flood of OGL products 3E could become much more complex but WOTC core to WOTC core measured in identical time frames from initial release, 4E is just as complex as 3E. More of the complexity has shifted from build/ prep to actual gameplay but its still there.

(Bolding mine)

I agree that some of the complexity has moved from build/prep to gameplay, but I disagree that, given the same time frame, 3e was at the same complexity as 4e.

18 Months into 3e's life cycle a very important rulebook was released that, IMO changed the game radically: The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

That book added both level adjustment and effective character level to the game. Rules that got incorporated and into the 3.5 core rulebooks. Those rules added much needed diversity and unneeded complexity to the character creation process.

In addition to those fairly complete rules (in the sense that we knew that the rules were, even if we didn't know all the various level adjustment values for specific monster races) the book added epic level rules, with a hint that more such rules were going to follow.

It also changed the way XP was given out. In the 3e DMG, a DM used the average party level to figure out XP. I.e., the DM would use the average party level in conjunction with the CR of the monster to get a single number that the DM would then divide by the number of PCs.

In the FRCS, a DM was supposed to use a PC's individual level in conjunction with the monster's CR to find a number, divide that by the number of PCs, and then repeat that process for everyone else. Obviously, you didn't need to repeat the process for PCs of the same level. This change also made it into the 3.5 DMG 1 and it's one of the reasons I moved to level independent xp.

I don't think that anything 4e has released in the past 18 months has added that level of complexity to the ruleset.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Very True but remember these things only became "core" with the revision. I am using core to mean basic game rules not published as an article or for a specific setting. Likewise in 4E, nothing from FR, or Dragon is part of "core" for me.

When the 4E revision comes (and it will), if for example, the swordmage gets included in non FR specific rulebook then it will be core.

 

[TerraDave]

That book added both level adjustment and effective character level to the game.

Pretty sure something like this was in the 3.0 DMG.

And there are lots of complicated things in 3e (which I guess was the argument).

 

[S'mon]

3e made a big mistake in having the 'value' of an XP vary by level, while retaining hard mechanics for doling them out. The result was excess complexity.

1e-2e got it right by having 1 XP stay at a fixed value whatever the level of the PC, and I'm glad 4e went back to that model.

 

[MerricB]

3e made a big mistake in having the 'value' of an XP vary by level, while retaining hard mechanics for doling them out. The result was excess complexity.

1e-2e got it right by having 1 XP stay at a fixed value whatever the level of the PC, and I'm glad 4e went back to that model.

The thing is... 1e didn't. 3e was actually closer to 1e in that regard!

If a group of four 4th level characters defeated 2 ogres in AD&D, then you were meant to work out the relative difficulty of the encounter and adjust XP accordingly if it was simpler than it should have been. In this case, the PCs would have gained 10/16 of the regular XP (ogres have 4+1 HD which is equivalent to 5 in the system, so 10 HD of monsters to 16 of characters).

The treasure XP was meant to be similarly modified (note that in the Tomb of Horrors it explicitly tells you to use a 1:2 ratio).

Not surprisingly, it was one of the 1e rules that didn't get used that much, but it also existed in OD&D, and you can see it being used in a few computer games (I experienced it in the old Angband & Moria games, if anyone remembers them).

Cheers!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

actually the level dependent xp was a big plus for me since it allowed lower level characters to catch up, since xp progression was "more linear" than that of AD&D.

Also in AD&D every class had its own progression. And you had the individual xp for spells cast and higher main attributes... which is actually makes higher level chars advance even faster...

As for rules complexity: not much added to the core rules, and not a lot of power creep and must have combinations.
And a great plus is that even when new mechanics are introduced, it is mainly for a single class and it only expands options and doesn´t introduce a subsystem or brings a system which should used by DM´s to the players.

 

[Dannager]

I don't think that anything 4e has released in the past 18 months has added that level of complexity to the ruleset.

Hybrid rules? They strike me as coming close - an optional additional level of complexity that dramatically increases the flexibility of character creation.

 

[fanboy2000]

Very True but remember these things only became "core" with the revision. I am using core to mean basic game rules not published as an article or for a specific setting. Likewise in 4E, nothing from FR, or Dragon is part of "core" for me.

That makes sense. My confusion came from the contrast to OGL products.

[tangent]That said, would you consider ECL and LA added with the publication of Savage Species? Because that book's release pre-dates 3.5 by a few months.[/tangent]

When the 4E revision comes (and it will), if for example, the swordmage gets included in non FR specific rulebook then it will be core.

IIRC, Swordmage is included in Arcane Power and a template exists for making Swordmage NPCs in DMG2.

I wouldn't consider adding a new class adding complexity, though the proliferation of PrCs in 3.x temps me to do so.

Pretty sure something like this was in the 3.0 DMG.

The 3e DMG had a section on using the MM as a source for new PC races, and it had NPC tables where it was possible to infer what the stat adjustments were for several monster NPCs, but there was no mention of ECL or LA.

I think it's interesting that while FRCS had major rules additions in it (rules useful to people who otherwise wouldn't want to play in FR), but the Eberron Campaign Setting didn't. In fact, none of the new races it introduced had level adjustments. Epic level NPCs, also introduced in the FRCS, were rare or non-existant.

I don't think that either one is better or worse for those reasons. I bought and used both books. I do think it's interesting, because of what it implies about player and DM support for ECL and LA after the release of 3.5.

 

[fanboy2000]

Hybrid rules? They strike me as coming close - an optional additional level of complexity that dramatically increases the flexibility of character creation.

The play-test hybrid rules, as they exist right now, do add more complexity to 4e. Right now, I prefer the play-test hybrid rules to 3.x multiclassing, and I think they'll end up being more complex than the actual application of most LA races.

In other words, my experience with LA races in 3.x as a DM was that they were pretty straightforward, if occasionally headache inducing with all the acronyms and numbers. I never needed to adjust encounters to account for the PC with an LA. But then, I never used any of the seriously high LA races, and I actually ignored LA for LA +1 races.

 

[CharlesRyan]

I agree that some of the complexity has moved from build/prep to gameplay, but I disagree that, given the same time frame, 3e was at the same complexity as 4e.

Without getting in the historical context of exactly how complex 3E was at what point, I have to agree with you completely.

I've been playing a lot of 4E (and running some, and even writing some), but my personal campaign is still OGL and I still draw a lot upon 3E materials. I was just going through a bunch of stat blocks last night, and I frankly can't believe how much more complicated prepping and running 3E is compared to 4E.

Don't believe me? Go back and read any monster entry that has more than a couple special attacks. Especially magical or spell-like abilities that refer you back to a spell (and for which you have to parse the effects based on a caster level).

In theory, maybe there's a mechanical elegance in being able to say "this game ability is identical to this already-described game ability." (Maybe.) But in practice, it requires iterative look-ups in different books both during prep and at the gaming table. If that isn't complexity, what is?

Even special attacks that don't require look-ups usually need a paragraph to describe them. In 4E, that would be a single sentence and a few numbers telling you how to implement.

One could argue about the value of this complexity--certainly 3E leaves more room for GM interpretation and nuance--but not about whether the complexity is there.