D&D 5E 08/05/2013 - Legends & Lore : Scaling Complexity

[Blackwarder]

Mike goes over class complexity in this week's article. Come take a look and provide us with your feedback on this topic.

Follow the link for the article.

Warder

 

[Warbringer]

Thanks [MENTION=6674266]Backwarder[/MENTION].

Probably the most telling sentences in the article:

In contrast to the simple warrior, the gladiator offers a number of tactical options each round. If you like managing special abilities on a round-by-round basis, the gladiator is the fighter path for you.

Getting this part of the design right has been a major element of our work for the past year. It took several drafts and a lot of feedback, but I feel confident that we're hitting the mark.

So the design philosophy on handling the concept of base vs. custom is seemingly locked (at least basic to standard). If the fighter complexity issue has been solved, its time to turn to other core classes and simplify them, specifically the arcane caster.

If not, then only fighters will hold true to the below, just like they did in 1e and 2e...

One of the big issues that plagued D&D in the past was that running a long campaign holds a lot of appeal, but the rules inevitably pushed players to endure more and more complexity. That's good for some players, but not all players. Ideally, our design holds that at bay and makes it easier to keep gaming into double digit levels.

 

[Blackwarder]

Thanks @Backwarder.

Probably the most telling sentences in the article:

In contrast to the simple warrior, the gladiator offers a number of tactical options each round. If you like managing special abilities on a round-by-round basis, the gladiator is the fighter path for you.

Getting this part of the design right has been a major element of our work for the past year. It took several drafts and a lot of feedback, but I feel confident that we're hitting the mark.

So the design philosophy on handling the concept of base vs. custom is seemingly locked (at least basic to standard). If the fighter complexity issue has been solved, its time to turn to other core classes and simplify them, specifically the arcane caster.

If not, then only fighters will hold true to the below, just like they did in 1e and 2e...

One of the big issues that plagued D&D in the past was that running a long campaign holds a lot of appeal, but the rules inevitably pushed players to endure more and more complexity. That's good for some players, but not all players. Ideally, our design holds that at bay and makes it easier to keep gaming into double digit levels.

I partially agree with you Warbringer, I think that there is an inherent complexity meter between the classes no mater what you do, the spell casting classes will always be more complex and require more system mastery than the non casters, that being said having complexity dials inside each class is a good thing, locking an archetype to a certain complexity is something to be avoided.

I am keen to see what they come up with for the other classes. TBH, i;m not sure if they should have a baked in "simple" option for every class they got, I think that only the basic four should have simple ones and the non-basic ones should just be themselves with no pressure of dumbing them down for simple players.

Warder

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=6674266]Ba[/MENTION]ckwarder.

Yeah, I should have been clearer, I did mean simple only for the Big4.

I'm very interested in seeing were these deals land also

 

[Li Shenron]

Good article overall, but the following is not entirely true:

One of the big issues that plagued D&D in the past was that running a long campaign holds a lot of appeal, but the rules inevitably pushed players to endure more and more complexity. That's good for some players, but not all players. Ideally, our design holds that at bay and makes it easier to keep gaming into double digit levels.

How much did the Fighter become more complex in pre-3ed? A bit more perhaps, but I doubt it was much more complex.

I can't speak for 4e, but in 3e the complexity added to the Fighter as levels go by, is entirely in the form of feats. However, 3e had plenty of passive feats: Improved Initiative, Iron Will/Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Skill Focus, Run, a few archey feats, Ambidexterity/Two-Weapon Fighting, several "Improved X" feats... All of these are in core, so available to all. You can criticize the usefulness of some of these feats, but you cannot say they really add complexity, they are all pretty much "add & forget" bonuses.

Thus it was definitely easy to play a low-complexity Fighter in 3e. Rather, it was less easy to play a high-complexity Fighter, you'd have to buy supplements at least.

Other martial classes were more complex, but IMHO they were hardly "high-complexity". Instead, spellcasters have always been high complexity, due to having to choose what spells you know, what spells you prepare, what spells to cast. The 3e Sorcerer was a good attempt at a low-complexity spellcaster, significantly reducing the number of spells known and removing preparation. However, that required an entirely separate class.

I don't know what could be done to reduce the complexity of spellcasters in 5e. Currently the number of spells prepared is a lot smaller than in previous editions, so they are already less complex, except the Wizard due to casting Rituals from all known spells. Personally I would also limit the number of known spells to Clerics and Druids, to the same numbers as Wizards. But this is a no-go for a lot of gamers, so it won't be done.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I appreciate that they've shown a draft of a simple character vs. a complex character. The simple character is fairly on target, though I would tweak the details a little, for a start make each ability passively boost an aspect of the Fighter rather than having so many things that affect your critical hits. The complex character? Awful. The options are not that interesting or powerful, and their implementation is so fiddly that complexity comes from bad rules rather than tactical options.

 

[MarkB]

I appreciate that they've shown a draft of a simple character vs. a complex character. The simple character is fairly on target, though I would tweak the details a little, for a start make each ability passively boost an aspect of the Fighter rather than having so many things that affect your critical hits. The complex character? Awful. The options are not that interesting or powerful, and their implementation is so fiddly that complexity comes from bad rules rather than tactical options.

Yeah, as someone who generally likes more complex and flexible options, I'm not finding much to enjoy in the Gladiator. The maneuvers aren't particularly inspiring, and they use their own weird little mechanic for no apparent reason. Why isn't the opponent making saves against these attacks, rather than comparing ability modifiers?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Yeah, as someone who generally likes more complex and flexible options, I'm not finding much to enjoy in the Gladiator. The maneuvers aren't particularly inspiring, and they use their own weird little mechanic for no apparent reason. Why isn't the opponent making saves against these attacks, rather than comparing ability modifiers?

Right! That would fit in with existing mechanics and give them 'spell-like' abilities. The DC could be set by their attack modifier with their current weapon (though with the changes to spell DCs, half level may be more suitable).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I also don't get how a player who doesn't like complexity, but feels inspired by a recent viewing of Spartacus (or whatever) plays a simple gladiator. Can we get some scaling within the subclasses?

 

[MarkB]

I also don't get how a player who doesn't like complexity, but feels inspired by a recent viewing of Spartacus (or whatever) plays a simple gladiator. Can we get some scaling within the subclasses?

(Sub-)Class name is not in-game name. If I want to play a tactical warrior, and if the Gladiator path actually evolves to meet my needs by the time the ruleset is finished, then I'll choose Gladiator regardless of whether or not my character has ever seen the inside of an arena.

Likewise, if I wanted to play a character who is a gladiator and didn't like the Gladiator path as it currently exists, I could easily construct a character that fulfils the 'gladiator' archetype by taking Warrior path and choosing a set of Weapon Mastery feats.