D&D (2024) One D&D Overly Complex

[Quickleaf]

In the final version, they've said they'll suggest defaults for nearly everything. So the complexity might only be there for those who want it.

That's good. But with newer players it's pretty easy to just focus on your piece of the pie. "Oh, I can handle this little bit of added complexity, sure!" And then multiply that by multiple features across multiple PCs whose players are thinking the same thing. And before you know it you're approaching 4e combat grind territory.

But maybe that's what the new/current gen of D&D players wants. PF2e goes deep. LevelUp5e goes deep. Maybe that's just what a lot of gamers want right now.

 

[niklinna]

In the final version, they've said they'll suggest defaults for nearly everything. So the complexity might only be there for those who want it.

I find all of those defaults being buried in among the text makes things much more complicated. They'd do better to put all that stuff in its own "quick charcter" section (or sidebar).

 

[niklinna]

And in another thread OneD&D is being called too simple. You really can't please everybody.

Sometimes I think you can't please anybody.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I know an easy way to remove complexity! Let's cut fifty spells from the PHB!

I know you were being facetious with your response, but one thing we do all need to bear in mind is that there are also two different times we have complexity-- complexity between sessions, and complexity during a session. And there being too many spells is usually a "between sessions" thing.

If you have an entire week to look through the PHB because you feel like you need a different couple of spells, having a rather large chapter of them is not really that much of an issue. You'll put in as much time and effort as you feel like you are going to need. So that "complexity" of a large chapter to read is one that should be manageable. And if (general) you feel it's not... then just keep your spell load-out week after week and never worry about it (or play a Sorcerer or Bard whose spell load-out never changes anyway.)

Complexity during a session is where more substantive problems come in... because the game slows down as players try to understand what they are doing and what they have available. And a player who doesn't have the Beautiful Mind-set that can look at a character sheet and find anything and everything at the drop of a hat... will be the one for whom less complexity is a godsend. If the game can make the moment-to-moment game circle snap into place nice and easy, it will make the overall experience probably better for everyone at the table. And that's where the design comes in.

That all being said... I also know that there's a lot of complexity during a session that can be reduced if the DM puts in a little elbow grease on behalf of their players. Whether it's recommending better class options during character creation, or manually writing up character sheets and/or spell sheets for them that remove all the extraneous crap and put the important stuff front and center... a DM can go a long way to make a player's experience better and faster. They just have to put in a little extra work.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Am I the only one who enjoyed the relative lack of complexity of 5e? I am not enjoying what I see with the latest play test material or most of it, in general. They seem to be adding a lot of complexity to the game (weapon mastery) etc that I just do not enjoy.

The weapon mastery items would be complex to manage. It creates complexity with weapons and adds a lot of special rules to the game. It is akin to the feat mess from 3.5.

I would rather see some extra spell slots like from high ability scores (1 still feel that 1 9th level spell is lame) than all of the complexity around sorcery points etc. I ended up quitting 3.5/PF1e because of the sheer rules complexity and I see a lot of the same red flags here.

The Flex weapon property isn't quite right; there should be a two handed equivalent. But if you pick a flex weapon as a sword and board fighter you're just doing d10 rather than d8 damage and literally nothing has changed other than that you are using a larger damage dice. And the barbarian with a greataxe with cleave is honestly not much more complex than before; they just get to cut through foes slightly faster.

If you're playing a fighter or barbarian and don't want more complexity this doesn't change much. If you're not playing a fighter or barbarian (or probably paladin or ranger) you don't have to worry about anything.

If you're playing a weapon-juggler who swaps weapons part way through their attack to trigger different properties and uses three or four weapons in a turn, please don't?

And the rest the increase is minor. Pick your weapon and property or two properties and stick to them. You don't need to know them all.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There is also mastery like cleave that will go meeh as the PC level.
Cleave, dealing 8 at main target and 3 at an adjacent one is cool at level 1.
Later on PC will deal 20-30-40 damage at main target and still 5 at cleave target. Preety meeh.

Complexity should pay back on a reliable way.

Cleave's fine. It says not to add your ability modifier - but it doesn't say to not add e.g. your magic weapon bonuses.

Our problem child is graze. Which is just your stat modifier and "the damage can't be increased in any other way". I think this is the only actual problem case, although Topple is going to get less useful as the enemies get physically bigger and tougher as you level up.

 

[Arilyn]

I think the designers have to decide which direction they are going in terms of complexity. They say that the game is being streamlined and simplified for beginners, but they've also been adding extra crunch and some unnecessary convolutions. Why is the wizard adding spells to their spellbook a ritual now? I know that WotC has a wide variety of players to cater to, but they risk making no one happy if they have not established clear design goals.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I thought One D&D was about dumbing down D&D to appeal to the broadest common denominator casuals?

Don't worry. It still is, just not for everybody.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I believe their strategy is to try to get 80% of the players who are invested enough to answer their polls rate everything “satisfied” or “very satisfied.”

Good luck.

 

[Belen]

Complexity is a thing, managing it is another.
Complexity is not a problem when the flow of the game is fluid and cool.
For sure during a fight players will have more decision points.
Each barb and fighter attack will have some effect, Warlock, sorcerer will have more spells to manage, wizards will have various version of the same spells. All of this is fun! If players manage it with ease.

I have had problems with players in current 5e who cannot make a decision and barely learn how their class works. Adding more complexity will be a nightmare.