4th edition's relative rules complexity

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

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?

What? I don't understand.

Sensible commentary? Did I log on to the wrong Intraweb?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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.

That's one thing that I saw as increasing the complexity, the AC bonus.

Varying numbers slow down the game; many players have to stop and recalculate their math each time something changes. It's not a problem with every player, but in general it gets more pronounced as you have a) more modifiers, b) more variable modifiers (such as Power Attack), and c) a longer delay between the initation of the action and its impact. With 4E assuming a 5-PC party AND more monsters, it's quite possible there could be a longer delay between the paladin smiting and assigning his ally the AC bonus and the ally being attacked and needing to remember that AC bonus.

It seems to me that you'll have a lot of cases of this:
DM: Does a 26 hit you?
Player: Yep
DM: Okay, the creature rakes it claws across you for (rolls) 15 damage and 12 damage, 27 total, and give me two Fort saves.
Player: Wait, I forgot about the smite bonus, that makes my AC 28 this round. That was assigned to me, right?
Player 2: Right.
DM: Uhh, hold on. Okay, one claw still hits, 1 or 2 it's the 15 damage (rolls d4), yep, okay, 15, now give me that Fort save.

It's not game-killer, but it breaks the flow and it makes the game feel more complicated. Even very bright and experienced players are going to forget about this bonus now and then. I don't know if the concept adds enough value to the game to make it worth the complexity.

 

[Emirikol]

I just can't wait to have to purchase a seperate book (probably 3rd party..I guess we should start referring them to 4TH-Party products now eh?) for grappling rules.

DM: OK, the monster grabs you. Reflex AC 28 does that hit you?
Player: Yep.
DM: OK, he throws you across the room into the pit of burning fire. You're now "lavatouched." Write the word ASHES on your character sheet.
Player: What?!?!
DM: Yep. I can pretty much do what I want with you now with grappling. I could do 1dzero points with my grapple or I can pick you up and throw you into the lava. I'm thinking the monster would throw you in the lava.
Player: but the monster's lawful
DM: Yes, but remember, monsters arent' bound to act according to alignments anymore
Player: but, but but.
DM: Sigh, fine. I'll pull out the Complex Grappling Hardcover by Lavatouched-Dragon games. OK, roll a d1000 and then a percentile.
Player: I got a 0001 and another 01.
DM: Uh oh. That means the monster tears all of your limbs off and you're instantly turned into the subject of ridicule. The monster recites about 10 "what do you call a guy with no arms and no legs" jokes before taking pity on you. He takes you home, hangs you on the wall and insists your name is Art.
Player: GOD I HATE THIS 4TH EDITION CRAP! Can't we just go back and play 3E when things were simpler?


jh
P.s. awaiting the simplicity of 4e's grappling rules

 

[Piratecat]

It'll still be easier than 3e grappling rules.

 

[Sir Brennen]

That's one thing that I saw as increasing the complexity, the AC bonus.

Varying numbers slow down the game; many players have to stop and recalculate their math each time something changes. It's not a problem with every player, but in general it gets more pronounced as you have a) more modifiers, b) more variable modifiers (such as Power Attack), and c) a longer delay between the initation of the action and its impact. With 4E assuming a 5-PC party AND more monsters, it's quite possible there could be a longer delay between the paladin smiting and assigning his ally the AC bonus and the ally being attacked and needing to remember that AC bonus.

It seems to me that you'll have a lot of cases of this:
DM: Does a 26 hit you?
Player: Yep
DM: Okay, the creature rakes it claws across you for (rolls) 15 damage and 12 damage, 27 total, and give me two Fort saves.
Player: Wait, I forgot about the smite bonus, that makes my AC 28 this round. That was assigned to me, right?
Player 2: Right.
DM: Uhh, hold on. Okay, one claw still hits, 1 or 2 it's the 15 damage (rolls d4), yep, okay, 15, now give me that Fort save.

It's not game-killer, but it breaks the flow and it makes the game feel more complicated. Even very bright and experienced players are going to forget about this bonus now and then. I don't know if the concept adds enough value to the game to make it worth the complexity.

How is this any different than "Oh, wait. The cleric has Prot. from Evil going around everyone, right? My AC is 28 this round." This was always been a possible and common scenario in 3E as well.

In fact, I think the nature of the Smite will make it a little easier - when the bonus is specifically assigned to you for this round, it's (IMHO) easier to remember than a bonus that goes out to "everybody" (Bless and bardic bonuses, I'm looking at you) for a number of rounds which someone has to keep asking "Is X still going?" "Wait, let me check again. This happened, so one round, then that happened so two rounds..."

 

[Stogoe]

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?

Well, given that the stated design goals are to streamline the rules experience, I'd say we should give the designers a little good faith about it.

Unless, that is, you're upset that WotC would dare to be excited about something they're working on, and would try to get you to buy it. Then it's okay to call them traitors.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

How is this any different than "Oh, wait. The cleric has Prot. from Evil going around everyone, right? My AC is 28 this round." This was always been a possible and common scenario in 3E as well.

Oh, sure, and it was 3E's biggest flaw. Too many modifiers, and too many circumstantial or variable modifiers. Slowed down combat tremendously.

The player of the barbarian in my game had a page full of his attacks and damage under different combinations of effects.
Inspire Courage varying from +1 to +3 depending on which bard was with the party and if the bard was using Inspirational Boost or not. Sometimes you had Inspire Recklessness or Inspire Legion from the War Chanter class.
Then add in rage, Prayer, charging, Enlarged, Bull's Strength (gave him a Belt of Giant Strength just to make this NOT a variable anymore), Haste, and going 2-handed. Anywhere from none to all of these effects. The whole sheet had to be re-done every level, so every 3-4 sessions, and he didn't even include Power Attack because he didn't have a "standard" amount for that -- he'd decide on the spot how much to PA for (and there you had to remember to account for Leap Attack and Shock Trooper).

 

[Imaro]

This article had me a little worried about complexity as far as encounters go. My comments (made in a previous thread) are below the excerpt. Not judging the whole game on this, but it does seem a little complicated to keep track of for a piece of terrain.

Doomspore (Any)
Usually found in large, natural caverns, this fungus takes the form of a clump of toadstools, some of which reach a height of about 3 feet tall. A square of doomspore is difficult terrain and provides cover to anyone standing within.

If any creature enters a doomspore's square (or uses a standard action to kick or poke at it, if within reach), a doomspore releases a cloud of spores that provides concealment to all creatures within its own and adjacent squares. Furthermore, a bloodied creature in the area of a cloud when created, who moves into the cloud, or begins its turn in the cloud, is subject to a Fortitude attack (+10) that deals 1d10 points of poison damage on a hit. In addition, a target hit by a doomspore is weakened and takes ongoing poison 5 (save ends both conditions; creatures with immunity to or resist poison 5 are immune to the weakened condition also).

This cloud (and its effects on a bloodied character) persists for the remainder of the encounter (or for 5 minutes). Once the cloud settles, the doomspore can't produce another for 24 hours.

Placement Advice: More than one doomspore in a room may give an advantage to creatures immune or resistant to poison. Intelligent undead tend to cultivate doomspore, and this debilitating fungus can often be found in caverns infested with zombies. It absolutely inundates areas of the Shadowfell as its growth thrives in the presence of undead flesh that has been shed from its host

I have to keep track of...
1.) whether any PC/NPC or Monster enters a doomspore's square.
2.) whether any PC/NPC or Monster touches, pokes or prods the doomspore.
3.) The concealment it's spores create.
4.) Which characters are bloodied and in it's area already, move into the area during combat or begin their turn in it's area.
5.) Make a Fort attack against said character for 1d10 poison damage.
6.) If #5 is succesful apply a weakened condition to target
7.) Again if #5 is succesful apply poison damage each round (that character doesn't save...I think) for the entire encounter.

In the end it just seems like alot to go through for a sideline enhancemment of an encounter. I think this may be one of those things that sounds good in theory and on paper, but has the potential to really slow combat down.

 

[DreamChaser]

It seems to me that you'll have a lot of cases of this:
DM: Does a 26 hit you?
Player: Yep
DM: Okay, the creature rakes it claws across you for (rolls) 15 damage and 12 damage, 27 total, and give me two Fort saves.
Player: Wait, I forgot about the smite bonus, that makes my AC 28 this round. That was assigned to me, right?
Player 2: Right.
DM: Uhh, hold on. Okay, one claw still hits, 1 or 2 it's the 15 damage (rolls d4), yep, okay, 15, now give me that Fort save.

One huge problem with your example is that players don't roll saves in 4e. They are static defenses.

Also, as others have pointed out, this still happens and for the same reasons. "Oh, wait, I'm a Scout and moved more than 10 feet this round so add 2 to that AC...and that also put me in range of the magical circle against evil so another +1..."

Here is how I forsee the situation working...
DM (checks his character card): A 26 beats your AC, right?
Player 1 (looks down at the chit player 2 gave him): Nope, I've got the smite bonus. They need a 28.
DM: Okay, one claw racks across your body...you're able to dodge back enough that you're only slight winded by the blow You take 15 points of damage.
Player 1: Ouch! Thank Bahamut that his protection held back the other claw!
DM (checks his card again and notes that the Con attack he rolled for the creatures poison beat the Fort defense of the character): Your Fort is still 16 right? The claw that hits draws enough blood for some poison to seep into your blood stream. You take 7 poison damage.
Player 1: Phew! Good thing the cleric gave me poison resistance 2*, so only 5 points. Glad I'm not bloodied yet either.

* I have no evidence that such a cleric ability exists...just using it for flavor.

DC

 

[pawsplay]

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.

I am inclined to agree. There will be a LOT happening any time someone takes a standard action. And we'll need rules to tell us whether interrupting a healing smite stops the healing.