4th edition's relative rules complexity

[Imaro]

More complicated, less complicated....it's too early to say.
RC

How dare you RC...don't you know in this forum it's only too early to comment on something in 4e if you don't like it. If you like it, well then you have all the information you need (except how it all interacts together.)...

 

[Raven Crowking]

How dare you RC...don't you know in this forum it's only too early to comment on something in 4e if you don't like it. If you like it, well then you have all the information you need (except how it all interacts together.)...

"Too early to say" applies to both sides, whether they want to admit it or not. "Too early to speculate" applies to neither side, whether the other wants to admit it or not.

RC

 

[Frostmarrow]

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?

I want to play in your game - just once!

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

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.

I agree with you in part, but a lot of this can be fixed by giving players a dry erase marker so they can write down on the playing mat/markerboard their current defenses or spells that are active.

 

[Gundark]

Well Iron heroes is difinetly more complex on the players and less so on the DM. Since Mearls designed IH and is on 4e, so far I see lots of crossover I expect 4e to be similiar.

 

[ruleslawyer]

To a certain extent, that's true. However, it's also worth noting that D&D has a wide range of complexity, with the wizard sitting at the top and the barbarian at the bottom. It seems likely to me that the range will narrow, with the fighter-types getting more to manage (powers plus feats) and the wizard having a more streamlined range of options. Still, I could be wrong...

 

[Brother MacLaren]

To a certain extent, that's true. However, it's also worth noting that D&D has a wide range of complexity, with the wizard sitting at the top and the barbarian at the bottom. It seems likely to me that the range will narrow, with the fighter-types getting more to manage (powers plus feats) and the wizard having a more streamlined range of options. Still, I could be wrong...

I found the barbarian relatively complex in play. The player, who was extremely bright, had to keep track of his weapon choice (1-handed vs. 2-handed), decision to rage or not, to charge or not, to use Shock Trooper or not, and to be part of the inevitable Mass Enlarge or not. All of these affect AC and attacks. Rage also changed HP and Fort and Will saves, and every round he had to decide how much Power Attack to use.

The barbarian is simple to build, but can involve a lot of round-to-round varying statistics during the game.

 

[tomBitonti]

So ... I can see that 4E will simplify a number of core mechanics, so far, by unifying the mechanism, as with attacks VS AC and effects vs Fort/Reflex/Will, but at the same time using up the complexity space with new stuff. The hard part is having discipline to keep from adding too much new stuff and allow room for some elegance, and for later additions.

This feeds into one of my complaints about 4E as I currently perceive it, that is, that they are adding too many new things. I am glad for simplifications and unifying mechanisms. I am against a lot of new features. Simplifications for mechanisms that just don't work is badly needed. New features (IMO) not so much.

 

[TerraDave]

To a certain extent, that's true. However, it's also worth noting that D&D has a wide range of complexity, with the wizard sitting at the top and the barbarian at the bottom. It seems likely to me that the range will narrow, with the fighter-types getting more to manage (powers plus feats) and the wizard having a more streamlined range of options. Still, I could be wrong...

That is my impression, and for 3rd ed I thought it was a design feature:lets make something for the player who really wants to think, and one for the player who just wants to smash stuff. (According to Monte Cook it was not, though I cannot find the original source for his quote).

But the good Brother is right, as levels increase, everybodies charecters get more complicated. Of course, we have been told 4th ed will fix that.

 

[Umbran]

How dare you RC...don't you know in this forum it's only too early to comment on something in 4e if you don't like it. If you like it, well then you have all the information you need (except how it all interacts together.)...

Imaro, if you'd care to explain to me how this comment helps alleviate the inequity you speak of, or in any way improves the overall atmosphere of these message boards, please e-mail me, as I'd love to hear it.

I expect there is no such explanation - which means you probably should have made the comment, as it neither helps the problem nor makes this place better. Next time, please consider holding back the snark.

If it needs to be said - that goes for everybody. Snark from both sides is becoming a major burden on these boards. We need to see a lot less of it.