4th edition's relative rules complexity

[ruleslawyer]

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.

Well, I think that there's a baseline of complexity below which you simply can't go. Choosing what weapon to use, whether to move or charge, whether to use a PC-core feat, and whether to use a PC-core ability, are all choices that should be highly familiar to the character, prefigured in stat terms, and simple to make. (Also, rage shouldn't be "round-to-round"; the ability confers fixed benefits and is likely to be used in almost every encounter. A barbarian player who doesn't have his rage stat block already written down needs a talking-to by the DM.) OTOH, the buffs, sliding-scale stuff like Power Attack, and so forth are all a pain. THis is, however, stuff I can see 4e taking care of by streamlining caster abilities and item dependence, since most of these buffs come from magic. Power Attack is umpteen topic on its own...

 

[Particle_Man]

A barbarian player who doesn't have his rage stat block already written down needs a talking-to by the DM.

What about the fatigued after rage stat block?

 

[ruleslawyer]

Probably not relevant in 4e!

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Well, I think that there's a baseline of complexity below which you simply can't go. Choosing what weapon to use, whether to move or charge, whether to use a PC-core feat, and whether to use a PC-core ability, are all choices that should be highly familiar to the character, prefigured in stat terms, and simple to make. (Also, rage shouldn't be "round-to-round"; the ability confers fixed benefits and is likely to be used in almost every encounter. A barbarian player who doesn't have his rage stat block already written down needs a talking-to by the DM.)

It was not that any one single modifier was complicated, it was that they appeared in various combinations.
"Does a 21 hit you?"
"Okay, I charged this round (-2) but didn't use Shock Trooper (0), I'm using my shield (+4), I am Enlarged (-2), and I'm not raging (0) so... no."
Granted, these modifiers were not terribly hard to figure out, but it's the stopping to recalculate *every single time*. At 11th level, he had nearly 200 combinations of options even when only counting one spell:
Charging: 2 options
Weapon: 2 options (1-handed or 2-handed)
Raging: 2 options
Enlarged: 2 options
Power Attacking: 12 options
That's 192. Then Shock Trooper adds 1 more option to each of 7 cases (can use it when charging and Power Attacking for 5-11)

 

[ruleslawyer]

Well, IMO you're cheating there by multiplying by 12 for Power Attack. Power Attacking for -1/+2, -2/+4, etc. isn't really multiple "options." (And in any case, my guess is that PA is getting changed in 4e.)

And again, are these choices really that hard to work out for the player? Charging and raging are situational (and raging isn't really a *decision* for a 12th-level barbarian, it's an always-on ability); weapon is usually obvious; and enlarge shouldn't need recalculation every single round (neither should rage).

I'm just not buying your conclusion that there are literally 200 different *and significant* options available to the player every round; by that logic, I could suggest that a diceless system presents *infinite* options, yet I don't know many people who would call such a thing "rules-heavy" or cumbersome.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

(and raging isn't really a *decision* for a 12th-level barbarian, it's an always-on ability)

That's my fault. I really worked to make All Offense All the Time *not* be the optimal tactic. I threw hordes of mooks that couldn't hit the barbarian if he was paying any attention to defense, but would make mincemeat out of him if he raged, charged, and dropped the shield.

Why? Because Rage is a fundamentally selfish ability ("I get to be the star, you guys make sure to defend and heal me"), because it's a boring game if one tactic is the best every single time, and because he was the kind of player who doesn't think DMs should kill PCs. When he was all-offense, he would do as much damage as the other 3 PCs combined (ranger, hexblade/DD, and arcane trickster), then go negative.

 

[Particle_Man]

I hope they fix the "Cascade" problem of complexity, where the modifier to a stat can lead to other modifiers. The simplest example is rage gives a con bonus, but that modifies the fort save. The fatigued state afterwards gives an str and dex penalty, which modifies reflex saves, armor class, to hit, damage, a host of skills, possibly changes encumbrance (which starts its own cascade), possibly feats (like dodge or power attack) not being available, etc.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Hmm. I've never really thought of rage as a spotlight hog ability, but rather as the barbarian filling his niche. The Bbn *should* be the best offense guy in the game; he pays for it by having zero stealth, social, utility, ranged, or magical capability. As noted in the balance notes in the PHB, the barbarian really only beats out the fighter if he rages at low levels, and at high levels, the fighter's feats give him an edge that the barb can only *compete* with if he rages.

In a party with an arcane trickster, a hexblade, and a ranger, the barb should be the king offense guy, because offense is *his* thing. Of course, offense shouldn't always be the best strategy, but IMO that's so that the other 3 PCs can have the chance to shine, not so that the player has to be conflicted about using his PC's abilities.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Hmm. I've never really thought of rage as a spotlight hog ability, but rather as the barbarian filling his niche.

I saw it as a spotlight hog ability when the cleric/prestige paladin was around. She had all kinds of neat spells and combat abilities, but the barbarian's massive damage sustained meant she often had to just focus on healing him. When he was using his shield, he did much less damage, but he needed much less healing.

I also think Rage *should* be a choice, not an always-on ability. But even setting rage and "the barbarian's role" aside, a straight fighter can be just as selfish with the 2-handed weapon Shock Trooper option -- sacrificing defense for offense, getting to be the star, and forcing the rest of the party to spend their actions keeping him alive.

In hindsight, I think a lot of the reason the barbarian seemed complicated was that I was dealing with a min-maxer who wasn't really familiar with his character. No matter how often Bull Rush came up (he had IBR and a Brutal Surge weapon), he could never remember what the modifiers were. I think 3E's rules gave him too many options relative to how much effort he felt like putting into learning his PC.

The ranger had her fair share of round-to-round variation as well. Range had to be recalculated many rounds as she liked to hang out near the edge of a range increment, and cover was an issue until level 11. The Oathbow she picked up had 3 states (+2, +5, and masterwork) and she had two primary attack options (Full Attack with Rapid Shot, or Manyshot) as well as a few favored enemies. She made more of an effort to learn her modifiers, but was never sure about whether a given foe had soft cover or not.

And, lastly, it was a buff-happy party. Most fights involved Haste, the bard cohort's Inspire Courage, and Mass Enlarge, so stats would repeatedly change mid-combat.

 

[Marshall]

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.

4e will fix it by making every character overwhelmingly complex at ALL levels. It looks like there is no more "I attack", its been replaced with "I attack, using this bonus from that other PCs attack, at this bonus from the targets state, using this stat and causing these two conditions unless this threshold is passed, in which case its these two conditions and I get benefit Y or I can choose X and pass benefit Z on to character B, but if the target passes threshold N then he gets to attack my reflex defense in which case I use ability E and........................"

Yeah, complexity it wayyy down in 4e.