D&D 5E A new Golden Age for D&D

[Mercurius]

@Tony Vargas. Regarding the relative complexity of different editions, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. You can continue to angle it and squint just right to support this view that 5E is complex, but the bottom line for me is how it plays at the table, and 5E is more simple than 3E or 4E. There's just less book-keeping all around, character creation and advancement is far simpler, less modifiers to deal with, feats as optional, etc. And yes, more DM adjudication is a part of that, at least for me.

You also seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that, as I said (and you didn't respond to) there was far more product for 4E a year in. You keep talking about "at release" or "at its bloatiest." First of all, "at release" all editions are the same in terms of products: the core three, plus maybe one other product. I think the most we could say is that at release 5E is a more complete game than 4E was, with more classes and races to choose from, etc; it was designed without endless splats in mind, to be relatively complete at release. And we haven't seen 5E at its bloatiest yet, so there's no point in comparing that. But what we can compare is how these different editions look a year into their cycles, and 5E is far leaner than 3E or 4E.

 

[Uchawi]

5E combat and overall round structure is simple; too simple for my tastes. That is where I find 5E to be least complex. Also the amount of bloat (feats, spells, skills) is simple (less) in comparison to some of the other editions based on their lifespan. But I do agree when considering class structure, different sub-systems, multi-classing and magic items, that 5E is just as complex as any edition.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@Tony Vargas. Regarding the relative complexity of different editions, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. You can continue to angle it and squint just right to support this view that 5E is complex, but the bottom line for me is how it plays at the table, and 5E is more simple than 3E or 4E. There's just less book-keeping all around, character creation and advancement is far simpler, less modifiers to deal with, feats as optional, etc. And yes, more DM adjudication is a part of that, at least for me.

You also seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that, as I said (and you didn't respond to) there was far more product for 4E a year in. You keep talking about "at release" or "at its bloatiest." First of all, "at release" all editions are the same in terms of products: the core three, plus maybe one other product. I think the most we could say is that at release 5E is a more complete game than 4E was, with more classes and races to choose from, etc; it was designed without endless splats in mind, to be relatively complete at release. And we haven't seen 5E at its bloatiest yet, so there's no point in comparing that. But what we can compare is how these different editions look a year into their cycles, and 5E is far leaner than 3E or 4E.

Personally, I see the "there's more books" thing as entirely superfluous. Someone who's intentionally going out and buying splatbooks for a game almost certainly won't care whether or not they add complexity. And someone who isn't interested in complexity isn't going to buy those things.

5e retains essentially all of the complexity of 3e's spellcasting system, with only the minor improvement that Spell X is Spell X (same level, same function) for all classes that can access it, rather than being "Bard 4, Wizard/Sorcerer 3, Cleric 4, Sun 4." It even retains highly differential access to those abilities (e.g. Cleric, Wizard, Bard, and Warlock each have their own 'spin' on the system.) That's a simple fact, and a pretty major component of the "complexity" of 3e. 5e also retains most of the complexity of actually using the various subsystems linked to Proficiency, and to a certain extent even increases the complexity of Saves since there are more of them. Proficiency unifies a lot of things, but also brings in the occasional complexity of its own, like abilities that grant half- or double-proficiency, or the addition of the "tools" proficiency things, which are rather ill-defined--I'd call it a net reduction in complexity, but not a dramatic one. 5e retains all of 3e's "a la carte" multiclassing stuff, while adding back the stat requirements (or something very nearly like them) from 2e, and many more features are now tied to class level rather than character level (e.g. ASIs) so that's an overall gain in complexity for an already fairly complex system. The combat system is essentially unchanged from 3e and 4e, though the return to a mixture of attacks and saves for effect resolution is a net gain in at-table complexity.

I could go on, but I don't really feel like doing a detailed rundown of everything. I think it is both safe and accurate to say that 5e has a lower minimum complexity than 4e and 5e in-play, but that average complexity is very close to 3e (up in some areas, down in others) and is difficult to compare to 4e, since 4e puts more complexity on each individual action one can take, while 5e puts more of the complexity into major subsystems like spells (same as 3e did).

Now, with that said: in what ways would you say 5e, as the actual system and not "let the DM wing it," is simpler than 3e in what a person needs to do, remember, or calculate during play? Comparisons to 4e are going to be too fraught to be meaningful, IMO, but 3e is extremely close to 5e mechanically so complexity comparisons are natural there.

 

[Mistwell]

Now, with that said: in what ways would you say 5e, as the actual system and not "let the DM wing it," is simpler than 3e in what a person needs to do, remember, or calculate during play? Comparisons to 4e are going to be too fraught to be meaningful, IMO, but 3e is extremely close to 5e mechanically so complexity comparisons are natural there.

Advantage/Disadvantage subsumes a high percentage of the minor bonuses and penalties of 3e that resulted in lots of adding and subtracting going on, often on the fly due to interactions of mechanics. Concentration in 5e also prevents the hideous amount of mechanic interactions that buff stacking created in 3e, particularly at higher levels. Reduced magic items, and mechanics that do not assume magic items, further simplifies the math. Finally, bounded accuracy results in a smaller range of numbers for several line items that had no real upper or lower limits in 3e, which also results in simplification of the maths.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Advantage/Disadvantage subsumes a high percentage of the minor bonuses and penalties of 3e that resulted in lots of adding and subtracting going on, often on the fly due to interactions of mechanics. Concentration in 5e also prevents the hideous amount of mechanic interactions that buff stacking created in 3e, particularly at higher levels. Reduced magic items, and mechanics that do not assume magic items, further simplifies the math. Finally, bounded accuracy results in a smaller range of numbers for several line items that had no real upper or lower limits in 3e, which also results in simplification of the maths.

Also, 3e had different values for the same thing, whereas in 5e they are all the same. For example, a fighter in 3e with 4 attacks would have a different base value to hit for each of those attacks. And you've got a lot of different AC values (regular, flat footed, etc). Just go look at stat blocks from 3e compared to 5e. Also, as you mentioned, buff stacking was pretty big too. While the basic math isn't necessarily simpler, the resolution mechanics and process sure as heck is.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Advantage/Disadvantage subsumes a high percentage of the minor bonuses and penalties of 3e that resulted in lots of adding and subtracting going on, often on the fly due to interactions of mechanics. Concentration in 5e also prevents the hideous amount of mechanic interactions that buff stacking created in 3e, particularly at higher levels. Reduced magic items, and mechanics that do not assume magic items, further simplifies the math. Finally, bounded accuracy results in a smaller range of numbers for several line items that had no real upper or lower limits in 3e, which also results in simplification of the maths.

Salient points. However, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're (essentially) saying that the most important reductions in complexity to 5e come down to:
- fewer additions/subtractions
- fewer bonus categories to remember

I'm a little...less enthused with the benefits of "bounded" accuracy than most (the numbers still scale quite a bit and still easily hit double-digits, which everyone assures me is the break-point for actual improvements in mental math) so I don't really know if I'd grant that as a kind of reduced complexity. Most rolls still boil down to 1d20+ability+(base value if appropriate)+(proficiency if appropriate)+(equipment)+(buff)+(circumstance), it's just that you don't have to do more addition within (equipment) or (buff), there's justone number. Sometimes. (After all, there ARE buffs that don't need Concentration, and there are lots of items that don't need attunement.)

I can agree that in terms of memory-space and calculation, things are cut down. The removal of iterative attacks is certainly a help there, too. (Of course, my first response here is "why don't people add all their standard bonuses together beforehand, so it's the same work in essentially every system?" but maybe that's an unwarranted expectation.) I just...guess I feel like treating "game" complexity (what the rules tell you to do and how you monkey through them) and "math" complexity (the amount of calculation/boost-remembering you must do) as exactly the same thing is...eh. I don't want to throw accusations around. I just think that those things are significantly different, and referring to both of them as "complexity" makes them sound interchangeable when they really aren't. Grappling rules in 3e were esoteric at best, and frequently complained about, but (unless I'm mistaken) they didn't involve a lot of calculation per se. Just...complex enough that even for someone familiar with it a flowchart was extremely useful, if not required, to make sure you remembered all the steps. Similarly, roll-over vs. roll-under is not generally a matter of calculation-complexity, but having a mixture of both would definitely be an example of rules-complexity that was (largely) eliminated from d20 D&D.

 

[garnuk]

I can agree that in terms of memory-space and calculation, things are cut down. The removal of iterative attacks is certainly a help there, too. (Of course, my first response here is "why don't people add all their standard bonuses together beforehand, so it's the same work in essentially every system?" but maybe that's an unwarranted expectation.) I just...guess I feel like treating "game" complexity (what the rules tell you to do and how you monkey through them) and "math" complexity (the amount of calculation/boost-remembering you must do) as exactly the same thing is...eh. I don't want to throw accusations around. I just think that those things are significantly different, and referring to both of them as "complexity" makes them sound interchangeable when they really aren't. Grappling rules in 3e were esoteric at best, and frequently complained about, but (unless I'm mistaken) they didn't involve a lot of calculation per se. Just...complex enough that even for someone familiar with it a flowchart was extremely useful, if not required, to make sure you remembered all the steps. Similarly, roll-over vs. roll-under is not generally a matter of calculation-complexity, but having a mixture of both would definitely be an example of rules-complexity that was (largely) eliminated from d20 D&D.

The adding of various numbers for bonuses, and not stacking things which can't stack is just a more mathematical version of the flow chart you describe. It's the easiest of such examples to point to, and the most simple of them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The adding of various numbers for bonuses, and not stacking things which can't stack is just a more mathematical version of the flow chart you describe. It's the easiest of such examples to point to, and the most simple of them.

I see that "more mathematical" part as a sharp difference, not a subtle gradation. "Needing" (note quotes) a flowchart just to know whether or not you roll anything at all is, at least in my opinion, significantly different from remembering whether you get a +1 to this particular hit roll or not. The former is a complexity of what you are or aren't allowed to do, the second is a complexity of what you are or aren't allowed to add. Similar in form? Sure, they're both complexities. But "doings" complexity is not "addings" complexity, and characterizing them as interchangable, particularly when the former is (generally, in my experience) much more onerous than the latter, is what bothers me.

 

[Nebulous]

I imagine this will be the Golden Age of D&D films and TV series better than anything ever done before. Possibly video games too, although that's been pretty well covered in the past already.

 

[garnuk]

I see that "more mathematical" part as a sharp difference, not a subtle gradation. "Needing" (note quotes) a flowchart just to know whether or not you roll anything at all is, at least in my opinion, significantly different from remembering whether you get a +1 to this particular hit roll or not. The former is a complexity of what you are or aren't allowed to do, the second is a complexity of what you are or aren't allowed to add. Similar in form? Sure, they're both complexities. But "doings" complexity is not "addings" complexity, and characterizing them as interchangable, particularly when the former is (generally, in my experience) much more onerous than the latter, is what bothers me.

I think you are missing what actually needs to be done for a +1.
The flow chart goes vaguely like this: Do I have a bonus? What type of bonus is it? Do I already have a bonus of that type? Are there any situations going on that negate this bonus? Is there anything going on that modifies this bonus?

Often, we are able to quickly answer all those questions, but sometimes, the bonuses conflict, and it becomes a bit more difficult.

In 5e, that flow chart is limited to , shields, cover, adv/disadvantage, proficiency, and expertise. Everything else is handled by umodified extra dice and thus doesn't have that flow.

In pervious versions, that flow must be done for each of the bonus types listed in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?89830-Complete-List-of-Bonus-Types