D&D (2024) A simpler game is a better game...for us

[Horwath]

What 1D&D needs in more options for players to take. More feat slots, more class features to pick from.

And those options should be in "active" and "passive" category.

Active: new abilities that you need to decide when to use, vs. what to use, in reaction to certain action, probably with some limit how much you can use it(per turn or per SR or per LR)

Passive: always on, rider to your attack or spells, or bonus HP, higher AC, higher at-will damage, better saves, wider crit range, etc...

then players can decide how much complex or simple their characters can be.

like fighters champion vs. battlemaster subclass.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What 1D&D needs in more options for players to take. More feat slots, more class features to pick from.

And those options should be in "active" and "passive" category.

Active: new abilities that you need to decide when to use, vs. what to use, in reaction to certain action, probably with some limit how much you can use it(per turn or per SR or per LR)

Passive: always on, rider to your attack or spells, or bonus HP, higher AC, higher at-will damage, better saves, wider crit range, etc...

then players can decide how much complex or simple their characters can be.

like fighters champion vs. battlemaster subclass.

I do agree. We already get 2 more feat slots. I fear however that with the compatibility idea, we won't see more feats slots generally. I could see however that with unfied subclass progression, we could just allow forgoing a subclass feature you don't like and replace it with a feat.

 

[James Gasik]

What 1D&D needs in more options for players to take. More feat slots, more class features to pick from.

And those options should be in "active" and "passive" category.

Active: new abilities that you need to decide when to use, vs. what to use, in reaction to certain action, probably with some limit how much you can use it(per turn or per SR or per LR)

Passive: always on, rider to your attack or spells, or bonus HP, higher AC, higher at-will damage, better saves, wider crit range, etc...

then players can decide how much complex or simple their characters can be.

like fighters champion vs. battlemaster subclass.

What I fear is that players will take passive benefits over active ones, thinking an "always on" ability is strictly better, instead of giving themselves a toolkit that will let them accomplish more overall.

 

[Corinnguard]

It is possible that a better game is something of a Goldilocks. Simple in that it is easy to use and learn, but complex enough to at least give you a sense that you are really picking and choosing the features you want during the character customization/creation process. 5e is almost there, but not quite IMO. The base of each class doesn't really offer you much in what you would like to see for your character. If you have two people playing a Fighter, both of them are going to get Second Wind, Action Surge, Indomitable and Extra Attack. It's only when they reach 3rd level do they get a chance to set themselves apart by picking up a subclass, either an official D&D subclass, a 3pp subclass or a homebrewed subclass. Outside class, the two Fighters are different in terms of Species and Background.

I feel like Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition does a slightly better job in the character customization/creation process. It's just as easy to use and learn as 5e, but it adds a little more complexity for those who want 5e to have some crunch in it. The base of each class in A5e has a couple of features where you get to select from a small number of options. So while you still can set your Fighter apart from someone else's Fighter by choosing a subclass, you can also set your character apart with the base as well, just by selecting a particular option within a given base feature. Then there are things like Heritage (with it's Gifts and Paragon Gifts, which are like feats. One of which you get at 1st level, the other at 10th level), Culture, Background and Destiny.

Maybe One D&D will learn something from A5e.

 

[Sacrosanct]

AD&D had like 5 basic races and no subclasses. No fears. Few special abilities. Etc.

This isn't accurate. The AD&D dwarf has 5 special abilities. The 5e dwarf has 4 plus extra skills. The AD&D dwarf also has max level limits, class limits, ability score limits, and a reaction table for other races. And I am also talking about just the core books.

Like I said, it’s just difficult in a different way.

But those are all the same mechanics, just more choices. You don't have to learn additional rules or mechanics if there are more backgrounds. With AD&D, everything was a different mechanic. If I'm an auto mechanic, 5e is all cars, where 1e is cars, boats, helicopters, and motorcycles. 5e might have 10 cars, but they are all cars. That's not more complex than having to learn mechanics for 2 cars, 2 helicopters, 1 jet, 1 boat, and 2 motorcycles even if the total number of vehicles is lower.

*I haven't counted them up, but I have a pretty good feeling that if you listed all the mechanics in 5e that don't have an equivalent in 1e (like advantage, feats, and backgrounds), and list all mechanics in 1e that don't have an equivalent in 5e (attack tables, saving throw tables, level limits, ability limits, weapon vs armor table, etc.), the 1e list would be much longer. Just compare the two DMGs.

 

[James Gasik]

This isn't accurate. The AD&D dwarf has 5 special abilities. The 5e dwarf has 4 plus extra skills. The AD&D dwarf also has max level limits, class limits, ability score limits, and a reaction table for other races. And I am also talking about just the core books.

But those are all the same mechanics, just more choices. You don't have to learn additional rules or mechanics if there are more backgrounds. With AD&D, everything was a different mechanic. If I'm an auto mechanic, 5e is all cars, where 1e is cars, boats, helicopters, and motorcycles. 5e might have 10 cars, but they are all cars. That's not more complex than having to learn mechanics for 2 cars, 2 helicopters, 1 jet, 1 boat, and 2 motorcycles even if the total number of vehicles is lower.

*I haven't counted them up, but I have a pretty good feeling that if you listed all the mechanics in 5e that don't have an equivalent in 1e (like advantage, feats, and backgrounds), and list all mechanics in 1e that don't have an equivalent in 5e (attack tables, saving throw tables, level limits, ability limits, weapon vs armor table, etc.), the 1e list would be much longer. Just compare the two DMGs.

I mean, to be fair, the contents of the 5e PHB are certainly more complex. The 1e PHB was pretty straightforward. But yes, the AD&D DMG mechanics get particularly dense, thanks to Gary's love of bespoke subsystems and tables.

 

[mamba]

I mean, to be fair, the contents of the 5e PHB are certainly more complex. The 1e PHB was pretty straightforward. But yes, the AD&D DMG mechanics get particularly dense

I am not sure I agree, 1e to me is more complex because it has so many tables and subsystems, in 5e this is much easier.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I mean, to be fair, the contents of the 5e PHB are certainly more complex. The 1e PHB was pretty straightforward.

I'd have to disagree again. Most of what I posted was from the PHB, not the DMG. Weapon speed factors, weapon vs armor, variable damage based on target size, race tables, psionics, the bard, different features for each ability (instead of 5e's unified bonus), initiative, etc. all came from the 1e PHB. when you get to the DMG, it gets really bad lol.

 

[mamba]

Weapon speed factors, weapon vs armor, variable damage based on target size, race tables

yeah, most of this I could not be bothered with in the 1e days either, 1e is only simpler if you ignore 60% of it

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not sure I agree, 1e to me is more complex because it has so many tables and subsystems, in 5e this is much easier.

I think subsystems are substantially underrated compared to the "one roll to rule them all" philosophy of the last 23 years.