D&D 5E Complexity

[Grimmjow]

I dunno... I really think making your own character is one of the coolest parts of D&D, so it ought to be easily accessible to new players.

not that hard of a fix. Anyone that needs help making their character just needs to show up early for the first season. The DM helps them make their character and by the time the rest of the group shows up they are ready to go. DDN characters dont take a while to make

 

[MortalPlague]

Skills like Perception, Diplomacy, and Arcana are too broad for me. They cover every aspect you could possibly ever use them for. If you are trained in Perception, that means you are great at spotting ambushes *and* finding secret doors *and* hearing the approaching wolves stalking you *and* noticing small details and clues on a tapestry hanging in the castle *and* understanding the sounds of orcs talking on the other side of the door *and* finding the hidden panel at the bottom of the desk drawer *and* every other time you might need to see or hear something-- in wide open spaces, in enclosed spaces, animals, humans, indoors, outdoors etc. etc.

I don't like the fiddly Spot / Listen / Search myself, but I agree with your points about Perception as a skill. It definitely was the super skill of 4th Edition. If you had it, life was good. If you didn't have it, you did everything in your power to acquire it.

Your post had me thinking, however, of a way to change it up. What if you used the knowledge skills as perception skills? For instance, if a character is out in the woods, they use Nature as their perception roll. If they're underground, it's Dungeoneering. Looking at a tapestry would be an Art roll, sneaking around town would use Streetwise, noticing a spell effect would be Arcana. That way, the expert in a given field would also be the first to notice something amiss.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I don't like the fiddly Spot / Listen / Search myself, but I agree with your points about Perception as a skill. It definitely was the super skill of 4th Edition. If you had it, life was good. If you didn't have it, you did everything in your power to acquire it.

Your post had me thinking, however, of a way to change it up. What if you used the knowledge skills as perception skills? For instance, if a character is out in the woods, they use Nature as their perception roll. If they're underground, it's Dungeoneering. Looking at a tapestry would be an Art roll, sneaking around town would use Streetwise, noticing a spell effect would be Arcana. That way, the expert in a given field would also be the first to notice something amiss.

An interesting point, it was something I wanted to comment regarding the "Rope use" skill. It's completely logical to me that if you have "Profession: Sailor" that you can use ropes, or if you have the climb skill, and so on.

The thing I dislike about spot/listen/search is that it gets pretty fiddly when it comes to move silently and hide in shadows with so many rolls that it becomes incredibly hard to actually use stealth. It also does become a bit of a stretch when you are great at spotting, but you can't find secret doors - because that would be a search check. Nothing visual about that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't like the fiddly Spot / Listen / Search myself, but I agree with your points about Perception as a skill. It definitely was the super skill of 4th Edition. If you had it, life was good. If you didn't have it, you did everything in your power to acquire it.

Your post had me thinking, however, of a way to change it up. What if you used the knowledge skills as perception skills? For instance, if a character is out in the woods, they use Nature as their perception roll. If they're underground, it's Dungeoneering. Looking at a tapestry would be an Art roll, sneaking around town would use Streetwise, noticing a spell effect would be Arcana. That way, the expert in a given field would also be the first to notice something amiss.

Here's the thing though... with the 5E design paradigm... I don't even think you need to do that-- use Knowledge for Perception. The reason is simple... nobody is making "Perception" skill checks. Nobody is actually making "skill checks" at all. They are making INT and WIS checks to notice something in particular. Ability checks. Everyone HAS "Perception", because everyone has an INT and WIS score.

All I've done in my playtests have just removed official places where PCs get a bonus +3 because of their "trained skills". No "trained skill" guarantees you a +3 bonus to notice things.

Now that being said... I agree with you 100% and actually do what you suggest in that occasionally I will give the PCs the +3 bonus for another skill they have if it influences where, when and how they do their INT or WIS check. But like in every case of using these "skills" now... they have to explain how it is what they are trained in is being used to justify getting the +3 bonus to their INT or WIS check. And they have to be specific about it. It is never just presumed that some "trained skill" they have will automatically apply.

So for instance... a player in a dungeon comes up to a closed dungeon door and states they are listening to see if there is anyone on the other side. I tell them to make an INT check to see if they discern what is back there. They say they have Dungeoneering, can they get the bonus +3? I ask them why it would apply? The player then says that based upon knowing how cave tunnels are formed and how echos sound travelling down them... they know how to "tune out" the unnecessary background sounds to focus in on the unnatural sound remaining. I would then judge whether that made sense in this particular case and then give or not give them the +3. It puts the onus on the player to justify why they should get a bonus... not just me reflexively asking them when they say they are listening at the door "Do you have Dungeoneering? Add a +3."

This method basically trains the players to start thinking in the abstract... using the actual game world to justify reasons for their game mechanics. The last thing I want anymore is for someone to say "I'm listening to what's behind the door, I'm trained in Perception, making a Perception check, rolled a 12 plus my +7 bonus, I got a 19..." all without any input from me. Because that is how we end up with the exceedingly bland interaction and exploration pillars... when we have no reason or need to roleplay because the mechanics are all just set up to need nothing but rolling dice.

 

[pemerton]

I agree with your points about Perception as a skill. It definitely was the super skill of 4th Edition. If you had it, life was good. If you didn't have it, you did everything in your power to acquire it.

Interesting. Only one of 5 PCs in my party has it - one other was recently thinking of getting it when MCing into Bard, but went with Acrobatics instead.

 

[pemerton]

I'm surprised how many people think it's too simple (though I guess I shouldn't be).

I chose too simple.

I'm not that bothered by the PC build rules - though they lack one of my favourite parts of 4e, namely, PPs/EDs.

But for me the action resolution rules have a big gap - no robust resolution mechanics outside the combat pillar. So when I say "too simple" what I'm really trying to convey is "big gap".

In some other ways I think it's too fiddly. Spell durations are fiddly, for example. The concentration rules seem a bit fiddly. Elements of the action economy seem a bit fiddly. And I don't feel that the attempt to eschew the grid has really worked, given the number of effects that care about position down to the nearest 5'. Without a grid it's pointlessly fiddly, but it's not clear the action is dynamic enough to really warrant a grid in the way that 4e does.

 

[Zimith]

I chose A little too complex than I'm comfortable with

At the moment, the item I find too complex are mainly some of the maneuvres. Good examples are Glancing blow, Composed attack or Controlled fall. Some of the specialities have this problem too and the attached feat system looks like it can get out of hand (like it did in 3e), with release of additional material etc. It's not that they're hard to understand, but I can see casual players constantly pouring over rulebooks whenever they try to use these mechanics. In my book, this isn't desireable.

I also see some of the rules, such as falling damage, donning times, drowning rules etc as reduntant. I can think I've used drowning rules like twice in 15 years of D&D and events encountered this rarely doesn't justify rules at all in my book. It's easy to disregard, sure, but it does clutter the rulebook. This micromanaging agenda inherited from Ad&d 1e is not for me; things that don't happen frequently and regularly are best managed on the fly, as I see it.

However, I'm overall pleased with the complexity level of the current package. Right now, nothing is impossible to manage and should Next be released as is, I don't see myself cutting heavily, at least not to decrease complexity. I also genuinely like the modules Backgrounds & skills as well as Specialities & feats, and use them despite I didn't see myself using anything apart from core rules!

 

[the Jester]

not that hard of a fix. Anyone that needs help making their character just needs to show up early for the first season.

IMHO a far better fix is a system wherein an entirely new GROUP can generate basic characters in less than an hour. I strongly favor a system in which a player can roll up a character from scratch in 20 minutes or less- preferably, more like 10.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Is it only me that likes spending hours upon hours on creating characters, coming up with background stories, tying the players together in pairs and finding reasons for them to group up for the first time? To me the role playing starts way before I have statted out the characters.

Anyway, it can be quick to create a character in 4e, but if you start looking at ALL the options, it will take days, especially if you want to try to plan out a build. Then it takes fu... ages.

 

[Riley]

Is it only me that likes spending hours upon hours on creating characters, coming up with background stories, tying the players together in pairs and finding reasons for them to group up for the first time?

I used to feel that way. Actually, I'd still like to spent hours that way. However, I have kids.

My opinion on the current level rules complexity: I'm pretty happy with the rules themselves, but character creation is too bloated for my current needs.

(edit: ooh, look - 500 posts! Only took 9 1/2 years...)