D&D 5E How Complex is D&D Next?

[Plaguescarred]

D&D Next is about right for my taste, its not too simple or complex, but has the possibility to reduce or increase complexity due to its modularity by removing or adding stuff.

 

[ren1999]

As long as Feats are specifically offered and detailed to Martial classes, the game will be complex enough for me. The great thing about 5th edition that nobody has touched on yet is that grapple and restrain is really specific this time. This is great.

Two Ogres wander into Ravenloft castle..
kira3696.tripod.com

 

[Halivar]

We don't really have a clue as to how much of the complexity we saw in the play-test packets was for material intended for optional modules.

 

[Arduin's]

Since no one here (unless they speak up) has ACTUALLY seen 'Next' as a final product. It is impossible to really answer the question. One can only guess...

 

[Kobold Stew]

We don't really have a clue as to how much of the complexity we saw in the play-test packets was for material intended for optional modules.

Except that many parts of the final test packet were labeled "optional" (feats, wilderness exploration, plus (likely) "experimental rules for weapon attuning and unusual races), which does give us a reasonable idea of what they were thinking at the time.

Since no one here (unless they speak up) has ACTUALLY seen 'Next' as a final product. It is impossible to really answer the question. One can only guess...

Please reread the OP -- no one is saying they have seen a final product, and the question isn't asked in those terms.

 

[Dausuul]

Since no one here (unless they speak up) has ACTUALLY seen 'Next' as a final product. It is impossible to really answer the question. One can only guess...

The question was specifically about the final public playtest packet. Obviously nobody outside of the closed playtest has seen the current state of the game. In fact, I doubt even they get to see the current state.

My own attitude is that the final packet is a shade too complex still. Characters having a new thing at every level doesn't bother me--I approve of that. But a lot of the mechanics are still rather clunky and need to be polished and streamlined. That's to be expected in a playtest, of course.

One example I would give is the distinction between ability saves and ability checks. Does this expand the design space? Sure. Does it expand it enough to warrant the confusion it will create for new and casual players? I'd say not. A saving throw should be a type of ability check, not a separate beast.

 

[Mistwell]

The question was specifically about the final public playtest packet. Obviously nobody outside of the closed playtest has seen the current state of the game. In fact, I doubt even they get to see the current state.

My own attitude is that the final packet is a shade too complex still. Characters having a new thing at every level doesn't bother me--I approve of that. But a lot of the mechanics are still rather clunky and need to be polished and streamlined. That's to be expected in a playtest, of course.

One example I would give is the distinction between ability saves and ability checks. Does this expand the design space? Sure. Does it expand it enough to warrant the confusion it will create for new and casual players? I'd say not. A saving throw should be a type of ability check, not a separate beast.

Is it a separate beast? It's just an ability check, and you get to use your proficiency bonus if you are trained in saves of that ability. Which is how all other checks work. The name needs to be there in the same way "arcane check" needs to have that name, to know if you are proficient.

 

[Dausuul]

Is it a separate beast? It's just an ability check, and you get to use your proficiency bonus if you are trained in saves of that ability. Which is how all other checks work. The name needs to be there in the same way "arcane check" needs to have that name, to know if you are proficient.

No, it really is a separate beast. If you look at "How To Play" (it's on the second page), you'll see that saving throws are broken out into their own section with no reference to the check rules. If you have something that gives you proficiency on Dexterity checks, it doesn't apply to Dexterity saves.

 

[Sadrik]

Something that occurred to me on this. In relation to what? A point of reference would be good to get an objective view. Based on 3e/4e it is more simple, based on 1e/2e it is either the same or more complex.

I would like the base game to be a simple affair that I can pull out with my kids. I am not interested in 3e/4e complexity for them, I am looking for that in my adult games though. So I am looking for more simple, with options to make it more complex.

 

[Mistwell]

No, it really is a separate beast. If you look at "How To Play" (it's on the second page), you'll see that saving throws are broken out into their own section with no reference to the check rules. If you have something that gives you proficiency on Dexterity checks, it doesn't apply to Dexterity saves.

Is there something that gives you proficiency in all Dexterity checks? I thought you could be proficient in specific things but not general things. Individual skills, tools, and saves, not general abilities.

I understand it's on a different page...but I am not sure that makes it actually a different thing (tools are on different pages too for example). I don't see how its actually different from any other check. A general Str check to, say, lift a gate if you are not trained in lifting gates. A specific dex check to balance, if you are trained in balance. A specific open locks check, if you are proficient in thieves tools. A specific dex save if you are trained in dex saves. How is any of this different from the others?

Maybe I am forgetting something that does make it different.