D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E

[FrogReaver]

Complexity does not necessarily equal more fun.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Complexity does not necessarily equal more fun.

When people speak of desiring complexity, they're usually talking about depth. Go is one of the simplest games in existence--I think it has at most four rules. But it's also one of the deepest strategy games humans have ever made. Much deeper than chess, for instance, which is far more complex rules-wise. By comparison, all TTRPGs ever made, even loosey-goosey ones like Fate, are fantastically more complex AND less deep.

People who look enviously at the detailed options provided by, say, the Wizard? They want depth. They don't believe that magic should be the only way in which a class provides depth. And for them? More "complexity," up to a point, absolutely IS more fun--and a lack of complexity absolutely IS a lack of fun. People who don't want depth (and whatever complexity comes with it) and like martial flavor already have what they want. People who want depth (and the complexity that comes with it) and like magical flavor have an embarrassment of riches. But the other two groups on this particular Punnett square have been criminally under-served, even in 5e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Complexity does not necessarily equal more fun.

No. That's dependent on the person. Lack of complexity doesn't necessarily equal more fun either. Different people want different things - and 5e seems predicated on the idea that you can play a relatively shallow spellcaster or to likers of complexity you can play a painfully shallow non-caster.

But as [MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] just said, what most people want isn't complexity for complexity's sake - it's depth. And this is one of the key issues that 4e fans find missing from, to be honest, most other editions.

I am, however, going to disagree with Ezekiel that the classic wizard is deep. It's just not as shallow as a paddling pool. Most of the additional depth in non--4e wizard play is "Do I have the right spell for the job?" with a side order of "Can I prepare the right spells?" At best it's speed-chess "Can I counter that fast?" But it's almost never more than two moves deep and generally only one. But being able to move like a knight as well as a pawn gives you more options than just moving like a pawn.

4e combat on the other hand had genuine depth thanks to the forced movement. It was teamwork and multiple moving parts to drop monsters into their own pit traps. Parts involving forced movement from multiple people, lockdown from the Defender, and making sure the monster doesn't try to run first. The post-Essentials Mage cuts down the depth by having so much forced movement that throwing monsters into their own pit traps feels like you've suddenly set down the difficulty to easy and now only need one single moving part.

Depth at a tactical level requires two things. Multiple interacting moving parts and relative predictability of interactions across more than one dimension. The hit point grind has basically one moving part and one axis. The classic wizard has multiple possible parts but the dimensionality/predictability combination isn't great. 4e characters have far fewer pieces than the Vancian or 5e wizard but they interact with each other across multiple axes, with the forced movement being the one that leads to combinations.

Of course one of the failings of pre-essentials 4e is that not everyone wants this type of complexity; the Slayer and the Scout were both huge boons to the game, as was the Elementalist in the final 4e book worthy of the name (a simple blasty caster; I really need to finish my Elementalist Warlock for 5e because you should be able to have a simple blasty caster as well as a complex fighter).

At the moment my 5e character is a Monk of Shadow - there's some complexity there; the spell list is short but great (Minor Illusion, Pass Without Trace, Darkvision, Silence, Darkness) - I think I cast more spells last session than the two actual casters we brought combined when we ignore Firebolts and there's at least target selection, mobility, teamwork, and a couple of random schticks to play with. My other 5e character has been a warlock again with flexible parts that are never quite right but always interesting (hardcore illusionist with minor image, prestidigitation, thaumaturgy, druidcraft, silent image, and disguise self all at will at third level and the actor feat - and illusions are absolutely things that have depth and work well).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@Neonchameleon I had not meant to imply that any real D&D class is particularly deep--TTRPGs in general are very shallow things, strategy-wise. Fighter-types are simply starved of possible avenues of approach, in comparison to "can do everything some portion of the time" spellcasting. Spellcasting is made complex for various reasons, but absent the incredible variety of strategic options presented by games like Go, you need SOME complexity in order to leverage that into depth.

I absolutely agree that one of 4e's big things for creating depth is teamwork, but it also (finally) brought Fighter-types into a similar region of..."leverageable complexity" if that makes sense. Not all classes *need* lots of complexity for a game to provide everyone with lots of depth--but consistently relegating certain options to the "no complexity for you!" end of the bus, and others to the "ALL the complexity for you!" end of the bus, is a big part of why depth is also VERY unevenly distributed in 3e and, IMO, 5e.

Ironically, making 5e dramatically more mobile may have actually reduced its depth. Of course, the apparent possibility of combats ending in one bloody round (which still completely blows my mind, how is that even POSSIBLE let alone common enough to see regularly!!) does a lot more to squeeze the depth out of the game's combat side. (Noncombat has never been particularly deep in D&D--not even in 4e, and they legit tried with Skill Challenges.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Instead you're just going to jump right to "of course I multiattack and maybe heal myself"? That's often not the best option.

What I'm about to say, is from a place of love, because I very much enjoyed 4e. But I find this mentality more common from those transitioning (or starting from) the last edition. And to a lesser extent 3.x (which I also very much enjoyed). Players tend to look for the options buttons, on their character sheets, to push. Rather than thinking outside the box or considering possible actions organically (something I think is a bit more common of older school players IMX).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'll quickly make a small comment here: Not everyone has the choice of being an optimal character. I've mentioned once or trice here that I'm a swordsman. But I never claimed to be a great one - heck "fair" would be a bit generous. I'll never be a great swordsman - I don't have the reflexes, I haven't been training since I was a kid, and heck I don't have the joints for it either. It's not my choice.

Where am I getting with this? Well, sometimes people who are not swordmasters but merely decent combatants (in other words, not fully optimized) are trust into adventure. And these people can make very valid, even fun characters to roleplay.

It's far less realistic for somebody who doesn't excel at fighting monsters to survive a long term campaign, particularly if they continue to suck as they level up. This is a life threatening activity here.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This makes sense, but to me, a player who scripts combat in any way will always (eventually) get to the point where he/she gets bored with the game. To combat boredom, shift from focus on rules to focus on story, character personality and choices that are not dictated by rules and mechanics. If a optimizer can do that, he/she should have infinite fun. If the optimizer can't do that, boredom will ensue.

Two things here. First, I already focus on story and character, but at the same time as combat. I just don't sacrifice combat for story and character. Second, I play D&D to kill monsters. If killing monsters becomes boring, one of the main reasons I play D&D becomes invalid and no amount of story and character will make up for it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Well, it's just a game. A game with abundant healing, death saves, and the possibility of being raised from the dead.

No actual players will be hurt.

Also, a character who sucks at fighting puts the other characters lives at risk, begging the question of why they don't replace him/her with somebody competent. Bringing along amateurs can get everyone killed.

I'm just pointing out that there are in-world arguments against sucking at combat.