D&D 5E Too many choices? (Options Paralysis)

[Shardstone]

Mutliclassing is an abominable sin; repent ye, lest it bring your games to hel.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

So, surprised no one has mentioned this yet.

In behavioral economics, this is known as the paradox of choice (also referred to as overchoice or choice overload). One famous experiment* shows that when people have fewer choices of jam at the supermarket, they were more likely to buy jam.

In other words, while we always think we crave more choice, more choice is not, in fact, always helpful to most people, and can result in anxiety, choice paralysis, and an overall lowering of "happiness" and "utility."

So, there's that.


*As in most things social science, further meta-studies have shown mixed results, but more positive than not, for this effect. I think. Stuff happens fast nowadays.

Good point. That's why my next campaign is only going to have 1 option for class, race and build. I'm sure everyone can rest easy knowing they'll be playing a rapier wielding gnomish paladin.

 

[Oofta]

On a serious note, analysis paralysis is a thing in more areas than just PC builds. It's one of the reasons I've always been flexible and let people rebuild their PC if they really want to do so.

So they can make a choice and if it doesn't work out they can let me know and we'll do a training montage. I'd only say no to this if I thought someone was doing it for powergaming purposes instead of genuinely not liking their build.

 

[Charlaquin]

Did enough people giving feedback in the play test appear to have wanted this option? not sure how much the feedback impacted the game since I wasn’t keeping up with D&D Next at the time. I’m not a fan of the ala carte dip here and than style either due to 3x burn out...still 12 years later.

Hard to say without access to WotC’s survey data, but online, opinions seemed split pretty much right down the middle on a la carte multiclassing. Multiclassing wasn’t even a thing in the open play tests until very late in the process, and the impression I got was that WotC really wanted to focus on getting the base classes right, and they’d figure out multiclassing later. My guess would be that of the people who wanted multiclassing at all the majority preferred a la carte, so they went with that and made it an optional rule.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Almost none. I have a little trying to decide what to play in the first place, but 5E has much fewer choices than almost any other edition. It's part of the appeal to newer players.

Well, 5e did try to be simpler than 3e or 4e at their most bloated.

But, 5e, in trying to be all editions to all past fans, ended up offering 12 classes in the PH. That's more than 4e PH1 (8), 3e PH1 (11), and certainly a lot more than a TSR era Basic set. Those 5e classes, among them, have 40 sub-classes. In 4e, it was builds (18 in total), and 3e had no comparable concept, except perhaps Domains (22) and Wizard specialization (8). 2e Kits weren't in the PH, and in 1e & earlier sub-classes were comparable choices to the 4 parent classes.

But, that's really nothing compared to in-play complexity, within classes. In 1e, if f you were a wizard, you randomly determined which of 30 1st level spells you could know, and which 3 spells you had in your book (plus Read Magic) and picked one of those to memorize each day (so, really, you had 3 meaningful spells you needed to familiarize yourself with to begin playing the character), and decide whether to finally cast that one spell, or keep throwing darts or whatever. By 4e, that complexity had increased: your PH1 wizard picked 2 at-wills from a list of 5, an encounter from a list of 5, and 2 dailies from a list of 4, you then prepared one of those 2 dailies. So you had to be familiar with 14 spells, not merely 3, to make the initial choices, and get used to choosing between those 2 dailies, and among the 4 options in total available at the start of each round, and you always had at least two of those options, the at-wills, available, you probably never threw darts, though you might've occasionally taken an OA with your staff.

Fortunately, 5e simplified things: a wizard in 5e picks 3 cantrips from a list of 14 and 6 1st-level spells, from a list 27, then, each day prepares 1+INT mod of those known spells, then, decides, each round which cantrip to cast or whether to use one of his two slots for the day to cast any of the spells he's prepared that day. So that' s just enough familiarity with about 40 spells to make an informed choice at chargen, then decide on one of 4+INT mod casting options each round, until you're out of slots, when it drops to 3.

Yeah, so much simpler, no analysis paralysis, here.

So, when you're talking the game, as encountered initially by new players, 5e is one of the more complicated editions. But, once you factor in all the core books and supplements, it's not nearly as choice-rich, for experienced players, as 4e, 3e, or 2e.

As befits a compromise design, I suppose.

 

[Einlanzer0]

That's funny. the topic of "too many subclasses" has been talked to death in another thread. A lot of people for some reason see "class bloat" as a problem but not "subclass bloat". This is kind of nonsensical since it's kind of easier to parse classes and remove options you don't want players to have than it is subclasses.

Personally, I'm an all-in kind of GM and will usually just help narrow choices down for players. I expect that as sort of the mentorship of orienting new players. I can see that being difficult for less experienced GMs. I'd say if you're newer and not totally comfortable with this that you start with a PBH only campaign.

 

[Oofta]

That's funny. the topic of "too many subclasses" has been talked to death in another thread. A lot of people for some reason see "class bloat" as a problem but not "subclass bloat". This is kind of nonsensical since it's kind of easier to parse classes and remove options you don't want players to have than it is subclasses.

A class defines the overall structure, all subclasses share the majority of their rules with the class. If there is a new class it should play substantially different than other classes.

That's why I don't see subclass bloat as an issue, or at least less of an issue than class bloat. If someone is playing a rogue I know what that means and I only need to remember a handful of minor differences. Even if those minor differences include whether or not they can cast spells.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A class defines the overall structure, all subclasses share the majority of their rules with the class. If there is a new class it should play substantially different than other classes.

Sure: it'd be undesireable if two or more of the classes in the PH, at, say, 10th level, all found themselves wondering, each round, "hmmm... should I cast one of my several at-will cantrips, or expend one of my 15 spell slots to cast one of the dozen or so spells of up to 5th level that I have available? IDK ... maybe I should just up-cast Hold Person? "

No point adding a Psion that's just gonna do the same thing as the Wizard in that example...

...or is it a Cleric? Bard? Sorcerer?

::

 

[Einlanzer0]

A class defines the overall structure, all subclasses share the majority of their rules with the class. If there is a new class it should play substantially different than other classes.

That's why I don't see subclass bloat as an issue, or at least less of an issue than class bloat. If someone is playing a rogue I know what that means and I only need to remember a handful of minor differences. Even if those minor differences include whether or not they can cast spells.

I would agree with this if classes were primarily designed around mechanics, but they aren't - they're primarily designed around fantasy themes. This makes things a lot more complex.

The truth is this is a very MMO way of looking at class design; it's not that compatible with pnp D&D.