Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6667929" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>The complexity of 4e is mostly in the sheer amount of material it presents, yes. Managing temporary modifiers was significantly easier in 4e, since durations were greatly simplified relative to 3e (and 2e & 5e, for that matter), and a number of rules and modifiers were consolidated into Combat Advantage, which 5e continued with Advantage/Disadvantage. </p><p></p><p> Yes, spells are a big chunk of the game, which maybe explains why ever class leverages that list to a greater or lesser extent.</p><p></p><p>My group did find combats going faster with 4e than they had in 3e - initially. If the fighter's or DM's turn took a few seconds longer due to marking - which was a very simple, intuitive mechanic, that generally resulted in the fighter getting attacked by whatever he marked - it didn't substantially eat into the huge time savings that came in choosing to cast & resolving spells/tracking spell effects, not to mention the much less baroque grappling and charging rules. One reason, though, was that our primary DM had put a tremendous amount of effort into his 3e encounters. They were rarely just some lone CR=level monster, but were larger, more challenging combats often in difficult, or at least detailed, environments - 4e handled those encounters much more smoothly than 3e, if we'd leaned more towards the common 'rocket tag' style of play in 3e, there's no doubt 4e combats, even if approached in the same style, would've taken longer.</p><p></p><p>But, like I said, 4e combats were only faster, initially. As the group discovered the tactical depth available to all the characters, they slowed down a little. </p><p></p><p> One of the more legitimate but less-often heard complaints about 4e was that the Tiers didn't 'feel' different enough, because, between the treadmill, and the fairly robust encounter balance, the 'sweet spot' had expanded to encompass prettymuch all levels. The DM had to make an effort to adjust the scope of the campaign as you moved through the Tiers, to make the progression more obvious.</p><p></p><p> Or in any prior edition, for that matter. It'd been going on for so long, it was a chicken-or-egg conundrum. Did campaigns rarely go to high level, because high level play was so bad? Or was high level play sketchy because there was no point refining the game at levels people didn't play, anyway. </p><p></p><p> A system that tolerates massive complexity is not the same as a system that lacks massive complexity. 2e, 3.x, & 4e were all pretty bloated and enormously complex. In it's short run, 4e gained all the following, for instance: And, yes, let's not forget 'exception based design.' While it makes resolving one use of one (or a few) rule(s) simpler, because you just go by the specific rule as presented you don't have to check to see if there's some general rule that overrides it, it does make the overall system that much more complex, because each rule can be a separate entity in that sense.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But, yes, 4e managed that complexity in the ways noted, but that doesn't eliminated it, nor even paper it over. The complexity is all there, and all quite visible, it's just easier to work with than it might otherwise be. </p><p>Similarly, in 3e, complexity was a veritable feature as it contributed to the rewards available for sufficient system mastery. </p><p></p><p>The complexity of classic D&D was more haphazard, yes. 5e, in going for such a strong classic feel could be in danger of having the same issues.... except:</p><p></p><p> Maybe you're not the only one who realizes that... </p><p></p><p>I do think the main reasons for the relative lack or slow pace of splatbooks in 5e are practical business reasons, but while that restraint lasts 5e will at least be spared the challenges of a bloating system. </p><p></p><p> That's probably not representative, since relatively few folks have run 4e and 5e combats at the same level of, er, well, 'complexity.' You say a 'simple' fight takes 1/2 an hour in each system, and I don't doubt you. But I expect what you mean by a 'simple fight' is simpler than what most folks think of when they consider 4e combats - and more complex than might be expected of a 5e encounter. </p><p></p><p>Even so, 5e is tuned to give you less involved combats. Attacks hit more often, damage is higher relative to hps, numbers tell heavily so the number of combatants is fewer, encounter guidelines are less robust & combats swingier, so 'easy' needs to be /really/ easy & it's prudent to pick less challenging combats, most DMs can't handle as complex terrain/movement/placement in TotM so set-ups tend to be simpler or details glossed over... I'm sure there's lots more. 'Classic feel' may have been 5e's top priority, but 'fast combat' seems to have been a major consideration, and any design choice that made a difference to combat length seems to have taken that into account. (Well, almost every: spells could have been simpler to resolve. That's one instance of 'classic feel' winning out. I'm sure there were others.)</p><p></p><p></p><p> The biggest problem with that phenomenon was the player who would declare his interrupt late, and ask to re-wind too much that had already been resolved, or, who chimed in with an interrupt, but after much hemming & hawing, realized he couldn't use it or didn't want to expend it. </p><p></p><p>One of the changes from Heroic to Paragon seemed to be more off-turn actions, so it became evident later, when, in theory, your group would have gotten the rest of the action economy down (and it's not like they were that different from 3e, either). </p><p></p><p>I didn't have a problem with it, personally. I found that off-turn actions were very high-value to the players and dramatic, so it was worth the overhead. Other DM's I know weren't so sanguine and put limits on immediate actions. The most severe was that declaring the use of an immediate action expended the action, and the use of the power, whether it turned out it actually could be used or not. Combats at her table got a lot simpler. </p><p></p><p> Ironically, I'm pleased that 5e didn't do away with Reactions, AoOs, and other off-turn actions, just consolidated them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6667929, member: 996"] The complexity of 4e is mostly in the sheer amount of material it presents, yes. Managing temporary modifiers was significantly easier in 4e, since durations were greatly simplified relative to 3e (and 2e & 5e, for that matter), and a number of rules and modifiers were consolidated into Combat Advantage, which 5e continued with Advantage/Disadvantage. Yes, spells are a big chunk of the game, which maybe explains why ever class leverages that list to a greater or lesser extent. My group did find combats going faster with 4e than they had in 3e - initially. If the fighter's or DM's turn took a few seconds longer due to marking - which was a very simple, intuitive mechanic, that generally resulted in the fighter getting attacked by whatever he marked - it didn't substantially eat into the huge time savings that came in choosing to cast & resolving spells/tracking spell effects, not to mention the much less baroque grappling and charging rules. One reason, though, was that our primary DM had put a tremendous amount of effort into his 3e encounters. They were rarely just some lone CR=level monster, but were larger, more challenging combats often in difficult, or at least detailed, environments - 4e handled those encounters much more smoothly than 3e, if we'd leaned more towards the common 'rocket tag' style of play in 3e, there's no doubt 4e combats, even if approached in the same style, would've taken longer. But, like I said, 4e combats were only faster, initially. As the group discovered the tactical depth available to all the characters, they slowed down a little. One of the more legitimate but less-often heard complaints about 4e was that the Tiers didn't 'feel' different enough, because, between the treadmill, and the fairly robust encounter balance, the 'sweet spot' had expanded to encompass prettymuch all levels. The DM had to make an effort to adjust the scope of the campaign as you moved through the Tiers, to make the progression more obvious. Or in any prior edition, for that matter. It'd been going on for so long, it was a chicken-or-egg conundrum. Did campaigns rarely go to high level, because high level play was so bad? Or was high level play sketchy because there was no point refining the game at levels people didn't play, anyway. A system that tolerates massive complexity is not the same as a system that lacks massive complexity. 2e, 3.x, & 4e were all pretty bloated and enormously complex. In it's short run, 4e gained all the following, for instance: And, yes, let's not forget 'exception based design.' While it makes resolving one use of one (or a few) rule(s) simpler, because you just go by the specific rule as presented you don't have to check to see if there's some general rule that overrides it, it does make the overall system that much more complex, because each rule can be a separate entity in that sense. But, yes, 4e managed that complexity in the ways noted, but that doesn't eliminated it, nor even paper it over. The complexity is all there, and all quite visible, it's just easier to work with than it might otherwise be. Similarly, in 3e, complexity was a veritable feature as it contributed to the rewards available for sufficient system mastery. The complexity of classic D&D was more haphazard, yes. 5e, in going for such a strong classic feel could be in danger of having the same issues.... except: Maybe you're not the only one who realizes that... I do think the main reasons for the relative lack or slow pace of splatbooks in 5e are practical business reasons, but while that restraint lasts 5e will at least be spared the challenges of a bloating system. That's probably not representative, since relatively few folks have run 4e and 5e combats at the same level of, er, well, 'complexity.' You say a 'simple' fight takes 1/2 an hour in each system, and I don't doubt you. But I expect what you mean by a 'simple fight' is simpler than what most folks think of when they consider 4e combats - and more complex than might be expected of a 5e encounter. Even so, 5e is tuned to give you less involved combats. Attacks hit more often, damage is higher relative to hps, numbers tell heavily so the number of combatants is fewer, encounter guidelines are less robust & combats swingier, so 'easy' needs to be /really/ easy & it's prudent to pick less challenging combats, most DMs can't handle as complex terrain/movement/placement in TotM so set-ups tend to be simpler or details glossed over... I'm sure there's lots more. 'Classic feel' may have been 5e's top priority, but 'fast combat' seems to have been a major consideration, and any design choice that made a difference to combat length seems to have taken that into account. (Well, almost every: spells could have been simpler to resolve. That's one instance of 'classic feel' winning out. I'm sure there were others.) The biggest problem with that phenomenon was the player who would declare his interrupt late, and ask to re-wind too much that had already been resolved, or, who chimed in with an interrupt, but after much hemming & hawing, realized he couldn't use it or didn't want to expend it. One of the changes from Heroic to Paragon seemed to be more off-turn actions, so it became evident later, when, in theory, your group would have gotten the rest of the action economy down (and it's not like they were that different from 3e, either). I didn't have a problem with it, personally. I found that off-turn actions were very high-value to the players and dramatic, so it was worth the overhead. Other DM's I know weren't so sanguine and put limits on immediate actions. The most severe was that declaring the use of an immediate action expended the action, and the use of the power, whether it turned out it actually could be used or not. Combats at her table got a lot simpler. Ironically, I'm pleased that 5e didn't do away with Reactions, AoOs, and other off-turn actions, just consolidated them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
Top