Does anyone else find themselves wishing 5e had a bit more mechanical complexity?

[bendking]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

[JumboWheat01]

I feel like what's caused 5e to be so widely popular and successful is its simplicity, and I enjoy it for that. It doesn't need to be complex, and there are other systems, even within D&D itself, that have the complexity if you want it.

[TheWayofPie]

Honestly it’s fine complexity wise for the most part. My old real “problem” is lack of interesting options for martial characters compared to casters. Everything else about the system is very solid in it’s design overall.

[HappyDaze]

I do not wish it had more combat complexity, but I wish the rules for the exploration and social aspects were more robust. If each of them had the two-dozen or so pages of rules that combat did, I would be OK with that (especially if fewer class abilities and spells were combat related and more applied to exploration and social aspects).

[ZorroGames]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

No but the game can be as complex as the players and DM want it to be. Harder for AL but still possible.

[Willie the Duck]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

No. There are hundreds of games out there like that. There is no reason that 5e has to be that as well. Now, if you can't find anyone in your gamingsphere who is willing to play those other games, now that is something I understand.



I do not wish it had more combat complexity, but I wish the rules for the exploration and social aspects were more robust. If each of them had the two-dozen or so pages of rules that combat did, I would be OK with that (especially if fewer class abilities and spells were combat related and more applied to exploration and social aspects).

Oh definitely. Particularly as optional material for those who want it. I came from the era where fastidious tracking of rations and torches and weather conditions and their effects on travel times were game rules that the books assumed people would want to care about, and as much as people are nostalgic for that now, boy howdy did people complain about them then. Likewise some people really don't want game rules for adjudicating social situations, and I get that too. But for those that do, yeah, the game needs more.

[CheddarChampion]

To OP: No. But you might like the optional rules?
Other than adding/modding house rules, you'll want a different system.

It sounds like you are coming from a player's perspective. I think DM's are less inclined to want more complexity than players because of the volume of things you have to track.

[MrStabby]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

Yeah, I feel this.

I am not saying WotC didn't make a good choice in making the game simple. But yeah, I do often wish there was more I could do.

I don't like that there is basically athletics as the only skill there are rules for in combat (in the core rules anyway); I would love for slight of hand, deception, intimidation and others to have a role.

I don't like that you can't specialise so much (and I think generalists are too powerful this edition). I would like it if, for example, clerics got more domain spells but no generic spells so that you could play a cleric with no healing but more other options. I liked the forbidden schools of wizardry; I liked the complexity that made you balance choices.

I like the battlemaster manoeuvres, I think they are thematic and really add to the flavour of a character. I would love for classes to have something like this by default - something active and something nice to RP for martial classes.

[LordEntrails]

Nope, sorry.
3.5 and PF already exist and can be played if you want. As you already mentioned, all those options are what broke the prior versions.

Besides, "more optimization" isn't a thing imo. You optimize within the system given. Now I get what you mean about wanting more options, but no, adding options just takes away from the social and exploration aspects of the game and increases the content for the combat pillar. Something D&D does not need.

[FilthyLucre]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

Yes - I wish 5e was 3.5 but with bounded accuracy.

[patchyman]

I do not wish it had more combat complexity, but I wish the rules for the exploration and social aspects were more robust. If each of them had the two-dozen or so pages of rules that combat did, I would be OK with that (especially if fewer class abilities and spells were combat related and more applied to exploration and social aspects).

With respect to the original poster, no I don’t wish for more mechanical complexity. I feel that with more mechanical complexity, I would lose several players whose contribution I appreciate, even though their mechanical contribution is limited to I hit it/I heal it/I blast it.

With respect to HappyDaze’s post, I wonder if what was needed was a couple of dozen more pages of Guidance, rather than rules. Though practice and experience, I have gotten the social and exploration pillars to where I want them, mostly still playing by RAW. Doing so however has required me to develop about a dozen vagueish “Rules of thumb” about how to adjudicate various points and how often to.

[Pex]

The bit more complexity I'd want is not in the classes, but that's been talked at length many times. For the classes I like what the recent Unearthed Arcana provided. For particular issues I would have liked a class having more of something. For example a few more spells known for Sorcerer, a few more invocations for Warlock, a few more superiority dice for Fighter. It's definitely a personal aesthetic taste thing and whatever my gripes of 5E this is a non-issue. I like the over all simplicity of 5E. There are enough interesting decisions to make in character creation and stuff to do when taking your action. I'll still enjoy new content when it becomes available.

[Wuzza]

Not my group.

The thing we like in 5E (coming back from AD+D) is the simplicity. We're all getting old now, and cant remember complex rules.. :smalltongue:

The good thing is that it allows house rules to be inserted quite easily. For example, my group has implemented not being able to take an action on the round you are resurrected, and allowing potions to be quaffed as a bonus action.

I will admit though, I would like more downtime and city rules, although there are quite a lot on DM's guild that are pretty good.

[Witty Username]

I kind of wish for more rules for aquiring potions, scrolls and spell casting services, and some wealth by level guidance. Trying to figure out this stuff from what is there feels frustrating. The fact there is no guidance for the difference between getting a casting of create food and water or true resurrection feels more restrictive than liberating.

[Sigreid]

No. I'm not interested in spending more game time figuring out interactions. And I hated the 4e approach of every little action having a specific power and rule. I found it limiting.

[MilkmanDanimal]

Nope. Not vaguely, not at all. Started playing AD&D in the early 80s, have played many systems of varying complexity, 5e is my favorite TTRPG ever by far because it is simple and you can't optimize and obsess over builds. I threw together a Warlock in about five minutes two years ago, and I'm still playing it and having stupid amounts of fun, and I didn't plan a single thing about that character other than thinking "hey, a good-aligned Fiendlock might be fun to try out". I haven't missed complexity at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

Does anyone else find themselves wishing 5e had a bit more mechanical complexity? No. Complexity, at this point in my time playing RPGs, detracts from the experience more than it adds fun. Back in my early days we found that part of the fun.

[jjordan]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.Yes, but I'm better off going to a different system for that. The 5e designers did a really good job and I can't fault it for not being exactly what I want.

[Spectrulus]

I feel like what's caused 5e to be so widely popular and successful is its simplicity, and I enjoy it for that. It doesn't need to be complex, and there are other systems, even within D&D itself, that have the complexity if you want it.

+1 JumboWheat01, I agree completely.

[Reevh]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

I enjoy theorycrafting more complex systems, but I definitely prefer *playing* the degree of complexity 5e has.

I prefer to concentrate on the story and characters more than the mechanics. 5e scratches my mechanics itch sufficiently for gameplay, but allows me to pay a lot more attention to the other parts of the game.

[JoeJ]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

Oh Lord no! If I want that kind of customization I'll play a game that doesn't use classes or levels at all.

[Tangleweed]

To OP. Not at all. The thing i like about DnD 5e is how easy it is and how it sort of lets you build your character as you progress. Just cruize along in your chosen subclass and you will be fine. No need to plan several levels ahead and chart out feat-requerment-trees like the good old days. I like 5e for introducing beginners and young players to the game as the themes are sort of kid-friendly and the mechanics easy to grasp. I am more bothered by the "randomness" by the d20 roll, but thats part of DnD. If I have other needs, I would just use another rpg-system or play another game all together. There is so many good games out there that there is no need to force or modify DnD 5e, imho.

[Man_Over_Game]

Didn't mean to, but I posted a response to another thread and I think it'd apply here:


4th edition DnD had an incredible combat system. Every class felt unique, every class had powerful mechanics to utilize, tactics were an actual thing, and things were mostly balanced. For example, there were like 10 different ways you could make a tank (Never Die, Pull all enemies to me, force all enemies to attack me, taunt one enemy and run away, hurt enemies if they choose to ignore me while I'm near them, make my allies more resistant to your attacks, etc) with various different classes.

[...]

In fact, most of the tactical and mechanical elements we enjoy in 5e (Battlemaster Superiority Maneuvers, Open Hand Monk, Storm Sorcerer, Tempest Cleric, Vengeance Paladin, virtually every Ranger subclass feature) were basically all copy-pasted from 4e, and then scrubbed down to make them more generic. This was likely done to fit with the classic spell slot/attack system that people demanded.

[Sigreid]

Didn't mean to, but I posted a response to another thread and I think it'd apply here:

I know lots of people liked the abilities in 4e, and that's fine. People like what they like. My view though was that in 4e abilities were substituted for actual tactics.

[TheCrowing1432]

I miss Tripping, Grappling and Bullrushing

[Slayn82]

I know lots of people liked the abilities in 4e, and that's fine. People like what they like. My view though was that in 4e abilities were substituted for actual tactics.

You mean, like magic usually is?

[rel]

nope, if I want that kind of complexity I can still play 3.5

[vexedart]

No it would slow the game down even more, cause more interruptions, arguments, etcetera. When you could be interacting with the world your GM spent time crafting instead.

RP>splat
On another note.
Game time>arguing time

Simple and concise means less time reading your sheet and more time playing it.

[Telwar]

Yes, but I'm better off going to a different system for that.

Yup. My group isn't really fond of what they did with 5e, and we've seen a LOT more systems as a result.

[Sigreid]

You mean, like magic usually is?

Some is. A lot of it is a limited resource that has to be used carefully to not be wasted. And almost none of it is automatic.

[Kane0]

Not really, no. There's enough levers and dials for me to fiddle with as both a player and 'brewer to keep me happy.

Given that I play in a PF game as well as DMing 5e I definitely feel the difference in enthusiasm for them.

[Zhorn]

Complexity? No

Mechanics? Sure, in part.

Like other have said; 5e's simplicity is one of its core strengths that gives it such a wide appeal. When looking for more game complexity, there's a point where it's better served to just swap to a different system entirely rather than force in more layers of mechanics.

When adding on more to 5e I'm in favour of modular components, things which you can add on or take away that don't alter how the other mechanics are run, nor take more than a glance to apply the roll with the appropriate bonus/penalty.
I'm reminded of the Puffin Forest video "D&D 4e was a game || Memories from an older D&D edition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpmUxfS4LF8)", where they talk about their experiences with earlier editions. That's the cautionary tale for rule makers to be wary of; adding in too much complexity onto what should be simple interactions in gameplay.

[chainer1216]

Yes, but like the tiniest turn of the dial upward.

Multiclassing shouldnt be punished so hard is all im saying.

[Samayu]

Does anyone else find themselves wishing 5e had a bit more mechanical complexity?

I would prefer not to have to suspend my understanding of physics so much in order to follow the rules. I would accept some increased level of complexity if the action was more realistic. But you said...


And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?

I would also like more class options to choose from, but... for the purposes of optimization? I don't get it. Does this mean something other than making more powerful characters? Because more powerful characters mean the GM just ups the opposition.

[opaopajr]

No. :smallsmile: In fact, I wish it had even less complexity. Bookkeeping all the features and abilities at higher tiers gets in the way of my fun.

C'est la vie. :smallcool:

[ezekielraiden]

Yes, absolutely 110%. 5e can become incredibly boring to play. It's not quite to the point where I can flowchart how a fight/scene will play out, but it's perilously close.

[MeeposFire]

I enjoy theorycrafting more complex systems, but I definitely prefer *playing* the degree of complexity 5e has.

I prefer to concentrate on the story and characters more than the mechanics. 5e scratches my mechanics itch sufficiently for gameplay, but allows me to pay a lot more attention to the other parts of the game.

I agree with this. The best part of 3e was making characters but for the most part it was not as fun to play. This goes triple as a DM.

If I do want some more tactical complexity I would play 4e which I find fun though 5e is more appealing for a more general game.

[T.G. Oskar]

I miss Tripping, Grappling and Bullrushing

You mean how complicated they were? Because Shove combined Trip and Bull Rush into something simpler. You can do them as part of an Attack action, provided you have Extra Attack, and still have up to three attacks (if you're a Fighter) at full power, something you couldn't do in 3.5. Grappling is somewhat weaker, though, since it only adds the Grappled condition, which isn't the same as the Restrained condition which is the bee's knees and can only be gained through the Grappler feat and making a pin.

I can understand your frustration, though, at not having the ancillary benefits of using those three moves (Tripping allowing an extra attack afterwards when getting Improved Trip, Bull Rush counting as movement and hence provoking AoO, plus allowing you to move an opponent as far as you could, and Grappling...well, basically making the opponent vulnerable to Sneak Attacks IIRC). It gave a bit more of tactical weight to their use, compared to what they do now (Shoving is basically only useful if you knock prone, and ONLY if you have the Shield Master feat AND if your DM allows you to use it after you make your first attack; Grappling isn't useful at all unless you have the Grappler feat). However, they're also more palatable to use, since they don't have the unnecessary restrictions of "make a touch attack to see if you're not stopped, then make an opposed ability check, accounting for size modifiers, unless you're Grappling in which case you use an arcane modifier called the Grapple bonus which was basically another attack but adding size modifiers and not adding bonuses to attack anyways", or PF1e's "make a touch attack to see if you're not stopped, then make a CMB check compared to the pretty much always higher CMD of the opponent".

It's good to see where this lies, as it means you sacrificed complexity for simplicity, which don't have to be necessarily polar opposites. As it stands, while I'd love to see more complexity on what the end effect can do (maybe through feats that allow to improve the Shove ability, much like the Grappler feat), I still prefer the simplicity of how they're executed now (where it's just an ability check, no complications). It's probably the same as what people from 3.5 feel by jumping to 5e; there's not much you can do to jump the hoops and do impressive stuff...and yet, it does.

I started with 3.5, and I love to make complex characters, often using about 12 books to get what I want. I'm not a terribly impressive optimizer, since I often do late bloomers, but I like what I get at times. I've done as many builds for 5e as I've done for 3.5, and I find the tight options (that is, few, far between, and spread out) a much better challenge. That's not to say that 3.5 has also tight options in a way (feat chains are painful, and oftentimes you didn't see the sweet spot until level 11 or something), but it had a breadth of options where you could see a build develop in two different ways, rather than rely on the same pillars (say, often relying on the same combo of class and race).

With that said, I like 5e where it is, since it's simple yet has some meat. When I said I've made several builds, I mean it - some of them are pretty much cookie-cutter (Shadow Sorc + Hexblade, Dwarven Life Cleric), some are less so (Scourge Aasimar Crown Paladin with a dip of Hexblade meant as a tank, Divine Soul Sorcerer using the Tiefling variants from MToF for a distinctive feel, focusing mostly on 1 Cleric and 1 Sorcerer spell per level up to 5th to take advantage of the best buffs of each class, Half-Orc Champion that can do well in melee and in ranged), some are refreshing (Water Genasi Shepherd Druid with a specific focus on Water and Ice spells), and some are just downright mind-blowing (Wood Elf Sun Soul Monk with Magic Initiate and a late Rogue dip meant for campaigns that heavily feature undead, a Beastmaster Ranger that focuses on Archery and a Giant Poisonous Snake for pretty amazing damage output), and I've had fun making each and everyone of them - some I've played, even! So, I find the system complex enough for my tastes, which again, started with 3.5 where I could do stuff like a Hexblade that focused on debuffing enemies until their saving throws were almost on the negatives, an Archivist that could summon ANY creature it wanted and buff it to high heaven, or a Paladin/Fist of Raziel specialized in dealing smite damage so brutally that it could take down 2/3rds of a Balor's HP in a single blow. It helps that 5e is in a position where it has enough content to be meaty, but not enough to be bloated, and it still gets development that adds more meat without adding bloat.

As for whether I'd like to see more stuff be done during combat, or perhaps more stuff done outside? Maybe, but as it stands, it's not something I miss. I had enough things to do and enough strategies to follow with my Dwarven Life Cleric (rest in peace, his sacrifice won't be in vain), even though most of the time I was just healing, but he could cast damaging cantrips, hit real hard, seek his deity's advice regarding things, scry, and even conjure celestials that were very useful in a single battle, and could manage all that because I didn't feel crushed by the multiple options I had available. That could be an issue in 3.5, where I could often feel paralyzed by having to pre-empt every single action. On the other hand, I could see some more crunch added in - the UA class feature variant that gives the Fighter early access (or minor access) to Battlemaster maneuvers is a good start, but the way Shield Master's bonus shove works is just not useful enough, and it hurts. (And I don't like that Tunnel Fighter isn't here, since it'd be wonderful for Paladins and Fighters when mixed with Sentinel - which, as it stands, is a pretty awesome feat.) It all depends on perspective, IMO - it depends on what you want about complexity, and IMO, 5e is just a bit south of that sweet spot, whereas 3.5 is a bit too north of that spot. (And Pathfinder is a bit too northwest of that spot, missing it entirely.)

[JoeJ]

Shoving is basically only useful if you knock prone, and ONLY if you have the Shield Master feat AND if your DM allows you to use it after you make your first attack;

Why do you say that? You don't need a feat to shove an enemy down and then attack them with advantage that same round. Any character with extra attacks can do that.

[Mork]

I wouldn't want 5e edition to be more complex, I think it's fine where it is, and is a great way to introduce new players.

I do however have the itch to work with something a bit more complex, so I'm considering taking up pathfinder 2. Should give way more option, while keeping the good things from 5e.

[MrStabby]

I find it curious the responses here.

The impression I had got was that this forum liked Paladins, Wizards and Bards a lot - tending towards the more mechanically complex.

Ok, so not perfectly scientific but I looked at the guides section on the 5th edition forums and counted the posts. With multiple guides to chose from my selection criteria was:
1) It should be for a class not just a subclass or a build or an aspect of a class
2) It should be hosted here on the forum rather than an external link
3) If EvilAnagram did one I use that, simply for an extra element of consistency
4) The first in the list that meet these criteria

Barbarian 292
Bard 307
Cleric 977
Druid 202
Fighter 234
Monk 108
Paladin 343
Ranger 197
Rogue 169
Sorcerer 294
Warlock 451
Wizard ???

So in terms of interest cleric is way out ahead followed by warlock, paladin, bard.

Wizard doesn't actually have a guide that meets my criteria linked to - so who know there. Obviously a big factor is also the age of the guides and that at least one cannot be posted to as it was locked due to thread necromancy.

Not withstanding this there seems to be a trend that more complex classes have more interest shown in them. If you have to chose spells you are more likely to be of interest, likewise if you have other resources you need to juggle with their own rules (channel divinity, invocations, detect good and evil, lay on hands) you are likely to also be of interest.

This makes me think there are a lot of different ypes of mechanical complexity, some that people like and some they dont.

I think there is a difference between complexity in character building and complexity in play. If you have to optimise and think about your character and what spells you will select at level up then you can do that away from the table and it doesn't slow down play. I am not saying everyone wants a complex character generation process, but I think that most people want a smooth time at the table.

A mechanical set of benefits that involve adding 16 +2/-2 bonuses and penalties to rolls depending on the situation is a pain.

A broader menu of different actions you can take seems to be popular, given the popularity of classes with a menu of spells to pick from.


At the other end of the scale... look at the derision that is often heaped upon champion, the most mechanically simple of classes.


I am honestly surprised that few people have an appetite for a little more complexity here.

[AdAstra]

Don’t forget that more complex classes are far more likely to NEED a guide in the first place. Spellcasters especially need to have their spell lists individually sorted through and evaluated (for example, Fireball is even better than usual as a domain spell for clerics due to a lack of ranged area damage in their lists). The existence of guides is by no means proof that a class is well-liked. If anything, it can be the opposite. There are entire guides dedicated solely to say, getting the most out of Beastmaster.

This isn't even getting into the fact that forum-goers are far more likely to be heavy optimizers. Classes with more choices almost always have more room to optimize, making them somewhat of a priority for guides and advice.

As for people hating the champion, I know there are several people on this forum that would vehemently disagree with you on its faults, and in actual play I've seen people play it reasonably frequently with no major issues. It's also an important component of most crit-builds (a fairly optimized set of builds), since Hexblade is currently the only other source of expanded crit range (and it's tied to a short-rest ability that only works on one target until 14th level). Elven Accuracy/Rogue/Champion makes for a very solid crit fisher, as does even a barebones (optionally half-orc) Champion with GWM if they can get advantage from some other source, since GWM also gives them a bonus action attack on a crit.

[bendking]

I think there is a difference between complexity in character building and complexity in play. If you have to optimise and think about your character and what spells you will select at level up then you can do that away from the table and it doesn't slow down play. I am not saying everyone wants a complex character generation process, but I think that most people want a smooth time at the table.

A mechanical set of benefits that involve adding 16 +2/-2 bonuses and penalties to rolls depending on the situation is a pain.
A broader menu of different actions you can take seems to be popular, given the popularity of classes with a menu of spells to pick from.

This.
As I explained, what I meant by complexity was more character building options, not more complexity in combat.
I think most people are glad the plethora of conditional modifier in 3.5 is gone, and I am one of those people, but I would like more class features and features in general to allow more customization in characters.

[Gungor]

The thing I miss about 3.5 is that all characters - PCs, NPCs, monsters - followed the same basic rules for creation. If I wanted to create an orc that was going to be a challenge for my 5th level party, I could do so by adding (say) fighter levels, or even by adding levels in "monstrous humanoid".

While it is possible to create higher-CR variants of monsters in 5e, the system seems a bit...inelegant to me. It works, and may well work better from a game balance perspective, but the mathematician in me liked the way the rules were the same for all characters in 3.5.

Personally, I think that the complexity in 3.5 is entirely a function of WoTC making splatbook after splatbook. If you stick to the core rules in PHB, DMG, and MM there isn't *that* much to track. It's only when you start adding umpteen new base classes, prestige classes, PC races, etc, etc that it really starts to get out of hand.

Overall I think 5e has done a great job recreating the "feel" of AD&D while keeping the simplicity of the d20 system and trying to achieve game balance. I just wish I could tack on some fighter levels to my orcs and be done with it :smallbiggrin:

[redwizard007]

5e is the perfect edition for new players. 3.5 is still out there if you want something more complex.

[MrStabby]

5e is the perfect edition for new players. 3.5 is still out there if you want something more complex.

I think that 3.5 has other problems. I think that a 5th edition: advanced would be nice though. A slightly riche set of rules and so on. I think the alternative class features helped a tiny bit with this - things like active fighting styles rather than passive benefits and so on.

[Dr. Cliché]

When it comes to complexity, I think my ideal system would be a hybrid of 5th edition D&D and 1st edition Pathfinder.

I love the sheer breadth of customisation available in Pathfinder, like being able to tweak your race by swapping out racial traits for alternative options. I also like the extra classes such as Summoner, which have no equivalent in 5e. Basically, it seems there are a lot of class options available that simply don't fit into 5e's class structure. And the Pathfinder skill system remains my favourite of any RPG I've played thus far. Also, when I took a break from 5e to play Pathfinder, I can't say I've ever missed 5e's Concentration mechanic.

However, what I did miss was 5e's movement system, which felt a lot less rigid. Being able to split up attacks and movement made combat in 5e feel far more fluid (at least for melee classes). I also missed 5e's Cantrips, because when I'm playing a caster it's nice to have a magic option that doesn't cost me a spell slot. And whilst Pathfinder does have unlimited-use Cantrips, the damage variety all amount to sneezing in the enemy's general direction.

[MrStabby]

When it comes to complexity, I think my ideal system would be a hybrid of 5th edition D&D and 1st edition Pathfinder.

I love the sheer breadth of customisation available in Pathfinder, like being able to tweak your race by swapping out racial traits for alternative options. I also like the extra classes such as Summoner, which have no equivalent in 5e. Basically, it seems there are a lot of class options available that simply don't fit into 5e's class structure. And the Pathfinder skill system remains my favourite of any RPG I've played thus far. Also, when I took a break from 5e to play Pathfinder, I can't say I've ever missed 5e's Concentration mechanic.

However, what I did miss was 5e's movement system, which felt a lot less rigid. Being able to split up attacks and movement made combat in 5e feel far more fluid (at least for melee classes). I also missed 5e's Cantrips, because when I'm playing a caster it's nice to have a magic option that doesn't cost me a spell slot. And whilst Pathfinder does have unlimited-use Cantrips, the damage variety all amount to sneezing in the enemy's general direction.

I would like more customisation, or at least better multiclassing.

Too often I find a really cool concept that I want to play and then can't because either the rules dont support it or it takes too long to come online or the rules would make it really poor.

[stoutstien]

5e is the perfect edition for new players. 3.5 is still out there if you want something more complex.

Over the years I've actually seen the opposite to be true. 3.x and Pathfinder have strong attraction for newish players who overemphasize the "build game within the game" where players who have grown out of that phase want to spend more time playing the game then preparing for the game.

[redwizard007]

So in a "5e advanced" would people rather break character choices into more modular, adaptable chunks that can be pieced together from level 0, or add ons for later in the game?

[Reevh]

Yes, but like the tiniest turn of the dial upward.

Multiclassing shouldnt be punished so hard is all im saying.

Why do you feel multiclassing is punished?

[AdAstra]

When it comes to complexity, I think my ideal system would be a hybrid of 5th edition D&D and 1st edition Pathfinder.

I love the sheer breadth of customisation available in Pathfinder, like being able to tweak your race by swapping out racial traits for alternative options. I also like the extra classes such as Summoner, which have no equivalent in 5e. Basically, it seems there are a lot of class options available that simply don't fit into 5e's class structure. And the Pathfinder skill system remains my favourite of any RPG I've played thus far. Also, when I took a break from 5e to play Pathfinder, I can't say I've ever missed 5e's Concentration mechanic.

However, what I did miss was 5e's movement system, which felt a lot less rigid. Being able to split up attacks and movement made combat in 5e feel far more fluid (at least for melee classes). I also missed 5e's Cantrips, because when I'm playing a caster it's nice to have a magic option that doesn't cost me a spell slot. And whilst Pathfinder does have unlimited-use Cantrips, the damage variety all amount to sneezing in the enemy's general direction.

I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to houserule in moving while making a Full Attack into Pathfinder, or at least making/modifying a feat to do it. It's basically allowing a really big 5-foot step that still triggers opportunity attacks.

Given that you seem to be more of the castery persuasion, I can see why Concentration isn't exactly desirable, but it's in the game for very good reasons and is a well-designed mechanic.

[Witty Username]

I think more races having subraces would be welcome, or more races like some of the eberon races that have flexible ability score increases since mechanically that does a similar thing.

[Dr. Cliché]

I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to houserule in moving while making a Full Attack into Pathfinder, or at least making/modifying a feat to do it.

You could but it's the sort of thing that might end up having unintended consequences.




Given that you seem to be more of the castery persuasion, I can see why Concentration isn't exactly desirable, but it's in the game for very good reasons and is a well-designed mechanic.

I disagree about it being well-designed. I don't even think it was well-named ('Focus' might have been better).

The difference between spells that are concentration and spells that aren't frequently seems like the result of a coin flip rather than any clear logic. The fact that you can only ever maintain concentration on one spell (regardless of level) seems nonsensical. And whatever the intent, the main result is that a lot of spells almost never get used at all because they compete for your use of Concentration. Not to mention spells that are protective and/or melee-oriented, yet which are also concentration so there's a good chance they'll be disrupted if you have the gall to actually use them.

I get what they were going for but IMO far too many spells were made Concentration unnecessarily.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

Don't let the new and shiny things on the shelf intimidate you. This isn't the automotive world where things truly go obsolete.

Sometimes when I want to finish a game of Axis and Allies in a day I play one of the older games not the new Global where i have to physically build tanks and take up rocketry then sail across the ocean to run the other allies. It and the new Global and even the middle (and excellent) Anniversary Edition still exist even if they aren't all the newest.

Likewise 3.5 STILL exists as does Pathfinder. Don't fight 5e, embrace it for what it is, simple enough, fun enough and not requiring as much math. Also don't forget 3.5. Show it to your friends, leave the books around, play it every so often.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's good to see where this lies, as it means you sacrificed complexity for simplicity, which don't have to be necessarily polar opposites.

One thing that accomplishes this well is scalability.

For example, the Monk. The Monk can spend a lot of Ki points to deal damage, to move, for defense, all in ways that are incredibly simple. However, while they all cost Ki points, they are also gated by your 1-per-turn Bonus Action. You could be able to do so many great things with the Monk, like: Get in close, Patient Defense to move past their front line while decreasing their chance to hit me, Flurry of Blows on their mage, Patient Defense lasts through my enemies' turns to keep me stable while the enemy scatters and my party advances.

Another missed opportunity is the overcasting features of lower level spells. Imagine what could happen if Sleep cast with a level 4 spell slot had nearly the same power as a level 4 spell slot? We wouldn't have a stigma against multiclassing spellcasting classes, since a level 1 Bard level would have its own worth for a level 15 Warlock.

Keep things simple, combine multiple simple things for versatility, make things complex by forcing a balance of resource vs. gain.

Imagine a different vision of the Monk, where your first Monk power each turn was free, none of his powers used Bonus Actions but you can't use the same one twice in a turn, and he had 1/3 of his normal allotment of Ki points. It'd be simple...while also being incredibly complex.





This.
As I explained, what I meant by complexity was more character building options, not more complexity in combat.
I think most people are glad the plethora of conditional modifier in 3.5 is gone, and I am one of those people, but I would like more class features and features in general to allow more customization in characters.

I hate to plug, but you should take a look at my Prestige Options homebrew. It opens up a lot of things that it sounds like you're looking for.

Make Strength-based Monk, multiclass it with Barbarian.

Make a Dexterity-based Barbarian, multiclass it with Ranger.

Make a Wisdom-based Warlock, multiclass it with Ranger.

Make an Intelligence-based Paladin, multiclass it with Wizard.

It's effectively just a list of attribute substitutions for each class, along with strict multiclassing rules you must obey (IF you multiclass) to prevent any overpowered combinations. Justifications and analysis are included with each Option, so that you can see the math behind it firsthand.

[Jamesps]

I think the physical combat system is fine for complexity. I mean you don't play DnD if you want something simulationist, there are other games for that.

They really could have put more effort into the noncombat parts of the game. Fourth edition did, and while I don't really like their implementation I appreciate that they at least considered it a design goal.

[FilthyLucre]

I think the physical combat system is fine for complexity. I mean you don't play DnD if you want something simulationist, there are other games for that.
Like 3.5 D&D

[GlenSmash!]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

You're not alone.

I'm not one of those players, but you are definitely not alone.

Anyway what to you think of Pathfinder 2e?

[JNAProductions]

I wouldn't mind more options, but I vastly prefer a slow release schedule with everything more or less balanced than a slapdash, rapid release schedule of unbalanced and often not very good content.

I think it'd be cool to see an "Advanced" 5E, or eventually a 6E, but for now, I'm quite happy with 5E. It's simple to run, fun to play, and just generally a game worth gaming.

[Dr. Cliché]

I would like more customisation, or at least better multiclassing.

Too often I find a really cool concept that I want to play and then can't because either the rules dont support it or it takes too long to come online or the rules would make it really poor.

Yeah, I've certainly had this issue in the past.

[AdAstra]

You could but it's the sort of thing that might end up having unintended consequences.




I disagree about it being well-designed. I don't even think it was well-named ('Focus' might have been better).

The difference between spells that are concentration and spells that aren't frequently seems like the result of a coin flip rather than any clear logic. The fact that you can only ever maintain concentration on one spell (regardless of level) seems nonsensical. And whatever the intent, the main result is that a lot of spells almost never get used at all because they compete for your use of Concentration. Not to mention spells that are protective and/or melee-oriented, yet which are also concentration so there's a good chance they'll be disrupted if you have the gall to actually use them.

I get what they were going for but IMO far too many spells were made Concentration unnecessarily.

I’m going to be honest, why do you care about unintended consequences? Exploiting interactions between mechanics regardless of what the mechanic “intended” is one of the core parts of optimization, and a fun time overall. If someone comes up with a truly broken build based on your houserule, you can just say no.

As for concentration
1. Focus is no better of a descriptor than concentration. Plus that word is already used for spellcasting focuses, so better to use a word that doesn’t already have mechanical implications.
2. For the most part I consider this clearly untrue. Pretty much all duration spells without concentration are weaker than their counterparts that do. Of course, not needing concentration is so strong that those spells are frequently still better, but there’s only so much you can do on that front. There are certainly exceptions to this rule, but weak spells exist regardless of edition. Most protective/buffing spells that require concentration work just fine when used on other people, which conveniently means the mechanic discourages selfish buffing (maybe you dislike that though)
3. The existence of spells that you believe to should not require concentration does not mean that the mechanic itself is flawed. That’s like saying giving spells limited durations is bad because some spells don’t last long enough.

[JoeJ]

Like 3.5 D&D

Hunh? There's no way I would consider any version of D&D if I want a reasonably realistic (but still playable) simulation of individual combat. GURPS would be my go-to for that, with it's shorter combat round and incorporation of active defenses (parry, block, or dodge).

[Brookshw]

I've found the simplicity of this edition has had a lot of appeal to several new players, specifically those with a casual bent. The complexity of 3.5 would have been a turn off for them. 3.5 is broken fine and I enjoyed it for a good run, but at the end of the day I enjoy new players coming into the game more.

[MeeposFire]

The thing I miss about 3.5 is that all characters - PCs, NPCs, monsters - followed the same basic rules for creation. If I wanted to create an orc that was going to be a challenge for my 5th level party, I could do so by adding (say) fighter levels, or even by adding levels in "monstrous humanoid".

While it is possible to create higher-CR variants of monsters in 5e, the system seems a bit...inelegant to me. It works, and may well work better from a game balance perspective, but the mathematician in me liked the way the rules were the same for all characters in 3.5.

Personally, I think that the complexity in 3.5 is entirely a function of WoTC making splatbook after splatbook. If you stick to the core rules in PHB, DMG, and MM there isn't *that* much to track. It's only when you start adding umpteen new base classes, prestige classes, PC races, etc, etc that it really starts to get out of hand.

Overall I think 5e has done a great job recreating the "feel" of AD&D while keeping the simplicity of the d20 system and trying to achieve game balance. I just wish I could tack on some fighter levels to my orcs and be done with it :smallbiggrin:

As somebody who had to DM 3e a lot back in the day I would disagree vehemently. That is one of the WORST aspects of 3e as a DM. It is a pain to continually modify and make new enemies when they are all built like characters and to make it worse that includes magical equipment as well. It is madness. By the time 4e came out I was trying to create short cuts to get around this problem such as giving out Vow of Poverty bonuses to NPCs so they would have basic level appropriate abilities without handing out the insane treasure to the party after the NPC dies.

In all other editions of D&D before and after 3e monsters and NPCs are often not built like characters and it makes life so much easier. Since 5e is the focus it is nice that one can create an NPC or monster with correct stats and not have to look up all the stuff that comes with character creation you can just give it the stats it needs. IN addition if there is a monster or NPC that should be built like a character you can thus giving me more options ease when I want it and complexity when I want it.

Why would I ever go back when it was more work for the same at best level of fun?

[kazaryu]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

not *much* more complexity. there *are* a few aspects that i wish were a bit more complex. for example i do wish the skill system was a but more robust. but overall im happy with most aspects.

[Solusek]

I am happy with most of 5e. I just wish the skill system was fleshed out more. It is the weakest part of 5e, imo. A whole splat book focused on skills (new skills, optional resolution systems, more crunch) would be very welcome.

[JNAProductions]

I am very happy with most of 5e. I just wish the skill system was fleshed out more. It is the weakest part of 5e, imo. A whole splat book focused on skills (new skills, optional resolution systems, more crunch) would be very welcome.

Hell nah to the bolded bit. There's enough skills already, we don't need 3.P's bloat.

But the rest of the post I can agree with.

[Tawmis]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

JumboWheat beat me to it - but the appealing thing to the new folks I've brought into D&D (5e) has been it's simplicity. I DM two groups (one has 8 people, the other has 6 people), all of whom, had never played D&D before (the second group were all RPG players of various computer games, board games, etc., but never D&D; the group of 8 were all brand new to D&D, and only a few had played things like World of Warcraft and such).

So being able to easily explain how the game mechanics work, and how easy the level progression is with customization (granted, for both groups I am only permitting Players Handbook material so not to overwhelm them).

[T.G. Oskar]

Why do you say that? You don't need a feat to shove an enemy down and then attack them with advantage that same round. Any character with extra attacks can do that.

True. That was the first thing I mentioned - that you can do Shoving and Grappling as part of your Attack action, and still make an attack afterwards if you have Extra Attack. You definitely don't need a feat for that - you just lose an attack, which means hindering your damage potential for the chance of making that one attack much more effective. (The mention of Shield Master is basically a critique on how the feat isn't as useful unless the DM is lenient and allows you to make the bonus action before the second attack, as you've essentially completed the Attack action.) Fighters won't mind that much, but Monks do (Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows consume your bonus action), and so do Paladins and Rangers (who have to exploit as many attacks as they can).


One thing that accomplishes this well is scalability.

For example, the Monk. The Monk can spend a lot of Ki points to deal damage, to move, for defense, all in ways that are incredibly simple. However, while they all cost Ki points, they are also gated by your 1-per-turn Bonus Action. You could be able to do so many great things with the Monk, like: Get in close, Patient Defense to move past their front line while decreasing their chance to hit me, Flurry of Blows on their mage, Patient Defense lasts through my enemies' turns to keep me stable while the enemy scatters and my party advances.

Another missed opportunity is the overcasting features of lower level spells. Imagine what could happen if Sleep cast with a level 4 spell slot had nearly the same power as a level 4 spell slot? We wouldn't have a stigma against multiclassing spellcasting classes, since a level 1 Bard level would have its own worth for a level 15 Warlock.

Keep things simple, combine multiple simple things for versatility, make things complex by forcing a balance of resource vs. gain.

Imagine a different vision of the Monk, where your first Monk power each turn was free, none of his powers used Bonus Actions but you can't use the same one twice in a turn, and he had 1/3 of his normal allotment of Ki points. It'd be simple...while also being incredibly complex.

Technically, you can do some of those things with a Monk, except you might need some workarounds. What you just described (step past enemies, strike a single target, survive) can be done with a feat and a magic item (specifically: Mobile feat and Cloak of Displacement). You even save on some Ki that way. Of course, it means you're spending other resources - for someone who comes from 3.5, that's essentially child's play, since you had to deal with that kind of workaround. (Considering that the Monk couldn't do that previously - that is, slip past the opponents, hit the most dangerous target, and survive afterwards - or at least couldn't do it as well, that you could do it with less outside help from before is an advancement.) I think the Monk's on a good spot, though it could have some slight improvements - the Class Features UA works a lot for that, though it shows your issues with the class a bit too nicely (the healing use of Ki depends on the few abilities that depend on an action - the Open Hand Monk gets screwed, while the Four Elements and Sun Soul Monks get a large boost from it). However, it doesn't mean that you can work around some of those features; the magic item aspect, on the other hand... (Though, for someone with high mobility and a high AC when made right, a Cloak of Displacement is definitely a given.)

I do agree 100% with the issue of the effect of spells using higher spell slots. This is mostly because Augmenting did this way too well - 3.5 Psionics hit the spot on how to augment things. I presume it's because they were too scared of making spells too powerful. Now, do consider that your example (Sleep) already had a use-by date in previous editions (it was replaced quickly enough by the Deep Slumber spell), meaning that in order to make that spell worthwhile you needed an ancillary effect (that is, to make that form of Sleep harder to resist if cast from a specific spell slot, say 3rd or 4th). Damage scaling is horrible, though, since it often amounts to 1 die per spell slot, when Augmenting often implied the equivalent of 2 dice per spell slot. Some spells do scale nicely (specifically, Spiritual Weapon and most DoT spells), but others don't (Cure Wounds essentially has no reason to exist when upcast, even if the amount of healing is oftentimes superior to its previous editions' counterparts). I consider that a revision to upcasting should be priority, since as you mentioned, it motivates some previous level spells keeping their worth.

[djreynolds]

Weapons could surely use an upgrade. We had some feats come out and they were cool like "fell-handed."

Why does someone use a flail in melee? Should your weapon choice affect your initiative? Does your weapon choice affect initiative?

Adding a extra damage die on a crit for someone say using a military pick, is as easy as I guess playing a half-orc.

[DMJosh]

Originally, I thought 5E had a ton of potential for complexity with optional rules. I haven't noticed many optional rules added since initial release, though... but maybe I'm just overlooking a bunch of stuff?

[Avonar]

Weapons could surely use an upgrade. We had some feats come out and they were cool like "fell-handed."

Why does someone use a flail in melee? Should your weapon choice affect your initiative? Does your weapon choice affect initiative?

Adding a extra damage die on a crit for someone say using a military pick, is as easy as I guess playing a half-orc.

I can understand something to make certain weapons more desirable, but not like this. I'm currently playing some Pathfinder 2e and while I like the system I hate the number of keywords for everything. Having a huge range of weapon abilities just means more looking up. Now I realise that kind of goes against what I said with making other weapons, maces, flails etc. more desirable, but there's a reason I'm not a game designer. I can't think of how to fix it without making it just too much.

[MeeposFire]

I can understand something to make certain weapons more desirable, but not like this. I'm currently playing some Pathfinder 2e and while I like the system I hate the number of keywords for everything. Having a huge range of weapon abilities just means more looking up. Now I realise that kind of goes against what I said with making other weapons, maces, flails etc. more desirable, but there's a reason I'm not a game designer. I can't think of how to fix it without making it just too much.

That has always been a problem. There are many things that are cool ideas that I would never want to use on table top but would be fine on a computer game (I get that issue with Battletech a lot).

[Brookshw]

Weapons could surely use an upgrade. We had some feats come out and they were cool like "fell-handed."

Why does someone use a flail in melee? Should your weapon choice affect your initiative? Does your weapon choice affect initiative?

Adding a extra damage die on a crit for someone say using a military pick, is as easy as I guess playing a half-orc.

Thing is, we had weapon speeds in older editions, as well as differing armor values vs. different damage types (slash/pierce/bludgeon). But it was clunky, and if you're going to do it then it raises the specter of why shouldn't different spells affect initiative in different ways, again something we had in pre-3e. However, no one seems to be lamenting the loss of such complexity and bookkeeping.

[Kane0]

That has always been a problem. There are many things that are cool ideas that I would never want to use on table top but would be fine on a computer game (I get that issue with Battletech a lot).

Me also, to the point where i actually rewrote battletech to be simpler and faster to run for sessions not everybody can show up, but look for as many mods as i can cobble together for the PC version.

[MrStabby]

Thing is, we had weapon speeds in older editions, as well as differing armor values vs. different damage types (slash/pierce/bludgeon). But it was clunky, and if you're going to do it then it raises the specter of why shouldn't different spells affect initiative in different ways, again something we had in pre-3e. However, no one seems to be lamenting the loss of such complexity and bookkeeping.

To me this is an at table/away from table divide on complexity. Say heavy armour gave a penalty to initiative, then you could recalculate your bonus to initiative and this wouldn't change often. To me this is good complexity - you get to weigh up if your character would be happy with this trade-off.

Doing the same for different weapons a character might draw or a spell they might cast is much less good in many respects. More addition and subtraction of bonuses and penalties that can change from combat to combat will slow the game down, not through more in depth tactical choices but through routine calculation (Ok, a bit through the choices as well I guess).

[Tanarii]

Over the years I've actually seen the opposite to be true. 3.x and Pathfinder have strong attraction for newish players who overemphasize the "build game within the game" where players who have grown out of that phase want to spend more time playing the game then preparing for the game.
Putting aside the negative implications "grown out of that phase" evokes, I've found its more a factor of how much time folks have to play vs how much they have to fiddle around by themselves.

I know a fair number of people that have "grown out" of the phase of playing RPGs (and Board games) and grown in to reading RPG & board game rules, and designing characters, while sitting at home in the evening with their family and young kids. They were people I gamed with just after college, when we all had lots of free time to play. They have down time, but they don't have easily accessible groups of people they can play with during it. (And in most cases, official play doesn't appeal. It was groups of personal friends that drew them to game.)

I know plenty of others that have "grown out" of the phase of spending tons of time making character builds (if players) or writing adventures or even campaign settings (if DMs). They have busy lives with not much down time. And they want to sit down on a Friday night and play without having to worry about being underpowered because they didn't spend a bunch of time on the character build/optimization mini-game.

[stoutstien]

Putting aside the negative implications "grown out of that phase" evokes, I've found its more a factor of how much time folks have to play vs how much they have to fiddle around by themselves.

I know a fair number of people that have "grown out" of the phase of playing RPGs (and Board games) and grown in to reading RPG & board game rules, and designing characters, while sitting at home in the evening with their family and young kids. They were people I gamed with just after college, when we all had lots of free time to play. They have down time, but they don't have easily accessible groups of people they can play with during it. (And in most cases, official play doesn't appeal. It was groups of personal friends that drew them to game.)

I know plenty of others that have "grown out" of the phase of spending tons of time making character builds (if players) or writing adventures or even campaign settings (if DMs). They have busy lives with not much down time. And they want to sit down on a Friday night and play without having to worry about being underpowered because they didn't spend a bunch of time on the character build/optimization mini-game.

Yes 'growing out' was poor phrasing on my part.
The in game downtime is an factor I've seen alot. After a long rest in 3.x an experienced player with a wizard can finish preparing spells in about 8 minutes where In 5e it takes the same player just shy of 1 minutes. Not a huge difference at first glance but those minutes add up.

[AdAstra]

Yes 'growing out' was poor phrasing on my part.
The in game downtime is an factor I've seen alot. After a long rest in 3.x an experienced player with a wizard can finish preparing spells in about 8 minutes where In 5e it takes the same player just shy of 1 minutes. Not a huge difference at first glance but those minutes add up.

And in 5e it’s less likely to have to change spells in the first place due to a little streamlining and the loss of Vancian magic. No need to decide whether you need 3 fireballs today or 2.

[Dienekes]

I'd say yes, within parameters.

I would like more options, without any of the hoops one had to go through to use them in 3.5. For example, things like the Whirlwind Attack feat. Sure, in 3.5 it required 4 feats it had absolutely no business to cost, but the option was there if you wanted it. It'd be great if this and other types of actions like Pathfinder's Dirty Trick got put into the game either as new feats or by expanding the Superiority Dice mechanic. It'd be great if the Maneuvers learned by Battlemaster came in ranks so there were some more interesting options at later levels.

But I'd like to increase that, while not increasing the learning curve too much.

For example, if the Battlemaster got access to new maneuvers at 10th level. I could see Whirlwind Attack working there, if you feel it needs it with the requirement of having already learned the Sweeping Attack maneuver. Fill out another 10 to 15 more and we're good.

I'd also like a bit more detail added to the skill and exploration systems. But I just have less to talk about for that.

[Knaight]

No. I'd redistribute the existing complexity a bit, and there are definitely areas where the complexity there is could be spent to much more effect, but just more of it? No. If I want to play competitive spreadsheets I have games for that, RPGs aren't among them.

[MrStabby]

I am curious as to what people think to the more from 3rd edition style three saves, to 5th edition with six saves. Obviously this is an increase in complexity.

On the other hand there is symmetry there which makes it easy to grasp. Each saves works in the same way and has the same relationship with its stat.

For me, I like it. It seems to add more granularity and difference between characters without making grasping the rules any more difficult.

[stoutstien]

I am curious as to what people think to the more from 3rd edition style three saves, to 5th edition with six saves. Obviously this is an increase in complexity.

On the other hand there is symmetry there which makes it easy to grasp. Each saves works in the same way and has the same relationship with its stat.

For me, I like it. It seems to add more granularity and difference between characters without making grasping the rules any more difficult.

It was a good idea that just needed some fine tuning. If the discrepancy of how often each save was relevant was addressed its fine.

Sometimes I miss the three save system when homebrewing effects because it's faster but it's a minor difference.

[Hytheter]

I definitely find myself wishing that characters were just a little more customisable, that features were a little more modular, that we had a few more choices to make as we levelled. Just a little, though; 3.X probably took it too far, but I think we could safely edge in that direction without wholly sacrificing the relative simplicity that people enjoy in 5e.

That said, it's too late for many of the changes I would want to make. And the game is fine as it stands, so I can live with that. But I definitely find myself wishing for more sometimes.


I'd redistribute the existing complexity a bit, and there are definitely areas where the complexity there is could be spent to much more effect

Could you extrapolate on that? I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts in more detail, if you are so inclined.

[EggKookoo]

As somebody who had to DM 3e a lot back in the day I would disagree vehemently. That is one of the WORST aspects of 3e as a DM. It is a pain to continually modify and make new enemies when they are all built like characters and to make it worse that includes magical equipment as well. It is madness.

I have to second this. I have a few beefs with the 3e approach to things but if I had to single out any one design mindset it was the "one mechanic to rule them all" element. It sounds like a good idea -- let's make everything use the same set of features and rules all the time. But the problem is, a player and a DM have extremely different uses for their characters. PCs exist in a special space in the game. They have a progression gradient, and each PC has its own dedicated player to manage it. In the entire campaign universe, there are only and exactly as many PCs as there are players. Everything else is an NPC, and 99% of those only exist for one encounter. Saddling NPCs with PC-like complexity is madness.

3e gets some grief for its combat complexity, but that's only half the story. The complexity of the NPCs made it far worse than it had to be.

[DanyBallon]

To OP:
Quite the opposite, I like the simplicity of 5e, but I’m looking for something even simpler, with less classes, races, no skills etc.
I’ve found an adaptation of 5e in the style of B/X and like it very much so far!
There is only 4 classes and 3 races as class. No feat. Skills are replaces by proficiency area, so let’s say you describe your character as a military strategist, then you can ask to apply your proficiency bonus to anything related to war, strategy, siege engine, castle defense, etc. Kinda like when they first start DnD Next playtest.

[Tanarii]

Those of us who frequent the forums are outliers in terms of acceptable complexity.

Simple Example: If as a DM you call for an "Intelligence (Arcana)" check, as opposed to an "Arcana" check, it will cause confusion in a large number of players. Even just calling for an "Intelligence" check can make them hesitate, they mostly think of checks as skill checks.

And don't even get me started on how long it takes the average player to figure out the total bonus they get on a variant skill check, like if I call for a Constitution (Athletics) check. (Con (Athletics) is my house rule for avoiding Dash fatigue in Chase scenes, so it's a point of pain for me.)

I mean, there are even some players can't even keep their attack bonuses or spell save DCs memorized, and have to look them up each time.

[FabulousFizban]

No, I do not. If anything I want the game to be even more streamlined. However, what you are describing will come it time with the release of splatbooks. Don't be in a rush. We have player handbooks 1 and 2 (xanathar's), and I think there is already plenty of depth there. Over time, Wizards will release more books, with more options, the game will get more bloated and hard to balance, and then it will be replaced by a stripped down 6e. This is cyclical now.

[djreynolds]

I can understand something to make certain weapons more desirable, but not like this. I'm currently playing some Pathfinder 2e and while I like the system I hate the number of keywords for everything. Having a huge range of weapon abilities just means more looking up. Now I realise that kind of goes against what I said with making other weapons, maces, flails etc. more desirable, but there's a reason I'm not a game designer. I can't think of how to fix it without making it just too much.


Thing is, we had weapon speeds in older editions, as well as differing armor values vs. different damage types (slash/pierce/bludgeon). But it was clunky, and if you're going to do it then it raises the specter of why shouldn't different spells affect initiative in different ways, again something we had in pre-3e. However, no one seems to be lamenting the loss of such complexity and bookkeeping.

I really find there is a list of martial weapons that are not heavy or variant and have no purpose.

People who crafted these weapons do so for a purpose.

I agree I do not want clunky. But what do we do?

Would it be wrong just to give anyone use a flail, flail mastery?

Flail, trident, war pick, maybe not Morningstar sit at the merchant's stand..... unused

[AdAstra]

I really find there is a list of martial weapons that are not heavy or variant and have no purpose.

People who crafted these weapons do so for a purpose.

I agree I do not want clunky. But what do we do?

Would it be wrong just to give anyone use a flail, flail mastery?

Flail, trident, war pick, maybe not Morningstar sit at the merchant's stand..... unused

The problem is that then you have to be really careful to make the weapon traits balanced, including how those traits interact with class features and feats. Otherwise you end up with a situation where your attempt to give players greater mechanical choices actually reduces their thematic choices, since in order to get a specific mechanical result you need to pick a specific weapon, and often some weapons just have better traits than others.

As for your example, you don't actually lose much if anything if you decide to use a war pick, flail, or morningstar (the trident isn't good, but at least it can be thrown). Versatile isn't a useful trait, so a longsword is effectively identical to those three options. The only reason why few people use them is because few people choose to use them, not because they're actually inferior.

[MaxWilson]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

Complexity for complexity's sake? No. Depth? Yes. It's very, very oriented toward consequence-free violence.

[opaopajr]

Those of us who frequent the forums are outliers in terms of acceptable complexity.

[...]

I mean, there are even some players can't even keep their attack bonuses or spell save DCs memorized, and have to look them up each time.

This is a very real thing. :smalleek:

In many ways I adore AD&D 2e with all options turned off. It's just some stat mods written off a chart, and often not even that as there is a huge block of vanilla normal. No "skills" or "feats" or "multiclassing" turned on. And then write a THAC0 chart below on their PC sheet showing what hits what and voilà -- plug and play with little to no math at the table. I can GM it and their "math-phobic" PCs with little trouble. :smallcool:

It helps keep the game moving for casuals who mostly came just to socialize and eat snacks. :smallamused: Not an insult, merely an accomodation to them... and my blood pressure.

[EggKookoo]

Flail, trident, war pick, maybe not Morningstar sit at the merchant's stand..... unused

They're great for making NPCs feel unique. I mean from a DM's perspective. MM says that creature comes with a longsword? Switch it to a morning star and you get to describe a weapon the player's probably don't see all that often. Sure it's bludgeoning rather than slashing and doesn't have versatile, but that's not a huge problem.

The mistake, I think, is looking at the game from the stats up. As in, "there are only so many one-handed d6 melee weapons, so let's just group them all together mechanically" as I've seen suggested in the past. Different weapons have similar damage ranges so that a player can feel more free to choose something unusual and not feel penalized for it.

[opaopajr]

The Equipment is another discussion entirely, and dependent on the campaign's needs. :smallcool: I can see many settings not having the metallurgic technology for rapiers and the like. Just as I can also see settings that have Weapons have more than one damage type.

It's perhaps one of the reasons why I miss more simplicity for 5e because then you can get away with more fine-tuned complexity in areas like Equipment. There is less of a concern of cascading unintended consequences when there is less features to worry about. :smalltongue:

[djreynolds]

Morningstar is just an upgrade from a mace

But war pick, trident and flail are really unique weapons.... that just sit and rust.

Would you even allow a trident with PAM?

[JumboWheat01]

I wouldn't call a trident a unique weapon. It's actually a nerfed spear. It has the same stats, but weighs more, costs more, and Polearm Mastery works with spears, unlike tridents, with a later errata.

Warpicks, flails, at least they got the better damage dice of martial weapons going for them. Tridents are beaten out by a simple weapon that only a few classes can't wield.

[Luccan]

It's strange: tridents seem to exist in the PHB only to be used for magic items. Like, rather than a "Spear of the Ocean King" the designers would have a "Trident of the Ocean King". Mechanical difference is nil, but the second one is more associated with Neptune/Poseidon so they pick it for aesthetics. They could've just dropped tridents from the PHB list and put "this weapons functions like a spear, except..." in the magic item descriptions.

[ezekielraiden]

It's strange: tridents seem to exist in the PHB only to be used for magic items. Like, rather than a "Spear of the Ocean King" the designers would have a "Trident of the Ocean King". Mechanical difference is nil, but the second one is more associated with Neptune/Poseidon so they pick it for aesthetics. They could've just dropped tridents from the PHB list and put "this weapons functions like a spear, except..." in the magic item descriptions.

Personally, I'd have lumped together weapons of sufficiently similar design and then noted in the item description that it's a category rather than a strict description. E.g. "The longsword statistics may be used for other weapons of grossly similar design, such as nihonto or jian." Or, "Though the name for this weapon is 'spear,' any weapon of similar construction applies, so a 'spear' could be a trident or assegai."

[Morty]

The 5E weapon list could be condensed to a few categories that can be described as you like. In fact, it'd convey the same amount of information without all the trap options and identical yet separate weapons. The list is as long as it is because people expect it to look like this.

In any event, 5E is as complex as it should be, I think. D&D can't really be more complex than that, as past editions show. The constraints of levels and classes prevent it. 4E and 5E both play to their strengths by narrowing things down towards a particular purpose. If you want a complex, customizable game with lots of widgets, there's plenty others, better suited for this goal.

[Psychoalpha]

And by that I mean characters having some more class features, regular features, and overall versatility that would allow for a little more optimization?
It may be me being a little nostalgic towards 3.5 and the crazy amount of (broken) optimization you could do, but I do kind of wish 5e was just a tad more complex.

Nah, I wish 5E stayed exactly like it was, but I do wish it wasn't the primary focus of official D&D development. I get that they're a company that wants to make money, so appealing to the lowest common denominator makes sense, but it's more or less turned D&D into beer and pretzels for low fantasy "fun". That has it's place and all, but I'm a little sad that the bar for epic adventure for a whole generation of folks is going to be set by bounded adventure. Sorry, I meant accuracy. Bounded accuracy. :p

And because of 5E making that appeal to beer and pretzels, and how successful it's been, we got a PF2 that essentially abandons everything we turned to playing Pathfinder for to begin with. Meh. My gripes are long and many, obviously. People are obviously going to chime in (and already have) with 'you can keep playing XYZ', but that's disingenuous because there is absolutely a difference between a live game with official support and one that's essentially retired, when it comes to engaging the interest of people new to the gaming space.

[micahaphone]

@Psychoalpha,

Do you feel that 5e is too grounded and low fantasy? I feel like around level 7 or 8 you could expect to be meeting with heads of state, and published adventures have you fighting Demon Lords to save the material plane itself by level 15. The magical powers in 5e feel very, very strong! I'd think you get past "low fantasy fun" by about 5th level.

Or is the dig at bounded accuracy mean that you prefer getting bigger numbers and modifiers, so your character is stronger in certain niches? I guess in my experience with Pathfinder 1st ed, it seems like the DCs just become inflated to compensate, so it becomes more punishing if you didn't build your character correctly, the whole "many choices can actually lead to fewer choices" conundrum.

[Flashkannon]

I could use a solid rules supplement for the Exploration and Social Interaction pillars. That, plus a good deal more stealth mechanics. And by rules supplements I mostly mean sets of... well, scenarios. Ways for even newbie DMs to make those aspects interesting.

I play charisma characters on occasion, and I am always stymied by my lack in that department. I roll my nice 30 Persuasion to convince the storekeeper that perhaps that bauble might look better in my pouch, or that maybe that guard can take the night off, and have the DM stare at me nonplussed.

I have, in the past, played Rangers and the like, and have never found exploration satisfying.

I feel like if there were models and tables and scenarios to work off of, these pillars might be less of a "your results may vary" aspect of the game.

Speaking as a DM, I often struggle with the selfsame problems. It's hard to continually make wilderness exploration interesting without slowing the game to an unholy crawl, which is its own problem.

As for stealth, I kinda wish cover gave a bonus to stealth checks. That, or they went into a little more detail about when you can and cannot hide, and some more info about lighting.

Combat is just fine, though.

[Dr. Cliché]

It's strange: tridents seem to exist in the PHB only to be used for magic items. Like, rather than a "Spear of the Ocean King" the designers would have a "Trident of the Ocean King". Mechanical difference is nil, but the second one is more associated with Neptune/Poseidon so they pick it for aesthetics. They could've just dropped tridents from the PHB list and put "this weapons functions like a spear, except..." in the magic item descriptions.

Regarding weapons, I think one aspect is the weird way in which armour is handled.

Personally, I would expect Dexterity and such to provide characters with AC (representing a chance to dodge/evade/deflect attacks), and for armour to provide damage reduction (similar to Heavy Armour Mastery but on a sliding scale).

This could allow a bit more differentiation between weapons as well as more realism. For example, weapons like maces could ignore a portion of damage reduction derived from armour.

[stoutstien]

Regarding weapons, I think one aspect is the weird way in which armour is handled.

Personally, I would expect Dexterity and such to provide characters with AC (representing a chance to dodge/evade/deflect attacks), and for armour to provide damage reduction (similar to Heavy Armour Mastery but on a sliding scale).

This could allow a bit more differentiation between weapons as well as more realism. For example, weapons like maces could ignore a portion of damage reduction derived from armour.

Agree 100%. I ended up using a system of armor augments. So light armor gets 1 slot, medium armor gets 2, and heavy gets 3. There is a general list that can can be put in any armor like weight reduction or different types of resistance X/day.
Few of the ones restricted to heavy armor have DR, the ablity to cast shield once a day, or increased force from melee strikes.

[Matticusrex]

Great thing about a pen and paper game is you can modify it easily. My group created 2.0 versions of all the martial characters and some of the casters (warlock, sorcerer) and fixed a lot of flaws with it. People love playing them in our games now without the stronger classes feeling like they got power-crept by the new iterations. Whenever a UA comes out that feels too strong or weak, my group fixes it and we get another cool option for whatever class it was for. It took us many months and a lot of failures to get the balance down but when you do, it becomes a lot easier to make and trust the modifications you brew. For an idea of the 2.0 fighters, it started with rolling maneuvers and purple dragon knights abilities in to the base body. Much more was changed after that.

[Lucas Yew]

Generally 5E is well made for a mechanically simple game, but after the fact that monsters' base Proficiency bonus follows not their "solid" HD total but their "flexible" CR value was confirmed, I couldn't bear to play the game seriously (despite my first major campaign play was run by 5E rules and a total success in terms of fun). If I ever get to try my second and further playthroughs, two "official (meaning WotC errata or heavier treatment)" adjustments must be done; first, monster Prof. bonuses are now calculated according to their HD total, just like the player characters; second, more rules are added to the SRD ASAP, especially DMG exclusive features like firearms and epic boons.

For the former, such practice not only satisfies my inner simulationist, but also prevents the rare ugly case in which if you micro-adjust your new original monster's Prof. bonus to fit with its intended CR, said CR goes more up/down than you wanted to, having to calculate again from the start. Besides, my previous skims of the Monster Manual gives the feel that for most of the time, the stat blocks for monsters have only a very miniscule power boost if you apply this adjustment right now, so it won't cause sudden increases in TPKs.

For the latter, well, even 3.5E had way more stuff in its SRD, and I still can't understand why the official DMG(3.5E) firearms never made in during that time, when the even less played Epic and Divinity rules did so...

[Dr. Cliché]

Generally 5E is well made for a mechanically simple game, but after the fact that monsters' base Proficiency bonus follows not their "solid" HD total but their "flexible" CR value was confirmed, I couldn't bear to play the game seriously

Yeah, I've never been a fan of the monster-creation/adjustment rules in 5e for reasons such as this.

I know people dislike the 3.5 method for being overly complicated but at least it made mechanical sense.

[MrStabby]

I am really surprised that monster creation rules elicit such strong feelings.

When I create monsters I usually go by the "eh... it looks close enough" method. I find that this works well enough for me, frees up my prep time for other activities. It also lets me factor in things like the size of a monsters spell list, their likely tactics etc..

[EggKookoo]

I am really surprised that monster creation rules elicit such strong feelings.

I suspect this it true for a small subset of players, mainly those who frequent D&D forums.

My players couldn't possibly care about how stringent I am with encounter rules. If the fight is fun and feels both challenging and fair, they're happy.

[Dr. Cliché]

I am really surprised that monster creation rules elicit such strong feelings.

When I create monsters I usually go by the "eh... it looks close enough" method. I find that this works well enough for me, frees up my prep time for other activities. It also lets me factor in things like the size of a monsters spell list, their likely tactics etc..

That's the method I've ended up using, too.

However, I'd still prefer a more logical system for building monsters 'by the book', even if I elect not to use it at times.

[MrStabby]

There is the DM equivelant of the character builder mini-game I suppose. How hard can I make a fight whilst still being "fair". How do I construct the toughest monster of a particular CR?

Actually, it's kind of fun and informative as long as you don't actually use the outcomes as it helps you think which abilities are over or undervalued on the monster side.

I guess the other element could be laziness. No matter how complex the process, if there is a strict algorithmic way to determine CR, then someone will build a monster builder tool. This way no judgement needed by the DM, put in the abilities and the numbers you want and out comes an answer.

From a world building perspective I do like such a formal approach in principle. It does let the players infer more things about the world from there experience. "Ok, so it hit me with a roll of 11, so strength modifier plus proficiency is at least 9... John passed a save against that spell with a 6 so proficiency cant be that high so most of that attack bonus is coming from a strength score... so I wont try and grapple this guy".

It's one of the reasons why I use simplified "classes" when building NPCs. It gives the PCs a bit of a heads up on what kind of abilities they are likely to have by using their experience.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I prefer complexity, which is weirdly why I prefer 5e.

The basics are so simple that a month ago, I built a complete party of level 5 PC's from memory. I can make a reasonably balanced monster at-will. The absolute simplicity of the skill DC's lets me pick numbers that just 'feel right'. Admittedly, a lot of that's from decades of TTRPG experience, but I know I'm hardly special here in these regards.

Because it's so simple, I can complicate things however I like. I can add facing to combat and guess how that effects the math. I can invent feats, items, subclasses, whole classes, and have them mesh reasonably well without really trying. I've made structure and city building rules, stronghold rules, army management and warfare rules, a virtue system, finicky social rules. I print out dozens of pages of home rules for my players in every game I run, allow wide swaths of approved third party material. I complicate every game I run, but always in the precise way I want the game to be complicated.

For comparison, I used to write custom rules and classes back in 3.5 when I first really got into DM'ing. The math was complex, but I got it well enough to create maybe 1/10th of what I've done for 5e, which is still enough to fill a short book (this is not hyperbole). In 4e, I could barely fill a pamphlet because of how overloaded player options were- I tried to create a class once and gave up, while most of my custom monsters and items were just tweaks on existing materials, nothing I'd really call my own. I never made custom systems for either, because there was already too much work just running them.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

+1 and Seconded!

[EggKookoo]

I prefer complexity, which is weirdly why I prefer 5e.

Perhaps the word you want is "flexibility"?

[AdAstra]

Perhaps the word you want is "flexibility"?

I think this would count as both. If you can easily add complexity to a system wherever you want it, and the base rules support that complexity well, that system is at least enabling complexity, even if the system itself is simple.

[Tanarii]

As someone with a busy work life who runs multiple sessions per week, I’m super glad the game is designed to play, not around either player or DM away from table mini games.

But when I was younger and had lots of down time, coupled with less frequent play, I personally liked games with lots of world and adventure building (and running) subsystems to faff around with. Design my own? Heck no. I’d rather be designing my own worlds and adventures using someone else’s mechanics as a launching pad!

In short, I’m lazy. :smallamused: 5e meets my current lazy needs. 1e with Wilderness and Dungeoneers survival guides, plus some oriental adventures sub tables, met my high school lazy needs. 2e world builders guide and the historical & castle soft-back splats met my college lazy needs.

——————

Also let’s not forget our history here, 3e vanilla with no splats was a HUGE simplification and unification compared to 2e plus a decade of splats. Just as 2e vanilla was compared to 1e plus a decade of splats. This cycle of massive bloat followed by a new edition, which repeats in most of the most famous lines of TRPGs, is exactly what they were trying to avoid with their evergreen policy.

[Aimeryan]

I would like more complexity without the time and effort required to detangle and compute the result of that complexity.

If I recall correctly, one of the goals of 5e (perhaps the goal) was to have smoother and faster games - whether this is because time constraints in the real world has become more impactful, or because players have become less willing to invest so much time and effort, I do not know. Regardless, the goal was best thought to be achieved by making things simple.

One interesting recent development in the tabletop game genre has been using apps (usually on a tablet, or smartphone if not), to support the more complex interactions of those games. The result is more complexity without the time and effort penalty. I would like to see something akin to this being considered for a future edition of D&D. I see some progress has already been made towards this with D&D Beyond; the ability to make decisions and then hold that data in digital form is the first step towards using and combining that data in complex ways.

[EggKookoo]

One interesting recent development in the tabletop game genre has been using apps (usually on a tablet, or smartphone if not), to support the more complex interactions of those games. The result is more complexity without the time and effort penalty. I would like to see something akin to this being considered for a future edition of D&D. I see some progress has already been made towards this with D&D Beyond; the ability to make decisions and then hold that data in digital form is the first step towards using and combining that data in complex ways.

I think there's a worthwhile distinction to be made between a tabletop game and a computer game. Having too much dependency on one or more apps to account for additional complexity might steer D&D more toward "computer game" than much of its audience might want.

I don't think 5e was a trend toward simplicity entirely for its own sake, although that was likely one goal. There was a trend toward more complex TT games and greater system mastery. During the same time, there was a rise in CRPGs, which fed off this complexity trend. Since the GM in a CRPG is the computer, and the player doesn't need to directly interact with the mechanics and instead is presented with a slick GUI, the mechanics no longer needed to be cognitively simple. They could support increasingly fiddly interactions. However, the GM no longer had the ability to handle oddball player choices ("I wild shape into a beaver and chew through the orc's axe handle..."). CRPGs ended up feeling pretty theme-park, but player demand for complexity (or at least game designers' perception of such) meant TTRPGs tried to keep up.

I think 5e is largely a response to the impersonal feeling of CRPGs, and in particular the constrained feeling players get when they realize they can't really do anything they imagine, but are limited to what buttons they can push on the UI. It's no accident 5e is very DM-empowering. When I started my first 5e campaign a couple of years back, I had players who grew up on CRPGs basically paralyzed by the realization they needed to be creative at the table.

DM (me): What do you?
Player: Um, what can I do?
DM: Whatever you want to do.
Player: [stares blankly at character sheet]

It got better and I run games today with these same players, and they've totally bought into the tabletop mindset. But they had to buy into it.

[Aimeryan]

I think there's a worthwhile distinction to be made between a tabletop game and a computer game. Having too much dependency on one or more apps to account for additional complexity might steer D&D more toward "computer game" than much of its audience might want.

It is one of those things that just don't know until tried, although, note that a number of established tabletop games have recently done so and done so successfully - Mansions of Madness, XCom, Road to Legend, etc.

For myself, the strengths a tabletop RPG has over a computer RPG would not be impacted, so there would be no 'towards'; in-person interaction with friends, physical interaction with the game, off-rails gameplay. A computer RPG has its own strengths, of course; can be played solo when you just don't have time or capability to play with others, visual representation in the form of graphics and cutscenes, and yes, more complex mechanics. The app-support does not degrade the strength of the tabletop, if anything, it degrades the strength of the computer.