I think it's also dependent on what you *do* with the game.

Running campaigns vs. one-shots changes that complexity a lot. Apples to apples needs to consider this on some level. Other levels of comparison to other systems should be readily apparent.

How many calculations to get through task resolution? How narratively accurate are the abstractions of the system?  How well do they comport to their settings in expressing task resolution for non-combat and combat? How many sub-systems are required to emulate their respective narrative goals that *deviate* away from the core task resolution system?

Overall - I think David Johansen nailed it. But for it to be more accurate, I think its more useful to compare it to other systems that attempt to do the same thing in both scope and general play.

Overall, 5E isn't that hard to play. This holds true for both the 2014 and 2024 versions. New players feel a little overwhelmed at first because there are so many skills to look at, but once they get a feel for them they aren't hard. (And I think 2024's reorganization of grouping by stat instead of alphabetical is a good one.) To me, much of the "complexity" of 5E is the illusion that each player needs to understand all of the rules, but if each player knows their character they should be fine. This bothered me at first with Warhammer miniatures, where I thought I needed to know what every army could do, but eventually I realized that you learn yours and your opponent learns his and then you are okay.

Fundamentally, 5E has a pretty simple rules mechanic. That means once you figure out some of the lingo you're ready to play pretty quickly, particularly if you start with pregens.

5e was at its core pretty simple.

Just about everything revolved around that d10 roll.
Saves, To Hits, Skills, and so on.

And despite 5e having more moving parts after chargen. It was still pretty easy to get players into.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 22, 2024, 09:37:08 AM5e is not especially complex compared to other editions such as 1e, 3e, 4e or even 2e.

5.5 / 2024 is a lot more complex.

Can you explain why you feel the 2024 update to 5e "is a lot more complex?"

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 23, 2024, 12:25:19 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 22, 2024, 09:37:08 AM5e is not especially complex compared to other editions such as 1e, 3e, 4e or even 2e.

5.5 / 2024 is a lot more complex.

Can you explain why you feel the 2024 update to 5e "is a lot more complex?"

Not who you asked, but I believe there are too many decision points during chargen compared to 2014.

There are now so many more things characters can do, especially with bonus actions. I'd be surprised if decision anxiety doesn't become an issue.

It sure was a big problem in 4E. More and more I've come to view 2024 D&D as a stealth reversion to a 4E model. They've made it just complicated enough that most people will gravitate towards DDB for ease of use.

As intended.

Quote from: ForgottenF on September 21, 2024, 12:24:35 PMThe way I would say it is that 5th edition has a simple core system, which is then complicated by the options for character customization etc.

This is my take as well. My ideal system would be 5E's core with OD&D's class design. After character creation, I don't want any customization beyond items and treasure. Any system where "character builds" are a thing is too complex for me.

My answer to this question, which was more complicated to phrase than I tought it was, initially, is the following :
If you have motivated players, who are willing to learn the rules, in which manner the game is played, that is not complicated, but if they are not, you have to remember them, as a GM, that you cannot do your part of the game, if, as players, they are unwilling to do some level of effort.
Magic is quite powerful, as always, and beyond the 10th level, the game shows that dealing with magic users, who are capable to think outside the box, is quite challenging.
it is not a difficult game to learn, but to master it, it is quite difficult and the more challenging task is, of course, the DM task, but why the right set of players, it is quite funny and interesting.

There are too many possibile combinations of things to consider, and there are too many things going on in a single turn.

A turn should be:

I retrieve an arrow, place it, draw my bow, aim and release.

Your turn is over.

I draw my longsword, and strike at the "x".

Your turn is over.

I raise my spear, take aim, and throw it at the "x".

Your turn is over.

I retrieve a scroll, and read it aloud.

Your turn is over.

I retrieve a potion, and drink the potion, while taking a defensive stance.

Your turn is over.

I cast "x".

Your turn is over.

Etc.

Quote from: Horace on September 24, 2024, 11:48:11 AMMy ideal system would be 5E's core with OD&D's class design.

So maybe 5E but keep the backgrounds and such until level 2. First level you're just a person on a quest, then by 2nd level you start to add in extra details. (DCC sort of does this with the 0-level funnel, and you don't pick a class until you advance out of level 0.) That would allow a player to roll stats, maybe pick a basic character class, and play "out of the box."

Quote from: finarvyn on September 24, 2024, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: Horace on September 24, 2024, 11:48:11 AMMy ideal system would be 5E's core with OD&D's class design.

So maybe 5E but keep the backgrounds and such until level 2. First level you're just a person on a quest, then by 2nd level you start to add in extra details. (DCC sort of does this with the 0-level funnel, and you don't pick a class until you advance out of level 0.) That would allow a player to roll stats, maybe pick a basic character class, and play "out of the box."

The system I've always wanted to try, but haven't gotten around to doing yet, is just 5E without the level-up abilities. So characters gain more HP and spells when they level up, but no 4E-inspired superpowers.

D&D 5E can wind up forcing players to choose between different armor class computations because certain feats are specifically worded so they do not stack. More to the point, one of the youtubers I followed around the 5.5 PHB release--Insight Check--pointed out that as it was written in the copy he received, half of the Goliath's Powerful Build feat is non-functional as written. The feat gives you advantage on a saving throw to end the Grappled condition, but Grappling doesn't actually get ended with a saving throw; it ends with an Athletics or Acrobatics check.

Yes, D&D 5E is a complicated game. Sure, the basics of the softly bound modifier D20 system can be explained in two sentences, but the stuff built on top of that core mechanic is a Rube Goldberg contraption which is perpetually half-way to becoming a flaming wreck. It's so complicated that the designers themselves seem to not always know the relevant rules.

Quote from: Horace on September 24, 2024, 06:02:36 PM

Quote from: finarvyn on September 24, 2024, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: Horace on September 24, 2024, 11:48:11 AMMy ideal system would be 5E's core with OD&D's class design.

So maybe 5E but keep the backgrounds and such until level 2. First level you're just a person on a quest, then by 2nd level you start to add in extra details. (DCC sort of does this with the 0-level funnel, and you don't pick a class until you advance out of level 0.) That would allow a player to roll stats, maybe pick a basic character class, and play "out of the box."

The system I've always wanted to try, but haven't gotten around to doing yet, is just 5E without the level-up abilities. So characters gain more HP and spells when they level up, but no 4E-inspired superpowers.

Define "superpowers" though... are the fighter's extra attacks superpowers? The monk's unarmed damage going up as they level? The rogue's sneak attack?

Because if the non-casters don't get their "superpowers" they will be utterly outclassed by spellcasting as early as level 5 (when many fighting classes get their second attack) because the basic spells increase in capability to match the output of multiple attacks.

The fact of the matter is that even in AD&D all the classes got improved abilities as they level up... even the fighters; extra attacks per round, improved saves, better access to magic weapons, establishing a freehold after reaching level 9 granting followers and an income.

Paladins picked up turn undead at level 3, calling their mount at level 4, and the ability to cast cleric spells at level 9.

Rangers get druid and magic-user spells, expanded magic item access and followers at higher levels.

Thieves got read languages at level 4, could decipher magic languages and use scrolls at level 10, and gain a cadre of lesser thieves if they establish a headquarters.

Monks gained special abilities at every level from 3-13.

5e fighters get a fighting style and second wind at level one, then extra attacks (regular and via action surge) and uses of indomitable (helping with saves) across 20 levels... which is basically the things a 1e fighter got... and their subclass features.

The basic fighter subclass only adds an improved critical chance, a bonus to athletics checks, a second fighting style, and, as a capstone at 18th level, a bit of regeneration (but only to half hit points). It also gets more ASIs than the typical class, but that only adds complexity if you're using feats and they choose to take them.

That's less to keep track of than the status of all the followers a 1e fighter gets with their freehold and isn't much in effect beyond the 1e fighter's extra attacks and improved saves (without the indomitable feature, the fighter's saves are no better than any other class; arguably worse given which they're proficient in).

The point being... 5e isn't more complicated than 1e is, either is easy if you've internalized the complexity (like the guys who have the hit location tables in Battletech memorized... the whole thing is stupidly complex for a newbie, but the can just hear the weapon type and the number rolled and mark off the correct damage to the correct location without even needing to think about it).

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 24, 2024, 08:41:06 PM

Quote from: Horace on September 24, 2024, 06:02:36 PM

Quote from: finarvyn on September 24, 2024, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: Horace on September 24, 2024, 11:48:11 AMMy ideal system would be 5E's core with OD&D's class design.

So maybe 5E but keep the backgrounds and such until level 2. First level you're just a person on a quest, then by 2nd level you start to add in extra details. (DCC sort of does this with the 0-level funnel, and you don't pick a class until you advance out of level 0.) That would allow a player to roll stats, maybe pick a basic character class, and play "out of the box."

The system I've always wanted to try, but haven't gotten around to doing yet, is just 5E without the level-up abilities. So characters gain more HP and spells when they level up, but no 4E-inspired superpowers.

Define "superpowers" though... are the fighter's extra attacks superpowers? The monk's unarmed damage going up as they level? The rogue's sneak attack?

I'd keep those, and all the other "number go up" stuff (proficiency bonus, spell slots, etc.). But I'd try to ditch everything else, including subclasses. I really just want the players to choose a race and class, then spend the rest of their time engaging with the world. The problem with handing players a menu of Class Abilities is that they tend to think of those abilities as their only options for tackling problems. In my experience, fewer player options means more creativity.

Quote from: Horace on September 24, 2024, 10:59:16 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 24, 2024, 08:41:06 PM

Quote from: Horace on September 24, 2024, 06:02:36 PM

Quote from: finarvyn on September 24, 2024, 05:46:17 PM

Quote from: Horace on September 24, 2024, 11:48:11 AMMy ideal system would be 5E's core with OD&D's class design.

So maybe 5E but keep the backgrounds and such until level 2. First level you're just a person on a quest, then by 2nd level you start to add in extra details. (DCC sort of does this with the 0-level funnel, and you don't pick a class until you advance out of level 0.) That would allow a player to roll stats, maybe pick a basic character class, and play "out of the box."

The system I've always wanted to try, but haven't gotten around to doing yet, is just 5E without the level-up abilities. So characters gain more HP and spells when they level up, but no 4E-inspired superpowers.

Define "superpowers" though... are the fighter's extra attacks superpowers? The monk's unarmed damage going up as they level? The rogue's sneak attack?

I'd keep those, and all the other "number go up" stuff (proficiency bonus, spell slots, etc.). But I'd try to ditch everything else, including subclasses. I really just want the players to choose a race and class, then spend the rest of their time engaging with the world. The problem with handing players a menu of Class Abilities is that they tend to think of those abilities as their only options for tackling problems. In my experience, fewer player options means more creativity.

In my experience fewer player options just means fewer player options.

Fewer options doesn't somehow turn uncreative people into creative ones. What it WILL do is give players who are already creative a leg up on the less creative ones... who will just not engage at all and will let the creative one do all of the work.

Also worth noting is very few Class and Subclass options that aren't spells deal with much of anything outside of combat. Almost everything non-combat falls under the heading of skills and tool proficiencies (and if playing the 2014 version, your background feature) that characters get all at first level.

"I'd like to see more creativity out of my players" is all well and good, but taking away combat features that are mostly intended to keep the player math in line with the monster math (ostensibly... in practice the numbers aren't very well balanced but they definitely won't get any better by dropping the combat traits PCs are expected to pick up, non-spellcasters in general are already a bit behind the curve so taking away their combat improvement traits while leaving spellcasters their full arsenal of spells does nothing but widen the divide further).

I guess it might help if you gave me an example of a class feature you think should be left off that might encourage creativity by its absence?

Perhaps to give an example of what I mean... here's the complexity of a level 20 Champion Fighter with no magical gear (for ease of reference proficiencies, traits and non-attack actions that are blue are available at level 1, elements from the background are in green and also come at level 1, and elements that come from the subclass are in red);

* * * * *

Bob the Fighter
Level 20 Human Fighter (Champion)

AC 21 (full plate, shield), Hit Points 184, Hit Dice 20 (1d10+3)
Speed 30 feet, running long jump 25'

Ability Scores: STR 20 (+5), DEX 18 (+4), CON 16 (+3), INT 10 (+0), WIS 18 (+4), CHA 12 (+1)

Proficiencies
Languages: Common, Elven
Saving Throws: Strength +11, Constitution +9
Skills: Athletics +11, Intimidation +7, Perception +10, Survival +10,+3 to all other STR, DEX and CON checks that don't already use your proficiency bonus, Disadvantage on Stealth while in armor.
Tools: Chess +10, Land Vehicles +10

Traits
Military Rank: Soldiers loyal to your former military organization still recognize your authority and influence, and they defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary use. You can also usually gain access to friendly military encampments and fortresses where your rank is recognized.

Survivor: regain 8 hit points at the start of any turn where your hit points are less than half, but more than 0.

Indomitable (3/long rest): reroll a failed saving throw.

Actions
Longsword: 5'; +11/+11/+11/+11 to hit (critical 18-20); 1d8+7 slashing damage.

Longbow: 150'/600'; +10/+10/+10/+10 to hit (critical 18-20); 1d8+4 piercing damage.

Action Surge (free, 2/rest): gain an extra action (once/turn).

Second Wind (bonus, 1/rest): regain 1d10+20 hit points.

* * * * *

That's it. That is everything mechanically given to a 20th level champion fighter outside of magic items and possibly a few additional languages or tool proficiencies if they've had downtime to learn them.

There's just not much to take away.

Backgrounds are necessary because the game is built so that half your skills and most of your tool proficiencies come from your background. The one non-combat related trait most PCs have comes from their background.

Similarly, as you can see, simple subclasses (and every class has one) don't really add much complexity, nor any real options which if removed would cause the player to have to pursue problems significantly differently than they already would. Cutting them mostly just borks up the combat math a bit.

Again, I get the sentiment; I just don't think 5e has enough elements of the type you mentioned worth stripping out that would actually produce the effect you desire.

Now if you DID want to force players to use more creative solutions, the thing to restrict in 5e would be the Spell Lists available to the casters. That is where the "I have a power that completely negates a problem" traits actually lie in 5e... not with the non-caster classes who barely get a fraction of the abilities spellcasters get (unless they take a subclass that grants spellcasting).

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2024, 12:57:14 AMBackgrounds are necessary because the game is built so that half your skills and most of your tool proficiencies come from your background.

Ah, but if you remove skills and tools proficiencies...