I know people say, "not compared to game x, or edition x"; but what about as a standalone game?
For a first time rpg player; I say yes, it is complicated. For a casual rpg gamer; I say yes, it is complicated. For someone who has played rpgs for a good while, but has never played any WOTC editions of D&D; it's still a little complicated. Dang at all the options to consider. Choices to make. Etc.
Simple, equals Lion & Dragon. Simple, equals Tiny Dungeon. Simple, equals White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game.
Anything more complicated, is a complicated game. Roll for initiative!!!
Quote from: Man at Arms on September 21, 2024, 01:44:32 AMSimple, equals Lion & Dragon. Simple, equals Tiny Dungeon. Simple, equals White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game.
Anything more complicated, is a complicated game. Roll for initiative!!!
Everything is relative. Sure, D&D 5E is more complicated than many other RPGs. On the other hand, Lion & Dragon is complicated compared to many systems. Take the rules on parrying, for example:
Quote10. Parrying (Defensive Combat)
...
Characters doing so can engage in «partial» or «total» defense. When engaged in partial defense, characters will suffer a –4 penalty to attack rolls during that round, and cannot move more than their base movement per round (normal unencumbered base movement is 30'). If engaged in full defense, characters will not be able to attack that round and cannot move more than 5' that round (nor can they use any magical object or perform any magic that requires anything other than a free action to activate).
A character engaging in defense, if successfully attacked in melee, may make a parrying roll of 1d20, plus their attack bonus with the type of weapon they are using, if they are parrying with a weapon. If they are using a shield, they add their basic melee attack bonus +2.
If engaged in total defense, the character gets an additional +4 bonus to parrying rolls.
To successfully parry, the character's parrying roll must surpass the value of the attack roll.
If the character successfully parries, he must do a 'blocking' roll, of a d4, or a d8 if parrying with a shield; this roll is modified by the defender's STR bonus. If the shield being used has a magical bonus, that is also added. Finally, Fighters and Clerics get a further bonus equal to their level.
The attacker rolls his damage normally. If the attacker's damage roll surpasses the value of the blocking roll, the attacker does full damage. If the blocking roll is higher than the attacker's damage roll, then the damage was absorbed by the parry.
- Characters doing Partial Defense can only attempt to do one parrying roll per round, except for fighters who can parry a number of attacks equal to their level, but have a cumulative –2 penalty to parrying rolls for each attack after the first that they attempt to parry in the round (so a fighter trying to block the third melee attack in a round gets a –4 penalty to parrying rolls).
- Characters engaged in Total Defense can attempt to parry all attacks against them in the round, but suffer a cumulative –1 penalty to every parrying roll in the round after the first.
- Characters cannot attempt to parry surprise attacks. They can attempt to parry 'free attacks' if they were already engaged in defensive combat at the time of the attack, and are aware of the incoming attack.
- Characters cannot attempt to parry ranged attacks, except for fighters with shields, who may attempt to do so at a –8 penalty.
I'm not saying that the parrying rules are bad. I think it's good to have parrying in a medieval authentic RPG. Still, they're clearly much more involved than TinyD6, say.
There is a difference between complexity of rules and complexity of accounting. D&D 5E is a mostly simple rules buried under moderate to slightly heavy accounting. Which is why it becomes a worse game the more supplements you add. :)
Exception based designs are almost always more complex.
In order of complexity of D&D core rules it goes:
Most Complex
Third Edition
Fifth Edition
Fourth Edition
First Edition AD&D
Second Edition AD&D
OD&D
Basic D&D
With some supplements it goes
Third Edition
Second Edition AD&D (Complete Books + Skills and Powers)
Fifth Edition
Fourth Edition
First Edition (Unearthed Arcanna, Battle System, assorted Dragon articles)
OD&D (Chainmail Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldrich Wizardry, assorted Dragon articles)
Basic
I've often wondered if a simpler and cleaner game would have done better than fifth edition. I think some of the complexity is part of the appeal. The videogame style character progression is famiiar to modern gamers while just making stuff up yourself is not.
Quote from: Man at Arms on September 21, 2024, 01:44:32 AMI know people say, "not compared to game x, or edition x"; but what about as a standalone game?
For a first time rpg player; I say yes, it is complicated. For a casual rpg gamer; I say yes, it is complicated. For someone who has played rpgs for a good while, but has never played any WOTC editions of D&D; it's still a little complicated. Dang at all the options to consider. Choices to make. Etc.
Simple, equals Lion & Dragon. Simple, equals Tiny Dungeon. Simple, equals White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game.
Anything more complicated, is a complicated game. Roll for initiative!!!
The situation gets even more complicated (pun intended) when you account for industry trends changing the baseline rules presented as well as expectations. Right now, rules light seems incredibly popular and I think that has contributed to the increased size of the OSR niche (still a niche though) relative to what it was before for those who want to return to a simpler dnd style. Additionally, games that were developed two decades ago as rules light alternatives to the dnd 3.x/d20 style prevalent back then are more just rules "medium" nowadays (Savage Worlds comes to mind as an example) compared to the crop of rules light games you mentioned in your post.
As someone who has read and play tested several systems, I feel that 5e is about a 3 of 10 in complexity. What makes it seem complex is two-fold; layers of pointless options and absolute shit technical writing and editing. 5e could be presented in a booklet of about 30 pages if properly presented. It isn't a complexity issue, it's a presentation issue.
I have two handouts I give new players. The first is a step-by-step guide to creating a PC straight from the book on a paper PC sheet. The second is a consolidated combat rules covering initiative, turn structure, actions and bonus action, all modifiers, all advantage/disadvantage conditions, and most special situations that apply to combat. Both of these take up a single sheet.
The 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 broadly true of most versions of D&D and games derived from it. You could contrast that with something like the Rolemaster/MERP family of games, which have considerably more complicated core systems, but then the character options don't add a lot of complexity on top of that.
Personally I prefer the latter approach (though I just prefer a simpler game in general.) But I suspect the way D&D does it is commercially more effective. It gives a low barrier to entry with a lot of complexity that can be added on once people are invested in the game (and of course facilitates selling supplement books with more character options).
This is a thread with a lot of good posts, and I doubt I can really offer anything better.
I'd describe 5e as a complex system. The 5e table I play at, I often offer help with the rules because I know them well, and there's routinely confusion and look-ups. I'd argue it's simpler than third (which this table played for years), but it seems mostly like a wash. I will say that it doesn't really offer any multilayer build stuff, which is, I'd argue, what really makes a complex RPG really complex. Like if your guy has a class feature and two feats which all combine to make a good (but lets assume fair and balanced) effect, that's a piece of complexity that will show up at your table out of the blue, and the closest 5e has to that stuff is mostly in the player's handbook- and even then, 5.5 seems to be smoothing that stuff out.
But the rules, the execution of combat? It looks to me like a bunch of players will be looking that stuff up forever, even though it's not super burdensome.
I'd say that most OSR is less complex than 5e as well.
2014 version is medium-low complexity, emphasis on the low.
2024 version is medium complexity, it's a stealth reversion to 4E in many ways to prepare it as a VTT compatible/Baldur's Gate 4 rule engine.
I'd agree with David Johansen's D&D taxonomy of difficulty. And I also like M2A0 separation of 2014 D&D 5e and 2024 D&D 5e (I'd even peg 5e free Basic as perhaps the upper lower-class of 5e D&D ;) ). And yes, there really is a difference between teachable comprehension and in-play bookkeeping -- that latter made 4e a chore more me.
As with anything the more options you turn or leave on the more complex the result is. In fact, since a lot of that optional stuff is rarely playtested to death as it should be for a more competitive and smooth experience, I'd say it's better to keep most things off and only gradually add options in. In that I must applaud 5e in doing like 2e in explicitly letting tables know what is optional, so that a table talk can occur.
I also think such optional tags are a helpful reminder that one needs to curate one's experience. It's a game of pretend with some rules that people thought would be fun (thank you Mike Mernard); it's not Holy Writ. Learning to select what races, classes, archetypes/kits, backgrounds, spells, gear, etc. is how you more meaningfully engage with the ideas to get closer to what you and your buddies wanna play. It's not so much Rule 0 as discernment, selectively focusing on certain things for the sake of the fiction.
I think it's overly complex but if you play over a vtt the complexity pretty much disappears. My players still forget their little features though.
There are a lot of features to remember in the races, and by 3rd Tier there are enough class and archetype features that it is a lot, I agree. But that's not so much an rules operation/resolution complexity as a bookkeeping complexity, as mentioned above. However given I'm older and seen quite a bit of 80s and 90s RPGs -- an age before the total dominance of video games -- I'm used to a lot of far crunchier systems with which to compare. If you are younger and only compare within a more recent band of material, I could see it being high crunchy, but that's in my view more from lack of exposure. :)
One thing that's never helped D&D of any variety is when they try to have their character sheets double as worksheets for character building (5e isn't so bad, but 4E and especially 3/3.5e were rather egregious in this category). This adds significantly to the complexity by littering the sheet new players are expected to use in play with a bunch of numbers and calculations that will never actually be used in play (often the same size on the page as the actually relevant stats) which also bloats the sheet into sheets because it takes half the first page just to record your attributes/attribute modifiers, AC, and saves. And the rest for the score of skills (whether you have them or not) where it includes spots for the attribute modifier, your skill ranks, your racial bonus, synergy and other bonuses and then a spot for the actual modifier (the only one of those numbers you'll ever use in play).
Meanwhile, the monster statbocks were being continually refined to include only the relevant numbers in the most ergonomic way possible for the edition.
There's a reason I've always modelled my homemade sheets after each edition's monster statblock. It's a LOT easier to keep track of all those fiddly bits you get as you level up if you actually organize them like they'd appear in a monster's statblock and all on the same page. This goes double for classes/subclasses where the features stack together (ex. path of mercy monks have their level 6 and 11 features improve their level 3 features which in turn only really modify flurry of blows... those don't need to be listed separately when gained, just tack the effect onto the base version on the sheet and it adds a single sentence to the existing ability instead of an entire paragraph that is disconnected from the base effect and therefore easily forgotten.
The typical non-caster in 5e can fit onto a half-sheet* of paper, even at level 20. Casters with fixed spell lists (ex. bard, sorcerer, warlock) I can fit onto a single full-sheet at level 20. Only full casters with swappable daily spell lists (ie. wizards, clerics and druids) ever go beyond one sheet and that's only for the spell list... the non-spell list portion, including cantrips is typically just part of half a page.
The bookkeeping at the table complexity of 5e is mostly a function of it's horribly designed character sheets and can be greatly reduced by organizing the same data yourself in any word processor.
* by way of explanation, I arrange my sheets in two-column landscape to minimise table space. Folded along the column this makes a sheet just 5.5 x 8.5 inches. Attributes, skills, tool proficiencies, saves AC, hit points, hit dice and movement take up just 6-8 lines. The remaining 36-38 lines are more than enough to fit a character's actions and traits into along with a short spell list (bards typically overflow the first page around level 7-9, wizards can get by with the second half-page for their spell book until around level 10-12 depending on spell complexity and how many useful spells the DM throws in for them to add as treasure).
A Champion Fighter who takes ASIs instead of feats will only exceed half of half a sheet if they end up with fairly complex magic items.
Shades of gray.
5e is not especially complex compared to other editions such as 1e, 3e, 4e or even 2e.
5.5 / 2024 is a lot more complex.
But yes, they are all complex when compared to B/X or Knave.
TBH, I find B/X too complex for my tastes. I'd rather have a 9th-level fighter attack with +9 and a 9th-level MU just have 9 spells, etc. And I used to play GURPS!
EDIT: "I know people say, "not compared to game x, or edition x"; but what about as a standalone game? "
This doesn't make any sense, games are only complicated compared to other games... and you end the OP by comparing it to Tiny Dungeon, L&D, etc.
Quote from: RNGm on September 21, 2024, 10:19:52 AMThe situation gets even more complicated (pun intended) when you account for industry trends changing the baseline rules presented as well as expectations. Right now, rules light seems incredibly popular and I think that has contributed to the increased size of the OSR niche (still a niche though) relative to what it was before for those who want to return to a simpler dnd style. Additionally, games that were developed two decades ago as rules light alternatives to the dnd 3.x/d20 style prevalent back then are more just rules "medium" nowadays (Savage Worlds comes to mind as an example) compared to the crop of rules light games you mentioned in your post
Yeah, I'd say rules-light has been a rising trend in RPGs for the last decade or so, even outside of the OSR, and that's definitely shifted the Overton window as to what is considered a light or simple RPG. I can't think of a major 80s or 90s RPG which would be considered "rules light" by today's standards. Fighting Fantasy, maybe?
Quote from: Opaopajr on September 21, 2024, 10:40:25 PMThere are a lot of features to remember in the races, and by 3rd Tier there are enough class and archetype features that it is a lot, I agree. But that's not so much an rules operation/resolution complexity as a bookkeeping complexity, as mentioned above. However given I'm older and seen quite a bit of 80s and 90s RPGs -- an age before the total dominance of video games -- I'm used to a lot of far crunchier systems with which to compare. If you are younger and only compare within a more recent band of material, I could see it being high crunchy, but that's in my view more from lack of exposure. :)
I think it's more a difference of where the complexity is, rather than purely how much. IME older players, especially ones that came into RPGs from a background in wargaming, will tolerate a lot of complexity if it's in the name of world simulation, which younger players tend to regard as pointless. Whereas younger players appreciate more complexity in character building, which a lot of older players despise.
You could potentially blame that on video games, at least in so far as video gamers have different expectations than tabletop gamers. There are plenty of videogames built entirely on detailed world simulation, but those aren't usually classed as RPGs. They're classed as simulators or management games, while an RPG in videogame parlance is defined by its character progression systems.
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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote from: finarvyn on September 24, 2024, 05:46:17 PMQuote 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 PMQuote from: Horace on September 24, 2024, 06:02:36 PMQuote from: finarvyn on September 24, 2024, 05:46:17 PMQuote 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 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on September 24, 2024, 08:41:06 PMQuote from: Horace on September 24, 2024, 06:02:36 PMQuote from: finarvyn on September 24, 2024, 05:46:17 PMQuote 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 FighterLevel 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)
ProficienciesLanguages: 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
TraitsMilitary 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.
ActionsLongsword: 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... ;)
Quote from: Horace on September 25, 2024, 10:40:47 AMQuote 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... ;)
I see the winkie so I know it's partly in jest, but complexity really is relative.
I abandoned AD&D 1e for Palladium (Robotech, then Heroes Unlimited, then Fantasy, then Rifts) in my early teens so skills feels like a minimum level of complexity for me to even consider something an RPG and not a wargame you play while doing improv theatre to earn in-game advantages from the Referee.
Similarly, I got into Champions, WEG Star Wars, Mage, and indie games like Darkus Thel by my late teens to early 20's. My late 20's was mostly a continuation of that with some d20 adjacents like Spycraft/Stargate in the mix. My 30s was dominated by 4E (the first version of D&D I loved without reservation for allowing me to run characters like I read about without house rules) and LUGTrek. Starting in my 40s I began creating bespoke systems to run and tried playing systems like SWADE and Exalted.
That 5e Champion Fighter is the absolute low end of my complexity scale (honestly, too low for me to consider playing... I'd do Battlemaster Fighter, a Monk, or a College of Swords Bard). Less than that and there aren't even enough elements to be able to guess at what a PC should be capable of in many catego (a high intelligence doesn't tell you whether you know how to build things, know ancient history, understand magic theory, know how to conduct an investigation, or how to perform surgery; and expecting someone to be good at all those things that just because they have a high intelligence just feels silly to me.
That's why skills are important to me... they categorize what a character reasonably knows how to do (while attributes tell you which areas they have a natural aptitude for). One of my biggest complaints about 5e is the proficiency bonus starts too small to be very notable outside the noise of the d20 check (I forget where I read it, but I guess people who have studied it say that for the number of d20 checks made in a typical session you need at least a +3 modifier for most people to notice a bonus or penalty outside the noise of the d20 itself).
Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2024, 11:34:14 AMQuote from: Horace on September 25, 2024, 10:40:47 AMQuote 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... ;)
I see the winkie so I know it's partly in jest, but complexity really is relative.
I abandoned AD&D 1e for Palladium (Robotech, then Heroes Unlimited, then Fantasy, then Rifts) in my early teens so skills feels like a minimum level of complexity for me to even consider something an RPG and not a wargame you play while doing improv theatre to earn in-game advantages from the Referee.
I hear you. The system I have in mind wouldn't be for everyone. It wouldn't even be for me, depending on the mood I'm in. But I've gotten pretty rules-averse lately, to the extent that my preferred system could be written on a single notecard: "
You are a Human Fighter/Rogue/Wizard (choose one) in search of adventure. Go." Beyond that, I don't think anything more is necessary. Just roll d20s when outcomes are uncertain and apply bonuses where appropriate. I've played enough D&D to draw from multiple editions when more complex systems are needed. But I'd rather add those sub-systems spontaneously, during the course of gameplay, rather than write them all out ahead of time.
Again, this wouldn't be for everyone. But it's what appeals to me right now as a player/DM.
Removed ... wrong thread
Quote from: Chris24601 on September 25, 2024, 11:34:14 AMQuote from: Horace on September 25, 2024, 10:40:47 AMQuote 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... ;)
I see the winkie so I know it's partly in jest, but complexity really is relative.
I abandoned AD&D 1e for Palladium (Robotech, then Heroes Unlimited, then Fantasy, then Rifts) in my early teens so skills feels like a minimum level of complexity for me to even consider something an RPG and not a wargame you play while doing improv theatre to earn in-game advantages from the Referee.
Similarly, I got into Champions, WEG Star Wars, Mage, and indie games like Darkus Thel by my late teens to early 20's. My late 20's was mostly a continuation of that with some d20 adjacents like Spycraft/Stargate in the mix. My 30s was dominated by 4E (the first version of D&D I loved without reservation for allowing me to run characters like I read about without house rules) and LUGTrek. Starting in my 40s I began creating bespoke systems to run and tried playing systems like SWADE and Exalted.
That 5e Champion Fighter is the absolute low end of my complexity scale (honestly, too low for me to consider playing... I'd do Battlemaster Fighter, a Monk, or a College of Swords Bard). Less than that and there aren't even enough elements to be able to guess at what a PC should be capable of in many catego (a high intelligence doesn't tell you whether you know how to build things, know ancient history, understand magic theory, know how to conduct an investigation, or how to perform surgery; and expecting someone to be good at all those things that just because they have a high intelligence just feels silly to me.
That's why skills are important to me... they categorize what a character reasonably knows how to do (while attributes tell you which areas they have a natural aptitude for). One of my biggest complaints about 5e is the proficiency bonus starts too small to be very notable outside the noise of the d20 check (I forget where I read it, but I guess people who have studied it say that for the number of d20 checks made in a typical session you need at least a +3 modifier for most people to notice a bonus or penalty outside the noise of the d20 itself).
I don't mind skills in a game, but I don't like using them if the game features a class system. The two are like oil and water. A class, as originally conceived, wasn't just a collection of skills. It represented who your character was. If you don't have that class to define a character then skills are kind of a must have. Most of what skills do in a class based system is codify mundane shit that every character should have basic competency in, and minimize player input and role play by making success only possible with a high enough die roll.