The more options each character class has, the slower combat goes.
Level 10 Fighter with x number of combat maneuvers + standard melee or ranged attacks (multiple per round at this point) + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons
Level 10 Rogue with Sneak Attack + Cunning Action + standard melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuver via weapon
Level 10 Cleric can cast a gazillion spells + melee or ranged + can cast all scrolls including mage scrolls + can throw potions + has special maneuvers via weapons
The higher the levels, the more choices you'll have per class. If you give everyone additional choices, this severely slows the game down. The more choices a player has, the more the player sits there wondering what the heck move they're going to do against the enemies. People complain turn based is slow. Well, yes it is when you have so many options to choose from each round. The more options you have, the slower players take.
One of the main points of limiting choices, especially in the beginning, is to get players used to what their characters can do. You might have one or two special abilities, and over the course of a few levels, you learn those abilities well. Then you gain a few more and learn those also. Now you know which special abilities work best against which enemies as you slowly progress and gain more and more special abilities. Thus, combat doesn't go as slow because you progressively learn what works best against what for your particular class. You become an expert at what each character can do.
The argument that more options are bad because they slow down fights is awfully stupid. In games based on tactical combat, the number of options the player has is extremely important. It's a turn-based game, after all. I don't know if mentioning10lvl is a good idea considering that it was supposed to be the original level limit which means that we probably won't reach this level by the end of act 2 / the beginning of act 3. Also, remember that about 80% of players don't even finish games (especially long ones). It is enough to see how many people have ever reached Arx in DoS2 (26%) which I would say is much above the other games anyway. Another example is Kingsmaker where only 18% of people unlocked the kingdom at all (it is about 50% of the game) and not even half of them completed the game. In the case of WotR, barely 10% reached Treshhold.
What am I going to? It is important to get players interested from the beginning. It depends on how long they spend in the game. If for the first 10-15 hours (even less than the current EA) the player will be limited to casting boring cantrips or using only AA, he will most likely quickly abandon the game and probably will not even buy another one.
NO YOUR STUPID!!!! lol.
Come on now. Was that really called for? It is not stupid. The point is that in the beginning, when you're level 1, you are not supposed to have a gazillion options and choices. As you level up, you gain more and more choices and options in combat. As your character grows, you as a player grow, learning more and more about what each ability does and how it can best be used. The point is that if you start with a gazillion options and then you add a gazillion more, you eventually get to the place where you don't know what half of your moves do and you're completely overwhelmed by choices. Multiply that by 4 because you aren't just controlling one character but 4, and you have a WHOLE LOT of options every round.
Here's an example. Level 1 Fighter. Move and attack. That's your options. Level 2, Action surge once per short or long rest adds an additional attack. You also have Second Wind. Not many options, but that's good. You're learning the game and learning how to best use Action Surge and Second Wind. Level 3, you gain Maneuvers as a BAttlemaster, or spells as an Eldritch Knight. Great, now you suddenly have more advanced maneuvers and abilities. You're growing as a character and as a player. Now you can learn the 3 new maneuvers you got and how they add to your arsenal of abilities. Skip a few levels. You now have more combat maneuvers to choose from each round plus an additional attack action per round. SO many more options. In one round, you could attack twice with different combat maneuvers and then use Action Surge to attack a third time with yet another combat maneuver. You are no longer stuck with just move and attack like at Level 1. You've got quite a number of more options to choose from.
Now, take BG3. You're a Level 1 Fighter. You have Move and attack and Pommel and Lacerate and I think one or two other moves. Add to that Action Surge at Level 2 and Second Wind. Add to that the ability to cast any spells via scrolls or toss potions to heal and/or cause damage and/or poison enemies and/or put them to sleep and/or cast haste upon an ally or whatever. At Level 2, instead of only having maybe two or three options per round, you have like ten to fifteen because you have all these potions and scrolls you could use and special maneuvers that your weapons can use.
So, in the typical D&D 5e scenario, how much quicker is combat going to be for the Fighter who has maybe two or three options during combat versus the Fighter who has ten to fifteen options who sits there pondering which would be the most effective: Throwing an Alchemst Fire?... Healing their companion by throwing a Potion?... Throwing a sleep potion to put a few enemies to sleep?... Casting a spell via a scroll?... Using a special maneuver like Lacerate?... etc. etc. etc.
So yes, combat is slowed down because of too many options, and when we get these characters to higher levels where they naturally have a ton more options, how much slower is the game going to go when you can do a ton more things per round per character? And again, you have 4, so take everything from the Fighter and multiply your option count by 4.
It's too much.
It is definitely not too much. And why is more options wrong? According to the same logic, we should not change the reaction because they will slow down the fight even more or introduce ready actions.
Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit with the sarcasm, but I can't completely understand this argument. In this type of games, what makes them good is not the amount of options available to the player? While the first 5 levels should be unlocked fairly quickly, the later levels will be unlocked rather slowly.
More options does not make a better tactical game. The player will simply use the most effective option every time. Constraining options means that the player has to find the most effective way to utilize a limited tool.
