David Noonan on D&D Complexity

[el-remmen]

What I love about these kinds of articles is that they give me a glimpse into some of the concepts in books I would never buy (like the Draconomongonnakickyerassicon) and steal those nuggets for my own homebrewed rules, making up whatever gaps exist in my knowledge of the option rule, feat, etc. . .

I like the idea of breath weapon being used to power spell-like powers - makes breath something useful day to day for the dragon when not in combat without the complexity of spell-caster levels.

 

[Slobber Monster]

I try to mostly give dragons spells that are used outside of combat - divinations and abjurations. That way their spellcasting becomes more an aspect of scenario design, allowing them to focus on biting and breathing in game. Typical choices are Scrying, Nondetection, Arcane Eye, Arcane Lock, and Alarm. A dragon with these on its spell list is very hard to locate, scout, or suprise.

I would be OK if dragons got spell-like abilites, so long as they were well-chosen,

 

[Evilhalfling]

There are a couple of steps to a dragon battle.
dragon casts buffs
dragon uses breath (only if it thinks advesaries are not prepared)
- otherwise dragon uses hit and run tactics, hopefully seperating the party.
dragon fights in melee (only if huge)
dragon escapes.

Dragons are big and have lots of options, but they still get smacked down if facing a group of PCs near its CR in level. At moderate levels 6-10 dragons have an AC of 19-24 easily hittable by everyone. with buffs it can go up to 27-32, which means the dragon may get to fight in melee.

 

[Driddle]

They could really simplify the entire combat system if they would just introduce a set of cards with instructions and special exceptions listed on each.

"The dragon inhales to let loose a blast of --"
"I play my interrupt action and cast Bigby's Ball-Gag at the dragon's mouth."
"Dang it, Carl! You can't cast that while my continuing grapple effect is in play..."

Much, much simpler. ... And collectible!

 

[pedr]

There were other comments in that article which made me think "wow, that's candid." Such as: "Our flying rules ... are pretty fiddly, especially with poor-maneuverability creatures like dragons. Even expert DMs probably have to consult the rulebook for poor and clumsy flyers." And: "But I made sure to build with the dungeon tiles carefully so that the dragons could physically reach every square without needing to use our squeezing rules (they’re on pg. 148 of the Player’s Handbook, but I’m always forgetting them)."

And without wanting to turn this into a Chicken-Licken style "4E is coming! 4E is coming" post, it does make me wonder if current WotC designers are usually this, well, critical of the rules of the game they are responsible for designing. It doesn't take a too cynical mind to suggest that this whole column is a softening up exercise: by reminding us, over time, of the quirks, faults and drawbacks of the current rules you slowly but surely increase demand for a new, improved, streamlined version.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Great article! Design and Development is easily my favorite of all the article series on the D&D website, and this one didn't disappoint.

Re: the "oh no we're dumbing down to the minis game" -- honestly, I think a bit of minis-game inspired simplicity could probably help out a lot of people, without actually requiring minis or a battlemat. If anything, simpler statblocks would look a lot more like old D&D statblocks.

The dragon article was very useful, especially as I'm running a dragon-centric campaign right now. I'm going to have to look into more of those alternate breath spells.

 

[gribble]

As for Energy Drain... I'm not sure. In general, spells that provide a bonus to friendlies are easier to deal with than spells that provide a penalty to unfriendlies (and personal buffs are easier still). So, where possible, I would like to see these emphasised. Where a penalty must be applied to the other side, it should be as simple as possible. So I think Energy Drain needs rethought.

I'll have to disagree. Energy drain fits excellently in this regard. Until the saving throw for the negative levels the following day is failed (assuming it is - and if it is, being the next day you most likely won't be in the middle of combat when you need to recalculate) you don't lose actual levels, and hence don't have to recalculate anything.

Unless you're a spellcaster, each negative level just reduces all rolls by 1, and max HP by 5. Simple - and nothing needs to be recalculated, just subtract X from all d20 rolls, and 5 * X from your max HP, where X is the number of negative levels the character/creature has (unlike with ability damage/drain - ugh).

 

[Kunimatyu]

It doesn't take a too cynical mind to suggest that this whole column is a softening up exercise: by reminding us, over time, of the quirks, faults and drawbacks of the current rules you slowly but surely increase demand for a new, improved, streamlined version.

So? If they successfully persuade us that 3.5e has gotten quite clunky over its lifespan, and that a 4e would address these problems, well, bully for them.

 

[rvalle]

They could really simplify the entire combat system if they would just introduce a set of cards with instructions and special exceptions listed on each.

"The dragon inhales to let loose a blast of --"
"I play my interrupt action and cast Bigby's Ball-Gag at the dragon's mouth."
"Dang it, Carl! You can't cast that while my continuing grapple effect is in play..."

Much, much simpler. ... And collectible!

I don't see this as being much simpler. As time went on more and more cards would be added and how they all interacted with each other would be... complex.

Also, I will never, ever buy or play a DnD version that has become collectible. I hate that stuff. If you want to come out with cards fine but I want to know what is in the pack of 100 cards that I'm buying.

rv

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Yeah, I don't understand why he thinks that running a dragon in combat is hard because of the spells. Generally, once a battle has started, the dragon has better options each round than casting spells.

Running a dragon is hard because of these things:

1) the dragon has a _very_ fast fly speed

2) the 1" = 5' miniatures scale doesn't allow the portrayal of a sufficiently large battlefield for optimal tactics with a creature that flys 150' in a move action

3) aerial combat is by nature 3 dimensional, and the tactical game was designed with a 2D grid in mind.. there isn't a convenient way to calculate the distance between you and a dragon that is 100' up and 60' that way, for example, without using _math_.

4) Aerial combat is largely implemented with feats (flyby attack, snatch, etc) which have rules that don't come into play otherwise.

Ken