D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[payn]

This isn't an indicator of system complexity, but of bad design aesthetics. The system should be asymmetric. There's no reason why an NPC should be designed using the same rules as a PC.

The right read, but the wrong conclusion. The issue isnt NPCs made as PCs, its the golden shower any character of an upper level character needs to function in3E. You add something like BA and/or level progression into the character and take it out of magic items, and this problem disappears.

 

[ezo]

Compare a 5e class to it's AD&D counterpart and you'll see the AD&D class can go multiple levels in a row without gaining anything but HP and attacks/saves improvement.

So what? Gaining HP and attack and/or save improvements are pretty important. That certainly doesn't make a level "dead".

Man, I don't know what AD&D you played, but...

A fighter gains nothing but stat improvement to name level (and an extra attack at higher level).

Wrong. They gain weapon (including specialization) and non-weapon proficiencies as well. Fighters (depending on edition and how you do it) improve attacking every level, which for a fighter is sort of an important deal, right?

Thieves only increase their skill % (and in AD&D, backstab multiplier).

Again wrong. They also get weapon/NW proficiencies, along with reading languages (some do consider tihs along with the other thieving skills) and the ability to cast spells from scrolls. Of course that "only increasing" thief skill stuff couldn't be important to a thief, now could it?

Clerics and magic users get new spell slots, but no other abilities.

Well, proficiencies not withstanding...

And yet their turning undead improves, and frankly magic-users getting spells is kind of their thing, but they can also make potions and scrolls, and eventually (along with clerics and druids) other magical items.

Rangers, paladins, bards and druids all gain few abilities along the way, but nothing like they gained later.

Most of the ranger and paladin (and barbarian, cavalier, etc.) features are insanely front-loaded. Bards get stuff all the time, as do druids at many levels (especially if you go past 15th).

There is no bard songs, no rage, no paladin smites, and wild shape is a 7th level noncombat ability.

THANK GOD!

But 3e proved if you have a dead level, people will multiclass to something that gives treats, so classes all now 20 levels of treats.

Which overloads many players with more stuff than they can remember, if they remember stuff correctly, or let alone use often.

While I can appecaite a "bit more" than perhaps everything AD&D offered, 5E is overkill already and 2024 just makes it worse IMO.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean in this case whether it is good or bad is fairly obvious, yeah?

The more complex PC-generation is, the less you want the NPC and PC systems to be symmetrical.

I don't think there actually is any benefit to having the two character generation procedures be the same where it takes this much time to make an NPC.

Some people enjoy making NPCs and some players like NPCs following the same rules as PCs. I think this is just a matter of taste. I must admit after a while I found building NPCs and even monsters (because those could get complicated too) in 3E to be a bit tedious. But there was a period where I enjoyed it, and I knew plenty of GMs and Players who never tired of this. I don't think there is one size fits all here. It is building towards different preferences

 

[The Firebird]

This isn't an indicator of system complexity, but of bad design aesthetics. The system should be asymmetric. There's no reason why an NPC should be designed using the same rules as a PC.

you're probably not the right audience for a point about verisimilitude

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

The right read, but the wrong conclusion. The issue isnt NPCs made as PCs, its the golden shower any character of an upper level character needs to function in3E. You add something like BA and/or level progression into the character and take it out of magic items, and this problem disappears.

I agree that there's a lot of unnecessary complexity in pre-4E dnd, but I play systems simpler than those that still use asymmetric design. Lancer, for example, has build complexity below anything in 3.5 and the likes and uses an NPC-construction system that works something like this:

You select a basic Class. This gives your NPC a few abilities and a theme.

You then select any optional class abilities you want, those are listed under the class stat block.

Then you can if you want apply one or more templates to modify it (typically adds a few abilities not available to the base class).

And you're done.

It's worth noting that PCs have level, but NPCs don't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Some people enjoy making NPCs and some players like NPCs following the same rules as PCs. I think this is just a matter of taste. I must admit after a while I found building NPCs and even monsters (because those could get complicated too) in 3E to be a bit tedious. But there was a period where I enjoyed it, and I knew plenty of GMs and Players who never tired of this. I don't think there is one size fits all here. It is building towards different preferences

Exactly. It's not objectively bad design. It is a design some people like and some people don't like.

 

[payn]

I agree that there's a lot of unnecessary complexity in pre-4E dnd, but I play systems simpler than those that still use asymmetric design. Lancer, for example, has build complexity below anything in 3.5 and the likes and uses an NPC-construction system that works something like this:

You select a basic Class. This gives your NPC a few abilities and a theme.

You then select any optional class abilities you want, those are listed under the class stat block.

Then you can if you want apply one or more templates to modify it (typically adds a few abilities not available to the base class).

And you're done.

It's worth noting that PCs have level, but NPCs don't.

5E and PF2 have lightning quick leveling systems. It's very easy to make PC like NPCs. Thats in their design choices.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Not a problem at all. "Higher" in terms of AC means improvement or better.

If you need to redefine terms to mean the opposite of what they mean in arithmetic, you might be choosing complexity for complexity’s sake.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Exactly. It's not objectively bad design. It is a design some people like and some people don't like.

It's objectively hugely more time-consuming and requires objectively more effort.

That's not the same as bad, but it probably inappropriate when there's an alternative when you're trying to sell a mass-market game, rather than a niche OSR game.

 

[FrozenNorth]

5E and PF2 have lightning quick leveling systems. It's very easy to make PC like NPCs. Thats in their design choices.

PF2 does not have a lightning quick levelling system.