Are demons/devils/dragons too complex?

[Stalker0]

Dragons definately need to be simplified.

All of those buff spells, all of those attacks, each with a different damage die, god it takes forever to execute a dragon's turn!!

 

[Doug McCrae]

Heck, derro are too complex. I missed their sound burst spell-like ability last time I used them.

I much prefer the visual presentation of abilities in MM4 + 5, don't think I've ever missed a power using creatures from those books.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I liked having devils that could be planar bound on one occasion to use as a mobile striker/attacker, but in a different adventure the very same devil could be planar bound by the NPC to provide unlimited Animate Dead, so that the wizard could fill his cavern with the zombie bodies of hundreds of slain villagers.

Those are two completely separate entities rules-wise. The second doesn't need any combat stats it's just part of the plot or back story. If the PCs do fight it, then you use the stats for the first type of devil. The fact that animate dead isn't listed among its abilities then becomes a good thing.

The problem is the non-combat abilities cluttering up the combat description. D&D needs to be fast. Combat needs to be fast. Combat monsters are all about the visual presentation, which must be tight. You can't have scads of irrelevance concealing the important bits.

 

[R_kajdi]

No I don't think devils/demons and dragons are too complex. Sure they require more time to prepare/learn to run than a level 1 orc but that is to be expected from high powered opponents. Some DMs apparently want to not prepare anymore but instead want to run every monster directly out of the book. To me this is simply lazy.

I want strong, customizable monsters which also have something else than direct combat abilities than one trick wonders which I can't adjust to specific situations without "cheating" (rule 0) and by design always have a glaring weakness because they lack a vital defense.

Thats why I am very concerned about the plans to reduce monsters to pure combat machnines in 4E, to make fixed dragon statblocks and (unconfirmed) that dragons will loose spellcasting. And all that just to cater lazy Dms who can't even prepare their BBEGs for an adventure/campaign.

Uh... this is exactly the issue that a bunch of people (myself included) don't like. Why am I lazy because I don't feel like spending a half hour plus to stat out an encounter, and have to worry about the stupidity of the buff game? I'd much rather spend that time developing the actual bulk of the adventure, or maybe doing stuff that's non-D&D related. The idea that a bunch of time needs to be spent statting up high-level encounters is a sacred cow I'd like to see fed to the chipper-shredder ASAP. Give me high level encounters that are both interesting and free of unneeded stat cruft, and I'll be a happy man.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Yep. That seems another consequence/instance of taking the "the game does not exist outside of combat" philosophy of game design too far.

On the other hand, I could see giving demons and devils access to a lot of the ritual magic sorts of things - that would allow them to do some of the unusual, but cool things.

 

[delericho]

The idea that a bunch of time needs to be spent statting up high-level encounters is a sacred cow I'd like to see fed to the chipper-shredder ASAP.

Agreed 100%. The only caveat I would put on that is that the designers should be careful not to 'dumb down' the game in this pursuit of ease-of-play. There's a lot to be said for elegant designs that cram a lot of power into a very small design space.

 

[Shade]

On a side note, shade, that ripping sound you here is me ripping off part of your sig for use elsewhere.

"Save the succubus, save the Wheel!"

Please do! The 4pocalypse is nearly upon us!

 

[Stormtower]

I don't find demons/devils/dragons to be too complex. However, building a dragon (fun as it is) is a detail-oriented task in an admittedly prep-heavy system. Something that I've come find helpful enjoy is retyping MM1 stat blocks into the "late 3.5e" stat block format. The newer one seems to display information more intuitively, at least for me. I like demons' and devils' wide swath of general abilities and feel under no pressure to use each ability in each combat.

Hmm... good idea to add to my task list: select a spell loadout for a dragon which consists entirely of swift and/or immediate action spells.

 

[Particle_Man]

Dragons are far too complex for my tastes, and thus get used less often by me as DM, which is a shame. I had hoped that they would be simplified in C&C but not enough for my tastes. And while I hear that Draconomicon has dragon stat blocks by colour and age group, I didn't see the point in buying a whole book just for that.

I like things simple. Like Warlock-simple.

 

[Reynard]

I think the issue of complexity, especially as it relates to prep time, has more to do with use than anything else. No one (okay, I am sure sameone does) wants to spend two hours statting a creature/enemy that is going to be good for one fight. Give me powerful, flexible opponents with simple stat blocks and limited tactical choices, please!

However, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If the use is more long term -- recurring villain, behind the scenes manipulatror, that sort of thing -- the options must be there to do more than have insteresting tactical decisions to make. Demons and dragons make excellent long term villains just for this reason -- they have lots of options which means that when you need them to be able to so something non-combat oriented against the party, they can.

If creature design goes the way of "what combat role does this monster fill" then you end up in a situation where you basically have to use NPCs with classes, etc... as villains all the time, or create things from whole cloth and hope they are balanced. Isn't it better to have as many options as possible, combat oriented and not, in the MM? (I am looking at you, wooden warshaped dryad.)