David Noonan on D&D Complexity

[Gold Roger]

Perhaps you are making them too complex. For example, as others have noted, spellcasting isn't the dragons prime focus. I would be hard pressed to even consider spending feats on metamagic for a dragon. That strikes me as a bit of over-thinking it for minimal gain unless you had something very specific in mind... in which case, it shouldn't be too hard for you to remember.

When I run dragons, I see little purpose in maximized fireballs or whatnot. What I do see is spells that give the dragon options and good defenses. Levitate. Dispel magic. etc.


If you have some way to retain the customizability and make it simpler, I'd be happy to hear it. I just find the notion that it's "clunky" based on the supposition that there are easy and obvious methods of maintaining this depth dubious when I see variant systems that a typical DM would be less familiar with being more complicated, if anything.

In fact, I'd suit up dragons entirely with out of combat spells and swift combat spells likr bloodwind, energy aegis, metabreath spells etc.

So I very well know how to decently streamline them. I propably would still have issues with maneuverability, special dragon attacks and forgetting a bunch wayside abilities (DR, SR, Immunities, Blindsight). And no matter how he's build, I need to have taps on a whole spell list. And it leaves the often cited buff wars/magical arms race somewhat out of sight.

I see your point. I'm not whining that things are unbearable. They aren't. I'm having a blast and am still planning a 16th level one shot for my crew (which will have a bunch of rather complicated battles).

But I'll keep my stance that for a possible next edition of the game some stuff should be streamlined.

Are there really so many whiners, that, when somebody says the game could be improved, it's immediatly taken as needless whining by people that have no clue what they are talking about? (again, no rethorical question.)

Edit: Just noticed that there is a typo in my previous post. When giving examples of nonspellcasting dragons, I meant to say metabreath instead of metamagic.

 

[Drkfathr1]

And I've personaly never had a problem with suplement overload or power creep and I allow pretty much everything. But just a question, and I'm really interested to know, what's the highest level you've played Core only at?

Core Only? 20th. With Epic level rules, 23rd.

One of the things I've found out after years of gaming, is that a lot of players don't even care about the supplements, they'd rather keep it simple.

 

[Gold Roger]

Core Only? 20th. With Epic level rules, 23rd.

One of the things I've found out after years of gaming, is that a lot of players don't even care about the supplements, they'd rather keep it simple.

That's cool. I definitely played with very many players, especially casual players, who couldn't care less about suplements and I don't think I've ever played with somebody who would bail at Core only. The main reason my games use so many suplements is that I as DM like them.

 

[Psion]

Edit: Just noticed that there is a typo in my previous post. When giving examples of nonspellcasting dragons, I meant to say metabreath instead of metamagic.

That might have made a little difference, as I find metabreath less costly and would be more likely to use them.


Draconomicon is about my favorite 3.5 supplement by WotC. Filled with flava, filled with Crunchy Goodness [TM]. Deep, interesting.

I find it grating that what I find interesting about the game is not being labeled over-designed. From where I am standing, it seems like the designers are second-guessing their best stuff, in danger of talking their way into mundanity in design.

 

[Gold Roger]

That might have made a little difference, as I find metabreath less costly and would be more likely to use them.


Draconomicon is about my favorite 3.5 supplement by WotC. Filled with flava, filled with Crunchy Goodness [TM]. Deep, interesting.

I find it grating that what I find interesting about the game is not being labeled over-designed. From where I am standing, it seems like the designers are second-guessing their best stuff, in danger of talking their way into mundanity in design.

Kinda like I blow up when people call my beloved 10000000 feats the root of all evil I guess.

But in that case, I think you are taking it a bit wrong. While the dragons have been overdesigned, the draconomicom in said article had only one way it was mentioned in the article: As a book that offers options to indeed make the dragon easier of use, thanks to metabreath spells.

 

[Justin Bacon]

It is what I would propose. Setting a duration of 'one encounter' allows the DM to have his spellcasters bring up their buff spells without having to work out exactly the optimum order to do so (something the character absolutely would know), and also saves him from tracking six different durations for the six spells used. Multiply that by the number of spellcasters, and it can become an absolute nightmare.

There are two things I don't like about it: First, it means absolutely nothing in the context of the game world. Second, even from a metagame standpoint, its meaning is more than fuzzy: What exactly is an encounter? When does it end? If a character casts a Strength buff to help them jump over a chasm, does the buff end once he's jumped the chasm? What if he jumps the chasm and is ambushed two rounds later by the orcs on the other side? What if he jumps the chasm, waits a couple of minutes, and then goes down a hallway and gets attacked by an orc? What if he's in the middle of a battlefield during a battle which lasts for half a day?

Also: What do you mean by "optimum order"?

Perhaps even better, though, would be some sort of ruling where the durations of the 'buff package' become tied together, such that if you cast them in consecutive rounds, the durations of the earlier spells are 'reset' when the newer spells are cast. That way, they all expire together, and instead of tracking six durations you're tracking one.

In practice, I think you're better off:

(a) Backing off the 3.5 decision that buff spells should only last for a single encounter. This complicates bookkeeping because, if you pop up a buff that lasts for an hour or more, you typically don't have to worry about it in the middle of a combat. It also degrades gameplay, IMO, because it encourages the "rapid flurry of activity followed by 23.5 hours of resting until the clerics can prep their spells again".

(b) Standardizing buff durations (instead of having them based on caster level). This way when the cleric casts three buffs on you and the wizard/rogue casts another couple you don't have two different durations to keep track of.

At that point you don't need any kind of rule to "reset" buff timers: You simply note the order in which the buffs were cast and the time at which the first buff was cast. When the buff duration is up, the first buff drops, followed by a subsequent buff on each round. (Although, if you've extended the durations so that they're not as likely to drop in the middle of combat, you can generally just ignore all this bookkeeping.)

Plus, the dispel checks should also be tied together, such that either the whole package is dispelled, or none of it. This would make book-keeping for the buffs, and also for dispel magic, considerably easier... my fear is that it would make either buffs or dispels, or both, too powerful.

I think a strong case could be made that Dispel Magic could be made a little more versatile, a little less powerful, and a lot less of a hassle. You could boil Dispel Magic down to two discrete choices:

1. Target a specific spell.

2. Target multiple spells within a specific area, but suffer a -1 penalty to your dispel check for every additional spell you're simultaneously attempting to dispel.

In either case, you make a single dispel check for all of the effects you're going after.

Agreed. I nominate seven as the 'magic number'. And I propose they remove the exception that Dodge bonuses stack. And remove Circumstance bonuses entirely - as mentioned above there seems no reason these can't be unnamed. And no more adding new bonus types.

Letting Dodge bonuses stack is probably useful: It's a bonus type that already has special rules associated with it, and it lets you define a stackable bonus that can be stripped away by opponents in specific situations (blunting the advantage of having it stackable). From a game design standpoint, I think it's useful. And managing two special case rules for the bonus type

Again, agreed. Maneuver cards help a great deal here. Nonetheless, I feel the grapple rules should be redone to get as close to the other combat mechanics as feasible. Likewise, the flying rules (although not strictly part of combat) should be looked at with a view to getting as close to the normal movement rules as feasible.

Agreed. The flying chart can actually be simplified quite a bit simply by organizing it better (this helps a lot, IME), but I think a strong case can be made that the flight rules are a lot of crunch with little benefit.

You could probably boil it down thusly while still leaving some valuable crunch: Creatures with perfect flight maneuverability can more in the air just as easily as anyone else can move on the ground. All other creatures have to move a minimum of half their speed each round, can't fly backwards, and have to move 5 ft. for every 45-degree turn (left, right, up, or down) made.

 

[Hussar]

Fortunately, over half of the opposition had True seeing, but the point was that had the opposition not been similarly equipped, the fight would have ended about 5 or 6 rounds quicker than it did, and the final Ultimate encounter to decide the fate of Northern Khorvaire would have been reduced to an anticlimactic pushover.

The irony here is that despite the non-core buffs on the party, they are foiled by a single core spell.

Limiting yourself to core+a few easily handled supplements as a DM is not going to make encounters a pushover. Assuming for a second that the stuff the PC's are using is balanced, or at least the imbalances are known , then core material can certainly stand up to non-core. The strongest three classes are all core. The strongest combat feats for monsters - power attack being prime - are also mostly core.

At least IME. I open the door for players in my WLD game. They can use whatever they want with very few issues. I'm using 99% core with a very small number of Dragon magazine goodies (and I actually broke out my Sandstorm book this month) and am having trouble keeping them alive. After sixty sessions, all 6 players are on their second, third, fourth and even fifth characters.

 

[delericho]

Justin: I've re-arranged your post - because of the nature of my reply, it's better addressed in a different order.

In practice, I think you're better off:

(a) Backing off the 3.5 decision that buff spells should only last for a single encounter. This complicates bookkeeping because, if you pop up a buff that lasts for an hour or more, you typically don't have to worry about it in the middle of a combat. It also degrades gameplay, IMO, because it encourages the "rapid flurry of activity followed by 23.5 hours of resting until the clerics can prep their spells again".

After some more thought on the issue, I agree that this is the way to go. In principle, I quite like the idea that "Righteous Might" lasts one round per level. However, I think it probably does cause more problems than it solves to have the buffs last such a short length of time.

This also negates the problem where an NPC spellcaster must somehow be able to predict the round in which the PCs bust down his door, in order to perfectly time the casting of those buffs. (Get it wrong one way, and they wear off in mid-combat, and the NPC is toast. Get it wrong the other, and the NPC doesn't have the buffs up at that start of the combat, but the PCs do, and again the NPC is toast.

(b) Standardizing buff durations (instead of having them based on caster level). This way when the cleric casts three buffs on you and the wizard/rogue casts another couple you don't have two different durations to keep track of.

At that point you don't need any kind of rule to "reset" buff timers: You simply note the order in which the buffs were cast and the time at which the first buff was cast. When the buff duration is up, the first buff drops, followed by a subsequent buff on each round. (Although, if you've extended the durations so that they're not as likely to drop in the middle of combat, you can generally just ignore all this bookkeeping.)

Again, agreed.

Also: What do you mean by "optimum order"?

Where you have some spells to cast with short duration and some with long, always cast the long-duration spells first. Where you have several spells of the same duration to cast, always cast the lowest-level spells first. Unless you're interrupted before you get it all done, in which case you must either abandon the casting of buffs, or cast the most powerful ones first, regardless of duration.

I think a strong case could be made that Dispel Magic could be made a little more versatile, a little less powerful, and a lot less of a hassle. You could boil Dispel Magic down to two discrete choices:

1. Target a specific spell.

2. Target multiple spells within a specific area, but suffer a -1 penalty to your dispel check for every additional spell you're simultaneously attempting to dispel.

The problem is that the caster probably has no way to know how many magical effects are in place and subject to dispel, nor the nature of the spells in effect. Obviously, some effects are obvious, and some the spellcaster might have seen cast (and so used Spellcraft to identify), but not all.

In either case, you make a single dispel check for all of the effects you're going after.

Certainly, I think that would be a good thing in general. Though some other changes to Dispel Magic (perhaps as you indicated above) would be needed to go with this change; I don't think it works well in isolation.

Letting Dodge bonuses stack is probably useful: It's a bonus type that already has special rules associated with it, and it lets you define a stackable bonus that can be stripped away by opponents in specific situations (blunting the advantage of having it stackable).

Hmm, maybe. I really dislike special cases.

 

[Derren]

After reading this I have the impression that either I am pretty smart or a lot of people are extremly lazy. I mean, iterative attack progression and grapple rules are hard to learn?

And you can't remove spellcasting from dragons, if you do they are just flying bags of XP which die in 2 rounds. You need spellcasting at higher levels or you are useless. If you have problems playing spellcasters you have to change how magic in D&D works (and you certainly should not DM).
But making a dragon takes as much time as making a high level NPC and they are also not harder to run. So leave dragons alone, they are not the problem.


The real problems is that D&D relies to much on magic, either through spells or items. Reduce this dependence on items and make spells weaker (and less) and it will become a lot less complex.
It is also important to not allow every book. DMs who do that can't afterwards complain that D&D is complex.

I really hope that David has nothing to do with the 4th Edition, because I really dislike his dumbed down D&D.

 

[delericho]

After reading this I have the impression that either I am pretty smart or a lot of people are extremly lazy. I mean, iterative attack progression and grapple rules are hard to learn?

Not hard, but the grapple rules, at least, are more complex than they need to be, and as one other poster pointed out they often work contrary to fun ("I'm pinned? Okay, I'll try a grapple check. I failed. Oh well, maybe next round.").

And you can't remove spellcasting from dragons, if you do they are just flying bags of XP which die in 2 rounds. You need spellcasting at higher levels or you are useless.

Are high level Fighters useless? If so, then I suggest that class needs radically rethought. If not, then it certainly is possible to remove spellcasting from dragons and have them remain a threat.

In any event, much of the "Design & Development" column seems to point towards a new edition. And, if we're considering a new edition then it is certainly valid to decide what we want dragons to be, and then to build the rules accordingly. And I'm sorry, but my concept of 'dragon' does not suggest that they should in every case be potent wizards.

But making a dragon takes as much time as making a high level NPC and they are also not harder to run.

Actually, a dragon generally is harder to run than most equivalent CR NPCs, because of the special rules that go with them. Between frightful presence, breath weapons and flight, you have three little-used areas of the rules, each of which is a special case with associated rules. Most NPCs don't have the same sort of load associated with them.

And, as I've mentioned before in the thread, I feel the prep time required both for powerful dragons and for high level NPCs is too high, and something needs done to streamline the process.

It is also important to not allow every book. DMs who do that can't afterwards complain that D&D is complex.

I have found few things in the expanded rules that come close to the polymorph spells in terms of complexity. Certainly, entirely new systems like Psionics and Incarnum are up there, but most of the books do minimal harm, if any.

I really hope that David has nothing to do with the 4th Edition, because I really dislike his dumbed down D&D.

I could not disagree more. Firstly, removing unnecessary complexity from the game does not equate to it being 'dumbed down'. Secondly, if you're not going to engage people who are actually going to think in depth about the rules of the game in the development of the new edition, then at best you're going to get a new edition that's essentially the same as the current edition. And, if that's what they're going to do, why bother with a new edition at all?

(Also, I think it bears pointing out that much of the 'dumbing down' seen in the articles in question comes about because of the very specific situation for which the PCs and dragons were designed - specifically to be played by players of indeterminate skill from a clipboard. The design challenges of such a task are distinctly different from those in a normal campaign, hence the extreme focus on removing complex elements.)