David Noonan on D&D Complexity

[MarkB]

I wonder if it would help to give dragons invocations like warlocks rather than spells?

I was thinking the same thing as I read through the thread. Give the warlock-like abilities and you keep (even enhance) the concept of dragons as fundamentally magical, but more than halve the prep time needed to build them, and make things easier when running them.

I'd even consider leaving in the eldritch blast, and making it element-themed - portray it as a single-target "mini" breath weapon useable while the main one recharges.

 

[Derren]

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.").

More complex then they needed to be? Ok, maybe you can remove the touch attack but that is it. Grapples rules are hardly complex. And unfun? What makes rolling for a grapple different from rolling a save on a save or die (or immobilizing spell) or roll an opposed check for disarm?

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.

High level fighters are useless unless they have loads of magical items which give them access to necceccary spells like fly, dimension door/teleport and see invisibility. Without them they are dead in 1 spell.
So unless you deck out dragons with lots of innate abilities or magical items they need spellcasting.

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.

Well my does. And whats more important the D&D concept too says that dragons are spellcaster.

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.

Little used areas? Lol? Every wizard, even at low level uses those mechanics. Fly is a standard spell, breath weapons don't work any different then fireballs and frightfull presence is similiar to spells like bless.

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.

One new book isn't, but twenty new books, even if they do not contain new systems do increase the complexity as teh Dm has to know what is in which book and what broken combos can result from mixing the books.

I could not disagree more. Firstly, removing unnecessary complexity from the game does not equate to it being 'dumbed down'.

imo it does. Just look what David proposed in his articles, especially in the first one (Spell section). That is dumbing down.

(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.)

Yet this specific situation seems what the designers want D&D to be. Nothing more then a tabletop wargame with miniatures and thus they are removing anything which has nothing to do with combat.

 

[Cor Azer]

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?

Personally, I sort of dislike the "scientific approach" taken with magic spells, specifically with their precision ranges and exact durations. Yes, I realize it makes judging certain things easier, but sometimes I wish there was a bit of... wonder... brought back into the magic system. Granted, I like that a lot of spells were formalized to use specific ranges (personal, touch, close, medium, long), but I'm wondering... do we really need to know that close is 25ft+5ft/level, etc.? I guess it's needed from a tactical/miniatures perspective, but it often makes magic feel too clinical for my tastes.

(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.)

There's still a potential for a lot of bookkeeping there, unless the durations are so long that they last all day. If my buff lasts an hour... or two... or however long, I'll still want to make sure I get as much done as I possibily can during that time, so the rush-rush-rush thing doesn't truly go away. Having a more nebulous "lasts one encounter" (or, even "lasts X encounters" duration makes it easier (in my opinion) to judge - whenever there's a context shift in what the players are doing, that's the end of an encounter. Leave it up to the DM to decide if the orcs on the other side of the leaped chasm are part of the same encounter or not.

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.

I'd really like to see something akin to your option 2 implemented. As someone mentioned before, maybe split Dispel Magic into two - one for counterspelling and one for removing magical effects (actually, I'd probably move this second function into an expanded Break Enchantment). Fluff wise, "Dispel Effect" would disconnect a thing temporarily from magic - removing all magical effects on the character at once (or none at all).

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

Yeah, I'm ok with dodge bonuses, but again, I like someone else's idea of removing circumstance bonuses and just leaving them as unnamed, since both can stack (as long as they're from different sources) and have no special rules like dodge bonuses. And we really don't need holy/unholy/sacred/profane bonuses... perhaps just a divine bonus, etc.

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.

I've always found the biggest problem with flight (and underwater) is not the maneuverability, but the coordinating three-dimensions - most people just aren't used to thinking in three-dimensions (of course, I'll also point out that some of my friends are very good at thinking in two dimensions either, which doesn't help things ). A lesser problem (but still an issue for battlemaps/miniatures) is scale - some of these flyers can move 100+ft a round, so combatants can get greatly separated very easily, and the default 5ft scale doesn't easily handle that.

 

[Cor Azer]

More complex then they needed to be? Ok, maybe you can remove the touch attack but that is it. Grapples rules are hardly complex. And unfun? What makes rolling for a grapple different from rolling a save on a save or die (or immobilizing spell) or roll an opposed check for disarm?

Well, you'll note that the designers did move Hold Person from one save to a save every round because the first version could be seen as unfun. The other difference is that a lot fo those magical effects (well, and death, since it's not really a magical effect) can usually be easily removed by well-prepared players. It tends to be a bit harder to remove another player from a grapple (but I concede, not impossible).

The big difference I see between the two is the DCs generally required - yes, save-or-die spells are unfun, but at least the save DC are (usually) in the realm manageable by PCs. Grapple checks however, are quite often only used by creatures so big that their grapple checks (which are usually helped by Improved Grapple) are well beyond what the PCs can hope - so yes, they're rolling each round, but have no real hope of actually succeeding.

High level fighters are useless unless they have loads of magical items which give them access to necceccary spells like fly, dimension door/teleport and see invisibility. Without them they are dead in 1 spell. So unless you deck out dragons with lots of innate abilities or magical items they need spellcasting.

I'm only in partial agreement with this - high level fighters need magic items, yes, but that's mostly because D&D all but necessitates all high level characters needing magic items of one sort or another. I don't agree that fighters need any particular items at that level, especially not those that just mimic iconic spells like fly, teleport, and the like.

Well my does. And whats more important the D&D concept too says that dragons are spellcaster.

Well, the D&D 3.0/3.5 concept might... but the earlier editions of D&D didn't put so much focus on it, and there's no reason the next edition should too. Personally, I think the easier solution is to reduce their built-in spell-casting abilities and allow DMs to easily give them sorceror levels or the like. It's always easier to add stuff than remove it.

One new book isn't, but twenty new books, even if they do not contain new systems do increase the complexity as teh Dm has to know what is in which book and what broken combos can result from mixing the books.

That's not an issue of D&D's complexity, that's a matter of options and campaign management for the DM - what books are going to be allowed. Just because there are hundreds of supplements out there does not mean they all should, need, or will be allowed. That said, I think the DMG needs to have more encouragement for DMs to say no, either beforehand so problems don't occur, or during play and telling a player "Ok, this just isn't working out." The DM does not need to know every system in existence in intricate detail - only those actually used in play.

imo it does. Just look what David proposed in his articles, especially in the first one (Spell section). That is dumbing down.

Yet this specific situation seems what the designers want D&D to be. Nothing more then a tabletop wargame with miniatures and thus they are removing anything which has nothing to do with combat.

I don't get that feeling at all, but then, I read it at face value. They were looking to find a way to use the really cool new miniatures for the black dragon and red dragon, which necessitated high level characters. But they also had the design constraint that average skilled players needed to be able to pick up these characters and be able to use them in about 5 minutes for at most an hour of play. That's a lot of info to digest in a really short amount of time (particularly for spellcasters).

Given all the options the designers and developers keep throwing out for them game (considering the number of supplements), I find it hard to conceive that they're trying to dumb down the game.

 

[delericho]

More complex then they needed to be? Ok, maybe you can remove the touch attack but that is it.

The grapple rules could (and, IMO, should) be rewritten to become consistent with the rest of the combat rules. Remove the opposed checks, to start with. There's more, but I haven't worked out all the details, since I'm not trying to write 4th Edition here.

Grapples rules are hardly complex. And unfun? What makes rolling for a grapple different from rolling a save on a save or die (or immobilizing spell) or roll an opposed check for disarm?

I'm not sure I'd call them complex. But they are more complex than they should be, and they represent a special case. So, we frequently have to refer to the PHB for the grapple rules, and each such lookup is 2 minutes of game-time lost.

As for 'unfun': once pinned a character has very few actions. He basically can't take meaningful action until he breaks the pin. But, many large creatures have grapple modifier so high that they simply can't be beated. So, a pin by these creatures takes the character out of the game until the monster deigns to release him. That's what I don't consider fun.

Well my does. And whats more important the D&D concept too says that dragons are spellcaster.

Only in the current edition. In previous editions dragons did not have the built-in Sorcerer levels they do now. So, there's no reason the next edition can't return them to the basis they had previously. If DMs then want spellcasting dragons, adding non-associated Sorcerer levels isn't exactly a challenge.

Little used areas? Lol? Every wizard, even at low level uses those mechanics. Fly is a standard spell, breath weapons don't work any different then fireballs and frightfull presence is similiar to spells like bless.

The fly spell has a different maneuverability class from dragons' flight. Fireball doesn't have a recharge time. And frightful presence doesn't work like bless. None of these special cases are particularly complex, but they are special cases, and they do need looked up. So, the dragon is again more complex to run.

One new book isn't, but twenty new books, even if they do not contain new systems do increase the complexity as teh Dm has to know what is in which book and what broken combos can result from mixing the books.

That applies only out-of-game. Players should have the location of their PrC and feats written on their character sheet for easy reference. So, in game there is relatively little added complexity.

imo it does.

Well, I disagree. To me, removing unnecessary complexity is just good sense.

Just look what David proposed in his articles, especially in the first one (Spell section). That is dumbing down.

He was building characters for players, potentially of little skill, to play in a very specialised game. In that situation, the only sane thing to do is remove the complex spells, and those spells that will somehow destroy the game (specifically, those save-or-dies).

I'll bet all those spells are still in play in his home campaign.

 

[Derren]

I'm not sure I'd call them complex. But they are more complex than they should be, and they represent a special case. So, we frequently have to refer to the PHB for the grapple rules, and each such lookup is 2 minutes of game-time lost.

They are in line with sunder, bull rush and disarm rules so grapple is no special case.

As for 'unfun': once pinned a character has very few actions. He basically can't take meaningful action until he breaks the pin. But, many large creatures have grapple modifier so high that they simply can't be beated. So, a pin by these creatures takes the character out of the game until the monster deigns to release him. That's what I don't consider fun.

You have the same problem with many spells starting with hold person and ending at powerword stun and forcecage. If you don't prepare against those spells you are useless. Likewise you have to prepare for grapple.

Only in the current edition. In previous editions dragons did not have the built-in Sorcerer levels they do now. So, there's no reason the next edition can't return them to the basis they had previously. If DMs then want spellcasting dragons, adding non-associated Sorcerer levels isn't exactly a challenge.

Even in previous editions dragons automatically gained spells. Spells are simply part of dragons and neccessary for them to survive.

The fly spell has a different maneuverability class from dragons' flight. Fireball doesn't have a recharge time. And frightful presence doesn't work like bless. None of these special cases are particularly complex, but they are special cases, and they do need looked up. So, the dragon is again more complex to run.

Fly is fly. If you insist on the maneuverability try Overland Flight or one of the flying races and monsters. Fly comes up frequently. And rolling 1d4 makes breath weapons so different from fireballs and cone of colds that you have to look into the PHB every time they come up? Don't make me laugh. Lastly Frightfull presence. If you are not satisfied with Bless then use Bane. Similiar enough? A penalty to most rolls for a certain amount of time.

Non of the things are mentioned (Beath weapons, flight and frightfull presence) are in any way special in D&D. Effects like those come up all the time.

Well, I disagree. To me, removing unnecessary complexity is just good sense.

Who says it is unnecessary?

 

[delericho]

They are in line with sunder, bull rush and disarm rules so grapple is no special case.

Actually, each of those is also a special case. However, none of the three maneuvers you cited are as complex as grapple. My evidence? The Battle Box from Fiery Dragon has handy maneuver cards. The cards for the three maneuvers have a paragraph of text on each. The grapple card is packed with very small text, and still doesn't summarise the rules adequately.

You have the same problem with many spells starting with hold person and ending at powerword stun and forcecage. If you don't prepare against those spells you are useless. Likewise you have to prepare for grapple.

And hold person was changed in the 3.5 revision to give a save every round because the old version wasn't fun.

Even in previous editions dragons automatically gained spells. Spells are simply part of dragons and neccessary for them to survive.

They got a few particular spell-like abilities. They still get a few particular spell-like abilities. That's not even close to the current raft of Sorcerer spells they also currently get.

Fly is fly....

And rolling 1d4 makes breath weapons...

Lastly Frightfull presence.

Fine. Replace the three special cases I cited with the crush attack, the spell-like abilities, the Sorcerer spells, the different reach for different attack forms, or any of the other features that make dragons more complex than just about any other encounter in the game. Only beholders and hydras spring to mind as being near the same level of complexity.

Non of the things are mentioned (Beath weapons, flight and frightfull presence) are in any way special in D&D. Effects like those come up all the time.

Whenever a dragon is to be encountered, there is a significant section of the MM that needs reread, because of all the special cases and special effects that apply, and also because dragons are encountered so rarely. All this goes towards making dragons the most complex encounters to run.

Note that I haven't suggested that dragons are 'too complex'. But I am saying that they are more complex than just about anything else that the DM can throw at his group.

 

[Gold Roger]

They are in line with sunder, bull rush and disarm rules so grapple is no special case.

Sunder, bullrush and disarm don't go over many rounds, with various stages and extra options.

You have the same problem with many spells starting with hold person and ending at powerword stun and forcecage. If you don't prepare against those spells you are useless. Likewise you have to prepare for grapple.

My idea of fun isn't to prepare for a bunch of special cases before every fight. If you begin to require a certain degree of tactical understanding for the game truly boggles my mind and imho makes the game more of a wargame than "dumbing I'm sorry that many people I've gamed with are aperrantly even lazier or less intelligent than me. But D&D should be designed to be inclusive and beginner friendly.

Even in previous editions dragons automatically gained spells. Spells are simply part of dragons and neccessary for them to survive.

But in previous editions dragons couldn't take class levels in spellcasting classes.

Fly is fly. If you insist on the maneuverability try Overland Flight or one of the flying races and monsters. Fly comes up frequently. And rolling 1d4 makes breath weapons so different from fireballs and cone of colds that you have to look into the PHB every time they come up? Don't make me laugh. Lastly Frightfull presence. If you are not satisfied with Bless then use Bane. Similiar enough? A penalty to most rolls for a certain amount of time.

Non of the things are mentioned (Beath weapons, flight and frightfull presence) are in any way special in D&D. Effects like those come up all the time.

So, having a bunch of similar, but in the end slightly different effects makes things simpler in your oppinion?

Who says it is unnecessary?

More people than who say it isn't. I see so many people in the net who think the game is far more complex than I do. And those that care to post regularly on dedicated boards tend to be the less casual folks.

 

[Justin Bacon]

More complex then they needed to be? Ok, maybe you can remove the touch attack but that is it. Grapples rules are hardly complex.

Compare and contrast:

1. Making a standard attack (in any of several varieties) is a single die roll followed by a damage roll. Depending on the type of attack, you might provoke a standard AoO.

2. Initiating a grapple is a four step process which involves provoking an AoO with special-case consequences; a die roll; an opposed roll; a damage roll; a special case size modifier; and some special-case movement rules.

Once you're in the grapple, you apply a special condition to yourself with a variety of effects. Your actions in a grapple are limited to a very specific (but lengthy) list of alternatives, all with variable special-case rules applied to them.

One of the things you can do in a grapple is pin our opponent, which applies a set of special case rules to yourself and a different special condition to the person being pinned (with its own slew of distinct special-case rules).

Joining an existing grapple uses a slightly different set of rules than initiating a grapple. And once you've got multiple grapplers in there, yet more special case rules apply.

......

Yeah, those rules are complex. If by nothing else, then by comparison to the rest of the combat rules. More importantly, they're not elegant and they're not intuitive.

(The combat maneuver which comes closest to grapple's complexity is probably disarm, which involves a special-case AoO, a special-case size modifier (based on weapon size), and an opposed roll. As you can see, grapple is still in its own little world of complexity.)

(Let me put it another way: I've prepped cheat sheets for combat. I've got one sheet which includes a complete summary of all the combat actions; and then I've got a complete page dedicated entirely to the grapple rules.)

A more elegant and less complex system would standardize away a lot of the "special case" rules for grappling. It would also include a unified mechanic for resolving actions within a grapple. I'd suggest a simple rule of, "You can attempt any action in a grapple, but you must first succeed at an opposed grapple check. You move at half-speed while in a grapple."

 

[ruleslawyer]

I really do beg to differ.

What makes them interesting foes is that they are customizable. That's also what makes them complex.

You could simplify them by stacking up their spell like abilities and taking away the sorcerer levels. But then they are no longer customizable. You could create a special method for customizing them, but that would be more rules you would have to learn.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

All excellent points. That said, I think there are three problems with dragons and the impact they have on the game in D&D:

1) They're currently used too often in published materials. I see far more dragons that unique class-level-advanced monsters in WotC and Dungeon adventures, despite the fact that the latter are actually easier to build and run than the former.

2) Dragons simply provide an excellent corner case to illustrate the potential headache for the DM of using all these different rules. A well-built dragon uses every single magical buff in the books, a boatload of optional feats, "advanced" rules like grapple, and potentially a host of other multi-stage effects (metabreath feats, etc.).

3) IMX, there's a tradeoff between a monster's complexity and the effectiveness with which it can be run by the DM. IMHO, dragons (and high-level PCs/NPCs) suffer from the problem of having umpteen low-level buffs that they're basically assumed to be using to maximize effectiveness. I think it'd be a good thing if these effects were just hardwired into their builds, especially in the case of NPC adversaries like dragons, whom are only going to be encountered by the PCs once. I'm not bothered with keeping track of a great wyrm red's 6th-8th level spell selection, but all its animal buffs, mirror image, displacement, etc? Not so much fun.