David Noonan on D&D Complexity

[glass]

Much, much simpler. ... And collectible!

Ssssssh! Don't give them ideas!


glass.

 

[pedr]

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.

Well actually, while I used the word cynical, I'm personally not in the anti-4E camp. There's plenty in 3.5 that I think needs re-working and I'm sure it'll happen soon enough. I think my only real fear with 4E is that Living Greyhawk might not make the transition and since that's how I get most of my chances to play D&D at the moment, that would be annoying!

I guess I was just a bit surprised at the open criticism of the system by an insider.

 

[Cor Azer]

Your memory is playing tricks on you (bad memory! No biscuit!).

This was the complaint that Monte Cook levelled against the reduced duration of buff spells in the 3.5e revision. In 3.0 buff spells lasted for 1 hour/level.

Well, less bad memory, more bad typing - I meant 3.5 (although I had forgotten who had put the complaint into words) - I just hadn't seen an thread/issue with the shorter buffs in a long time (hence the past tense of "was an issue").

 

[delericho]

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.

Um, if the inevitable 4th Edition was a genuine and significant improvement over the existing rules-set, wouldn't you welcome it? I know I would.

My big fear is that 4th Edition will be pushed out based on a business decision rather than due to any actual improvements, and will essentially be identical to the current set. If the changes were of the same scale as the move from 1st Ed to 2nd, or 3.0 to 3.5, I would be very disappointed. If, however, the scale of improvement was on a par as the shift from 2nd Ed to 3.5, I would be delighted. I'm just not sure how they could achieve that level of improvement.

 

[Ry]

Give dragons supernatural powers that are like built-in, pre-cast spells. Oh, and if you like that, I have this great idea called "feats"...

 

[WayneLigon]

Personally, I might be tempted to replace some of the dragons spells with spell like abilities, building on the capabilities already included in that fashion.

I generally consider every spell a dragon knows to be an at-will Supernatural ability. They can learn magic, but for the most part they just do magic.

 

[delericho]

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.

The recalculation once a negative level becomes a permanent level loss doesn't bother me. As you said, it won't need done in mid-combat, so isn't a problem.

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).

It's the effect on spellcasters that's the difficult part. Plus, of course, the effect on psionic classes (has this even been addressed?).

However, I will grant you that Energy Drain isn't as complex as I initially thought - I didn't have my books to hand when I posted.

You're right about the ability damages being overly complex.

 

[Mercule]

To give an idea of complexity of D&D, he points out that he was looking for a way to speed up casting of restoration. James Wyatt pointed him to a feat in the Complete Divine, a book David Noonan had designed!

This is where I'm starting to get fed up with 3E. I don't mind complexity. Heck, I'm thinking about moving to Fantasy Hero.

What I mind is having to have all these lists of abilities and knowing exactly which book they are in. Math and logic are easy. Memorizing the Encyclopedia Dungeonica is a royal pain in the butt.

 

[Arnwyn]

To give an idea of complexity of D&D, he points out that he was looking for a way to speed up casting of restoration. James Wyatt pointed him to a feat in the Complete Divine, a book David Noonan had designed!

Heh. I don't know if there's an accepted definition of "rules bloat" out there, but this is pretty much the closest I've seen yet.

As for dragons - it's not a dragon problem as much as it is a D&D spell system problem. In any case, of course dragons need spells/magic to be able to provide an adequate challenge at higher levels. Combine that with the refusal of a signficant number of WotC designers to design anything that can be used outside of combat, and naturally they see a problem.

Another poster said it well - they should have a healthy number of divinations and abjurations and the like.

 

[delericho]

Heh. I don't know if there's an accepted definition of "rules bloat" out there, but this is pretty much the closest I've seen yet.

Of course, we're talking about one fairly minor feat out of a book that was published two years ago (so written, what, three years ago?). I'm sure I don't remember every little detail of what I was doing back in 2003.