David Noonan on D&D Complexity

[Thomas Percy]

If you don't see any bright side of D&D-minatures, now you have first reason to like (or even dislike more) it: they will cut fly spell and large-plus-size monsters, because they don't fit in 5 ft.-squares grill.

But seriously:

1.
I don't use dragons in my own adventures, because I don't have a patience of reading and reading again these three pages of dragonmaking in MM1.

2.
Dispel magic is terrible spell, because you must prepare two set of stats for most spellcasters.

 

[delericho]

One other thing that adds a lot of complexity is durations measured in rounds, and generally a small number of rounds. Where only one or two such events apply at a time, this isn't so much of a problem, but once you get to high level, it's not uncommon for a character to have half a dozen buffs, effects or conditions in effect. And, since these were probably applied one per round by a spell-caster, and since each probably has a duration of one round per level, this means that they'll each wear off at a different time.

I wonder if perhaps it would be better to state the durations as 'one encounter' for most such effects, or 'one encounter or until discharged' for spells like Invisibility. You could also put a statement in the magic chapter of the PHB to the effect that "spells with a duration of one encounter, if cast outsider of the initiative sequence, last for five minutes".

That way, the DM can have his enemy spellcaster buff up before the fight, without having to work out exactly the order in which the spells are cast for maximum effect.

 

[Gold Roger]

I agree the game could take a reduction of some of the complexity.

There may be people that have no problem acounting for all the effects, especially at higher levels. But I know my group is not among these people and I'd say from what I've seen that there's a whole lot of others that aren't either.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I agree with the concerns over Dragon spellcasting. In my games, I've eliminated that as an ability and replaced it with more options for the breath weapons.

 

[Cor Azer]

One other thing that adds a lot of complexity is durations measured in rounds, and generally a small number of rounds. Where only one or two such events apply at a time, this isn't so much of a problem, but once you get to high level, it's not uncommon for a character to have half a dozen buffs, effects or conditions in effect. And, since these were probably applied one per round by a spell-caster, and since each probably has a duration of one round per level, this means that they'll each wear off at a different time.

I wonder if perhaps it would be better to state the durations as 'one encounter' for most such effects, or 'one encounter or until discharged' for spells like Invisibility. You could also put a statement in the magic chapter of the PHB to the effect that "spells with a duration of one encounter, if cast outsider of the initiative sequence, last for five minutes".

That way, the DM can have his enemy spellcaster buff up before the fight, without having to work out exactly the order in which the spells are cast for maximum effect.

I would fully endorse an idea like that (spell durations measured in encounters) - not only does it help the the "when does it wear off", but it helps prevent the "rush-rush-rush before everything wears off" mentality that was (apparently) an issue with the 3.0 buffs, without completely ruining them. And it's not like it is without precident - a barbarian's fatigue after raging is measured in "encounters" rather than a strict length of time.

I also like the idea of reducing dragon spellcasting, but perhaps beefing up their stats to compensate against the "scry-buff-teleport" strategies. It's simple enough to add a class to a dragon if I want it to be a full-bore wizard, cleric, or whatever.

 

[Li Shenron]

The biggest turn-off to mature players in my own experience, is that quantitative complexity invariably results in the weakening of other areas of the game.

The high-level spellcasters case is terrible: with all the spells a dragon or a wizard could cast, paired with their very high Int scores, should result in making them tremendously powerful adversaries, ready to face most of the possible threats.

But when a human DM has to roleplay them, it's all too common that she cannot remember all the spells available, and the villain is suddenly playing much below its own potential.

I've been a DM for years, and still I have to spend a lot of time in preparing a session to make sure the villains are going to be smart. Incidentally, playing monsters below their real strength also results in having to use higher-CR creatures, which is turns give the character a faster advancement, moving more quickly towards scenarios with more spells and more abilities That is why I try to make sure to play my monsters smart, so that even when the CR is equal to the party's level, it is still a tough fight.

 

[Plane Sailing]

but it helps prevent the "rush-rush-rush before everything wears off" mentality that was (apparently) an issue with the 3.0 buffs, without completely ruining them.

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.

 

[Henry]

THANK YOU! THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU, Dave Noonan!

Something I've been mentioning for a while, and it's good to know that a few on the WotC team are running into the same problem.

 

[Mark Hope]

I was interested to read that spellcasting is seen as adding unwanted complexity to dragons. Dragons in earlier editions had little or no spellcasting abilities at all. I remember reading several letters in Dragon's Forum pages (and even a few articles) that bemoaned the fact that dragons were just big scaly flamethrowers with claws and teeth. Along with the whole movement to have them presented as intelligent, ancient opponents who would more often act from behind the scenes than jump out from behind a rock and eat people, came a movement to have them become better spellcasters.

So dragons in 1e were more magical than in the original game, dragons in 2e were better spellcasters (and bigger) than in 1e, and 3e dragons have racked size and spellcasting power up another notch.

I had the impression that this upscale was happening in response to fan desires for a more spell-casting dragon, and I think that it's interesting to read that this is now being seen as a design-problem. Be careful what you wish for...

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I agree with most of this article (and the last one).

I like the idea of simplifying large dice rolls. Sure, seeing the reaction on player's faces when you roll massive amounts of dice can be fun - but by the time you've rolled 24d4 four or five times the effect has worn off and you just want the total to move on with the fight.

I also agree that dragons shouldn't be spellcasters - or at least not ALL of the big dragons. Make some of the dragon's spells into spell-like abilities. Making the odd dragon into a real spellcaster will make it stand out ('where did THAT come from?'). Dragons range in personalities and interests just like we do. I do not why all dragons will shun magic but I don't see why all dragons would pick up magic either. Dragons are naturally powerful fighters. Why have a brute style dragon actually contemplate casting a spell? If you have an obsene number of attacks a round you should be using them for something other than a large flashing neon sign that says 'don't get into melee with me'.