Time to bring back the prose?

D&D spells have been written with stat blocks for many editions. It's useful for lookup and settling rules arguments. If spells are going to have technical facts (ranges, damage, casting time), then they need to have stat blocks.

Call of Cthulhu, in most editions, has spells without stat blocks. Many spells in that system have vague effects, or things that are open to Keeper interpretation. Great--magic should be like that in CoC, but not in D&D.

Mixing in all the stats with the text makes the rules of a spell less clear. It's not something I'm interested in.

No one is suggesting getting rid of stat blocks. i find them useful in the first three editions. People are just asking for the spell description to once again blend mechanic and prose (while retaining a stat block entry).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

seregil

First Post
D&D spells have been written with stat blocks for many editions. It's useful for lookup and settling rules arguments. If spells are going to have technical facts (ranges, damage, casting time), then they need to have stat blocks.

Call of Cthulhu, in most editions, has spells without stat blocks. Many spells in that system have vague effects, or things that are open to Keeper interpretation. Great--magic should be like that in CoC, but not in D&D.

Mixing in all the stats with the text makes the rules of a spell less clear. It's not something I'm interested in.

I don't think anyone is saying we should not have a stat block.

I think people are saying we should not have ONLY a stat block nor a description as short and as...useless?... as the 4E powers description.

Stat block? Yes!
ONLY a statblock? Hell no!
 

I would much prefer "You wiggle your fingers and shoot fire at an enemy adjacent to you, causing 1d6 points of damage." than "1d6 damage to 1 adjacent target".

While I primarily play Hero (the epitome of giving you the mechanics, and letting you come up with the fluff yourself) - I would much prefer your example for D&D. The tied in fluff and mechanics are part of the charm of D&D.
 

Mattachine

Adventurer
I think minigiant's version did not have a stat block. I was specifically addressing that.

I prefer a stat block, an evocative bit of fluff, and then details as needed in the description. It doesn't matter much to me if it is in the style of AD&D, 3e, or 4e. I just want the description/details to be clear. There were several spells in AD&D where the description was strange or unclear.

If the designer's want a spell with wiggle room for interpretation, that's fine, but then, specifically say in the description something like, "the exact effects are determined by the particular situation and the DM."
 

Tallifer

Hero
Minigiant, I appreciate your attempt to unite the two camps, but even with your colours, I have to scan every one of those bits to find the bit I need.

I must say however that if the Fifth Edition uses your idea, it will be much better than the turgid walls of text I find in previous editions.
 

Incenjucar

Legend
Reflavoring spells is pretty much the lowest form of creativity possible in the RPG medium, imo. If players are putzing around with that, to me that's a sign of a boring, disempowering, rail-roady campaign.

The more 5e steers games away from creative reflavoring towards creative problem-solving and creative story-telling, the better. They're much more fun.

I hope that 5e doesn't so much as mention reflavoring, reskinning, refluffing or anything like that.

Pretty sure that the random wench tables are the lowest form of creativity.

Flavor is a big deal for a lot of people, and relieves the designers from having to cater to nearly as many tastes. If you don't like the artistic side of creativity, fine, but D&D isn't just a puzzle game for a lot of people.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Minigiant, I appreciate your attempt to unite the two camps, but even with your colours, I have to scan every one of those bits to find the bit I need.

I must say however that if the Fifth Edition uses your idea, it will be much better than the turgid walls of text I find in previous editions.

I think you might be exaggerating the difficulty somewhat. If we're going to sacrifice everything in favour of easiness, we're talking video games.

I don't see a tiny bit of effort being a problem for an intellectual game. If I objected to effort, I wouldn't be playing RPGs at all. I'll gladly sacrifice a little effort for more immersion.

When we get to the point where people object to a paragraph of text ("turgid walls of text") it saddens me a little. Whatever happened to our game?
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Minigiant, I appreciate your attempt to unite the two camps, but even with your colours, I have to scan every one of those bits to find the bit I need.

I must say however that if the Fifth Edition uses your idea, it will be much better than the turgid walls of text I find in previous editions.

It always feels good to be appreciated.

Perhaps if it were colored code for your convenience.
Red for damage. Blue for nondamage effects. Green for range, area, and casting time.

It only takes a glance at a power to know it is atwill, encounter, or daily.
 

tuxgeo

Adventurer
:(

My invoker's powers not only all have descriptions, some of them have miniatures and are characters with their own personalities. And not just his summoning prayers.

Re: powers having their own miniatures: So -- like some of the "Angelic. . ." (whatever) powers?
Have you already posted examples of this sort of thing in some other thread? I'm interested in more details about how you do this, but I don't want to derail this thread for that.

(I already know that the Wizard's "Flaming Sphere" had its own mini.)
 

Scribble

First Post
Two books? One is a sit and read the book of D&D rules, and the other an at the table reference book stripped of all color and flavor.
 

Remove ads

Top