Prose, Terminology, Fluff, & Presentation: Spreadsheets or Haiku?

I showed my 14 year old the sleep spell descriptions and asked him which one he preferred. He chose the 3rd edition one, and I asked him why. He said "Because it actually puts them to sleep, while the 4th edition one just slows them." So ironically, he didn't read the entire 4th edition description, even though it was shorter, and didn't realize that if they fail their first save, the targets do fall asleep.

A theory: Maybe prose is not only easier on the eyes and more enjoyable to read, perhaps the longer length produces clearer rules?

I know when I look at the two descriptions, I prefer the readability of the 3rd edition one, even though I like the mechanics of the 4th edition version better. It's surprising to me really. I sort of thought that for "attack" spells, I liked 4th edition's style better, but I may have changed my mind.

Wrathamon said:

It might be a good idea to provide your version of the 4th edition Sleep written like the desired paragraph approach. How would you do it?

Click to expand...

Not to speak for Morrus, but I'll take a crack at this:

Sleep
This spell plunges the subjects into a magical slumber. It affects a 10-foot-radius circle centered anywhere within 50 feet. Creatures in the area are slowed (save ends). In addition, roll Intelligence vs. Will against each subject. Those hit fall unconscious (save ends) if they fail their first save.

Click to expand...

I deliberately put the entire spell into the text paragraph to illustrate how it could be done. In practice, I would prefer the mixed approach of earlier editions, which puts standard values like range and AoE into the statblock, while the "meat" of the spell is in the text description. So:

Sleep
Range: 50 feet
Area: 10-foot radius
Attack: Intelligence vs. Will

This spell plunges the subjects into a magical slumber. Creatures in the area are slowed (save ends). In addition, make an attack against each subject. Those hit fall unconscious (save ends) if they fail their first save.

Click to expand...

You'll note this is quite close to what 4E already has. I just gave the flavor text some much-needed editing, then merged it into the "hit" and "miss" portions of the 4E statblock. I also substituted measurements in feet* for 4E's use of squares, since I think this also contributes to immersion, but it would be easy enough to use "10 squares" and "burst 1" instead.

[size=-2]*The "10-foot radius" is a bit of a fudge. Properly speaking, it ought to be a 7.5-foot radius, but nobody wants that. Given the choice between 5 and 10, I thought 10 was probably closer to the desired effect.[/size]

Over a year ago, I wrote an article called To Build a Better Stat Block. But given the discussion here, I would agree that prosaic description should be incorporated into the main text. To take the 4e sleep, I would "wrecanify" it as follows:

SLEEP
Wizard Daily 1 Arcane, Charm, Enchantment, Implement
Standard Action
Area burst 2 within 20 squares
Attack: Intelligence vs. Will
Effect: You exert your will against your foes, seeking to overwhelm them with a tide of magical weariness. Every creature in the spell's area is automatically slowed (save ends). You also attack each creature in the spell's area. Each creature you hit that fails its first save against the slow effect falls unconscious (save ends) instead of continuing to be slowed.
Insert appropriate icons for frequency, action type, and keywords.

And Morrus, some good news for you. Robert Scwalb, one of the designers for Next is keenly aware of the presentation issues you raise. So I think you'll be pleased with the the layout of the books, if not the contents.

Wanting to say ... there are several issues here. Morris' protestation non-withstanding, for some folks, whether the descriptive texts has an in game effect is a consideration, and that goes far beyond an issue of presentation. Second, Sleep, from 4E, is a train wreck of a spell. As a consequence, Sleep is a problematic example.

I say that sleep is a train wreck because (1) It combines a slow effect and a sleep effect. That's confusing to folks used to the older sleep, which either put to sleep or it didn't. The slow effect is new, and creates a confusion with the older Slow spell. (2) It has a confusing effects track. I thought that the goal was to simplify spell mechanics. The spell has an area of effect, a to-hit roll, an initial save, and a save to remove an ongoing effect. Not trouble, if you are used to the mechanic. Terribly confusing to someone just getting used to the rules.

I don't think that any presentation style will overcome these problems of the spell itself. As a result, either presentation style will fail, leading to a meaningless comparison.

TomB

Edit: As an afterthought, "Lethargy", or perhaps "Sap the Will" are better names. But enough about Sleep! since that's not the focus.

A couple of additional points:

Presentation might also include a question of organization, which includes placement, but might be stretched to considerations of whether each class has its own unique powers, or if there is a mix of unique and common powers (and to what degree).

Presentation mixes with the question of whether fluff is mechanically active. Does the placement of the spell effect description below the mechanic details block also include an incorporation of the spell name and flavor text, in addition to the mechanical effects?

TomB

Morrus asked for a comparison of magic items. Let's take Bead of Force. her'es the 3.5 version:

Bead of Force This small black sphere appears to be a lusterless pearl. You can throw it up to 60 feet with no range penalties. Upon sharp impact, the bead explodes, sending forth a burst that deals 5d6 points of force damage to all creatures within a 10-foot radius.

It functions like a resilient sphere spell (Reflex DC 16 negates) with a radius of 10 feet and a duration of 10 minutes. A globe of shimmering force encloses a creature, provided the latter is small enough to fit within the diameter of the sphere. The sphere contains its subject for the spell’s duration. The sphere is not subject to damage of any sort except from a rod of cancellation, a rod of negation, disintegrate, or a targeted dispel magic spell. These effects destroy the sphere without harm to the subject. Nothing can pass through the sphere, inside or out, though the subject can breathe normally. The subject may struggle, but the globe cannot be physically moved either by people outside it or by the struggles of those within.

The explosion completely consumes the bead, making this a one-use item.

Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Wondrous Item, resilient sphere; Price 3,000 gp


Here's the 4e version:

Bead of Force

Level 15+ Uncommon
This lusterless black pearl seems mundane, but as you grasp it you feel the force magic contained within it reverberate up and down your arm.
Level 15 1,000 gp Lvl 25 25,000 gp
Level 20 5,000 gp Lvl 30 125,000 gp
Consumable
Attack Power (Force)

Consumable (Standard Action)
Attack: Ranged 10 (one creature of size Medium or smaller); the bead’s level + 3 vs. Reflex
Hit: The target is restrained, cannot teleport, and takes ongoing 10 force damage (save ends all). Until the effect ends, line of effect cannot be traced into or out of the target’s space, and attacks cannot enter or exit it.
Level 25 or 30: Ongoing 15 force damage.
Miss: The target is slowed and takes ongoing 5 force damage (save ends both).
Level 25 or 30: Ongoing 10 force damage on a miss.

Frankly, both of these blocks have issues. The 3e block refers you to another spell (resilient sphere for rules) and two-thirds of its stat block is dealing with counters and corner-cases. It's a mess.

The 4e has all the issues of a 4e block. The description is shunted into a separate section, the mechanical description is dry and clunky. It has to repeat the "Level 25 or 30" line for formatting reasons.

This is my wrecanification of the item:

Bead of Force

Level 15+
Consumable

Force
Attack: Item level +3 vs. Reflex
This lusterless black pearl seems mundane, but if grasped the force magic contained within it reverberates up and down the bearer's arm. You can throw the bead up to 50 feet to capture creatures in a temporary sphere of force. Each creature within 10 feet of the impact point takes ongoing 5 force damage (save ends).

Also, attack each such creature. Each creature missed is pushed to the nearest unoccupied square outside the sphere. Each creature hit cannot leave, and no other creature can enter, the area of effect while the sphere of force exists (even via teleport), and the ongoing force damage is increased by 5.

The bubble of force lasts until no creature within the sphere is taking the ongoing force damage inflicted by the sphere (or the effect is dispelled).

Special : If the bead is level 25 or higher, increase the ongoing force damage by 5.

wrecan said:

Morrus asked for a comparison of magic items. Let's take Bead of Force. her'es the 3.5 version:

Bead of Force This small black sphere appears to be a lusterless pearl. You can throw it up to 60 feet with no range penalties. Upon sharp impact, the bead explodes, sending forth a burst that deals 5d6 points of force damage to all creatures within a 10-foot radius.

It functions like a resilient sphere spell (Reflex DC 16 negates) with a radius of 10 feet and a duration of 10 minutes. A globe of shimmering force encloses a creature, provided the latter is small enough to fit within the diameter of the sphere. The sphere contains its subject for the spell’s duration. The sphere is not subject to damage of any sort except from a rod of cancellation, a rod of negation, disintegrate, or a targeted dispel magic spell. These effects destroy the sphere without harm to the subject. Nothing can pass through the sphere, inside or out, though the subject can breathe normally. The subject may struggle, but the globe cannot be physically moved either by people outside it or by the struggles of those within.

The explosion completely consumes the bead, making this a one-use item.

Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Wondrous Item, resilient sphere; Price 3,000 gp


Here's the 4e version:

Bead of Force

Level 15+ Uncommon
This lusterless black pearl seems mundane, but as you grasp it you feel the force magic contained within it reverberate up and down your arm.
Level 15 1,000 gp Lvl 25 25,000 gp
Level 20 5,000 gp Lvl 30 125,000 gp
Consumable
Attack Power (Force)

Consumable (Standard Action)
Attack: Ranged 10 (one creature of size Medium or smaller); the bead’s level + 3 vs. Reflex
Hit: The target is restrained, cannot teleport, and takes ongoing 10 force damage (save ends all). Until the effect ends, line of effect cannot be traced into or out of the target’s space, and attacks cannot enter or exit it.
Level 25 or 30: Ongoing 15 force damage.
Miss: The target is slowed and takes ongoing 5 force damage (save ends both).
Level 25 or 30: Ongoing 10 force damage on a miss.

Frankly, both of these blocks have issues. The 3e block refers you to another spell (resilient sphere for rules) and two-thirds of its stat block is dealing with counters and corner-cases. It's a mess.

The 4e has all the issues of a 4e block. The description is shunted into a separate section, the mechanical description is dry and clunky. It has to repeat the "Level 25 or 30" line for formatting reasons.

This is my wrecanification of the item:

Bead of Force

Level 15+
Consumable

Force
Attack: Item level +3 vs. Reflex
This lusterless black pearl seems mundane, but if grasped the force magic contained within it reverberates up and down the bearer's arm. You can throw the bead up to 50 feet to capture creatures in a temporary sphere of force. Each creature within 10 feet of the impact point takes ongoing 5 force damage (save ends).

Also, attack each such creature. Each creature missed is pushed to the nearest unoccupied square outside the sphere. Each creature hit cannot leave, and no other creature can enter, the area of effect while the sphere of force exists (even via teleport), and the ongoing force damage is increased by 5.

The bubble of force lasts until no creature within the sphere is taking the ongoing force damage inflicted by the sphere (or the effect is dispelled).

Special : If the bead is level 25 or higher, increase the ongoing force damage by 5.

Click to expand...

I actually think those "corner cases" related to stuff like how it can be damaged or destroyed are pretty critical to include. The other parameters the description lays out seem important as well. Really not seeing a huge issue with the 3e version except for the point you make about it referencing resiliant sphere (though that can be a legitimate space saving issue, but it can be annoying to look up another thing when reading a magic item entry).

Bedrockgames said:

I actually think those "corner cases" related to stuff like how it can be damaged or destroyed are pretty critical to include

Click to expand...

They're critical in 3e because the nullification rules are wonky. There are all sorts of complicated layers to it. You can't damage it, but you can dispel, negate, cancel, or disintegrate it? Some uniformity was needed. And the reference to resilient sphere was odd since they rewrote most of the rules anyway.

it can be annoying to look up another thing when reading a magic item entry.

Click to expand...

I shouldn't have to cross-reference books when playing. It bogs the game down. It's also a reaosn I hate monster blocks that say:

Special Abilities: Spells
Typical Spells Known (6/7/7/7/5; save DC 14 + spell level)
0— cure minor wounds, daze, detect magic, light, mage hand, open/close, ray of frost, read magic; 1st—cure light wounds, divine favor, expeditious retreat, mage armor, magic missile; 2nd—detect thoughts, lesser restoration, see invisibility, scorching ray; 3rd—cure serious wounds, dispel magic, lightning bolt; 4th—divine power, greater invisibility.


Gah! I have to look these up? At a minimum, could you highlight the ones that are generally used in combat? Like so:

Preparatory Spells:1st—divine favor, expeditious retreat, mage armor; 2nd—detect thoughts, see invisibility; 4th—divine power, greater invisibility.
Combat Spells: 0— daze; ray of frost; 1st—magic missile; 2nd—scorching ray; 3rd—dispel magic, lightning bolt
Utility Spells: 0— cure minor wounds, detect magic, light, mage hand, open/close, read magic; 1st—cure light wounds; 2nd—lesser restoration; 3rd—cure serious wounds.


At least I can quickly see which spells to use in a fight, and which the naga may already have cast if it had warnign of the PCs' approach.

wrecan said:

They're critical in 3e because the nullification rules are wonky. There are all sorts of complicated layers to it. You can't damage it, but you can dispel, negate, cancel, or disintegrate it? Some uniformity was needed. And the reference to resilient sphere was odd since they rewrote most of the rules anyway.

Click to expand...

That doesn't sound all that byzantine to me. Again, no fan of 3E, but some basic parameters of the thing's weaknesses, limitations and immunities. I can't say the one's listed in the entry you gave were too hard to deal with (certainly not what I would label a "mess").

I shouldn't have to cross-reference books when playing. It bogs the game down. It's also a reaosn I hate monster blocks that say:

Special Abilities: Spells
Typical Spells Known (6/7/7/7/5; save DC 14 + spell level)
0— cure minor wounds, daze, detect magic, light, mage hand, open/close, ray of frost, read magic; 1st—cure light wounds, divine favor, expeditious retreat, mage armor, magic missile; 2nd—detect thoughts, lesser restoration, see invisibility, scorching ray; 3rd—cure serious wounds, dispel magic, lightning bolt; 4th—divine power, greater invisibility.


Gah! I have to look these up? At a minimum, could you highlight the ones that are generally used in combat? Like so:

Preparatory Spells:1st—divine favor, expeditious retreat, mage armor; 2nd—detect thoughts, see invisibility; 4th—divine power, greater invisibility.
Combat Spells: 0— daze; ray of frost; 1st—magic missile; 2nd—scorching ray; 3rd—dispel magic, lightning bolt
Utility Spells: 0— cure minor wounds, detect magic, light, mage hand, open/close, read magic; 1st—cure light wounds; 2nd—lesser restoration; 3rd—cure serious wounds.


At least I can quickly see which spells to use in a fight, and which the naga may already have cast if it had warnign of the PCs' approach.

Click to expand...

those can all come up in combat though. Now instead of one list, i have three. It is just preference i suppose but I will take the first one over this alternative.

Personally i feel stuff like this does present a challenge because the GM has to know the spells his monster can use but 1) i think the effort is worth the richness it brings to play and 2) the gm really should learn spell effect anyways, and monster encounter prep is a great place to start.

Morrus said:

If I could do that, I'd be writing my own 5E. I'm no writer, though. All I can do is express my preferences, just like the rest of us.

Click to expand...

fair enough. I think Klaus did a good job of representing it.

I just do not want to go back to the grammar wars of older editions. Maybe, 4e went too far to try to remove that. I rarely see/hear these debates as was always happening when their was a lot of "prose" in the rules.

But, I understand your point. Reading powers in 4e was incredible boring ... but, when I was making a character it was really easy to know what power I wanted to pick.