D&D 5E I LOVE 5th Editon... BUT... (Why No Simple Table of Rituals?) And Other Little Quibbles.

[Mouseferatu]

This might help you guys out with the spell schools and other organization, at least.

Spell Sorter.

 

[dd.stevenson]

This might help you guys out with the spell schools and other organization, at least.

Spell Sorter.

If you'll forgive me for looking a gift mouse in the mouth, have you considered updating the list with short 4E/pfsrd-style spell descriptions? Like, say for guiding bolt: "On hit, inflicts 4d6 radiant damage and gives advantage with next attack."

Because, if you're not, then I'm seriously considering writing these myself.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I too love 5e, but the spell index is just awful. Would giving brief descriptions of the spells, organizing the wizard spells by school, or denoting with little M's and R's which spells use expensive material components and are rituals, respectively, really have been so much to ask for?

I also have some issues with the presentation of the spells themselves. They could have simply added a target line to the spell header, rather than having to state things like "choose one creature you can see within range" in the description of every spell. A saving throw line in the header would also have been very useful. That, and putting in brackets which classes have each spell under their names (i.e. Magic Missile, 1st-level evocation [Sor, Wiz]) would have saved people a lot of flipping back and forth through the book.

I just don't know what on earth they were thinking. Was the PHB really that rushed, or did someone in charge over at WotC actually believe that doing the spells like this would be better?

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I agree completely that the design aspects of the book are weirdly un-user centered. I don't think it's all that badly designed a book on the whole, but it's strange that the spell section seems to be built to hide class features, that it's missing some of the broader utilitarian tables, and major meta-features like color tabbing on the page bleed so you could easily flip between sections from a closed book.

Mind you, it's neither aggressively poor in these respects (like 5th ed Shadowrun which seems nigh unrunnable without a DM's screen) not unintentionally so (like first ed Weapons of the Gods), but that makes it almost stranger in that we know very well they can do better.

I wonder if it's just an assumption that most of those functions will become replaced by supplements or e-tools so they might as well keep the focus on the straight read through rather than game-table use?

Or an editorial decision to keep the style elements simple so that time could be spent on other things?

 

[hbarsquared]

I would like to posit a scenario.

5th edition has been released in an era of technology social connectivity. Part of the rollout has specifically taken modern accessibility into account.

If you are pretty sure, the moment you release your Player's Hamdbook, that someone is going to create a spreadsheet or app of spell lists anyway, why waste your page count?

Even if there had been ten pages of tables organized by spell school, ritual status, duration, and "cast at higher levels," someone still would have posted a spreadsheet! (thank you, Ari!)

Just a thought.

 

[Ricochet]

If you'll forgive me for looking a gift mouse in the mouth, have you considered updating the list with short 4E/pfsrd-style spell descriptions? Like, say for guiding bolt: "On hit, inflicts 4d6 radiant damage and gives advantage with next attack."

Because, if you're not, then I'm seriously considering writing these myself.

I second this. Would be so useful! I posted a sample sheet for reference in your thread about your spell sorter, Mouseferatu.

 

[Sadras]

The players' handbook had to conserve space so they couldn't provide alphabetical spells tables, component spell tables, ritual spell tables, concentration spell tables, spell-school spell tables...etc to suit all our various desires.
I think those options, although very much appreciated, could be provided for free online or with an online tool without affecting the PHB page count.
Either that or @Mouseferatu is actually working with/for WotC and is secretly being remunerated for his efforts by catering to the community's needs

 

[prophet224]

Art +, Spells -

Love the art, but wow the spell list does suck. I don't mind not having more tables, but not having a decent group of descriptors in each spell description (components, class - I am really frustrated by this one, target, etc) is a really odd oversight.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

Either that or @Mouseferatu is actually working with/for WotC and is secretly being remunerated for his efforts by catering to the community's needs

Oy, wouldn't that be nice? No, I fear my only remuneration comes when someone on my site to download the sorter sees a novel that interests them.

And on a similar note, going back through and adding spell descriptors is just a more labor-intensive adjustment than I have the time/energy for right now, what with deadlines looming. That said, if you guys want to do it, I'll be happy to host the file and publicly give credit where it's due.

(Only one caveat. The summaries can't be too comprehensive. Reminders/crib notes. The idea was never for this sheet to replace the need for the PHB at the table, just make it easier to use.)

 

[mcintma]

But the biggest disappointment for me is the art. I hate the art. The majority appears to have been chosen on the basis of its inoffensiveness, rather than its ability to excite.

I'm fairly positive on the art, but I agree with the whole 'glaringly obvious effort to be PC' reflected in the illos. For good or ill, D&D was most definitely not PC back in the day