D&D 5E So why's the spell's saving throw and target in the text block?

[Nikosandros]

I'm not particularly fond of this format. IMO, it makes finding information slower. The save and AoE lines were present also in AD&D (even though, it's often listed as 'special' and then you have to dig through the text anyway.)

 

[Shaangor]

I agree that parsing the relevant game rules out of the block of text is slow and prone to errors in translation.

Also, how often does targeting objects with spells/powers actually come up in other people's games? For my group, it's pretty much never. No one really cares what happens to the books when you cast fireball in the library. The times that interacting with the environment with abilities actually matters, it's called out in that instance, i.e. "You can attack the man-eating flower with a fire attack to cause it to remain docile for a turn."

 

[Agamon]

Personally, there's less confusion for me if it's written in prose than point form. In the example:

Dog barking; 30 feet; cat in tree

A dog is barking at a cat that is sitting 30 feet up in a tree.

The former is shorter, but the latter is less confusing.

 

[pemerton]

Excdept that, one spell said it could target objects (I forget which one now), but no others, and the targeting rules themselves distinguished between creatures and objects.... so alas, the rules specifically said you could not target objects unless it said so.

The DMG had a whole, very clear and high quality, discussion on targetting objects.

At most you might say that the rules in the PHB, read without regard to the rules in the DMG, or common sense, or the history of the game, might imply that you could not target objects. Why anyone would prefer that reading to one which actually has regard to the excellent discussion in the DMG I don't know.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me, style affects the way I think about a rule. So a proscribed, identikit "block", while easy to understand, makes me think about magic in a regimented, technical, numerical way, rather than an eclectic, arcane, poetic way. I don't like spellbooks to look like spreadsheets, no matter how easy it makes things.

I definitely agree with this. Actually reading a spell description gives me a different emotional feeling about what I am doing than reading a straight statblock.

After playing 4E now for six years... I definitely have felt a loss in terms of how spellcasting feels due to the way the power system is laid out. With both martial combat maneuvers and spells laid out, presented, and read in the exact same format... for me there is definitely less of a distinction between the two. Spells powers don't feel like spells as much anymore, because the read exactly like combat maneuvers.

Reading prose gets me in a different mindset as I am doing it. Spells involve intricate intellectualism to pull off... and reading prose and then parsing what it is talking about gets my brain more active in that kind of way, provoking a different feeling in me.

Power blocks felt GREAT for martial moves. Swordfighting is fast and tactically intricate... and thus reading an exploit quickly, then going to the grid to see positioning of everyone, and then making quick decisions on moving here, or attacking there, or knocking this guy down, or rushing over to stop that guy... the power statblock all helped bring that feeling out. But for spells? Yeah, the power block was quick, concise... but I eventually learned that spellcasting just feels to me more artificial when it *is* that quick and concise.

Maybe it just comes down to something as simple as "You need to read your spellbook to prepare spells for the day"... and thus reading spell descriptions just help match my real-world action to what is happening in the game world and thus draws me in better? Could be. But at the end... I'll sacrifice a little bit of speed for a more evocative feeling when playing a PC that casts spells.

 

[Nikosandros]

I definitely agree with this. Actually reading a spell description gives me a different emotional feeling about what I am doing than reading a straight statblock. [...]

I agree about the emotional feeling. I run a weekly game of AD&D 1e and the spells are very evocative and give a strong feeling.

During the casting, the illusionist must call out to the subject or subjects, informing one or all that their final fate, indeed their doom, now is upon them.

However, it's often a pain to quickly find relevant information about a spell in the thick of a complex combat. Besides, as I previously wrote, even AD&D has a save line for each spell.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The DMG had a whole, very clear and high quality, discussion on targetting objects.

At most you might say that the rules in the PHB, read without regard to the rules in the DMG, or common sense, or the history of the game, might imply that you could not target objects. Why anyone would prefer that reading to one which actually has regard to the excellent discussion in the DMG I don't know.

I dont recall any such discussion in DMG 4e first printing. In any case, this kind of confusion is what they're avoiding this time round.

 

[ccooke]

There are decent reasons for a lot of the detail in this spell description. For instance, a very likely reason why they used the "At higher levels" block format over a Target: line is that this way makes scaling spells stand out more and frees up the actual mechanics of scaling a lot. The format they're using means that all the effects of casting at a higher level are in one place, not scattered through the text, but without sacrificing the prose structure they've chosen.

Imagine a spell that changes in more complex ways at higher levels - something that affected more targets OR* did more damage. This would be trivial to convey with the prose block but very tricky if they were using a Target: line.

* I doubt we'd see any spell that did both; that would be a little too quadratic for this edition, no?

 

[Jester David]

It strikes me that not having a separate line is easier for non-standard targets, otherwise spells really try and limit spell effects to that one line. It's an artificial limit.
It's also easier to read natural language, as you don't need to change your gaze from the text to the save or target line. All the information is in the same place.

 

[Nikosandros]

It strikes me that not having a separate line is easier for non-standard targets, otherwise spells really try and limit spell effects to that one line. It's an artificial limit.
It's also easier to read natural language, as you don't need to change your gaze from the text to the save or target line. All the information is in the same place.

I guess that it really comes down to how each specific brain is 'wired'. For me, separating the information makes it muck quicker to access it.