D&D 5E Spell Entries - What I would have done differently

[the Jester]

For me, the big thing I'd want to see changed in spell entries is how they're organized. Alphabetical by spell name if fine for looking up a specific spell when you know nothing about it but it's name.

But, when it comes to familiarizing yourself with what your character can /do/, having them arranged by class & level as they were in AD&D, is far more convenient and helpful. Even if it does mean re-printing a non-unique spell here or there (or referencing were to find it, if space is at that much of a premium).

You know, in the run up to 3e, when they announced that spells would be organized in one big alphabetical list, I felt this way. But after seeing the arrangement system, I completely flipped to endorsing it, as long as they put that one line description of each spell in the lists by class and level... which it doesn't look like they're doing, at least from Basic and the Starter Set.

So now I'm on the fence, but I think I still lean toward the alphabetical list.

 

[Li Shenron]

Casting Time - if it's one action, don't list it. Players should assume a spell without a casting time given can be cast in one round.

Range: Should have been divided up into Personal, Touch, Close, Medium and Long (with rare exceptions). Exactly how much distance that means would split by the complexity the players want as follows - at a basic level Close - 30', Medium - 60', Long - 120'.

Components - Instead of repeatedly listing V, S, assume all spells have those components unless they explicitly say otherwise in their descriptions (this is very rare). Likewise, material components should be in the spell description. This line can go away.

I definitely agree with these.

Duration I'm not sure.

I also noticed that they removed from a spell description a mention of which classes have that spell in their list (like: Cure Wounds: Cleric, Druid). That's often useful to me when browsing the spell chapter.

 

[Dausuul]

Saving throw is handled in the description because it flows naturally with the language there. Furthermore, it often takes the place of the "magic attack roll" language, which also flows naturally in the description.

Similarly, area of effect usually just contains too many words to be handled well in a tabular format. You would either have a very long entry at the top, or you would be reading the description anyway to get the specifics.

Yup. Also, saving throws exist in a lot of permutations; a single "saving throw" line would in many cases obscure important details. For example, hold person is a Wisdom save--but you get to roll again every round. Dominate person grants a new save every time you take damage. Dream grants a save if the caster is using the nightmare effect, but not the dream-shaping one. (Enchantment spells seem to get a lot of oddball saving throws.)

When you think about it, the only times a "saving throw" line is worth having are spells that are "save negates" or "save half," and that doesn't describe very many spells in 5E. If it's "save partial," you're going to have to read the description anyway. If it's "save none," then a "saving throw" line is just wasted space.

 

[Pickles JG]

Yup. Also, saving throws exist in a lot of permutations; a single "saving throw" line would in many cases obscure important details. For example, hold person is a Wisdom save--but you get to roll again every round. Dominate person grants a new save every time you take damage. Dream grants a save if the caster is using the nightmare effect, but not the dream-shaping one. (Enchantment spells seem to get a lot of oddball saving throws.)

When you think about it, the only times a "saving throw" line is worth having are spells that are "save negates" or "save half," and that doesn't describe very many spells in 5E. If it's "save partial," you're going to have to read the description anyway. If it's "save none," then a "saving throw" line is just wasted space.

I am not sure having alot of oddball saving throws is such a good idea but there they are. If they had put them in lines they might have noticed that for example Grease which makes the ground slippery gives you a Dex save to avoid the effects then an acrobatics check to move through the area afterwards, while Sleetstorm which makes the ground slippery requires a Dex save to move through it.

That's from the tome of illicit lore though & may have changed.

Save partial can be made pretty clear - for hold person it's will negate & the effect allows a save every turn. There are a lot of damage spells save for 1/2 or negates it would clean up.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You know, in the run up to 3e, when they announced that spells would be organized in one big alphabetical list, I felt this way. But after seeing the arrangement system, I completely flipped to endorsing it, as long as they put that one line description of each spell in the lists by class and level... which it doesn't look like they're doing, at least from Basic and the Starter Set..

Really? It just doesn't work, for me, as a substitute for browsing through a whole class/level of spells and getting a feel for what the class can do with them.

Ideally, I think, you'd even have all the spells for a given class/level on no more than two facing pages, so you could peruse the entirety of options and compare them easily. Obviously, some classes just have (or will have) far too many spells for that...

 

[Gradine]

Yeah, I gotta say, not having that line in the spell description to say which class list(s) the spell falls under makes just browsing the spell descriptions to be a huge pain. It's not a problem if I'm building a character, and I can just look at the class lists and see which spells I need to look up. But if I just want to read the spell descriptions, front to back? It's a nightmare. So many "that seems cool, now let's flip back 50-some-odd pages to see who can cast it". It's not even a space-saver, since you could clearly fit that information in the "5th level transmutation" line.

It's not that important, in the long run, but it is a little frustrating.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yeah, I gotta say, not having that line in the spell description to say which class list(s) the spell falls under makes just browsing the spell descriptions to be a huge pain. It's not a problem if I'm building a character, and I can just look at the class lists and see which spells I need to look up. But if I just want to read the spell descriptions, front to back? It's a nightmare. So many "that seems cool, now let's flip back 50-some-odd pages to see who can cast it". It's not even a space-saver, since you could clearly fit that information in the "5th level transmutation" line.

It's not that important, in the long run, but it is a little frustrating.

Yeah, it's really really minor, but this is exactly what I had in mind. Browsing spells and not knowing which class they belong to, it only affects me when "studying" the Basic material. I'm sure there's no problem when actually playing a PC since you typically read the spell list first and the descriptions later.

 

[Lanefan]

Dropping the V,S is not going to save any space, and the line is still needed for a lot of spells because they have M components. I like that specific material components are listed here now as opposed to in the spell description.

In general, it would make the book look sloppy and haphazard to drop selected lines (such as casting time and duration) for individual spells. Uniformity and clarity are more important than saving maybe a page or two overall in this section.

Agreed.

Range does not need to be more complicated. It especially should not be more complicated than weapon ranges. Having fixed maximum ranges does not hurt the game at all.

Disagree. Every spell should have its own range (or ranges; I'm still partial to the indoor-outdoor ranges from 1e particularly for long-range and Druid spells).

Saving throw is handled in the description because it flows naturally with the language there. Furthermore, it often takes the place of the "magic attack roll" language, which also flows naturally in the description.

I want a quick line at the top to tell me whether there is a save at all, as in: Saving throw: {none, half, negates, see write-up} where the options in the brackets are all you'd ever see. (maybe in combination, such as "half, and see write-up" for a spell that has multiple possible effects)

Similarly, area of effect usually just contains too many words to be handled well in a tabular format. You would either have a very long entry at the top, or you would be reading the description anyway to get the specifics.

AoE can be simple - 30' radius - or complex - up to 5 10x10' cubes within 40' of caster. The simple ones can go in the table, the complex ones can just have the table say "see write-up".

Lan-"given 5e's mechanics, a 7th line for whether an attack roll is required and its parameters might be useful too"-efan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Are there any spells that /both/ attack AC /and/ give a save? If not, putting the attack in the save line would work:

Save: attack AC

Regular saves would just be in the form of "STAT result of success."

Ex:

Save: WIS neg.
Save: DEX 1/2 dam.
Save: CHA see below
etc..

Even if there is an attack & save spell it could be:

Save: Attack AC; CON 1/2 dam.

Oh, and explicitly DoaM spells could be:

Save: Attack AC, miss 1/2 dam

 

[Joe Liker]

Trying to cram the entire spell into the header doesn't seem wise to me. It encourages the attitude that the most important spells are just different flavors of fireball. I don't want D&D to be full of spells that can be understood and absorbed by reading a short stat block.

I can accept maybe one or two spells per level that have nothing more to show for themselves than a range, a saving throw, an area of effect, and a damage expression. In all other cases, I want to have to read the full description to get what a spell is about.

If most spells require you to read more thoroughly (as they should), there's nothing to be gained by moving more info into the header, especially when a lot of spells won't use every line you are proposing to shorthand. The header should contain entries only for data that are common to every single spell.

It is not that hard to pick out the numbers within a description if you are already very familiar with a spell and just need a quick reminder.