D&D 5E Please understand your spells

[Sacrosanct]

No, but that doesn't change the fact that some players are simply "better", at least in terms of being able to grok the complexity of the game quickly and easily. I've been playing for years with people who still need to check their sheets, look over their options carefully, and have to be reminded (still) to add their proficiency to hit rolls. They're not bad players, they simply don't process complexity as quickly as others. In general (and this is a broad generalization!), such players struggle more with character options that present larger amounts of rules bits to process, such as spellcasters, especially spellcasters who can modify their spell list every rest.

Separating how good a player is by putting them into tiers based solely on their system mastery misses the entire point of the game, and is one of the worst things I've read in a while. The point of the game has always been to have fun playing a game in a social circle. In 35 years of gaming, not once has someone's system mastery been the driving factor of that, let alone coming up with some sort of ranking system like you're playing Call of Duty or something. It's elitist bullcrap. Some of the *best* players I've ever played with were kids who never played before, with no predetermined biases or assumptions about the game. The last thing we need is yet another way of judging people

"You're not as good as a player as me because you don't have all the spells memorized like I do.'
"No, I just hardly ever play wizards. Sod off."

 

[Horwath]

Separating how good a player is by putting them into tiers based solely on their system mastery misses the entire point of the game, and is one of the worst things I've read in a while. The point of the game has always been to have fun playing a game in a social circle. In 35 years of gaming, not once has someone's system mastery been the driving factor of that, let alone coming up with some sort of ranking system like you're playing Call of Duty or something. It's elitist bullcrap. Some of the *best* players I've ever played with were kids who never played before, with no predetermined biases or assumptions about the game. The last thing we need is yet another way of judging people

"You're not as good as a player as me because you don't have all the spells memorized like I do.'
"No, I just hardly ever play wizards. Sod off."

No one says that the player who memorises spells is better role player than the one that doesn't.

And no one should know all spells.

But you MUST know your spells that you have prepared. For me it's just part of the immersion into the character.

Also it's disrespectfull to other people at the table that they play out their turn in 10-15 sec and all have to wait for that one guy that has to shuffle through the PHB for 5min...EVERY FRAKKING TURN...

if it's 1st session it's perfectly fine, or even 2nd if you started at high level.

but after first session; read ALL the spells and write and print out little spell sheets if needs be.
It's cool thing to have and you will be better player for it.

We all have turns that we are in the mental block about what to do...and it lasts...but if you add to that the fact that you dont even know what your character can even do, it's going to take forever.


just saying, when you roleplay your character you have to know what he knows, more or less.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't disagree with that. I do disagree with classifying people as 'you're just a tier 1 player, because anything more is too complicated for you."

 

[TwoSix]

I don't disagree with that. I do disagree with classifying people as 'you're just a tier 1 player, because anything more is too complicated for you."

Maybe that's just because you're a tier 1 people classifier. I'm a tier 3, myself.

 

[iserith]

I have three people playing casters at my table atm, well, one died, so now it's two casters and a half-caster. One of them knows their spells, what they do, exactly what their limitations are, how to use them, their costs, etc... One of them knows their spells, but doesn't understand what their limitations are. One of them seems to know the names of their spells and nothing else.

These are all adults at my table, the latter doesn't even seem to be making an effort to understand how their spells work and I'm a hairs breadth from telling him he isn't allowed to play a caster until he reads his spells. I don't care if he needs the PHB at the table and has to read each one before using it, because it would certainly go a lot further than what he's doing now. However, I'm certain that saying "you can't play a caster until you actually know how to play a caster" is going to cause trouble.

Anyone have any good advice for how to deal with this? I'm tired of having to read every spell for every class and attempt to memorize what they do, then educate my players on how that works and shut down the game in the process while I look the spell up, tell them how it works and make sure they use it properly. I've got enough on my plate as DM that I shouldn't have to run my player's characters as well.

"[Player], I need your help to improve the game experience for everyone. When you don't understand your spells, the game slows down and we end up focusing on things other than moving the game forward. I don't expect you to memorize all your spells because I certainly wouldn't do that myself. But it is only fair that you do something to address this issue. Until you do, I'm just going to wing it on your spell effects. I won't slow down the game by stopping to look stuff up. This could mean that spells effects are lessened compared to what you could be doing if you know or can easily call up your spells. Deal?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hiya!

Prepare for a slap of tough-love...



Dude, you're the DM. You should know all of the spells. And classes. And races. And rules. And equipment. And Backgrounds. And Archtypes. And...and...and... [snip]

No. Just no. I don't run games to be a human reference sheet, and I have too much to do/know in my professional life to feel responsible for memorizing all of the game rules. D&D is a group activity, and the social contract I forge with my players says that they're responsible for knowing their stuff because I don't have time to both create a fun game every week AND learn all of the ins and outs of their characters. Do I pick most of it up? Yes, I do. But when a player uses a class ability, I ask them what it does, and they tell me the important bits, or just do them if it's something that's pretty common. I don't worry about it unless I notice something off (which occasionally happens), and then I ask questions. But, at no point, do I ever consider it my responsibility to know everything about the game.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Suffice it to say this statement only has broad relevance if you play in a hardcore old school style, and there are many playstyles for which this is not relevant at all. Having more information at your disposal is never BAD, but it certainly isn't necessary.

DMG, pg 5, 5th paragraph under "Part 3: Master of Rules". <-- basically says "You're the DM, you need to know the rules or where to find them if you don't".

More info at your disposal is always a good thing, full agreement here. And, as I said, as you (general "you") DM, you get better and better are really knowning the rules and how they work together. Knowing that Charm Person makes the victim think of you as "a friendly aquantence" and then knows it was charmed when the spell ends...that is very useful info. Especially if you are coming from an older version where Charm Person could last, literaly, for the life of the creature and that creature would almost lay down it's life for you...it will lay down it's life for you if it fails another save (thinking back to 1e here). So if you, as DM, are just going with your previous knowledge, and relaying on a player who may be doing the same, well, that's a potential problem as far as BA goes with 5e. Thus, every DM, not just ones "playing hardcore old school style" need to know all the stuff in the game (or at least where to find it).

No. Just no. I don't run games to be a human reference sheet, and I have too much to do/know in my professional life to feel responsible for memorizing all of the game rules. D&D is a group activity, and the social contract I forge with my players says that they're responsible for knowing their stuff because I don't have time to both create a fun game every week AND learn all of the ins and outs of their characters. Do I pick most of it up? Yes, I do. But when a player uses a class ability, I ask them what it does, and they tell me the important bits, or just do them if it's something that's pretty common. I don't worry about it unless I notice something off (which occasionally happens), and then I ask questions. But, at no point, do I ever consider it my responsibility to know everything about the game.

On the first part...yes, you need to be a human reference sheet if you want to be anything even approaching a great DM. You can get by with relying on players for stuff, sure, but you (general "you", again) will never be a great DM. This is fine for most groups (hell, probably all groups!), but it doesn't change the fact that a truly superior DM will know the game inside and out. And the real test is, as always, "Is everyone at the table having a good time?". As long as that answer is "HELL YA!, then keep on keeping on. However...

If a DM is getting frustrated because the players are only putting minimal effort into "learning" their characters capabilities, what do you think the players are feeling when the DM doesn't know his? Different side of the coin. If I'm playing in a DM's game, and the DM whips out a monster that has the ability to cast Disintegrate, and I fail my Dex save, and then the DM says "You and your gear turn into a pile of smoldering ash!", I'm going to be annoyed. I'll have to point out that it doesn't work that way. I take a LOT of damage...if I'm reduced to 0 or lower hp, then I'm a steaming pile. Otherwise, I just take a lot of freaking damage. Now, this may cause the DM to go "Oh, uh, ok. I didn't know that. Sorry!" (which may or may not cause me to question the DM's capability to actually DM...if he got this wrong, what about other stuff in the game?)...or it may cause the DM to go "No, I don't run it that way. You're dead." (which is fine, but then I'm asking myself...what other rules, spells and things are 'changed' that I don't know about, and is he just making this up on the spot, or does he actually have a set of home rulings?).

Anyway, I still stand by my earlier post. A DM should know ALL the rules in the game (including spells, abilities, etc). It's how much of this knowledge that is accumulated that really helps a DM run a superior campaign. Of course, "should know ALL" isn't a requirement for playing in a D&D game and having a good time. Hell, some of the best times I've had playing RPG's is when we don't know anything about a new game and are learning it, fumbling our way around the rules like newborn kittens. But, as time goes on, we learn the rules. The DM/GM/Ref/Whatever needs to step up more and learn more stuff. If he doesn't, he's nothing more than "just another player, rolling dice for the monsters".

Yeah, my Curmudgeoney Grognarditis is flaring up again. I'm an "old school" DM (...learned to DM back in 1980 and have been learning and improving ever sense...I hope... ). I fully believe that the best campaigns are run by people who really do treat DM'ing as a hobby and not just as "a game we play every weekend". A superior DM doesn't just "read and do DM stuff on Saturday for a few hours", he reads his rule books, reads stories, explores art styles germane to his chosen milieu, plays other games, and generally seeks out knowledge about everything that may help him present a believable campaign world.

Again, I've rambled on too long. Sorry, I do that. To sum up: A decent and fun game can be run by a semi-knowledgeable DM, but a superior and fun game requires a fully knowledgeable DM. Basically.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Tony Vargas]

Anyone have any good advice for how to deal with this? I'm tired of having to read every spell for every class and attempt to memorize what they do, then educate my players on how that works and shut down the game in the process while I look the spell up, tell them how it works and make sure they use it properly. I've got enough on my plate as DM that I shouldn't have to run my player's characters as well.

There are certainly ways to handle it. But first, I feel the need to comment that it's not necessarily such a bad position to be in. The basic flow of 5e is meant to be DM describes situation > player declares actions > DM narrates results. If your players are doing that, even the casters, that's not an entirely bad thing. It means that the way magic works can be left more or less seamlessly up to you. You can rule how a spell works situationally with little likelihood of getting bogged down in a rules debate. And, it preserves an aura of mystery around magic for all your players.

That said, there are a number of ways to help/encourage/empower your players to handle more of their own action resolution. To get a player to learn his spells, you can take a kindly mentor approach, or a hard-knocks approach. For the latter, when the character says he casts a certain spell, that's it, the spell is being cast, no matter how bad a choice it may be. You ask for clarification like 'where are you targeting it,' if necessary, do the geometry, and let the chips fall where they may - possibly all over his allies. Any player will figure out, eventually, to take casting seriously. More extreme, when a spell is cast, you can require the player to go over what it does, and if he gets anything wrong, it fails (I wouldn't recommend that, but you know better than I what your players might respond to). On the nicer side, you can do about what you're doing now, but be a bit more 'Socratic' about it, have the player look the spell up, read it, and go through what it does, and you correct him and prod him along through the process until it becomes familiar. You could go for more gaming aids. Let him look up the spell in the book at the table. Get spell cards (a 3pp has a set out). Have the player print out the specific spells he has prepared, from the basic or srd pdf, for instance, or there are character-builder programs that should be able to do it - or just copy down the spells. You can couch advice as information his character would know "As a Wizard, you know that fireball would be a dangerous spell to cast in this situation, and that undead are generally immune to Sleep..."

and people wonder why they put a simplistic fighter class in the game

Clearly not for the players the OP is writing about, since they chose to play casters. Maybe if there had been a 'simplistic caster' for them, they'd be having more fun?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Also it's disrespectfull to other people at the table that they play out their turn in 10-15 sec and all have to wait for that one guy that has to shuffle through the PHB for 5min...EVERY FRAKKING TURN...

In what way, exactly, are reading speed and aptitude in retaining information inherently tied to whether or not you are being respectful?

If a player needing a few minutes to make sure they are doing the thing they actually want to do, likely in their (however long it might be) process of trying to "get" this character they enjoy (or at the very east aim to enjoy through "getting it down") is disrespectful... does that mean that mean that I am the most respectful player present because I have been a DM so frequently for so long that I don't even need to check the book for most monster stats?

 

[Ovinomancer]

On the first part...yes, you need to be a human reference sheet if you want to be anything even approaching a great DM. You can get by with relying on players for stuff, sure, but you (general "you", again) will never be a great DM. This is fine for most groups (hell, probably all groups!), but it doesn't change the fact that a truly superior DM will know the game inside and out. And the real test is, as always, "Is everyone at the table having a good time?". As long as that answer is "HELL YA!, then keep on keeping on. However...

You've defined an arbitrary requirement to good DMs, and then declared that if I do not meet your arbitrary requirement, I cannot ever be a great DM. You do this without any other knowledge of my ability or skills as a DM.

Sorry, that entirely argument is invalid facially. You are not the authority that defines what a great DM is, and great DMs come in many flavors that are not alike.

If a DM is getting frustrated because the players are only putting minimal effort into "learning" their characters capabilities, what do you think the players are feeling when the DM doesn't know his? Different side of the coin. If I'm playing in a DM's game, and the DM whips out a monster that has the ability to cast Disintegrate, and I fail my Dex save, and then the DM says "You and your gear turn into a pile of smoldering ash!", I'm going to be annoyed. I'll have to point out that it doesn't work that way. I take a LOT of damage...if I'm reduced to 0 or lower hp, then I'm a steaming pile. Otherwise, I just take a lot of freaking damage. Now, this may cause the DM to go "Oh, uh, ok. I didn't know that. Sorry!" (which may or may not cause me to question the DM's capability to actually DM...if he got this wrong, what about other stuff in the game?)...or it may cause the DM to go "No, I don't run it that way. You're dead." (which is fine, but then I'm asking myself...what other rules, spells and things are 'changed' that I don't know about, and is he just making this up on the spot, or does he actually have a set of home rulings?).

There's a massive gulf between having to be a human reference sheet and being prepared with the specific mechanics you're using that session. I agree, a DM that doesn't use the rules well is likely to cause consternation in his players, but the solution to that only requires that the DM have handy the appropriate rules for what he's doing at the time, and not that the DM always know all rules and be able to produce them as a human reference sheet. A difference in degree is not a difference in kind.

Anyway, I still stand by my earlier post. A DM should know ALL the rules in the game (including spells, abilities, etc). It's how much of this knowledge that is accumulated that really helps a DM run a superior campaign. Of course, "should know ALL" isn't a requirement for playing in a D&D game and having a good time. Hell, some of the best times I've had playing RPG's is when we don't know anything about a new game and are learning it, fumbling our way around the rules like newborn kittens. But, as time goes on, we learn the rules. The DM/GM/Ref/Whatever needs to step up more and learn more stuff. If he doesn't, he's nothing more than "just another player, rolling dice for the monsters".

I still reject that a DM must do so. To require this is to require more dedication to a hobby and leisure time event than most people devote to their jobs. I'm an engineer by trade, and I know what I need to know to do my job today, or at least where to look it up, but I don't know all engineering. Yet, despite that failing, I account myself a pretty good engineer (I can almost guarantee you've used a service I've been part of the design for if you live in the US). So it goes with DMing. I can be a good, even great DM, without comprehesive knowledge of all the rules so long as I can work well with the common stuff, make useful rulings on edge cases, and look up the things that don't come up often when they do come up.

Yeah, my Curmudgeoney Grognarditis is flaring up again. I'm an "old school" DM (...learned to DM back in 1980 and have been learning and improving ever sense...I hope... ). I fully believe that the best campaigns are run by people who really do treat DM'ing as a hobby and not just as "a game we play every weekend". A superior DM doesn't just "read and do DM stuff on Saturday for a few hours", he reads his rule books, reads stories, explores art styles germane to his chosen milieu, plays other games, and generally seeks out knowledge about everything that may help him present a believable campaign world.

I have similar credentials, although I was a few years behind you. '84 to be precise. Mentzer Red Box. I disagree that a 'superior' DM must study as you suggest. A superior DM is one that runs a good game that people enjoy playing, end of story. Perhaps that entails your requirements, perhaps it doesn't, but once again you're not the authority that can declare the requirements of a superior DM.

Again, I've rambled on too long. Sorry, I do that. To sum up: A decent and fun game can be run by a semi-knowledgeable DM, but a superior and fun game requires a fully knowledgeable DM. Basically.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I'm one of the two rules people in my group, and I reject your assertion that it's required. Helpful? Sure, required, nope.