D&D 5E 5e's stumbles

[AverageCitizen]

Handy resource but it really highlights the problem.
Best example is the lich. A hair over 1/2 of a page in the MM with a picture. In the above the lich is two full pages.
That's fine for a free PDF that has unlimited pages, but in an official book, including spell descriptions would have meant losing one monster. In the case of each monster with spells, we'd likely have lost a dozen or more monsters.

There is the alternative: only describe key spells. You can just look at spellcasting monsters in 4e for the effects compromise. The elite L14 version in the Monster Vault has their touch and four "spells", all of which are offensive. It loses fun things like scry, detect thoughts, plane shift, and animate dead.

Another option is describe 2-3 offensive spells (the ones used in combat) and just list the out-of-combat spells. Which would certainly work. But I think it'd still end up costing a monster or two.

Agreed. That way if I running one on the fly, I can use its bread and butter spells and no one is the wiser, but if it is my BBEG I can read up in advance and make sure it really milks every resource to pull out a win.

 

[Quartz]

Now when any pc or opponent cast a concentration spell, I put it on the sheet,

At the table, try giving them a colour-coded poker chip. This is then put in front of the player.

 

[Henry]

Agreed. That way if I running one on the fly, I can use its bread and butter spells and no one is the wiser, but if it is my BBEG I can read up in advance and make sure it really milks every resource to pull out a win.

As I said, I'm willing to miss monsters in exchange for this, but that works as a compromise, too.

 

[Ancalagon]

[*]The Sorcerer is a lot more complicated than the Wizard, which is totally backwards. [Solution: Delete the Sorcerer class, make it a variant of the Wizard class. Design in progress.]

I think it's important to realize that the goal of the sorcerer is not to to have a "wizard on easy". It *looks* easy, but to really get the most of a sorcerer, you have to build you spell list with extreme care. If you are a wizard and you have 4 AoE level 3-4, good for you. If you are a sorcerer, you're denying yourself versatility. I'm not sure how to build a "caster on easy" really - the warlock is even worse with even fewer spell, each choice is crucial.

 

[Ancalagon]

What do you mean by this? I've been running 5e since two years before it came out and haven't noticed a problem with handedness.

Ok, it's not about the standard wizard. He's holding his staff in one hand, and casting with the other which is holding nothing. Easy peasy.

But say you are a "gish" - a fighting caster of some kind... like let's say an eldrich knight. Now if you are fighting with a great weapon, still no problem - your left hand holds on to the halberd while you cast with the right. Once you've done casting, your right hand re-grasps the halberd.

BUT. If you are fighting with a shield and sword, or two swords, then it gets complicated fast. You can put away or draw "for free" as part of your attack or spellcasting, but *not both*. And more importantly, you can't do that as part of a bonus action or reaction. So you can cast/attack on your action and end your action with drawing/sheathing your sword... leaving yourself with a weapon in hand. But then if you have a reaction - you can cast, or you can attack, but if you "chose wrong" (ie you still have your sword in hand but you really need to cast shield) you are kinda screwed.

 

[Bacon Bits]

OMG. You just made me remember something I despise about the 5e PHB (well, other than the index). The way the spells are listed in alphabetical order.

I hate hate hate hate hate hate that. I think there's two mind sets to it- should the spells be organized so that someone can quickly find a single spell, or organized so that someone can sort through various similar options (what 2nd level spell should I take)?

Here's the thing- the second way doesn't make it that much harder to look up spells, but putting it in alpha order completely destroys any ability to compare the same level spells in a class. I can't stand it.

And, in order to be a part of the solution, here it is- go back to listing spells by level and class. Admittedly since there's so much cross-over in spells between classes (*cough* Bard *cough*) there might be some difficulties with that, but I have a simple solution for that as well. Make the spell lists more differentiated between classes.

Hm? You didn't use the abbreviated spell lists to do that?

Honestly, I found the combination of the abbreviated spell lists (that included spell school!) and the alpha list of spells (whose headers list the class and level of the spell!) was just about perfect. The only thing that was missing was a page number from the abbreviated lists. I could see a list of spells that was by level, and then have an alpha spell index with brief descriptions, page numbers, and spell schools. That would work, and maybe it would be easier in play? Unlike previous editions, a spell is always the same level. None of that "X gets spell at level N, but Y gets spell at level N+2" nonsense.

Still, I think spells sorted alpha works out better as a reference list during actual play. You can't tell me you never wasted time at a gaming table searching through the Priest spells in 1e or 2e for 5 minutes only to find out the Wizard spell you wanted was in another part of the book, or been frustrated when a monster entry said "free action (1/day)" and you were like, "Damn, I need to know what the spell does and if it will work through a globe of invulnerability," and you had to do two lookups, one to get the spell's level (because you don't know it and again fighting the two class spell lists), and one to get the spell's description or something similar.

I can't imagine not having something straight alpha. The last thing I'd want to do is have spell descriptions sorted by level, and spell lists sorted by class and level, and then need to find where the spell on the class list to find out what the level is so you can lookup the description based on the level. Gee, this creature castsfreedom of movement. What does that do? Well, is it a Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard spell? And which level is it? I guess I have to go through each level. Ok, now I can look the description up.

Truly it'd be nice to have it both ways. Maybe, I don't know, WotC could release a PDF that has it both ways since they don't have to print it that way, or, you know, get someone to make an app that isn't dogshit and actually successfully launches. I know, I'm apparently asking for the moon.

I do dislike the 5e spell organization. The class spell index lacks page numbers and spell schools. The spell descriptions lack classes. In order to figure out what you can even do, you're flipping back and forth constantly. It's about as functionally useless as I could imagine.

And, yeah, I know they eliminated the brief descriptions because they weren't perfect and people used them instead of reading the spells, but... honestly, I feel like if you were using the brief descriptions and nobody at your table caught you then you deserved what you got. If you couldn't be bothered to read the spell description because of the abbreviation, you probably won't play spells correctly in 5e, either. Or, you know, you could put some goddamn page numbers on the spell lists. InDesign and LaTeX both have cross-reference tools. Hell, even MS Word will do that for you.

 

[Bacon Bits]

But that time is wasted before or after games, not when people are waiting.

What magical Christmas land do you live in?

 

[Tony Vargas]

What magical Christmas land do you live in?

It says it right under his Avatar: The magical, snowy Christmas Land of Edmonton, only 1400 miles from the North Pole (as the reindeer flies).

Where among other things, you only have to look through the spells of a given level that your character can cast at chargen & level up, never when you're memorizing/prepping new spells after a night's-sleep/long-rest, for instance.

But, it's not all gum drops and candy canes, there are some things you can't do, either, like familiarize yourself with a monster's spells before a game, not when your players are waiting.

I think it's important to realize that the goal of the sorcerer is not to to have a "wizard on easy".

The 3e Sorcerer's 'spontaneous' casting was less complex and a bit more forgiving in play (though, like the fighter, a bit less forgiving at build time), and didn't require you to thoroughly learn & compare and choose among as many spells. So it was often regarded as 'easier' than the Vancian Wizard.

The 4e Sorcerer was a Striker, so easier than the Wizard, a Controller, by definition (Controller was the most complex role, Striker the simplest).

The Essentials Elemental Sorcerer was intended to be much simpler than other classes, it was a daililess blasting striker with a single encounter power, barely more complex than the Slayer (the Essentials equivalent of the 5e Champion).

Whether the 5e sorcerer was intended to be a simple (less complex?) caster option or not, it's not an entirely unjustified expectation.

It *looks* easy, but to really get the most of a sorcerer, you have to build you spell list with extreme care. If you are a wizard and you have 4 AoE level 3-4, good for you. If you are a sorcerer, you're denying yourself versatility. I'm not sure how to build a "caster on easy" really - the warlock is even worse with even fewer spell, each choice is crucial.

Something like the Elemental Sorcerer, probably. You choose an element, you gain a nice blast-for-related-typed-damage at-will for competitive DPR, and maybe a defensive class feature or two and/or a fixed selection of related spells.

 

[Jester David]

What magical Christmas land do you live in?

One where most players level up after a session or between sessions rather than holding up the entire table by levelling at the start?
If that's an issue at your table, no arrangement of content in the PHB will fix things.

 

[nomotog]

I'd think of it like this.

Someone sitting on a stage playing a guitar is rolling his guitar proficiency. Everyone is watching, the guitar playing might be very good but it is otherwise just a regular performance.

The AC/DC guitarist playing guitar and dancing around the stage is rolling perform. I would also possibly ask him to roll his guitar proficiency or at the very least to have proficiency. In this case, people are cheering, dancing, and engaging with concert.

Or there might not be any difference because there doesn't need to be.