Level Up (A5E) Improving spells

[Lanefan]

This Arcane Trickster would like a way to stealth-cast a spell without advertising "Here I am and this is me doing it".
Whether sneaking up to a back door and using Mage Hand plus thieves tools to pick the lock, or casting Dancing Lights from behind an approaching foe to signal my friends to get ready for trouble.

What kind of penalty would counter-balance the advantages?
Maybe 'cantrips only'?

Maybe as a feature specific to Arcane Trickster there could be a short list of thieving-type spells that, if up-cast by a level or two, can be cast somewhat stealthily. Depending on circumstance, observers still might get a check to notice you casting.

 

[Morrus]

Would some tags be dependant on the caster, rather than the spell? Eg Fireball has the arcane tag when cast by a wizard, but the divine tag when cast by a cleric of a fire god?

Yes to tags and dynamic lists.

The idea is more:

• the wizard can cast all [arcane] spells
• the fire cleric can cast all [fire] spells
• the generalist cleric can cast all [divine] spells
• Thor can cast all [nature] [lightning] spells (or something)

(Well not that exactly, but you get the idea -- with the tags you can create any dynamic list).

But it's literally just an idea so far, so don't ask too many questions, as the answers aren't there yet. We haven't worked on this. The tags might not even happen!

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin - a further thought: neither of your example spells mention whether or not line of sight/effect is required;

They do, actually, in the Target: line. If you needed to be able to see the target, it would say “Target: One creature you can see within range.” Though in retrospect I should have chosen an example that required line of sight and one that didn’t to demonstrate that. Line of effect is as per the general spellcasting rules.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t think that’s necessary. I intentionally left the Duration line out of both of these instead of Duration: Instantaneous because it’d just be eating up page to tell you the spell doesn’t have the thing the line it’s there to tell you about. Likewise, if the spell doesn’t have a save, it shouldn’t have a save line, and if it doesn’t hit, it shouldn’t have a hit line.

D'oh - I hadn't even noticed there wasn't a 'Duration' line; but that said I'd put it in.

There's a certain amount of redundancy required, unfortunately, to save a bunch of questions. 'Save' is so common it should appear in every spell write-up even if there is no save.

Absolutely not. The entire point of this reformatting is so you can easily tell everything you need to know about the spell at a glance, without having to read through a paragraph of text to find the bit you’re looking for. “How do I know if it works?” and “what happens if it works?” are different pieces of information that need to be hi-lighted separately. Putting them both in the same paragraph will lead to reading one when what you want to know is the other, causing slowdown.

I see it as a list of instructions: what do I need to do to make it work, then what do I look for to see if it did.

I'll also add that I'm not at all shy about pushing people into reading the long write-up if there's something complicated about a spell. Chill Touch is borderline - if it was any more complicated my 'Effect' line would just be "Effect: special, see write-up below".

Eh, tedium during prep > slowdown during play. IMO.

Agreed. Just warning about the tedium, is all.

 

[Lanefan]

They do, actually, in the Target: line. If you needed to be able to see the target, it would say “Target: One creature you can see within range.” Though in retrospect I should have chosen an example that required line of sight and one that didn’t to demonstrate that. Line of effect is as per the general spellcasting rules.

The 'L' component covers that. If actual sight is required it'll say in the write-up.

 

[Charlaquin]

D'oh - I hadn't even noticed there wasn't a 'Duration' line; but that said I'd put it in.

There's a certain amount of redundancy required, unfortunately, to save a bunch of questions. 'Save' is so common it should appear in every spell write-up even if there is no save.

It shouldn’t raise questions. If a spell doesn’t instruct you to do a thing, don’t do that thing as part of the spell. Simple.

I see it as a list of instructions: what do I need to do to make it work, then what do I look for to see if it did.

Right, but since you have to execute one step before proceeding to the next, the instructions are interrupted, which can cause the reader to lose their place in the list of instructions and slow down play. Each step needs its own line of instruction for ease of use.

I'll also add that I'm not at all shy about pushing people into reading the long write-up if there's something complicated about a spell. Chill Touch is borderline - if it was any more complicated my 'Effect' line would just be "Effect: special, see write-up below".

Yeah, I’d prefer to avoid that wherever possible, but obviously there are cases where it’s necessary.

 

[Lanefan]

It shouldn’t raise questions. If a spell doesn’t instruct you to do a thing, don’t do that thing as part of the spell. Simple.

I'd prefer it to be made more clear: if a spell doesn't want me to do a thing that's commonly done in other spells I'd like the instructions to specifically tell me not to do it here.

In other words, remove assumptions where possible. That way, you also remove the possibility of wrong and-or confusing assumptions.

This plays into the 'Duration' piece. There's no default duration for spells and they can last all sorts of different lengths of time, which means assuming (or deliniating) a default is IMO a recipe for a mess at the table. Thus, for reasons of clarity a 'Duration' line should appear in every spell block.

Right, but since you have to execute one step before proceeding to the next, the instructions are interrupted, which can cause the reader to lose their place in the list of instructions and slow down play. Each step needs its own line of instruction for ease of use.

Perhaps - depends whether we expect our readers to read all the instructions before starting the process (an assumption I'm happy to make if the instructions are short, as with Chill Touch) or whether we expect they'll read one bit, do that bit, then come back and read the next bit.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The idea is more:

• the wizard can cast all [arcane] spells
• the fire cleric can cast all [fire] spells
• the generalist cleric can cast all [divine] spells
• Thor can cast all [nature] [lightning] spells (or something)

(Well not that exactly, but you get the idea -- with the tags you can create any dynamic list).

But it's literally just an idea so far, so don't ask too many questions, as the answers aren't there yet. We haven't worked on this. The tags might not even happen!

This would be a good idea. Having the casters able to focus on themed spells would be fanstastic to make an actual difference in-fiction for spellcasters.

 

[Zaukrie]

See that’s the fundamental flaw with a tags system. You can’t retroactively edit a book. So you can’t add more tags as all the core spells would need re-tagging.

Having an online resource be the definitive list rather than the book itself is a heck of a leap!

Yup......but I did put in a smiley face!

 

[aco175]

I like the idea of having 'tags' that let the fire mage cast fire spells or a fire cleric cast fire spells, but some of this already exists with the light cleric casting fireball. I would think that there also needs to be some trade off with a wizard getting all the spells and a fire mage, who is also a wizard but, what? Does he not get cold spells? That is worse that just being a generalist. Does he get a boost in fire? That is good.

What would stop people from cherry-picking all the good 'tags' and making a class or cleric that has them. If I want to be able to heal and fire and lightning and charm and ... I could just make a god that has them, or are you picking gods, or are you assigning these 'tags' to the gods in the books. It starts to become a challenge. I like the idea and process, but some stuff needs to be worked through.