D&D (2024) Making spell descriptions less dense?

[Ruin Explorer]

Here's the knock spell from the 5e PHB:


Here's the knock spell from the OSR Cairn RPG:


D&D goes down the rabbit hole of "precise" language, which really unnecessarily increases word count without offering much more clarity. The problem is that when you multiply this effect across all the spells, it increases the cognitive load on the players (including GM) and the handling time at the table - more so for newer players.

Do we really need a list of examples for what constitutes a "container... that prevents access"? Probably not. We can figure that out.
Do we need the "multiple locks" proviso? Not if we stipulate one lock up front.
Do we need to know that the spell makes a sound "audible from as far away as 300 feet"? We've literally never checked whether something is within 300 feet when knock is used, since that's such a vast distance in a built environment, instead going entirely by feel.
Do we need to elucidate what suppressing a spell effect means? Probably not.

So functionally, the knock spell could be written in One D&D more succinctly as (taking it from 137 words to 29 words)....

Knock
2nd-level transmutation (action, V)
One mundane or magical lock that you can see within 60 feet unlocks - loudly. An arcane lock is instead suppressed for 10 minutes.

Yeah, what you're suggesting is absolutely the right direction here.

5E's spell design is fundamentally at odds with its core philosophy. The core philosophy is that the DM decides stuff, and you don't need detailed rules for everything because of that. This is why skills and so on have extremely simple rules and an almost total lack of real guidance in 5E.

The OSR the OP uses for inspiration always puts the decision on the GM for just about everything, so this would be within their purview. You might disagree as a player, but people who enjoy this style of play aren't normally tangled up with RAW. For D&D, I'd add a bit more detail (as above), but still leave the DM some wiggle room.

I don't think you do need more detail for D&D, certainly not beyond which the OP suggests, because 5E consistently advocates for the OSR approach about just about everything - "the DM decides" - the only weird exception is spells, and frankly that exception should be eliminated, because all it serves to do is make spells weirdly advantaged over all other ways of doing things.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

At some point you certainly can go overboard, and I thus would not be averse to taking the PHB version and editing it down a little bit... but I also have the fear of the second version just not catching my interest as a fantasy reader as easily and thus we lose some of the emotion and feeling when the spell is used.

As a fantasy reader myself I can't see this at all.

The current PHB description is soul-less and mechanistic. It reads like the rules for a particularly boring boardgame. It has no flavour. The shorter version actually has more fantasy power because you can imagine it more, it doesn't have the same mechanistic list of conditions.

If the PHB version had more description/soul I could see your argument, but it has nothing but limits. There's no emotion there.

 

[Delazar]

I’d prefer a short fluff text to introduce the spell, and then the pure crunch.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I’d prefer a short fluff text to introduce the spell, and then the pure crunch.

If so it should be extremely short. Major class abilities, which are less numerous and far more character-defining than spells rarely get more than a single short sentence of fluff text. If we let spells waffle on for multiple sentences of fluff, we should do the same for class abilities.

For example with Fighters, Fighting Style, Second Wind and Action Surge get one short sentence each. Extra Attack, a huge and vital feature, gets none. Indomitable gets none. ASI/Feat gets none.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As a fantasy reader myself I can't see this at all.

The current PHB description is soul-less and mechanistic. It reads like the rules for a particularly boring boardgame. It has no flavour. The shorter version actually has more fantasy power because you can imagine it more, it doesn't have the same mechanistic list of conditions.

If the PHB version had more description/soul I could see your argument, but it has nothing but limits. There's no emotion there.

This kind of stuff is all going to come down to personal matter of opinion I suppose. Like I said... WotC seemed to want to find a middle ground for 5E between AD&D and 4E in the way they wrote their spell descriptions. Whether or not they succeeded would be up to each reader to decide. Same way whether or not @Quickleaf 's spell write up would be considered better or not to accomplish the same thing.

 

[Delazar]

If so it should be extremely short. Major class abilities, which are less numerous and far more character-defining than spells rarely get more than a single short sentence of fluff text. If we let spells waffle on for multiple sentences of fluff, we should do the same for class abilities.

For example with Fighters, Fighting Style, Second Wind and Action Surge get one short sentence each. Extra Attack, a huge and vital feature, gets none. Indomitable gets none. ASI/Feat gets none.

I’d love ALL class ability to be written in spell format!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This kind of stuff is all going to come down to personal matter of opinion I suppose.

I mean, I don't really think so.

There's just no real description or soul in the current PHB version. There's literally no flavour text, just a list of limitations.

WotC seemed to want to find a middle ground for 5E between AD&D and 4E in the way they wrote their spell descriptions.

Wait, do you think 4E had less description/flavour than 5E?

Because that's just completely and totally wrong, here's 4E's Knock for example. Notice that it's got considerably more description than 5E, and even features a fancy bit of flavour with the glowing key:

Knock

Knock is a 4th-level ritual.[PH:307] The Knock ritual allows you to open a single locked door, chest, gate, or other object. It even works against portals sealed with the Arcane Lock ritual or doors secured with bolts or bars that are on the far side, out of reach. You must defeat all the...

dnd4.fandom.com

So if that's the implication, I'm afraid that is bass-ackwards.

2E AD&D's Knock is way longer but has even less flavour, much like 5E:

Knock (Wizard Spell)

The knock spell opens stuck, barred, locked, held, or wizard-locked doors. It opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains. If used to open a wizard-locked door, the spell does not remove the former spell, but simply suspends...

adnd2e.fandom.com

Notice the awesomely vague "It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains." which might as well be designed to cause conflict/arguments lol.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I’d prefer a short fluff text to introduce the spell, and then the pure crunch.

The fluff must match the crunch. Which most 5e spells don’t

 

[DEFCON 1]

@Ruin Explorer That's a single ritual you are using as your example, but I suspect the group of people who said back in 2008 that the 4E powers seemed antiseptic were looking at the entire book, wherein each power had but a single line of italicized flavor text along with a larger mechanical block of pure mechanics. A lot of people didn't mind or liked the powers format and found them flavorful, but a lot of people didn't. Personal taste.

Please note that I'm making no judgements on any of these versions of spell descriptions... AD&D, 4E, 5E, Quickleaf's edit to one spell. They all are what they are, and they all were made to work for their respective games. If they were successful or if they could have or could be done better or differently will come down to each individual reading it... or the WotC editors when it comes time for them to re-do the 2024 spell section.

 

[Remathilis]

You might be able to get away with a shorter, snappier spell description if you can somehow remove all the rules lawyers or have players willing to accept DM fiat without question. For example, "loudly" is an imprecise term. Loud like a tea kettle, a lawnmower or a bulldozer? Audible to anyone in the room or in the dungeon? One DM might interpret loudly as "can't be done from Stealth", another as "you've just put the whole complex on high alert".

Most of the provisos are designed to either reign in abuse from players (well, a castle is a type of container, knock should open the portcullis) or to be used by the DM as a way to appeal to authority from the rule book itself (no, a container is...) Should that be the way the rule book works? Probably not, but everyone has a bad player/DM story where the outcome bordered on the precise language of the spell or power in question.

Brevity may be the soul of wit, but D&D is closer to contract law than poetry.