D&D General "Effect as per the spell"

[Reynard]

Some spells are pretty straightforward, like Burning Hands. Others are poorly worded. The higher level spells tend to be wordier because they can have more effects... think Prismatic Spray, Wish, or Earthquake.

I think that any of those spells that require long convoluted descriptions should be tossed and completely rethought.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This seems like the kind of thing that is prime for a DMs Guild author to do-- do a re-write of the spell section of the 5E SRD that cuts all spell descriptions down to just the mechanics plus a handful of sentences of flavor text. You wouldn't be able to charge money for it (because few would pay I'd expect)... but if you have other DMs Guild products you do sell, using the "5E Condensed Spellbook" as a gateway for people to find your other stuff would probably be worthwhile.

It was the same thing I felt probably 7-8 years ago when people were talking about the Battlemaster-- I said on the forums here that someone could probably make a simple product that created "Fighter subclasses" that consisted of pre-made Battlemaster fighting styles, skill choices, and combat maneuvers selections with full naming and flavor descriptions plus how their combat stylings would work. Eventually WotC ended up doing it themselves in Tasha's Cauldron, but at that point we all have played BMs enough to not need the "help" in creating those flavorful BM archetypes.

Maybe when 5E24 gets released some enterprising author will go ahead and write a "condensed spellbook" and give players what many seem to be looking for.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I do miss the jargon and iconographics of 4e at times.

The [W] notation in particular was brilliant and I still don't understand why 5e didn't try to adapt it. It makes expressing damage incredibly easy, and it's pretty clear that "W" means "Weapon." At least to me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This seems like the kind of thing that is prime for a DMs Guild author to do-- do a re-write of the spell section of the 5E SRD that cuts all spell descriptions down to just the mechanics plus a handful of sentences of flavor text. You wouldn't be able to charge money for it (because few would pay I'd expect)... but if you have other DMs Guild products you do sell, using the "5E Condensed Spellbook" as a gateway for people to find your other stuff would probably be worthwhile.

It was the same thing I felt probably 7-8 years ago when people were talking about the Battlemaster-- I said on the forums here that someone could probably make a simple product that created "Fighter subclasses" that consisted of pre-made Battlemaster fighting styles, skill choices, and combat maneuvers selections with full naming and flavor descriptions plus how their combat stylings would work. Eventually WotC ended up doing it themselves in Tasha's Cauldron, but at that point we all have played BMs enough to not need the "help" in creating those flavorful BM archetypes.

Maybe when 5E24 gets released some enterprising author will go ahead and write a "condensed spellbook" and give players what many seem to be looking for.

Putting that much effort into a product you almost certainly can't charge money for, simply as an enticement to consider looking at other products in your lineup, sounds like a lot of effort for very little payoff. Almost the self-inflicted equivalent of "I'm paying you in exposure!"

 

[DEFCON 1]

Putting that much effort into a product you almost certainly can't charge money for, simply as an enticement to consider looking at other products in your lineup, sounds like a lot of effort for very little payoff. Almost the self-inflicted equivalent of "I'm paying you in exposure!"

Yeah, well what other choice is there? Just complaining about it here on ENWorld that WotC isn't doing it?

That's the same thing as practically every single complaint thread that gets made here. Someone says they hate that WotC does 'X' in the D&D game and that they should do 'Y'... a bunch of people agree with them... and then... nothing. Nothing changes. Presumably those people either make the changes they want on their own, or they don't do anything and remain annoyed, playing a game they don't like. I mean heck... there's probably several dozen half-made Warlord classes here in the forum archives alone that folks started to create and then stopped when everyone started arguing about how it should work... and then six months later someone else started up again with a new one after complaining WotC still hadn't made a Warlord. But after all that, why should they?

Why would WotC ever take any of (general) our complaints seriously if all we do is flap our gums with our complaints but then don't do anything about it ever? That tells them that we pretty much actually don't really care, or we are perfectly capable of making these changes ourselves in our home games and thus we don't actually need WotC to do it (despite our claims otherwise.)

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, well what other choice is there? Just complaining about it here on ENWorld that WotC isn't doing it?

That's the same thing as practically every single complaint thread that gets made here. Someone says they hate that WotC does 'X' in the D&D game and that they should do 'Y'... a bunch of people agree with them... and then... nothing. Nothing changes. Presumably those people either make the changes they want on their own, or they don't do anything and remain annoyed, playing a game they don't like. I mean heck... there's probably several dozen half-made Warlord classes here in the forum archives alone that folks started to create and then stopped when everyone started arguing about how it should work... and then six months later someone else started up again with a new one after complaining WotC still hadn't made a Warlord. But after all that, why should they?

Why would WotC ever take any of (general) our complaints seriously if all we do is flap our gums with our complaints but then don't do anything about it ever? That tells them that we pretty much actually don't really care, or we are perfectly capable of making these changes ourselves in our home games and thus we don't actually need WotC to do it (despite our claims otherwise.)

My solution when I write for publication is to put that stuff in the statblock or item description. Even for "wizard types" you can fit a whole bunch of "spell actions" in the statblock if you are concise. I did it in both The Sundering and a couple books for Supers5E.

That WotC won't do it is a shame but there are lots of folks making 5e content. We can just do it. We don't need permission.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, well what other choice is there? Just complaining about it here on ENWorld that WotC isn't doing it?

That's the same thing as practically every single complaint thread that gets made here. Someone says they hate that WotC does 'X' in the D&D game and that they should do 'Y'... a bunch of people agree with them... and then... nothing. Nothing changes. Presumably those people either make the changes they want on their own, or they don't do anything and remain annoyed, playing a game they don't like. I mean heck... there's probably several dozen half-made Warlord classes here in the forum archives alone that folks started to create and then stopped when everyone started arguing about how it should work... and then six months later someone else started up again with a new one after complaining WotC still hadn't made a Warlord. But after all that, why should they?

Why would WotC ever take any of (general) our complaints seriously if all we do is flap our gums with our complaints but then don't do anything about it ever? That tells them that we pretty much actually don't really care, or we are perfectly capable of making these changes ourselves in our home games and thus we don't actually need WotC to do it (despite our claims otherwise.)

This response strikes me as a close sibling to the "if you don't like it, why don't you make your own tabletop game?"

"Doing something about it" is extremely unlikely to actually change anything, while being rather a lot of effort. And creating my own content is pointless if what I want is to play a game that gives a damn about my interests. Because, believe me, I have tried to create homebrew content for 5e that would be interesting to me.

Exactly one person has let me use it. A friend of mine. Literally every other DM, and I'm talking dozens at this point, have declined. Even though the vast majority of them have (very kindly) complimented my work and said they'd like to see it get the playtesting it needs to be a finished product. But I can't get that playtesting if nobody will let me play the damn thing!

"Do something about it" implies that I actually have any ability to do something about it. My experience says it doesn't matter how much effort I put in, I won't be able to do anything about it. So if the results are "nothing changes" either way, I may as well save myself the effort.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My solution when I write for publication is to put that stuff in the statblock or item description. Even for "wizard types" you can fit a whole bunch of "spell actions" in the statblock if you are concise. I did it in both The Sundering and a couple books for Supers5E.

That WotC won't do it is a shame but there are lots of folks making 5e content. We can just do it. We don't need permission.

Which is great! That's the way it should be. Rather than just complaining for the sake of complaining... complaining about an issue and then solving it (general) yourself is the attitude everyone should have. And my only recommendation was that if (general) you are doing that work... you might as well make it available for others by putting it up on DMs Guild (as it seems like you yourself are doing.) And while some things made might not have the foundation to warrant charging cash (other than perhaps Pay What You Want)... if those things made actually result in some hits, then they will potentially end up making the person a little bit of cash by redirecting them to other products they have made.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I couldn't disagree more. When an item lets you cast a spell, that means it can interact with every game feature that relates to spells. The caster can use metamagic, possibly add extra damage, the effect can be counterspelled, etc.

Items that cast spells add a lot more depth to the game than ones that simply have a specific effect.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This response strikes me as a close sibling to the "if you don't like it, why don't you make your own tabletop game?"

"Doing something about it" is extremely unlikely to actually change anything, while being rather a lot of effort. And creating my own content is pointless if what I want is to play a game that gives a damn about my interests. Because, believe me, I have tried to create homebrew content for 5e that would be interesting to me.

Exactly one person has let me use it. A friend of mine. Literally every other DM, and I'm talking dozens at this point, have declined. Even though the vast majority of them have (very kindly) complimented my work and said they'd like to see it get the playtesting it needs to be a finished product. But I can't get that playtesting if nobody will let me play the damn thing!

"Do something about it" implies that I actually have any ability to do something about it. My experience says it doesn't matter how much effort I put in, I won't be able to do anything about it. So if the results are "nothing changes" either way, I may as well save myself the effort.

Okay. Fine. Your bed is made and thus you are lying in it.

Which just means the following... you can continue to just complain about D&D here on the boards under no pretense of expecting things to be different... and other people will continue to rebut your complaints just because they can. If that works for you, then it works for us.