D&D General "Effect as per the spell"

[FitzTheRuke]

Sounds like another idea for a DMsGuild product. Who wants to make it? It would be cool to have as part of the SRD and just be able to cut/paste.

I might do it. I've got about 80% of the 2014 PHB done for my character sheets (this is with me only writing short versions for what I'm using). But I think I'll wait to see what the 2024 spells look like first.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I mean, I'm literally telling you I did try to fix things in the past. It didn't work. What more am I supposed to do? Start up a rival TTRPG publishing company and topple Wizards of the Coast?

Your "rebuttal" takes the form of ignoring the possibility of discussion and writing off any and all issues as "well you just didn't try hard enough."

Yes, you tried to solve your own problem and it didn't work. Okay. Sorry to hear that.

But NOW what?

If your only option remaining is to "discuss it"... then yeah, you've successfully been doing that. It has all been a discussion. Some people have agreed with you, others have disagreed with you. If that's all you now want, then great! Your mission has been accomplished!

But if that's NOT all you now want, what else is there? What exactly are you hoping to gain by posting here? Do you want everyone to agree with you? Is that what you are looking for? Well, if that's the case you might as well give up now, because quite frankly your own appreciation of 4E and desire to see more of 4E in 5E is automatically going to generate pushback from plenty of people, so you will never be successful in your endeavor for across-the-board acceptance in your discussions. Is it something else? Okay. Well, good luck with whatever it is you are looking for.

I mean I know exactly why I post things here, and know I'm going to get pushback on a lot of them. And I'm fine with that. I'm here merely for just "the discussion". That's it. The fact that we are conversing right now, for me, is the end in and of itself-- I have no greater agenda or hope out of this conversation between us, I'm just passing the time away. I just hope that's all this is for you as well, because I'd feel bad if I knew you had some larger end result you were trying and hoping to achieve with these back and forths within these threads, because I don't see it happening.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes, you tried to solve your own problem and it didn't work. Okay. Sorry to hear that.

But NOW what?

If your only option remaining is to "discuss it"... then yeah, you've successfully been doing that. It has all been a discussion. Some people have agreed with you, others have disagreed with you. If that's all you now want, then great! Your mission has been accomplished!

But if that's NOT all you now want, what else is there? What exactly are you hoping to gain by posting here? Do you want everyone to agree with you? Is that what you are looking for? Well, if that's the case you might as well give up now, because quite frankly your own appreciation of 4E and desire to see more of 4E in 5E is automatically going to generate pushback from plenty of people, so you will never be successful in your endeavor for across-the-board acceptance in your discussions. Is it something else? Okay. Well, good luck with whatever it is you are looking for.

I mean I know exactly why I post things here, and know I'm going to get pushback on a lot of them. And I'm fine with that. I'm here merely for just "the discussion". That's it. The fact that we are conversing right now, for me, is the end in and of itself-- I have no greater agenda or hope out of this conversation between us, I'm just passing the time away. I just hope that's all this is for you as well, because I'd feel bad if I knew you had some larger end result you were trying and hoping to achieve with these back and forths within these threads, because I don't see it happening.

I consider discussion, in and of itself, something that can lead to change. It may be slow. Frankly, most change is, and certainly most change that is actually gonna stick around. I'm not really concerned about that.

 

[Reynard]

Honestly, I think every spell needs an official "Short Version" that can go on PC character sheets, monster statblocks (and magic items), and a "Long Version" to explain exactly what they mean by anything that could be wrongly interpreted by exploit-minded players.

Does that sound like it would take up a lot of space? It sounds that way, but it doesn't have to do.

I guess this is the part I don't care about and don't think a "long version" is necessary for. A rules lawyering munchkin powergamer is going to have just as much ammunition with a 2 page spell description as a two sentence one. And the GM's job is to do any "interpreting." Players who engage the game in bad faith in order to "win" and outshine their fellow players need to be shown the door, IMO.

The idea that we must protect players from bad GMs and GMs from bad players with lots of very specific verbose rules is one that I thought 5E had finally slain.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I guess this is the part I don't care about and don't think a "long version" is necessary for. A rules lawyering munchkin powergamer is going to have just as much ammunition with a 2 page spell description as a two sentence one. And the GM's job is to do any "interpreting." Players who engage the game in bad faith in order to "win" and outshine their fellow players need to be shown the door, IMO.

The idea that we must protect players from bad GMs and GMs from bad players with lots of very specific verbose rules is one that I thought 5E had finally slain.

I actually agree with you entirely, but it still seems to me that is one of the reasons that people advocate for longer spell descriptions. Personally, I feel that if a spell needs multiple paragraphs to describe what it does, then it's a poorly designed spell and we should just have something else instead.

There's usually only three reasons for long spells: 1) They feel that it needs extra explanation to avoid exploits (this is the part that I cut first when I'm writing a short version, because my players simply don't do that stuff); 2) There's things that could easily be standardized that they spell out in every spell that has it (like " blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt" what I call a "dense barrier" (which can be defined as the above elsewhere); 3) High Level spells with a lot of moving parts. (I can accept some of these, but I still insist that they can be greatly simplified without the game losing much).

Oh! One more that happens only sometimes: There's lots extra things that the spell does because the designer is being "cute".

 

[Lanefan]

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

A spell write-up should still be long if needed, however, to include obvious rulings around how that spell (and-or its effects) interacts with other things and-or other spells. Saves the DM having to do this piecemeal as the campaign goes on.

And some spells need long descriptions in order to stop exploits and loopholes.

 

[Lanefan]

"The caster and X willing targets within XX feet disappear and reappear at a location designated by the caster that is on the same plane. They appear in the nearest unoccupied spaces to the arrival point. The probability of success is based on familiarity. See the following table. Failure results in the caster and targets appearing 10d100 feet away in a random direction (see the accompanying chart). Roll for each traveler individually."

Do you need much more?

Yes. What if a target is unwilling but restrained, or being carried? It makes no sense that you can't teleport with a captive or prisoner, so the reationale for that needs to be explained. Can non-living material be teleported if someone isn't carrying it; and if so, how much? Etc.

Were it me I'd also say that anyone to be teleported other than the caster has to be touching the caster.

You could also cut out the directions chart by saying "...random direction: roll a d8 where 1 is north, 2 is northeast, etc. around to 8 as northwest".

 

[Reynard]

A spell write-up should still be long if needed, however, to include obvious rulings around how that spell (and-or its effects) interacts with other things and-or other spells. Saves the DM having to do this piecemeal as the campaign goes on.

And some spells need long descriptions in order to stop exploits and loopholes.

Yes. What if a target is unwilling but restrained, or being carried? It makes no sense that you can't teleport with a captive or prisoner, so the reationale for that needs to be explained. Can non-living material be teleported if someone isn't carrying it; and if so, how much? Etc.

Were it me I'd also say that anyone to be teleported other than the caster has to be touching the caster.

You could also cut out the directions chart by saying "...random direction: roll a d8 where 1 is north, 2 is northeast, etc. around to 8 as northwest".

These are a) things I don't care about, and b) why we have GMs.

 

[Lanefan]

I guess this is the part I don't care about and don't think a "long version" is necessary for.

Oh, I do. That's the whole point of these write-ups: not just to explain what the spell can do but to explain what it cannot do.

A rules lawyering munchkin powergamer is going to have just as much ammunition with a 2 page spell description as a two sentence one. And the GM's job is to do any "interpreting."

And that DM-side interpreting is made far easier if the rules back her up and she can just point to the book.

Players who engage the game in bad faith in order to "win" and outshine their fellow players need to be shown the door, IMO.

Players engaging the game in order to win are not playing in bad faith; and if they're outshining their fellow players then IMO it's on those fellow players to up their game.

It's a player's job to - without cheating - use the rules to best advantage; it's the game's job to push back when that advantage becomes unfair or broken, and I'd much rather that pushback come at the design level instead of leaving it all up to the DM.

 

[Ancalagon]

My main issue is "is it a spell?"

If item X "works as casting the spell fireball" - can it be counter spelled? How does this power interact with the rules that are specific to spells?