D&D General "Effect as per the spell"

[Lanefan]

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

So you're just pushing all that interpretation and exploit-blocking work from the professional designer to the (usually) amateur DM, and hoping for the best?

No wonder some people have bad experiences with the game.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

I think the thing is: Some DMs (myself included) don't want to always have to be the "heavy" and tell players "No, you can't do that". Not to mention - not every "exploit" is clear as to if it is even an exploit, or how the spell is supposed to work (RAI). So we DO need some wordy spell descriptions at times.

I'd just rather that the spell text was as short as reasonably possible, but then followed by "notes". Personally, I'd be happy for these notes to be as behind-the-curtains frank design notes, but they could be Crawford-style wordy rulings if WotC prefers. That way, we could have the official short versions appear on Character Sheets, Monster Stablocks, and Magic Items, and you'd only have to look them up when there's a conflict (or for your own mental-notes on how it works).

 

[Lanefan]

I think the thing is: Some DMs (myself included) don't want to always have to be the "heavy" and tell players "No, you can't do that". Not to mention - not every "exploit" is clear as to if it is even an exploit, or how the spell is supposed to work (RAI). So we DO need some explanations. Personally, I would rather that the spell text was as short as reasonably possible, but then followed by "notes". Personally, I'd be happy for these notes to be as behind-the-curtains frank design notes, but they could be Crawford-style wordy rulings if WotC prefers. That way, we could have the official short versions appear on Character Sheets, Monster Stablocks, and Magic Items, and you'd only have to look them up when there's a conflict (or for your own mental-notes on how it works).

Or do like 1e and have the notes in the DMG.

 

[Reynard]

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?

This is a good question, one answered best with definitions at the beginning of the magic item section. In general, I would say "no" just because it is more fun that way.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Or do like 1e and have the notes in the DMG.

That's true! Come to think on it, it's entirely possible that many spells wouldn't even need a longer description. You could go with a short description for all of them, and then have a chapter in the DMG that calls out ones that have potential trouble-spots, and how the designers meant for them to work.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

This is a good question, one answered best with definitions at the beginning of the magic item section. In general, I would say "no" just because it is more fun that way.

Is it, though? More fun for whom? A rule is only good, IMO, if it's good for both sides of the "screen". (I put quotes on that only because I've never used a screen).

 

[Reynard]

So you're just pushing all that interpretation and exploit-blocking work from the professional designer to the (usually) amateur DM, and hoping for the best?

No wonder some people have bad experiences with the game.

You keep asserting that more words means less exploits but that is not my experience at all. More words benefits the bad faith rules lawyer.

Trusting the DM is a key component of the hobby and systems, companies and fans trying to create distrust between players and GMs is what causes bad experiences with the game. I get that you think that play is a battle of rules and wits between the players and the GM, but I think that is a vanishingly rare way to play.

 

[Reynard]

Is it, though? More fun for whom? A rule is only good, IMO, if it's good for both sides of the "screen". (I put quotes on that only because I've never used a screen).

Both. Look, it the item is not a spell, it can't be counter spelled by either side. And, if it isn't a spell, the fighter can sling those fireballs from the wand as easily as the wizard. People worry about exploits when keeping rules a little loose, but I see it as opportunities for fun things to happen, usually because players come up with something clever. Long legalese text only serves the rules lawyer and inevitably slows the game down and makes play less interesting.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

You keep asserting that more words means less exploits but that is not my experience at all. More words benefits the bad faith rules lawyer.

Trusting the DM is a key component of the hobby and systems, companies and fans trying to create distrust between players and GMs is what causes bad experiences with the game. I get that you think that play is a battle of rules and wits between the players and the GM, but I think that is a vanishingly rare way to play.

I think you BOTH have good points, because both playstyles (and more) exist - and rulebooks should be as playstyle-agnostic as they can reasonably be. I'd like to think that my proposed solution covers both.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Both. Look, it the item is not a spell, it can't be counter spelled by either side. And, if it isn't a spell, the fighter can sling those fireballs from the wand as easily as the wizard. People worry about exploits when keeping rules a little loose, but I see it as opportunities for fun things to happen, usually because players come up with something clever. Long legalese text only serves the rules lawyer and inevitably slows the game down and makes play less interesting.

I absolutely do not disagree with you here. (Other than I know players who enjoy slinging counter-spells, which I do NOT as a DM, like on either side). That kind of player might cry foul, but I suppose that they could lump it.