D&D General "Effect as per the spell"

[Reynard]

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.

As always, tables should use rules they like and makes the game more fun for them, without worrying about what is "official" or whatever. If a table thinks it is fun to Nope casters, go for it. But I don't think it is fun for anyone. There are reasons why lots of spells have lesser effect on saves.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Only if those words are poorly written.

I'm not saying spell write-ups have to resemble legal documents or M:tG rules, but a few sentences covering some of the more obvious potential issues with some spells would be useful. For example, Polymorph (and its cousin, Druidic shapeshifting) is one that needs a lot of this, unless the intent is that it be game-ruiningly broken. Obviously, Wish is another.

That said, some spells can be written up in a single line. A hypothetical example: "Slay Living. A target living creature within 25 ft saves at DC 20 and dies instantly if this save is failed."

 

[Reynard]

Only if those words are poorly written.

I'm not saying spell write-ups have to resemble legal documents or M:tG rules, but a few sentences covering some of the more obvious potential issues with some spells would be useful. For example, Polymorph (and its cousin, Druidic shapeshifting) is one that needs a lot of this, unless the intent is that it be game-ruiningly broken. Obviously, Wish is another.

That said, some spells can be written up in a single line. A hypothetical example: "Slay Living. A target living creature within 25 ft saves at DC 20 and dies instantly if this save is failed."

Polymorph in the SRD is actually pretty lean, compared to its 3.x edition versions.

 

[Reynard]

I was just rereading my Shadowdark core book and it is just crazy how well they achieve this style: give the players and GM the base info they need, then trust them to make a great play experience out of it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I was just rereading my Shadowdark core book and it is just crazy how well they achieve this style: give the players and GM the base info they need, then trust them to make a great play experience out of it.

Yeah, they do it with ALL the rules, too - not just spells.

 

[Reynard]

Ok. We need to talk about Prismatic Wall.

I was going through some high level spells, trying to see what could get trimmed descriptions and when I got to Prismatic Wall I just goggled. What a mess. this spell is a classic, I know, but it is unbalanced, fiddly, broken and just confusing. It has to go.

 

[MarkB]

Ok. We need to talk about Prismatic Wall.

I was going through some high level spells, trying to see what could get trimmed descriptions and when I got to Prismatic Wall I just goggled. What a mess. this spell is a classic, I know, but it is unbalanced, fiddly, broken and just confusing. It has to go.

Talk about Prismatic Wall of Text, amirite?

For some reason the ad video showing on the site you linked when I viewed the spell was showing footage of ants, which got me thinking about the clause about not catching any creatures in the effect. If there happen to be a few creepy-crawlies on the ground where you cast the spell, does it immediately fail and expend the spell slot?

The rest of it feels like a throwback to the old "wizard duel" days where high-level casters would need to blast through each others' abjurations with just the right spells before they could start going at each other directly. I'm sure some fix could be found, but it doesn't really look worth saving.

 

[Reynard]

Talk about Prismatic Wall of Text, amirite?

For some reason the ad video showing on the site you linked when I viewed the spell was showing footage of ants, which got me thinking about the clause about not catching any creatures in the effect. If there happen to be a few creepy-crawlies on the ground where you cast the spell, does it immediately fail and expend the spell slot?

The rest of it feels like a throwback to the old "wizard duel" days where high-level casters would need to blast through each others' abjurations with just the right spells before they could start going at each other directly. I'm sure some fix could be found, but it doesn't really look worth saving.

Step 1: Wizard Casts Prismatic Wall
Step 2: Warlock Blasts BBEG through Prismatic Wall
Step 3: Profit

 

[Lanefan]

Ok. We need to talk about Prismatic Wall.

I was going through some high level spells, trying to see what could get trimmed descriptions and when I got to Prismatic Wall I just goggled. What a mess. this spell is a classic, I know, but it is unbalanced, fiddly, broken and just confusing. It has to go.

While this one spell might be fiddly, it's only broken/unbalanced for those who foolishly try to pass through it. Stay behind it until it goes away and it's harmless.

More to the point, however: if your main criteria for removing spells is the complexity of their write-ups, you're leaving yourself wide open to charges of trying to dumb down the game. Hasn't that trend already gone more than far enough over the years?

 

[Reynard]

While this one spell might be fiddly, it's only broken/unbalanced for those who foolishly try to pass through it. Stay behind it until it goes away and it's harmless.

Forced movement is a thing.

More to the point, however: if your main criteria for removing spells is the complexity of their write-ups, you're leaving yourself wide open to charges of trying to dumb down the game. Hasn't that trend already gone more than far enough over the years?

It doesn't dumb down the game, it increases playability and gives the GM freedom to decide corner cases. You should give Shadowdark a try.