I don't know if this is a thing...

[Ratskinner]

Yes, there is a difference between the two. The problem is that neither is inherently "better" than the other. Each idea is better suited to one playstyle or consideration or another. I definitely agree with the idea that 3e and 4e are closer mechanically than most give them credit for. Personally, 2e magic and spell descriptions worked best for me.

What should 5e do with it? I think that depends on their goals for the basic game. In all things, speed and ease of use should rule the day, IMO. I think that's the critical factor, and in that regard, I'd prefer a "chopped down" spell/power description with embedded keywords and clear phrasing. That is, I think they should word power descriptions like MtG card text (with some obvious exceptions, like stats for a summoned/polymorphed creature). If you can't fit it on the "card", re-examine the wisdom of the spell/power.

I'd also eliminate all the redundant lines of descriptors and the like. If you're using exceptions-based design, use it to tighten things up, not fill half a page with jargon. So, for example, we should never see lines like the following:

• Components: V, S, M
• Action: Standard
  

Because, that's what 90% of all the spells are. I only need to be told when its different. Yes, I know its easier to have the Database vomit them up this way, but really, its a lot of wasted space. If you use keywords for range, but then repeat their definitions each and every time "Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft. level)," you have succeeded in saving exactly zero trees from the paper mill. Since we know some spells will scale depending on the level of the slot they are in, use that as the default meaning for level.

Personally, I'd like to see spells formatted something like this:

Fireball - A glowing bead streaks from your hand toward a chosen spot Range: 100ft/level. It explodes with a roar at that spot or when it hits a solid object, and deals 1d6 + 2d6/level fire damage to creatures and unattended objects in a Diameter: 5ft/level area. A Dex Save Halves the damage. The explosion is without force and cannot destroy things except through its damage. The material component is a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.

Featherfall - As a Reaction you shout a word which causes one falling object or person per level within Range: 10ft/level to float gently to the ground. The affected targets fall at a rate of 60ft/round and the effect lasts until they reach the ground. Featherfall is a Verbal spell.

Guidance - You grant a touched creature a +2/level bonus on a single Attack Roll, Saving Throw, or Ability Check. The creature chooses when to use this bonus. If unused, the effect dissipates at the end of the Encounter.

Such descriptions are short enough that a caster player can actually print several of them to a sheet, or even (gasp! ) copy them by hand onto a spell sheet. I know its not the most popular opinion, but I really feel that this game needs to play easy and play well with only dice, paper, pencil, and rulebooks. Electronic or web-aids are nice, but the game mustn't be so bloated as to rely on them.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Electronic or web-aids are nice, but the game mustn't be so bloated as to rely on them.

This is a total tangent, but I think smartphones are common enough nowadays that D&D should become an app, not a pnp product. A lot of the old school bookkeeping - ammunition, provisions, encumbrance, xp - would work much better if it was computerised, and in addition it would remove many of the restrictions regarding rules complexity.

Though it depends on whether players actually enjoy the bookkeeping and rules-cogitating. I suspect many D&Ders do enjoy those things, otherwise they wouldn't be D&Ders.

 

[Mattachine]

Ratskinner, your spell descriptions are nice, especially if there aren't more than a couple dozen spells. Call of Cthulhu spells are written that way, more or less.

On the other hand, if you have one or two hundred spells to read through, a more systematic approach (anything from 1e to 4e) is what I need.

 

[Dausuul]

This is a total tangent, but I think smartphones are common enough nowadays that D&D should become an app, not a pnp product. A lot of the old school bookkeeping - ammunition, provisions, encumbrance, xp - would work much better if it was computerised, and in addition it would remove many of the restrictions regarding rules complexity.

I have very, very few absolute deal-breakers that would make me walk away from D&DN. Vancian wizards and no non-Vancian arcane casting? I'll grumble but I'll cope (and hack together a sorceror-type variant ASAP). 4E-style healing surges? Sigh. Okay. The return of excessive and rigid alignment restrictions? I'll just roll my eyes and ignore them. Racial level limits? Good excuse for a humans-only campaign. Put a bunch of these together and it might be enough, but no one of these things is a deal-breaker on its own.

This? This would be a deal-breaker. I will not play D&DN if the only way to do so is a smartphone app. And not just because I don't have a smartphone--though that is obviously a key issue.

Now, if D&D includes a smartphone app for support, that's a good thing. If that app is sufficient to allow the game to be played with nothing else, more power to 'em. But I want my dead tree books. And I want the game to be designed with dead tree books in mind.

 

[dkyle]

This? This would be a deal-breaker. I will not play D&DN if the only way to do so is a smartphone app. And not just because I don't have a smartphone--though that is obviously a key issue.

Now, if D&D includes a smartphone app for support, that's a good thing. If that app is sufficient to allow the game to be played with nothing else, more power to 'em. But I want my dead tree books. And I want the game to be designed with dead tree books in mind.

It wouldn't be appropriate for DnD, but I do have some interest in seeing RPGs designed to be run by a DM at a laptop, or with a tablet, and really embraces the possibilities that brings, even at the expense of pure PnP play. In my group, when people DM it's almost always from a laptop, instead of DM screen with paper notes or whatever. I was the only hold-out with my 4E campaign, and now I'm running a heavily homebrewed one-roll-engine game that benefits greatly from the various spreadsheets w/ formulas and macros I've created.

 

[YRUSirius]

I like the points Ratskinner has brought up (remove redundancy, write concise spell description), so here's another one of my dream spell write-ups:



Burning Hands
Evocation * Fire
Area: 25-foot blast
Saving Throw: Dexterity (miss halves)

A cone of searing flames shoots from your fingertips dealing 2d6 +
Intelligence modifier fire damage to each creature in its area.



Isn't this pretty simple, elegant and concise at the same time? It kills redundant stuff (exception based design, so no casting time or duration stuff) and conveys the main features of the spell (doing specific type of damage to every target in the area) in prose 'fluff' text. This is the stuff that's important. This should be the first sentence in the write-up. This spell does X damage, this spell buffs your AC, this spell makes you invisible. We don't need separate Attack, Hit, or Target entries before the main feature of the spell has been introduced.

Such descriptions are short enough that a caster player can actually print several of them to a sheet, or even (gasp! ) copy them by hand onto a spell sheet. I know its not the most popular opinion, but I really feel that this game needs to play easy and play well with only dice, paper, pencil, and rulebooks. Electronic or web-aids are nice, but the game mustn't be so bloated as to rely on them.

I think Mike Mearls agrees with you here. And this is exactly what made D&D so big in the first place (PEN & PAPER... and dice. ).



-YRUSirius

 

[Incenjucar]

This is one of those truly frustrating aspects of the way we think. For me, the super-blunt method is best. For someone else, the "evocative" way is far superior. If we could have a right-brain left-brain toggle for online versions of the books or something, it would be fantastic, but that's just not going to happen.

 

[Ratskinner]

Ratskinner, your spell descriptions are nice, especially if there aren't more than a couple dozen spells. Call of Cthulhu spells are written that way, more or less.

On the other hand, if you have one or two hundred spells to read through, a more systematic approach (anything from 1e to 4e) is what I need.

I'm fairly confident (with no justification at all) that part of the purpose of having spells scale with the level of the slot they are in is to drastically reduce the number of spells in the basic game. Even if that's not the case, I'd rather have two hundred spells take up 25 or 30 pages instead of 107 pages like in the 3.5 PHB. That alone would make referencing them in play much more efficient.

Of course, I stripped my spell descriptions down a lot. I even removed magic schools, because I figure those can wait for a module. However, this is much closer to the way spells were described wayyyy wayyy back in the day.

Original D&D

Fire Ball: A missile which springs from the finger of the Magic-User. It explodes with a burst radius of 2" (slightly larger than specified in CHAINMAIL). In a confined space the Fire Ball will generally conform to the shape of the space (elongate or whatever). The damage caused by the missile will be in proportion to the level of its user. A 6th level Magic-User throws a 6-die missile, a 7th a 7-die missile, and so on. (Note that Fire Balls from Scrolls (see Volume II) and Wand [sic] are 6-die missiles and those from Staves are 8-die missiles. Duration: 1 turn. Range: 24" [OD&D Vol-1, p. 25]​

Just with the advantage of years worth of reading and writing the text of Magic:the Gathering cards.

I would also think that in play the shorter spell description would be desirable. Perhaps not while perusing the spells chapter for optimization, but personally, I feel optimizers should have to work harder for it.

Of course, YMMV.

 

[ferratus]

Put me on the side of being more evocative I'm afraid.

I not only want the material components of the spell listed, I want the gestures described as well.

 

[JamesonCourage]

No, It would be more like "3 outo of 5 cars are blue" agaisnt "a car is neon blue, another is turquoise the other one is cyan one more is crimson and the last one is yellow, oh and the neon blue paint can cause allergies in some people and shines in the night, the turquoise one is extremely toxic and not eco-friendly at all, the crimson one is way more likelly to attract the attention of robbers and a psycological effect over it's driver that enhances aggressive behavior, the cyan is boring and will get you though of as a lame loser for riding a car that color and the yellow one will make some poeple more suceptible to get nauseated on board"

Why do you hate cars?