D&D General language.....natural or simple or what?

[Zaukrie]

I was reading an entry in the MCDM monster book, and came across this (the returns/lines are not important here):

Electric Pulse. The eel channels energy toward a creature within
20 feet of them. The target must make a DC 12 Constitution saving
throw, made with disadvantage if the target is touching the
eel. On a failed save, a creature takes 18 (4d8) lightning damage
and is dazed until the end of their next turn. On a successful
save, a creature takes half as much damage and isn’t dazed.

And thought, it is still too wordy. Is this better, or worse (note: I think you could take out "of them" also)?

Electric Pulse. The eel channels energy toward a creature within
20 feet of them. (DC 12 Constitution saving throw, with disadvantage
if the target is touching the eel). Failure: the target takes 18 (4d8) lightning damage
and is dazed until the end of their next turn. Success: half damage.

 

[aco175]

The second one is better to my thinking. The main problem is that one has to make the text pass the rules layers and non-native English speakers who may need more help reading the text. I, and most of us here can cut 50% more out and know what is meant since we play all the time and follow it.

Electric Pulse. 20ft ray. (DC 12 Con for half of (4d8) lightning), disadvantage
if the target is touching the eel.

 

[mamba]

I prefer the first, the second does not shorten it enough to make it better and loses some clarify (the dazed part).

If you shorten it, go all the way to @aco175's version, except that they ignore the daze entirely

 

[JAMUMU]

I prefer natural verbosity as the wiggle-room exists in the spaces between all those words.

 

[ichabod]

I prefer the Pathfinder route: define a standard saving throw as dealing full damage and effects on failure, and half damage and no other effects on success. Then you can say:

One creature within 20 feet of the eel must make a standard DC 12 constitution save or take 4d8 lightning damage and be dazed until the end of their next turn. Creatures touching the eel have disadvantage to the save.

 

[Zaukrie]

One thing I changed was " a creature" to " the target", which seems like 100% the right way to me.....

 

[Rabulias]

One thing I changed was " a creature" to " the target", which seems like 100% the right way to me.....

That would imply the eel could attack things that are not creatures.

 

[Zaukrie]

That would imply the eel could attack things that are not creatures.

No, because you have to target a creature.....the original language almost implies "a creature" takes the damage, not the target creature.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I would go even more succinct than the second version.

 

[Zaukrie]

I would go even more succinct than the second version.

I would too, but I was trying not to go too far.