Making spell descriptions less dense?

[Quickleaf]

Here's the knock spell from the 5e PHB:

Knock
2nd-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous

Choose an object that you can see within range. The object can be a door, a box, a chest, a set of manacles, a padlock, or another object that contains a mundane or magical means that prevents access. A target that is held shut by a mundane lock or that is stuck or barred becomes unlocked, unstuck, or unbarred. If the object has multiple locks, only one of them is unlocked.
If you choose a target that is held shut with arcane lock, that spell is suppressed for 10 minutes, during which time the target can be opened and shut normally. When you cast the spell, a loud knock, audible from as far away as 300 feet, emanates from the target object.

Here's the knock spell from the OSR Cairn RPG:

Knock: A nearby mundane or magical lock unlocks – loudly.

D&D goes down the rabbit hole of "precise" language, which really unnecessarily increases word count without offering much more clarity. The problem is that when you multiply this effect across all the spells, it increases the cognitive load on the players (including GM) and the handling time at the table - more so for newer players.

Do we really need a list of examples for what constitutes a "container... that prevents access"? Probably not. We can figure that out.
Do we need the "multiple locks" proviso? Not if we stipulate one lock up front.
Do we need to know that the spell makes a sound "audible from as far away as 300 feet"? We've literally never checked whether something is within 300 feet when knock is used, since that's such a vast distance in a built environment, instead going entirely by feel.
Do we need to elucidate what suppressing a spell effect means? Probably not.

So functionally, the knock spell could be written in One D&D more succinctly as (taking it from 137 words to 29 words)....

Knock
2nd-level transmutation (action, V)
One mundane or magical lock that you can see within 60 feet unlocks - loudly. An arcane lock is instead suppressed for 10 minutes.

 

[R_J_K75]

Knock
2nd-level transmutation (action, V)
One mundane or magical lock that you can see within 60 feet unlocks - loudly. An arcane lock is instead suppressed for 10 minutes.

This looks way better. I've always felt the same that most spells (and class features) are unnecessarily way too long. Spell descriptions shouldn't be more than 3-4 short sentences.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Indeed. Spells take such a huge space in the book, it would be beneficial to reduce their wordiness a little.

Shatter, 2nd-level transmutation (Magic Action, V/S/M)
Save: Constitution halves (construct and inorganic creature or objects save with disadvantage)

A loud ringing noise erupts in a 10-foot-radius sphere centered on a point within 60, dealing 3d8 thunder damage on a failed save, adding 1d8 damage for each slot level above 2nd.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The hardest part about how to do spell write-ups is finding the middle ground between being concise and quick in the language for easy understanding, while at the same time making the language interesting enough to read as a type of literature.

We've have decades wherein players have said that they used to just read the AD&D books as books... even if they never played the game itself. There was a feeling one could get, a falling into the fantasy, of reading things like the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide. That's something that I think many players still wish to maintain when it comes to these books. As made obvious with an edition like 4E where it was exceedingly good as a rulebook-- giving precise rules on how to bring the things into the game-- but had that technical manual quality in many ways that some people said felt antiseptic. The "fantasy" got lost in the fast descriptions because the writing was more about highlighting the numbers rather than provoking emotions of the game.

So finding that place between fantasy literature that reads well but obfuscates the rules needed to get across, and technical jargon that makes understanding easy and quick but doesn't highlight the essence of what these rules are trying to describe... is the sweet spot everyone is looking for. I honestly don't know what the right answer oftentimes is supposed to be. Because even the Knock example you gave is a wonderful representation of the issue-- the second version is clear and makes what the spell is trying to do very easy to understand... but at the same time in the PHB version that tells us all the different types of objects that can get unlocked... I get a definite vision in my head of all of these things along with what happens when the spell goes off-- the lock pops open, the manacles fall off the wrists, the chest latch flips up, etc. My inner eye is visualizing all of these things in a fantasy context because of the more in-depth language. And having that view from my inner eye gives me ideas of where and when a spell like this can be used, and thus the kinds of narration that I'll bring forth to make the images to my players more visually interesting.

At some point you certainly can go overboard, and I thus would not be averse to taking the PHB version and editing it down a little bit... but I also have the fear of the second version just not catching my interest as a fantasy reader as easily and thus we lose some of the emotion and feeling when the spell is used.

 

[Minigiant]

Do we really need a list of examples for what constitutes a "container... that prevents access"? Probably not. We can figure that out.

You hope.
A DM could rule that a pair of manacles or a object stuck closed isn't a lock.

Do we need the "multiple locks" proviso? Not if we stipulate one lock up front.

One could be the who mechanism or each individual lock.

Do we need to know that the spell makes a sound "audible from as far away as 300 feet"? We've literally never checked whether something is within 300 feet when knock is used, since that's such a vast distance in a built environment, instead going entirely by feel.

How loud is loud?
This is there because knock the DM's adjudication of loudness can heavily affect the spell's usefulness.

Do we need to elucidate what suppressing a spell effect means? Probably not.

If I cast arcane lock on my chest and you cast knock on it, which spell remains on the object after the party pilfers the chest's contents?

So sure spells could be shorter. But sme content is near required because of the vast differences withn the huge D&D community.

 

[Quickleaf]

The hardest part about how to do spell write-ups is finding the middle ground between being concise and quick in the language for easy understanding, while at the same time making the language interesting enough to read as a type of literature.

We've have decades wherein players have said that they used to just read the AD&D books as books... even if they never played the game itself. There was a feeling one could get, a falling into the fantasy, of reading things like the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide. That's something that I think many players still wish to maintain when it comes to these books. As made obvious with an edition like 4E where it was exceedingly good as a rulebook-- giving precise rules on how to bring the things into the game-- but had that technical manual quality in many ways that some people said felt antiseptic. The "fantasy" got lost in the fast descriptions because the writing was more about highlighting the numbers rather than provoking emotions of the game.

So finding that place between fantasy literature that reads well but obfuscates the rules needed to get across, and technical jargon that makes understanding easy and quick but doesn't highlight the essence of what these rules are trying to describe... is the sweet spot everyone is looking for. I honestly don't know what the right answer oftentimes is supposed to be. Because even the Knock example you gave is a wonderful representation of the issue-- the second version is clear and makes what the spell is trying to do very easy to understand... but at the same time in the PHB version that tells us all the different types of objects that can get unlocked... I get a definite vision in my head of all of these things along with what happens when the spell goes off-- the lock pops open, the manacles fall off the wrists, the chest latch flips up, etc. My inner eye is visualizing all of these things in a fantasy context because of the more in-depth language. And having that view from my inner eye gives me ideas of where and when a spell like this can be used, and thus the kinds of narration that I'll bring forth to make the images to my players more visually interesting.

At some point you certainly can go overboard, and I thus would not be averse to taking the PHB version and editing it down a little bit... but I also have the fear of the second version just not catching my interest as a fantasy reader as easily and thus we lose some of the emotion and feeling when the spell is used.

I know exactly what you mean.

But most 5e spell descriptions, in my opinion, BOTH fail to inspire with fiction AND are too wordy.

For example, with my knock rewrite, I shaved off 108 words with no loss of clarity (arguably increased clarity because there's less to get hung up on). And still be well below the current space the PHB knock spell takes up

You could certainly add a couple words back in to spice up the flavor, maybe describing the quality of the sound the spell makes or that the locks pop open with violent force.

In other words, improved succinctness/brevity and inspiring flavor at not at odds.

 

[aco175]

I would love to see this but fear the threads about everything for a spell. Wizards would need a website dedicated to errata and examples of what they meant when writing the spell.

 

[Shiroiken]

So finding that place between fantasy literature that reads well but obfuscates the rules needed to get across, and technical jargon that makes understanding easy and quick but doesn't highlight the essence of what these rules are trying to describe... is the sweet spot everyone is looking for.

Part of it is 5E not deciding what kind of game it wants to be. Every prior edition had certain expectations on how the game was going to be played, but either explicitly (4E) or by default from lack of options (1E). 5E tried to appeal to as wide a base as possible, which would include both sides on this. The idea option would be to put mechanics in a very short section, as described above, but the description would be more evocative. To use the Knock example:

Knock (level 2 transmutation; magic action, V, one lock within 60 ft)
You manipulate a single locking mechanism or stuck/barred portal into immediately opening, unleashing a thunderous knocking sound that can be clearly heard up to 300 feet away. If the lock or opening is protected with Arcane Lock, you suppress that magic for 10 minutes instead.

It's much more concise than the original spell, but still provides plenty of imagery. For the Shatter example:

Shatter (level 2 evocation; magic action, V/S/M [chip of mica] 10' radius sphere within 60 ft)
Con Save: half damage (constructs and inorganic creatures/objects have disadvantage)
You create a powerful ringing noise that generates a shockwave within the area, dealing 3d8 thunder damage to all creatures and unattended objects.

The biggest issue I see is formatting the mechanic line when it wraps to the next. I'd suggest a hanging paragraph, but I'm also not a graphic designer, so...

You hope.
A DM could rule that a pair of manacles or a object stuck closed isn't a lock.

The OSR the OP uses for inspiration always puts the decision on the GM for just about everything, so this would be within their purview. You might disagree as a player, but people who enjoy this style of play aren't normally tangled up with RAW. For D&D, I'd add a bit more detail (as above), but still leave the DM some wiggle room.

 

[Yaarel]

The spell verbiage that drives me crazy is:

"The spell can penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, Or 3 feet of wood or dirt."

Repeating this detailed weirdness over and over again is a waste of ink.

The spell description is not the place to worry about the DM wanting to keep secrets. There are better ways to do this.

For example, similar to obfuscating Divination, let the Nystuls Magic Aura spell include an option to conveniently block spells, like Detect Magic, Detect Poison/Disease, Detect Thoughts, Locate Object, Message, and any other plot-spoiling spell. So, if the DM needs to hide something in a particular room, just the cast this spell. Done.

 

[Yaarel]

Regarding Knock, I wouldnt even bother with "suppressing" Arcane Lock.

At most mention, "The Arcane Lock spell counts as a magical lock", if for some reason this isnt obvious.

In other words, Knock dispels Arcane Lock. Why not?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Here's the knock spell from the 5e PHB:


Here's the knock spell from the OSR Cairn RPG:


D&D goes down the rabbit hole of "precise" language, which really unnecessarily increases word count without offering much more clarity. The problem is that when you multiply this effect across all the spells, it increases the cognitive load on the players (including GM) and the handling time at the table - more so for newer players.

Do we really need a list of examples for what constitutes a "container... that prevents access"? Probably not. We can figure that out.
Do we need the "multiple locks" proviso? Not if we stipulate one lock up front.
Do we need to know that the spell makes a sound "audible from as far away as 300 feet"? We've literally never checked whether something is within 300 feet when knock is used, since that's such a vast distance in a built environment, instead going entirely by feel.
Do we need to elucidate what suppressing a spell effect means? Probably not.

So functionally, the knock spell could be written in One D&D more succinctly as (taking it from 137 words to 29 words)....

Knock
2nd-level transmutation (action, V)
One mundane or magical lock that you can see within 60 feet unlocks - loudly. An arcane lock is instead suppressed for 10 minutes.

Yeah, what you're suggesting is absolutely the right direction here.

5E's spell design is fundamentally at odds with its core philosophy. The core philosophy is that the DM decides stuff, and you don't need detailed rules for everything because of that. This is why skills and so on have extremely simple rules and an almost total lack of real guidance in 5E.

The OSR the OP uses for inspiration always puts the decision on the GM for just about everything, so this would be within their purview. You might disagree as a player, but people who enjoy this style of play aren't normally tangled up with RAW. For D&D, I'd add a bit more detail (as above), but still leave the DM some wiggle room.

I don't think you do need more detail for D&D, certainly not beyond which the OP suggests, because 5E consistently advocates for the OSR approach about just about everything - "the DM decides" - the only weird exception is spells, and frankly that exception should be eliminated, because all it serves to do is make spells weirdly advantaged over all other ways of doing things.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

At some point you certainly can go overboard, and I thus would not be averse to taking the PHB version and editing it down a little bit... but I also have the fear of the second version just not catching my interest as a fantasy reader as easily and thus we lose some of the emotion and feeling when the spell is used.

As a fantasy reader myself I can't see this at all.

The current PHB description is soul-less and mechanistic. It reads like the rules for a particularly boring boardgame. It has no flavour. The shorter version actually has more fantasy power because you can imagine it more, it doesn't have the same mechanistic list of conditions.

If the PHB version had more description/soul I could see your argument, but it has nothing but limits. There's no emotion there.

 

[Delazar]

I’d prefer a short fluff text to introduce the spell, and then the pure crunch.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I’d prefer a short fluff text to introduce the spell, and then the pure crunch.

If so it should be extremely short. Major class abilities, which are less numerous and far more character-defining than spells rarely get more than a single short sentence of fluff text. If we let spells waffle on for multiple sentences of fluff, we should do the same for class abilities.

For example with Fighters, Fighting Style, Second Wind and Action Surge get one short sentence each. Extra Attack, a huge and vital feature, gets none. Indomitable gets none. ASI/Feat gets none.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As a fantasy reader myself I can't see this at all.

The current PHB description is soul-less and mechanistic. It reads like the rules for a particularly boring boardgame. It has no flavour. The shorter version actually has more fantasy power because you can imagine it more, it doesn't have the same mechanistic list of conditions.

If the PHB version had more description/soul I could see your argument, but it has nothing but limits. There's no emotion there.

This kind of stuff is all going to come down to personal matter of opinion I suppose. Like I said... WotC seemed to want to find a middle ground for 5E between AD&D and 4E in the way they wrote their spell descriptions. Whether or not they succeeded would be up to each reader to decide. Same way whether or not @Quickleaf 's spell write up would be considered better or not to accomplish the same thing.

 

[Delazar]

If so it should be extremely short. Major class abilities, which are less numerous and far more character-defining than spells rarely get more than a single short sentence of fluff text. If we let spells waffle on for multiple sentences of fluff, we should do the same for class abilities.

For example with Fighters, Fighting Style, Second Wind and Action Surge get one short sentence each. Extra Attack, a huge and vital feature, gets none. Indomitable gets none. ASI/Feat gets none.

I’d love ALL class ability to be written in spell format!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This kind of stuff is all going to come down to personal matter of opinion I suppose.

I mean, I don't really think so.

There's just no real description or soul in the current PHB version. There's literally no flavour text, just a list of limitations.

WotC seemed to want to find a middle ground for 5E between AD&D and 4E in the way they wrote their spell descriptions.

Wait, do you think 4E had less description/flavour than 5E?

Because that's just completely and totally wrong, here's 4E's Knock for example. Notice that it's got considerably more description than 5E, and even features a fancy bit of flavour with the glowing key:

Knock

Knock is a 4th-level ritual.[PH:307] The Knock ritual allows you to open a single locked door, chest, gate, or other object. It even works against portals sealed with the Arcane Lock ritual or doors secured with bolts or bars that are on the far side, out of reach. You must defeat all the...

dnd4.fandom.com

So if that's the implication, I'm afraid that is bass-ackwards.

2E AD&D's Knock is way longer but has even less flavour, much like 5E:

Knock

The knock spell opens stuck, barred, locked, held, or wizard-locked doors. It opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains. If used to open a wizard-locked door, the spell does not remove the former spell, but simply suspends...

adnd2e.fandom.com

Notice the awesomely vague "It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains." which might as well be designed to cause conflict/arguments lol.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I’d prefer a short fluff text to introduce the spell, and then the pure crunch.

The fluff must match the crunch. Which most 5e spells don’t

 

[DEFCON 1]

@Ruin Explorer That's a single ritual you are using as your example, but I suspect the group of people who said back in 2008 that the 4E powers seemed antiseptic were looking at the entire book, wherein each power had but a single line of italicized flavor text along with a larger mechanical block of pure mechanics. A lot of people didn't mind or liked the powers format and found them flavorful, but a lot of people didn't. Personal taste.

Please note that I'm making no judgements on any of these versions of spell descriptions... AD&D, 4E, 5E, Quickleaf's edit to one spell. They all are what they are, and they all were made to work for their respective games. If they were successful or if they could have or could be done better or differently will come down to each individual reading it... or the WotC editors when it comes time for them to re-do the 2024 spell section.

 

[Remathilis]

You might be able to get away with a shorter, snappier spell description if you can somehow remove all the rules lawyers or have players willing to accept DM fiat without question. For example, "loudly" is an imprecise term. Loud like a tea kettle, a lawnmower or a bulldozer? Audible to anyone in the room or in the dungeon? One DM might interpret loudly as "can't be done from Stealth", another as "you've just put the whole complex on high alert".

Most of the provisos are designed to either reign in abuse from players (well, a castle is a type of container, knock should open the portcullis) or to be used by the DM as a way to appeal to authority from the rule book itself (no, a container is...) Should that be the way the rule book works? Probably not, but everyone has a bad player/DM story where the outcome bordered on the precise language of the spell or power in question.

Brevity may be the soul of wit, but D&D is closer to contract law than poetry.