D&D (2024) 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?