D&D (2024) Making spell descriptions less dense?

[Incenjucar]

Meanwhile I absolutely despise the 3.5E style and find it a blight on gaming. Partly because it utterly slows down the act at the table and partly because of how it destroys any physical realism involved in the setting and turns it into just fiat physics that is unconnected to the real world.

I think that we can agree that the 4e and the 3.5 fireball descriptions are roughly equivalent to up to the end of the first paragraph of 3.5 and the major difference in content is the two paragraphs beyond that. If we go by up to the end of the first paragraph and you want to change squares to feet I honestly don't care. But fireball is the textbook example of why I want to see this form of spell writing disappear.

The penultimate paragraph I find to be one toxic to communication, roleplaying, and worldbuilding because of the way it implies an alternate physics model that isn't really mentioned elsewhere. The paragraph I'm referring to is, of course:

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.​

For the record Gold and Copper melt at just over a thousand degrees (C) and silver melts at just under it (and bronze has a melting point that that depends on the alloy but is somewhere round there) - so when four out of the five examples are about the same temperature I think we can call this consistent that it melts metals that melt at or below just over a thousand degrees). And it says melt - so the fireball must transfer enough heat to heat the gold, copper, and silver up past the thousand degree mark.

You know what else is just over a thousand degrees? The point where iron gets yellow-hot if we're using a colour spectrum or white hot if we're just talking about red hot vs white hot. Fireball puts enough heat into low melting point metals to melt them - why doesn't it turn swords and armour white hot? And in the process do interesting things to any sort of tempering or hardening.

What else is something that's about a thousand degrees? A low end but functional crematorium. A thousand degrees transferred into a body will do truly horrible things to it, killing it. This makes Indiana-Jones-surviving-a-nuke-in-a-fridge feel a paragon of realism.

So what's going on with fireball? Should it be melting the flesh off peoples' bones and leaving them as charred bodies? Is it some sort of concealed "Heat Metal" spell and if so why doesn't it affect iron? Do metals in D&D just have different properties to the real world and in which case why isn't this mentioned elsewhere? All this because some hack decided to add in a throwaway line they thought would be thematic without bothering to think of the wider implications and the editors didn't stop. 3.5 confuses better fluff and worldbuilding with more fluff and worldbuilding - and by doing so it manages to undermine anyone else wanting to rebuild unless they go through line by line rather than just change fundamental assumptions.

It basically uses cartoon and bad movie logic, like being able to hop on rocks in volcanoes safely across flowing magma pools.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Meanwhile I absolutely despise the 3.5E style and find it a blight on gaming. Partly because it utterly slows down the act at the table and partly because of how it destroys any physical realism involved in the setting and turns it into just fiat physics that is unconnected to the real world.

I think that we can agree that the 4e and the 3.5 fireball descriptions are roughly equivalent to up to the end of the first paragraph of 3.5 and the major difference in content is the two paragraphs beyond that. If we go by up to the end of the first paragraph and you want to change squares to feet I honestly don't care. But fireball is the textbook example of why I want to see this form of spell writing disappear.

The penultimate paragraph I find to be one toxic to communication, roleplaying, and worldbuilding because of the way it implies an alternate physics model that isn't really mentioned elsewhere. The paragraph I'm referring to is, of course:

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.​

For the record Gold and Copper melt at just over a thousand degrees (C) and silver melts at just under it (and bronze has a melting point that that depends on the alloy but is somewhere round there) - so when four out of the five examples are about the same temperature I think we can call this consistent that it melts metals that melt at or below just over a thousand degrees). And it says melt - so the fireball must transfer enough heat to heat the gold, copper, and silver up past the thousand degree mark.

You know what else is just over a thousand degrees? The point where iron gets yellow-hot if we're using a colour spectrum or white hot if we're just talking about red hot vs white hot. Fireball puts enough heat into low melting point metals to melt them - why doesn't it turn swords and armour white hot? And in the process do interesting things to any sort of tempering or hardening.

What else is something that's about a thousand degrees? A low end but functional crematorium. A thousand degrees transferred into a body will do truly horrible things to it, killing it. This makes Indiana-Jones-surviving-a-nuke-in-a-fridge feel a paragon of realism.

So what's going on with fireball? Should it be melting the flesh off peoples' bones and leaving them as charred bodies? Is it some sort of concealed "Heat Metal" spell and if so why doesn't it affect iron? Do metals in D&D just have different properties to the real world and in which case why isn't this mentioned elsewhere? All this because some hack decided to add in a throwaway line they thought would be thematic without bothering to think of the wider implications and the editors didn't stop. 3.5 confuses better fluff and worldbuilding with more fluff and worldbuilding - and by doing so it manages to undermine anyone else wanting to rebuild unless they go through line by line rather than just change fundamental assumptions.

For fireballs to nearly instantaneously melt gold/silver/copper, they are either a lot hotter than 1,000 degrees F. or normal rules of physics don't apply.

I ignore that part of the spell. It makes no sense.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It basically uses cartoon and bad movie logic, like being able to hop on rocks in volcanoes safely across flowing magma pools.

Which is pretty much D&D in a nutshell. The game of D&D * is * a cartoon-- or at the very least, story and myth.

Anyone who thinks D&D models physical reality in anything is fooling themselves.

 

[gorice]

A player once played a fighter who always described killing blows as decapitation. No special rules, just 0 HP = Highlander. The DM was cool with this because most of the time, killing an orc or goblin is just flavor text in the Mercer "how do you want to do this" sense. All went fine until the fighter, dominated by a mind flayer, critted and killed his friend the ranger. When it became time to raise the ranger after the fight, the DM noted that the fighter had decapitated the ranger as is his style and thus raise dead was of no use, they would need a resurrection spell. The ranger argued that there is no rule saying the fighter HAD to decapitate on every kill, and under the Normal rules he could be brought back with raise dead. That little bit of flavor cost another player his PC.

Again, if you do not have a problem with fiat rules made by the DM, simpler rules are fine. But I find a bit more robust (though not Pathfinder robust) rules kept everyone on the same page.

This is odd, because, to me, the possibility of something that seems like 'a little bit of flavour' becoming important is a central part of what makes RPGs interesting. Otherwise I'm just playing a board game while making sound effects. I sympathise with the ranger player, but this sort of thing can cut both ways (so to speak).

 

[gorice]

This fireball discussion is a good example of why the 4e approach is superior. A short, clear, evocative description lets everyone know what the thing does, and helps the DM with making rulings. No two tables are going to agree on the degree of movie logic vs. verisimilitude they want in the game, so it's best to be really clear about what the thing 'is' in the fiction, provide the most essential mechanical details, and then get out of the way.

 

[Incenjucar]

Fireball is also one of those spells that gets put on a pedestal because of its iconic nature and long history of being something you talk your DM into making more powerful by way of your engineering degree or chemistry nerd cred. While I am all for making things more like 4E, it's also a special case in how extreme it is.

 

[Lojaan]

As an Old School Gamer, OSR Gamer and 5E gamer, I can say........this is a can of worms.

You can only really have a decent rules lite game with a strong DM. If you have a young, inexperienced or otherwise weak DM, then a rule lite game will just be a ruin of a non game.

When a spell or any written rule, says something like "you can target any creature you can see" , there are players that will push against that. A couple players might just be clever, but most will be trying to ruin the game as part of a personal spotlight power trip. A smart, powerful, aggressive DM can easily swat away any silly player "wacky interpretation" with a simple "nope, does not work. The End."

And not every DM can, and not every DM is willing, to control a game with an Iron Fist. So this opens it wide for game disruptions and ruined games by the pushing players. 5E, like many editions before it, has lots of hard rules for things like spell descriptions. This is a great help for DMs that need it, as they can duck behind the rule book and point to a page to defend the game from pushing player attacks.

And this does not even mention how many players...and some DMs...like the hard rules for spell descriptions so "everyone" knows exactly how the spell works as "everyone" follows the rules.

This. 100% this. DnD is moving more towards "lawyer speak" for both spells, feats and abilities to combat the rise of the cheesemakers.

You know the ones. The ones that say you can get the benefits of both dueling and 2WF at the same time by attacking with your offhand first, then sheathing that weapon and then attacking with your main hand.

Because it's technically allowed in the rules, this stuff really messes up organised play.

I dislike it a lot but I don't know what to do about it other than having two descriptions - one fun and flavoured, and one, preferably online so it doesn't affect word count, that is the full legal text with disclaimers.

 

[Yaarel]

two descriptions - one fun and flavoured, and one, preferably online so it doesn't affect word count, that is the full legal text with disclaimers.

Interesting idea. I reminds me of a condensed dictionary versus an unabridged dictionary.

The simple (DM-decides) core books are the printed version.

The unabridged technical detailing − updatable with official rulings − including corner cases − is online.

It would be like the Errata publishing now, but formatted as a complete core text.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As an Old School Gamer, OSR Gamer and 5E gamer, I can say........this is a can of worms.

You can only really have a decent rules lite game with a strong DM. If you have a young, inexperienced or otherwise weak DM, then a rule lite game will just be a ruin of a non game.

As an Indie gamer and D&D gamer, nonsense. You do not need that strong a GM to run Fate, Apocalypse World, or Blades in the Dark. What you need is an empowered GM with strong guidance to fall back on. This is because modern Indie games don't just say "here are the stats and it's up to you" but provide actual useful guidance. For that matter so did actual oD&D with things like XP for GP and rules for designing random dungeons.

And not every DM can, and not every DM is willing, to control a game with an Iron Fist.

It's a good thing that in good games they don't have to use an iron fist to make up for the game being not fit for purpose on its own. However that takes actual design and development (which, oddly enough, Gygax did) and leaning into thematics to make the game be about something. Rather than attempting to be a generic one-size-fits-all system.

 

[bloodtide]

As an Indie gamer and D&D gamer, nonsense. You do not need that strong a GM to run Fate, Apocalypse World, or Blades in the Dark. What you need is an empowered GM with strong guidance to fall back on. This is because modern Indie games don't just say "here are the stats and it's up to you" but provide actual useful guidance. For that matter so did actual oD&D with things like XP for GP and rules for designing random dungeons.

Well, I'm not naming "games". There really only two ways to control problem players: specific rules or a DMs iron fist.