Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 6327252" data-attributes="member: 70709">Yeah, the tools work best with certain patterns of usage.&nbsp; It sounds like you want to print or look at a bunch of contiguous pages and be done.&nbsp; If every individual spell could be cast by only one class (or if spells were printed in multiple places in the rulesbook, but that's a complete non-starter for anything bound in a book) this would be perfect.&nbsp; Unfortunately, many spells are cast by multiple classes, will be added to a list they don't normally belong to (perhaps domains), or may be apportioned differently for future classes or subclasses.&nbsp; The more deviations from the &quot;ideal&quot;, the more time you spend looking up or compiling spells from completely different lists, and having to remember which completely different list it is on.For a game with the PHB and 4 splats all those little changes probably add up to a giant mess.&nbsp; For Basic, which has essentially no way to create such deviations and is a totally self-contained PDF, I hear you, doing it using your preference is about as smooth as possible.I generally make a spell sheet with a bunch of summaries, so that most of the time looking up the full rules isn't necessary.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even when it is, having one giant alphabetized list of spells is pretty efficient to do with binary search (doubling the page count generally means flipping only 1 more page).&nbsp; I think it's the path of least resistance once the game grows large enough.&nbsp; That said, making a spell sheet of summaries is certainly more time consuming than looking at 5 contiguous pages, so it's not like I can blame someone for thinking making a sufficiently detailed spellsheet is needless busywork, particularly for something as self-contained as Basic.If 5e avoids giving casters the same spell at different levels I might have preferred spells sorted by level first, however, even as the game grows.&nbsp; If you know the spell level and name you can find things pretty much as fast as a single alphabetized list.&nbsp; However, when you need to compare a bunch of spells of the same level it is much nicer.&nbsp; In 3.5, at least, I spent a lot of time doing that very thing when trying to choose new sorcerer spells, etc.&nbsp; Since 5e pretty much decouples slot level from a spell's base level that might not come up as much as it did in past editions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 6327252, member: 70709"] Yeah, the tools work best with certain patterns of usage. It sounds like you want to print or look at a bunch of contiguous pages and be done. If every individual spell could be cast by only one class (or if spells were printed in multiple places in the rulesbook, but that's a complete non-starter for anything bound in a book) this would be perfect. Unfortunately, many spells are cast by multiple classes, will be added to a list they don't normally belong to (perhaps domains), or may be apportioned differently for future classes or subclasses. The more deviations from the "ideal", the more time you spend looking up or compiling spells from completely different lists, and having to remember which completely different list it is on. For a game with the PHB and 4 splats all those little changes probably add up to a giant mess. For Basic, which has essentially no way to create such deviations and is a totally self-contained PDF, I hear you, doing it using your preference is about as smooth as possible. I generally make a spell sheet with a bunch of summaries, so that most of the time looking up the full rules isn't necessary. Even when it is, having one giant alphabetized list of spells is pretty efficient to do with binary search (doubling the page count generally means flipping only 1 more page). I think it's the path of least resistance once the game grows large enough. That said, making a spell sheet of summaries is certainly more time consuming than looking at 5 contiguous pages, so it's not like I can blame someone for thinking making a sufficiently detailed spellsheet is needless busywork, particularly for something as self-contained as Basic. If 5e avoids giving casters the same spell at different levels I might have preferred spells sorted by level first, however, even as the game grows. If you know the spell level and name you can find things pretty much as fast as a single alphabetized list. However, when you need to compare a bunch of spells of the same level it is much nicer. In 3.5, at least, I spent a lot of time doing that very thing when trying to choose new sorcerer spells, etc. Since 5e pretty much decouples slot level from a spell's base level that might not come up as much as it did in past editions. [/QUOTE]

Verification