Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rod Staffwand" data-source="post: 6327336" data-attributes="member: 6776279">I am by no means young enough to be of the Harry Potter generation, but if 5e's new options means my foppish wizard doesn't have to carry around bat guano, count me in.I am of two minds about spell chapter organization. Lumping the spells together alphabetically is a big help with a quick look up: spell chapter --&gt; spell. Otherwise you have to go: spell chapter --&gt; spell casting class --&gt; spell level --&gt; spell, which is a bit more cumbersome. On the other hand, when you just want to select a new spell after a level up or want to compare spells of the same level, grouping spells by class and level is a huge benefit. I guess they prioritized quick lookup as it's more useful in play when time is more valuable.I think short rests should be addressed in errata to make the meaning more explicit. If they intend a &quot;choose your own way to play&quot; they should explicitly list the options. For the most part the basic set has some of the clearest written rules I've read in a long time, making things like short rests stand out even more. In a well-written ruleset there should never be arguments over what a rule means, or how to implement it, only whether it achieves its intended purpose or not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rod Staffwand, post: 6327336, member: 6776279"] I am by no means young enough to be of the Harry Potter generation, but if 5e's new options means my foppish wizard doesn't have to carry around bat guano, count me in. I am of two minds about spell chapter organization. Lumping the spells together alphabetically is a big help with a quick look up: spell chapter --> spell. Otherwise you have to go: spell chapter --> spell casting class --> spell level --> spell, which is a bit more cumbersome. On the other hand, when you just want to select a new spell after a level up or want to compare spells of the same level, grouping spells by class and level is a huge benefit. I guess they prioritized quick lookup as it's more useful in play when time is more valuable. I think short rests should be addressed in errata to make the meaning more explicit. If they intend a "choose your own way to play" they should explicitly list the options. For the most part the basic set has some of the clearest written rules I've read in a long time, making things like short rests stand out even more. In a well-written ruleset there should never be arguments over what a rule means, or how to implement it, only whether it achieves its intended purpose or not. [/QUOTE]

Verification