D&D 5E Please Put Spell Blocks in all Modules

[Tzarevitch]

Yeah, I get that this thread has turned into tl;dr.
I addressed it in the first block and the last block of my reply to you here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-all-Modules&p=6376666&viewfull=1#post6376666
and again in the second to last paragraph of my reply to you here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-all-Modules&p=6378818&viewfull=1#post6378818

I get that they were long comments, but you had a lot of good opinions to discuss.

The short version is that using HotDQ as an example, if every spell was expanded to two line descriptions, it would take up almost two pages. WotC would either have to cut 2% of the content to make room for that or increase the page count by 32, an increase of 33%.

My point is you are assuming that. I doubt they would ever reduce existing content needed to run a module so we can leave that argument out. The worst they'll do is continue as-is.

1. We don't know WotC is under any particular page count limit. They have told us repeatedly how much the expanded the PHB and the MM because they felt like it needed to be done. I could be wrong but that suggests to me that they don't have a particular limit beyond not going overboard and making a good product.

2. If they had a page count limit, the space needed to add the spell lines can be significantly mitigated by better use of existing page space. Their choice of formatting in the book left a lot of open space that could've been better used. Look at Hoard of the Dragon Queen for example. Take page 92 and you can see how much available space they wasted because of their choice of spacing. There is almost an inch available on the bottom of the first column and well over an inch at the bottom of the second. The exact same thing occurs on the bottom of the next page, and the page after that. Compare that to how far the text goes down on page 84 of HotDQ and you can see how much space is wasted. Another example is on page 94. In addition to the inch of unused space on the bottom, 1/4 of the page space used is taken up by a picture of a stick for heaven's sake. Compare this to the PHB and how generally dense the text is there and you can see how much space HotDQ wasted by the editor's choice of formatting.

I also don't agree it will take 32 pages to add a line or 2 of spell code. Then entire catalogue of spells in the PHB is 78 pages with full text and big spacing gaps. How does 1-3 lines of dense code describing the small subset of spells in the module take almost half as much as the full text of the entire universe of spells in the PHB? Admittedly I could go through HotDQ and plot out exactly how much space it takes but I admit, I'm not that interested.

My point is, I agree it would take extra space to write the spell lines. I draft and edit documents for a living so I am very familiar with how formatting affects page counts. I suspect it would take more like 10 pages at absolute most, assuming reasonable spacing and non silly-big fonts, but even our best estimates are entirely subject to how WotC arranges the spacing in the book. As I showed above, WotC wasted a LOT of space in HotGQ that could be used for additional text such as the spell line codes without reducing any of the additional content if they felt like it. Also as I stated above, WotC has not given any indication that they are on a hard page count with their books (and even that is very adjustable as I showed above.) Therefore it stands to reason that the only thing stopping them from doing it is being convinced that it can be done and is actually useful. That's where forum threads like this come in.

 

[Tormyr]

My point is you are assuming that. I doubt they would ever reduce existing content needed to run a module so we can leave that argument out. The worst they'll do is continue as-is.

1. We don't know WotC is under any particular page count limit. They have told us repeatedly how much the expanded the PHB and the MM because they felt like it needed to be done. I could be wrong but that suggests to me that they don't have a particular limit beyond not going overboard and making a good product.

2. If they had a page count limit, the space needed to add the spell lines can be significantly mitigated by better use of existing page space. Their choice of formatting in the book left a lot of open space that could've been better used. Look at Hoard of the Dragon Queen for example. Take page 92 and you can see how much available space they wasted because of their choice of spacing. There is almost an inch available on the bottom of the first column and well over an inch at the bottom of the second. The exact same thing occurs on the bottom of the next page, and the page after that. Compare that to how far the text goes down on page 84 of HotDQ and you can see how much space is wasted. Another example is on page 94. In addition to the inch of unused space on the bottom, 1/4 of the page space used is taken up by a picture of a stick for heaven's sake. Compare this to the PHB and how generally dense the text is there and you can see how much space HotDQ wasted by the editor's choice of formatting.

I also don't agree it will take 32 pages to add a line or 2 of spell code. Then entire catalogue of spells in the PHB is 78 pages with full text and big spacing gaps. How does 1-3 lines of dense code describing the small subset of spells in the module take almost half as much as the full text of the entire universe of spells in the PHB? Admittedly I could go through HotDQ and plot out exactly how much space it takes but I admit, I'm not that interested.

My point is, I agree it would take extra space to write the spell lines. I draft and edit documents for a living so I am very familiar with how formatting affects page counts. I suspect it would take more like 10 pages at absolute most, assuming reasonable spacing and non silly-big fonts, but even our best estimates are entirely subject to how WotC arranges the spacing in the book. As I showed above, WotC wasted a LOT of space in HotGQ that could be used for additional text such as the spell line codes without reducing any of the additional content if they felt like it. Also as I stated above, WotC has not given any indication that they are on a hard page count with their books (and even that is very adjustable as I showed above.) Therefore it stands to reason that the only thing stopping them from doing it is being convinced that it can be done and is actually useful. That's where forum threads like this come in.

The PHB and DMG are 320 pages. The MM was 320 pages until it was increased by 32 pages to 352 pages. HotDQ and RoT are 96 pages each. Either their binding process uses a common 32 page signature which is then folded and cut into a block of pages, or someone at WotC has a fetish with the number 32.

EDIT: So now that I have more time to post, if the additional content adds 1 page, then it adds 32. One would normally try to avoid that, so you either cut content, drop pictures, etc. The column widths and font size generally don't change because of keeping a consistent look and feel across publications. I feel like there is more to address, but I need to look at my copy of HotDQ to take a better look at what you are looking at.

EDIT EDIT: Okay, so I am assuming the wasted space on page 92 you are referring to is the picture of Rath Modar. Each unique creature or NPC gets a picture in the book. If Rath Modar's picture was not there, it would have to be elsewhere in the book. Most of those pictures were used within the chapters to fill up empty space. If you look at the end of the chapters, there is very little wasted space. For those unique creatures that did not fit in the chapters, they went in Appendix B. If the picture of Rath Modar was cut from Appendix B, he would be the only NPC with no picture. There is very little extra space in Appendix B. While there is more space in Appendix C, it is not reclaimable because each chapter and appendix starts at the top of its page. You would have to eliminate an entire page somewhere in the book to free up the page for Appendix B. The extra spell information would go in Appendix B with the stat blocks of the spellcasters.

I think you misunderstood my argument that adding in the spell descriptions would take 32 pages. I think that at 2 lines per spell (which I do not think is enough) it would take almost 2 pages. Because all evidence points to them using a 32 page printing and binding process, they are locked into multiples of 32 pages for their hardcovers. To make their 2 (or 10) pages of spell descriptions fit, they either need to cut that many pages of content or increase the page count by 32 because they cannot increase the page count by less than that.

Now, I think that I am right on that, and as of your last post, you did not. This thread has been full of those who want spell description in stat blocks, those that do not, why it will never happen and why it should. Regardless, I figure things will continue as is. That means that it is up to each DM to fill the gap how they see fit. I figure that most DMs that want to do something about it will either copy and paste from the Basic PHB and supplements, purchase the spell cards from Gale Force 9 (which are really geared toward the player) or come up with their own solution. I would propose that anyone looking for a solution take a look at my spell card generator that I posted. You have to enter any spells that you want printed out 1 time, but after that, you can print them as much as you want. You can either print up a couple sheets for a specific NPC or print out all of the spells as spell cards and mix and match them as needed. It is not a perfect solution by any means, but I think that it can be a help to a lot of DMs who, like me, want the information at their fingertips without having to search for each individual spell in the PHB or memorizing the spells.

 

[ren1999]

Putting a spell stat block in the notes for the monster and determining what the monster will do with that spell is something that I must do before the players gather for a D&D session. This takes up too much of my time. I understand that if WOTC allows the listing of monster stats and spells in their modules that they think there will be fewer sales of its core rulebooks. I think Dungeon Masters and players will buy the core rulebooks anyway. If Steve Winter spends a lot of time answering specific rules questions on spells, shouldn't he put those answers in updated versions of Hoard of the Dragon Queen? Where? He should put those answers next to where the monster's spells are listed.