Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tormyr" data-source="post: 6376678" data-attributes="member: 6776887">Sorry, it was not a reading comprehension issue.  I just missed the line where you said it might be int instead of dex.  I comprehended it just fine when I checked it now. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I do not believe I was being defensive.  I did specifically state that I was not attacking you but demonstrating how difficult it was to include everything for a spell in a couple of lines. I do value your opinion and the opinion of others who come down on both sides of an issue,.  See the end of <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?358974-Difference-between-critical-hits-and-automatic-hits/page3&p=6373279&viewfull=1#post6373279" target="_blank">this post</a> for evidence of that.  Setting up a straw man is not going to help.I am aware that there have been plenty of calls for more information in spellcasters stat blocks.  Spells in a spellcaster's stat block have been lists of names for a long time (maybe not exclusively, but my limited experience of past editions has been that way), and I do not expect it to change.  I do not enjoy looking up spells myself.  I would venture that almost no DMs enjoy that.  While some DMs have almost all of it memorized and others look it up, I copy and paste or type up the spells that a creature uses so that I have a copy of everything available for the creature.  It takes a few minutes, but I am prepared at the table.</blockquote>

Verification