Presentaion of Spells: To Prose or Not To Prose?

[Sunseeker]

I like the idea of a wand to avoid melee casting penalties. Puts a whole new slant on implements.

I like implements in general. I don't think anything, save a really REALLY good feat or ability should let you totally avoid penalties for attempting to sing, dance and wiggle your fingers in melee. To me, the spell-slot adjustments for avoiding vocal and material components were a fair adjustment to enable this, but still, wiggling your fingers means you're not in a good position to defend yourself, hence cheap shots.

On the whole, I feel that implements made casting more on par with melee, in that in order to be good at it, you needed to channel the magic through a device(I've generally always preferred this style).

 

[Arlough]

I was watching some show the other day with a wizard the shot fire out of his hands (The Terry Goodkind Sword of Truth series, I think) and an amusing thought came to me. Wands and staffs are there so:

• the wizard doesn't damage his hand with the fire/lightning/cold/etc.
• the wizard has a finer tipped point for delicate spellweaving.

So a staff would be better for the really big boom stuff, as he can hold it further away and it is thicker and sturdier so it can hold up against the elemental beating. And the wand would be better for delicate stuff that needs more finesse than a blunt staff can provide, but would be bad for the boom stuff as it would split/catch fire/splinter/etc under the stress.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Klaus]

Bumping this now that we've seen the playtest's Prose format (option B).

 

[Sunseeker]

I always prefer the "C" option. Needing to memorize what a spell does because there's no quick reference is just annoying. Or having to re-read the spell every time you use it to make sure you're using it properly and then translate the mechanics out of it? Also very annoying.

DDN's current spell format is WAY too prosey for me. I don't mind the prose, but I'd like a nice, clean, simple breakdown of the relevant information, before, after, I don't care, just somewhere outside of the prose.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Bumping this now that we've seen the playtest's Prose format (option B).

Sorry, are we looking at different sets of options? I agree that what is in the book is pure "wall of text", but that wasn't one of the options in the survey. Sure wasn't option B!

Frankly I hate it. OTOH I'm not really sure if it indicates the direction they've decided to go, just an easy quick way to get spells out there which are getting constant major revisions, or an experiment.

I found it hard to understand, hard to reference in play, impossible to summarize for something like a 'power card', and error prone (many spells seem to be missing information that you would expect). It gets really ugly when for instance your wizard is suddenly in the radius of Silence, there's no easy way to find out which spells he can still cast without penalty, except to literally read your whole spell book.

 

[dagger]

The AD&D 1e method

 

[Viking Bastard]

I'm loving the flavour when reading the spells (very well written; verbose, but clear), but I'm kinda hating it in play. I really like being able to understand a power at a glance in 4e.

The players (who all only tried 4e) I gathered for the playtest are split: Two really like the new format, but don't know whether they prefer it; one hates it, seemingly with a passion ("What does this mean?! Get to the point!").

 

[Arlough]

The AD&D 1e method.

Am I reading correctly that Sleep effected a circle (3+level) inches in diameter?!

That is a special area of effect.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sorry, are we looking at different sets of options? I agree that what is in the book is pure "wall of text", but that wasn't one of the options in the survey. Sure wasn't option B!

Frankly I hate it. OTOH I'm not really sure if it indicates the direction they've decided to go, just an easy quick way to get spells out there which are getting constant major revisions, or an experiment.

I found it hard to understand, hard to reference in play, impossible to summarize for something like a 'power card', and error prone (many spells seem to be missing information that you would expect). It gets really ugly when for instance your wizard is suddenly in the radius of Silence, there's no easy way to find out which spells he can still cast without penalty, except to literally read your whole spell book.

We had an ADnD spell sheet (designed by ourself) where just noted the spell and which components it needed. And how many material components left for each. Worked for several years. Also, because spells had a set effect (no powers that all slightly differ) you didn´t have to reference them a lot, as you just knew them out of your head. I still know how my favourite second edition spells work and I didn´t play it for 12 years or so...

Stoneskin? diamond dust. 100gp per application roll a d4 and add half your level to it...
Burning hands. Semicircle. Spread your hands. (Actually no really semicircle, as you could spread your hands slightly less...) Oh, and if you turn your hands 90° it is more or less a line... no material components needed...
Mirror image: d3+1 image per 3 levels?

I would not be worried too much over not enough mechanics. I agree, that some parts could be highlighted. Maybe some things spelled out at the top like in 1st through 3rd edition, but please, even as it looked good on paper, never never return to 4e descripition and spells for every and each class...

 

[dagger]

Am I reading correctly that Sleep effected a circle (3+level) inches in diameter?!

That is a special area of effect.

Inches always equal 10 feet/inch for Spell Area effects (in 1e)