Presentaion of Spells: To Prose or Not To Prose?

[Kinak]

I actually really liked the playtest's spell descriptions (which is to say, actual descriptions rather than stat blocks). I often catch myself looking at d20 spells and wondering what, for example, the save or range is because it's not mentioned in the part of the text I'm actually interested in.

Class abilities and feats often use the same explanatory language I'd get after breaking a stat block down into what its fields mean in play. I personally hope we can get to that point with the spells as well.

Granted, I'm sure some people glance at stat blocks and actually get something out of them, but actually writing the explanation out lets me skip a step I find rather jarring.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The AD&D 1e method

It is a start. It can be modernized considerably of course. AoE now have standardized notation, and we don't need a rule for how to do a CdG, or what unconscious means, nor which creatures aren't effected, etc. What you end up with is actually pretty spartan, though I'm not going to provide an example. Oddly enough it ends up looking quite a lot like a 4e power block notionally, though the detailed formatting is certainly up for debate.

 

[IronWolf]

The spells need some form of a stat block at the top. During a game I am likely to be looking up something like range, area, etc. I want that information quickly. I don't want to have to find that information in a paragraph of information. I want it consistently located in easy to read location.

Now I have no issue with the more verbose prose being included. It is enjoyable to read when I am prepping possibly or not in an at the game table situation.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm starting to lean towards stat block + prose, with deliberate redundant information in each. (Where the stat block indicates, the prose may still provide rules information that supplements what will not fit in the block, but would always at least write out most of what the block says already.)

Among other reasons, this will allow them to finally stop splitting the difference on game terms versus in-game terms. Let the block talk about "squares" or (game) "inches" or whatever, with specific keywords with set meanings, etc. Then let the prose part use the in-game terms, whether "feet" or "paces" or being on fire.

Inevitably, there will be discrepancies, where the block is changed from 6 to 5 squares and the prose part still says 30 feet instead of 25. But it would be rather simple to say that by default the block wins on mechanics questions until updated. Then people that want to run on the prose part can do so, ignoring the stat block until such time as they have a rules intention question they want answered enough to bother reading the block. Likewise, people who like running on the block but want to browse the spells to see what they do away from the table can read prose if they want.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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...

And I would have no idea about any of those spells. When I played AD&D weekly I could probably tell you for the common 1-3rd level spells generally what the areas, ranges, and effects were, but not exactly. I wouldn't know exactly how far a fireball can be shot for instance, but I'd know it was far enough to go splat on the far wall 40' away and it has a 20' radius and does d6/level damage, but that's it. Wall of text is hell for me.

It is the same with 4e powers, I can tell you mostly what they do and for the ones I use or get used constantly I know them well enough to know out of my head generally what they'll do well enough not to need to look at the card, but if you ask me exactly what the range of 'Icy Terrain' is? Nah, I'm looking that up somewhere, and if it isn't on a card then it is going to have to be a book lookup, and if it were in a 'Wall of Text' format that would mean frequent repetitive slogging through that wall of text, probably once every week or two.

AD&D at least had some key info in the headers, which did help a lot, but you still quite often had to look things up, and honestly most of that info wasn't really all that big a deal. It could have been in a header. They could have had 2-3 standardized ranges, and areas of effect without really materially affecting the fun of using the spells. I mean is 'burst 3' (I'd assume it would be 'Circle 3"' in 5e) really worse than the long-winded "all creatures within 3" of the target point"? Is it really necessary for there to be dozens of different range expressions like in AD&D when they all boil down to "pretty close, not too far away, and a long ways away" and just given as say 5", 10", and 20" much like 4e did? Did it really ADD to the game that one spell was '3" +1/2" per level' vs '1"+1"/level'??? They are both "fairly short range" spells. Same with durations. All of these little simplifications just add a lot to playability and having a few added headings for 'target', 'hit', 'miss', 'effect', etc as appropriate really doesn't hurt. I don't need to read through a miss effect or a hit effect or whatever unless it actually comes up. My eyes can skip that and go right to the section that I need.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Yeah, I can never remember the details of spells. I can remember the intent of a spell, but I always have to look it up/check the powercard for the exact implementation.

That kinda stuff just doesn't stick to my brain. :/

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm starting to lean towards stat block + prose, with deliberate redundant information in each. (Where the stat block indicates, the prose may still provide rules information that supplements what will not fit in the block, but would always at least write out most of what the block says already.)

Among other reasons, this will allow them to finally stop splitting the difference on game terms versus in-game terms. Let the block talk about "squares" or (game) "inches" or whatever, with specific keywords with set meanings, etc. Then let the prose part use the in-game terms, whether "feet" or "paces" or being on fire.

Inevitably, there will be discrepancies, where the block is changed from 6 to 5 squares and the prose part still says 30 feet instead of 25. But it would be rather simple to say that by default the block wins on mechanics questions until updated. Then people that want to run on the prose part can do so, ignoring the stat block until such time as they have a rules intention question they want answered enough to bother reading the block. Likewise, people who like running on the block but want to browse the spells to see what they do away from the table can read prose if they want.

I think prose blocks should be the place where you describe the 'fluff' and explain things that aren't easily captured in a 'stat block' type structured format. 4e didn't allow for anything BUT structured text really, which meant more complicated effects were either just not attempted or they required a rather overly complicated and stilted presentation. 4e's approach worked IMHO well for simple spells, but more complicated stuff either had to refer to rules defined elsewhere, making each spell of a category fairly rigidly defined (IE all Summons pretty much have to work in the same basic way), or got very hard to interpret. As they've gone on with 4e they've tended more and more towards a more conversational approach to effects, but I'd be perfectly happy with a conversational approach to that. Basically once a spell gets past a certain degree of complexity hammering it into a strict format is no longer really beneficial. OTOH putting something as simple as Sleep or Magic Missile into prose is probably overkill (at least for the mechanics, go crazy with fluff, though honestly for those simple spells 4e had about as much fluff as 1e ever did and often quite a bit more).

 

[Viking Bastard]

I'm starting to lean towards stat block + prose, with deliberate redundant information in each. (Where the stat block indicates, the prose may still provide rules information that supplements what will not fit in the block, but would always at least write out most of what the block says already.)

Or just give us a massive table in one the appendices containing condensed versions of all the spells.

Or as a download.

 

[Arlough]

Or just give us a massive table in one the appendices containing condensed versions of all the spells.

Or as a download.

I would prefer the spells be an appendix, unless they are all class specific. If they are class specific, go ahead and put them in that classes section of the book.
For digital, OTOH, give the spells various tags and have a good engine for looking them up.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I would prefer the spells be an appendix, unless they are all class specific. If they are class specific, go ahead and put them in that classes section of the book.
For digital, OTOH, give the spells various tags and have a good engine for looking them up.

I don't care where they stick the spells; with the classes, in their own chapter or in an appendix. I was only thinking that if they're going full on with the prosaic spells, that I'd like to get a big table of condensed versions of all the spells, either in the PHB or in a printable PDF. The prose description would still be the canon and could be looked up if any doubts arise.