D&D 5E So why's the spell's saving throw and target in the text block?

[machineelf]

This is a great question. I wonder if WOTC designers and developers are saying 'doh!' after reading this. When I printed up the playtest material I highlighted the saving throws in spells so I could find them easier. I'll probably do the same in the PHB if the format hasn't changed.

 

[Obryn]

Yeah, needless to say, I find the decision kind of baffling. This is information that you'll pretty much need to know every casting, so it'd make sense to call it out.

Seems to me, it's even more important than range and VSM components, since this will come up every single casting, whereas range gets iffy in TotM (and often doesn't matter) and components only come up if you know you're incapacitated in some capacity.

It's weird to see people think it's the right move.

 

[jadrax]

I actually think that having the type of save in the text, rather than having a reference to a save that you then have to reference three lines up, actually works out much faster in play.

 

[Psikerlord#]

a "target"line isnt necessary most of the time. by putting it in you can get major artificial errors like no spells in 4e phb working on objects. instead, you broadly describe what the spell does in the description, and leave immunities and corner cases to monster stats or DM discretion. I much prefer this method.

 

[pemerton]

a "target"line isnt necessary most of the time. by putting it in you can get major artificial errors like no spells in 4e phb working on objects.

The B/X fireball description says that the spell causes damage to creatures. It doesn't mention objects either. So this has nothing to do with the formatting. Rather, 4e and B/X are both written on the assumption that the players (with the GM taking the lead) can work out whether or not something that burns creatures might also burn objects.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The B/X fireball description says that the spell causes damage to creatures. It doesn't mention objects either. So this has nothing to do with the formatting. Rather, 4e and B/X are both written on the assumption that the players (with the GM taking the lead) can work out whether or not something that burns creatures might also burn objects.

Precisely. If that's an "artificial error", the artifice is on the part of the DM or player claiming it doesn't damage objects.

As for those saying this works out faster, well, it does and it doesn't. If you're reading through the spell for the very first time, then it's faster. If, on the other hand, you know how the spell works, but just need to double-check the save type for 5E, because now it could be any of six, rather than one (IIRC 2E, spells used spell unless otherwise stated) or three (3E/4E), then having to read through the spell description is of course slower.

The logic is extremely mysterious, frankly, behind the fact that 5E is increasing the doubling the number of different saves from 3E/4E (and increasing the amount they can diverge from each by class/stats other to the highest value in any edition, I believe), yet, not, apparently, providing any quick-reference for them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Precisely. If that's an "artificial error", the artifice is on the part of the DM or player claiming it doesn't damage objects.

As for those saying this works out faster, well, it does and it doesn't. If you're reading through the spell for the very first time, then it's faster. If, on the other hand, you know how the spell works, but just need to double-check the save type for 5E, because now it could be any of six, rather than one (IIRC 2E, spells used spell unless otherwise stated) or three (3E/4E), then having to read through the spell description is of course slower.

The logic is extremely mysterious, frankly, behind the fact that 5E is increasing the doubling the number of different saves from 3E/4E (and increasing the amount they can diverge from each by class/stats other to the highest value in any edition, I believe), yet, not, apparently, providing any quick-reference for them.

I would like saving throw and target part bolded... would be enough... maybe I use a text marker...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I would like saving throw and target part bolded... would be enough... maybe I use a text marker...

Realistically, probably me or someone else will just slap all the spells with potential saving throws on a sheet with the name of the spell, the save, and maybe the frequency of that save, so that we can print that out and look through quickly.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The B/X fireball description says that the spell causes damage to creatures. It doesn't mention objects either. So this has nothing to do with the formatting. Rather, 4e and B/X are both written on the assumption that the players (with the GM taking the lead) can work out whether or not something that burns creatures might also burn objects.

Excdept that, one spell said it could target objects (I forget which one now), but no others, and the targeting rules themselves distinguished between creatures and objects.... so alas, the rules specifically said you could not target objects unless it said so. It was a problem in the very clinical way 4e was presented, and was eventually fixed in later printings. The devs themselves felt it warranted a fix, and they were right. Fortunately we dont have to worry about such things in 5e.

 

[Morrus]

For me, style affects the way I think about a rule. So a proscribed, identikit "block", while easy to understand, makes me think about magic in a regimented, technical, numerical way, rather than an eclectic, arcane, poetic way. I don't like spellbooks to look like spreadsheets, no matter how easy it makes things.