D&D 5E Spell Entries - What I would have done differently

[Michael Morris]

While it would make playing a spellcaster a little more complicated, the tradeoff in saved page count and cleaner spell entries is worth it. The change - don't repeat redundancy. That is..

Casting Time - if it's one action, don't list it. Players should assume a spell without a casting time given can be cast in one round.

Range: Should have been divided up into Personal, Touch, Close, Medium and Long (with rare exceptions). Exactly how much distance that means would split by the complexity the players want as follows - at a basic level Close - 30', Medium - 60', Long - 120'.

Optional rule - Spells can be cast at double normal range, but defenders have advantage on saving throws and attackers have disadvantage - further if someone has advantage on a saving throw against your spell and it normally deals half damage on a failed save, it deals no damage instead.

Optional rule - Spell base range is as above +10' / level of the spell when close, +20' / level when medium and +30' / level when long. A 9th level spell has a "close" range of 120', medium 240', and long 300'

Components - Instead of repeatedly listing V, S, assume all spells have those components unless they explicitly say otherwise in their descriptions (this is very rare). Likewise, material components should be in the spell description. This line can go away.

Duration - if it's instantaneous, don't list it. Again, players should assume a spell without a duration is instantaneous.

I also think it's a mistake to eliminate the explicity Area/Effect/Target line and Saving Throw line.

 

[Nikosandros]

I agree about omitting casting time, unless it's non-standard. I also agree about adding an AoE and save entry. I would also list the level at which specific classes access it (i.e. Cleric 1, Bard 2, etc.).

I would also list the school of the spell in the general listing or at least do it for arcane spells.

 

[jgsugden]

KISS. Keep It Simple, Son. 'Wasting' space to make it clearer for new players is fine. A lot of us won't need it, but some of us will enjoy a side benefit - the extra space on the page allows more room for notes. Some people would never put notes in a PHB, but others enjoy being able to make notes. My AD&D PHB is riddled with little notes documenting famous/infamous uses of spells, etc...

 

[Tony Vargas]

For me, the big thing I'd want to see changed in spell entries is how they're organized. Alphabetical by spell name if fine for looking up a specific spell when you know nothing about it but it's name.

But, when it comes to familiarizing yourself with what your character can /do/, having them arranged by class & level as they were in AD&D, is far more convenient and helpful. Even if it does mean re-printing a non-unique spell here or there (or referencing were to find it, if space is at that much of a premium).

Casting Time - if it's one action, don't list it. Players should assume a spell without a casting time given can be cast in one round.

Components - Instead of repeatedly listing V, S, assume all spells have those components unless they explicitly say otherwise in their descriptions (this is very rare). Likewise, material components should be in the spell description. This line can go away.

Duration - if it's instantaneous, don't list it. Again, players should assume a spell without a duration is instantaneous.

Can't really agree. The more you 'assume' a default like this, the less intuitive the game becomes. Having the info there for the odd new or new-to-casting player who just needs to look up what one spell on his pre-gen character does is worth the extra line.

I also think it's a mistake to eliminate the explicity Area/Effect/Target line and Saving Throw line.

Agreed. They're critical things in resolving the use of the spell, they should be easy to find and clear.

Range: Should have been divided up into Personal, Touch, Close, Medium and Long (with rare exceptions). Exactly how much distance that means would split by the complexity the players want as follows - at a basic level Close - 30', Medium - 60', Long - 120'.

Oh, such a good idea. Really, all of 5e should have been aligned around non-specific, named range/area ideas like this, to facilitate it's default 'TotM' mode of play. No need to worry about whether the 'nearby' goblin is 25 vs 33 feet away, or whether the group of them are each within 15' of eachother. Also an ideal way to support modularity. Use the terms in TotM, save explicit measurements in feet or whatever scale is desired to the 'tactical module,' vary units or relative ranges to suit the campaign.

 

[Xodis]

The ideas are nice and some "tightening" up would make things better, however I think any assumptions made are bad assumptions. Simplicity and clarity are both equally important. True many of us can assume 1 action or instantaneous for a spell, but clear cut (even if redundant and less useful as you become more familiar with a system) instructions are the way to go. Appeals to the hardcore "rules lawyer" crowd, and the brand new player who makes no assumptions at all.

That said, I think we may find a lot of these alternatives in the DMG, I mean how else are they going to fill that book hehe.

 

[Nikosandros]

Well, if it's an explicit rule at the start of the spell section, then it's not an assumption, right?

But then again, clarity trumps brevity for me. So I can easily live with the 'redundancy' of the casting time, but I really wish they had included the save and AoE in the stat block.

 

[Obryn]

I've said before that more info needs to be in the spell header. Save and AoE are big ones.

 

[Vael]

Right now, I'm liking how self-contained spells are written. Making spellcasters cross-reference what range means or such is not a great idea. Plus, while information is repeated, that also makes entries look uniform, which is also a good thing.

I do agree that spell saves and AoE should be headers rather than just in the spell text.

 

[Joe Liker]

I disagree on pretty much every point.

Dropping the V,S is not going to save any space, and the line is still needed for a lot of spells because they have M components. I like that specific material components are listed here now as opposed to in the spell description.

In general, it would make the book look sloppy and haphazard to drop selected lines (such as casting time and duration) for individual spells. Uniformity and clarity are more important than saving maybe a page or two overall in this section.

Range does not need to be more complicated. It especially should not be more complicated than weapon ranges. Having fixed maximum ranges does not hurt the game at all.

Saving throw is handled in the description because it flows naturally with the language there. Furthermore, it often takes the place of the "magic attack roll" language, which also flows naturally in the description.

Similarly, area of effect usually just contains too many words to be handled well in a tabular format. You would either have a very long entry at the top, or you would be reading the description anyway to get the specifics.

 

[Wrathamon]

For me, the big thing I'd want to see changed in spell entries is how they're organized. Alphabetical by spell name if fine for looking up a specific spell when you know nothing about it but it's name.

But, when it comes to familiarizing yourself with what your character can /do/, having them arranged by class & level is far more convenient and helpful.

This

I would just do it by Spell level and then alphabetical.
Adding class as a sort causes issues with spells on multiple lists.


As with the original posters changes, I agree with Joe above.