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

[Tony Vargas]

Trying to cram the entire spell into the header doesn't seem wise to me. It encourages the attitude that the most important spells are just different flavors of fireball. I don't want D&D to be full of spells that can be understood and absorbed by reading a short stat block.

Well, this ed /is/ supposed to be simpler and more 'rules lite,' wanting complication for the sake of complication would hardly seem to align with that.

I can accept maybe one or two spells per level that have nothing more to show for themselves than a range, a saving throw, an area of effect, and a damage expression. In all other cases, I want to have to read the full description to get what a spell is about.

I don't think having the critical mechanics in the header precludes having descriptive text. I think engineering spells so that they require more time to understand, decide to use, and resolve is counter-productive for a game emphasizing 'rules lite' fast-combat, though.


What exactly is the up-side to complicated spells that require the player to thoroughly understand them? Raising the system mastery bar so that fewer people will play casters?

 

[Lanefan]

What exactly is the up-side to complicated spells that require the player to thoroughly understand them? Raising the system mastery bar so that fewer people will play casters?

First off, Tony, I like your attack/save ideas a couple of posts up from this one.

There's nothing wrong with making spells different from each other and to do so doesn't complicate things much at all. If the spells are oversimplified then they'll all start to seem the same; and if they all have the same ranges you'll know that if you're 125' from a caster you're safe; how boring.

What spells need is proper casting times, where you start on initiative x and finish on initiative x-y where y is the casting time, to provide a proper window for interruption without necessarily having to ready or hold an action. Example: you're a caster with initiative 17 and you start a spell with casting time 5 (thus resolves on 12), and I'm an archer with initiative 15 and a bow trained on you. Using RAW there's no way I can interrupt your spell unless I wait nearly an entire round for the next one, and in the intervening time you might have moved out of my range or behind cover. Sure, if my initiatve is 8 I'm out of luck, but there needs to be that window where you-as-caster are a sitting target. Higher-level spells woud, of course, usually have longer casting times.

Lan-"this is also, by the way, the easiest way there is to balance spellcasters in any edition"-efan

 

[Michael Morris]

Complexity can come from many areas, and one area that rarely adds anything to any game is inconsistency. I'll be honest, I will probably be writing a new group of spells for my setting rather than do what I did last time and that was tack on around 600 spells to 3e to give the setting the feel I want. So I've written a lot of spells, and of the areas of the game its what I'm most familiar with.

For example, one of the things missing from 3e in these spells are descriptors. Those allow, at a glance, consistent and unambiguous rules for how spells of a given type interact. If a spell is has the fire descriptor, then there's no argument to be had as to whether it will be subject to resistances, or even function in an area of attuned anti-magic.

Before I go further on this spiel, read this excellent article on game complexity by Mark Rosewater. While he's speaking on Magic: The Gathering specifically, the topics in principle apply to any game. He posits that there are three types of complexity, and here's how they relate to D&D - any edition...

1. Comprehension Complexity
What does the spell (or feat, or class feature) do? With D&D it's possible to have spells that conceptually are very simple to understand, but their execution grants a lot of latitude of interpretation (Pretty much all the illusion spells, and wish [ particulary the 1e version ] comes to mind). Spell descriptions need to be clear and concise. 4e does the best job here, but only by sacrificing most all the wonder and latitude of magic by reducing all the spells to "Do X damage, Slide Y squares."

2. Board Complexity
How does the spell interact with the others, and how do we deal with the options. Again, 4e does a good job here with it's over-simplified spells, but its best area was limiting of slots down to a more managable level. 5e has fewer slots, so this is a step in the right direction, but the removal of descriptors is a step back. 3e's descriptors allowed for more consistent rulings on how the spells interact with each other.

3. Strategic Complexity
Which spell is better? When? This sort of complexity Rosewater calls the 'safe' complexity since it is hidden from beginning players and as they discover it then in leads to wonderful "a ha" moments that help them feel good about themselves and their cleverness.


Anyway, it wouldn't hurt the game to be as consistent as possible. For example, how many area of effect shapes does the game really need? How many duration types?

Let's take that one. Durations are all over the map in 5e, as they where in 3e. But from a practical standpoint the game has these durations - instant, round, might last the whole encounter, encounter, work day, full day, effectively permanent.

Instant is easy enough - nothing to change here. Same with a single round effect.
Might last the encounter - that would be 5e's concentration. Spells in 3e with rounds per level durations a major culprit and tracking durations is a problem.

I've given thought to this alternate duration scheme for 5e. On each round roll a die dependent on your proficiency bonus 2 - d4, 3 - d6, 4 - d8, 5 - d10, 6 - d12. If the die comes up 1, the spell ends. This allows for a spell which is unreliable past the first round without asking the player to track a duration.

Encounter - that would be the 1 minute spells, or 1 minute / level spells. These things won't end during an encounter and tracking them adds overhead to the game.

Work Day - Any duration up to around 8 hours. The spell is going to last for this foray in the dungeon, but won't still be up that evening or during a rest. Fidgity durations like 10 minutes / level, 1 hour / level and so on fall here.

Full day spells can be any of the above in the hands of a high level caster. Effectively permanent spells are magic items unto themselves.

Clarifying this can't be bad for the game.

Casting times are just as bad really, even in 5e. The reality is there are 3 casting times in 5e - 1 bonus action, 1 action, can't be cast in combat. All the additional casting times are just flavor. Personally, I do like how 4e separated rituals from combat magic and would have liked to have seen that retained. In the last rendition of Dusk I had spells that could be cast for greater effect if they were cast slowly, as a ritual, usually by having a much longer duration. I don't know if I'll retain that moving forward.

Anyway, spell systems are something I love, and can be quite critical and analytic of.

 

[Tony Vargas]

First off, Tony, I like your attack/save ideas a couple of posts up from this one.

There's nothing wrong with making spells different from each other and to do so doesn't complicate things much at all. If the spells are oversimplified then they'll all start to seem the same; and if they all have the same ranges you'll know that if you're 125' from a caster you're safe; how boring.

That has nothing to do with putting critical information, like saving throws, range/area, &c in the header - like in AD&D. In fact, the my post that you liked neatly illustrates how even a single such line could neatly handle a wide range of spells.

Some spells can be so simple they have nothing but such header data and a line or two of description, while others might require a lot of column inches to explain their arbitrary, vague, complex, and easily abused effects.

What I don't see is how deleting the header information and forcing everyone to waste time digging through the whole text of the spell, every time, has any upside at all.

What spells need is proper casting times, where you start on initiative x and finish on initiative x-y where y is the casting time, to provide a proper window for interruption without necessarily having to ready or hold an action.

While it does add a layer of complexity to the initiative system - especially a cyclical one (does the caster's initiative re-set to the end of the casting, like when you delay, or does it 'magickally' (pi) re-set to his original rolled initiative each round; what happens when casting times wrap you into the next round; etc) - it is a traditional limiting factor on casters that we haven't seen in a very long time, and would finally make 5e neo-Vancian types a little more melee shy. It's an inconsistent balancing factor, as it makes the caster melee-shy (giving the melee types a raison detre - to stand in front and take hits for the all-important caster) and make missile fire a real issue for them - but the whole balancing factor ceases to exist in any battle with melee-oriented enemies engaged by allies...

 

[Joe Liker]

Thanks for expanding on different ideas of complexity, Mr. Morris. To be clear, the type I am hoping to see more of is strategic complexity. The tendency to think of spells as nothing more than sparkly ammunition is, I feel, something to be avoided. (Evocation is, after all, just one of the eight schools of magic.)

That has nothing to do with putting critical information, like saving throws, range/area, &c in the header - like in AD&D. In fact, the my post that you liked neatly illustrates how even a single such line could neatly handle a wide range of spells.

Some spells can be so simple they have nothing but such header data and a line or two of description, while others might require a lot of column inches to explain their arbitrary, vague, complex, and easily abused effects.

What I don't see is how deleting the header information and forcing everyone to waste time digging through the whole text of the spell, every time, has any upside at all.

The problem is, if the treatment is inconsistent, it will be confusing to people. When an entry is missing, they will wonder if it's an error of if they are looking in the wrong place. (It is too much to hope that everyone will read the explanation of the headings that is printed before the list.)

Consolidating information into the heading also does not reduce column space as effectively as you might imagine. In many cases, the same information only takes up a line or less in the description; in other cases, you might actually end up repeating the information, which in turn takes up even more space.

And I've mentioned this before, but if all you need is the numbers, it does not take you any longer to glance through the description to pick them out. Numerals are easily and quickly distinguished from letters by the visual and language centers in your brain.

I invite you to look through the spell list. Skipping past evocations (which should only account for about one-eighth of all spells in the PH), take note of which spells truly need entries for the header information you are proposing to add.

Remember that if it takes up a line or less in the text, then you are not saving any space by moving it to the header. Also note how many spells deal with this information in the first line or two of the description -- if it's right there at the top, any complaint of digging through a wall of text to find it is not really valid.

Once you do an honest survey of all the spells, I think you'll see that very, very few of them would benefit from the treatment suggested.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thanks for expanding on different ideas of complexity, Mr. Morris. To be clear, the type I am hoping to see more of is strategic complexity. The tendency to think of spells as nothing more than sparkly ammunition is, I feel, something to be avoided. (Evocation is, after all, just one of the eight schools of magic.)

If a player likes the idea of sparky ammunition and plays an evoker, let 'em.

The problem is, if the treatment is inconsistent, it will be confusing to people. When an entry is missing, they will wonder if it's an error of if they are looking in the wrong place.

That I'll agree with. There's no point in /leaving out/ a header line, even if the entry has to be 'see below' because it's to complicated, or 'N/A.'

And I've mentioned this before, but if all you need is the numbers, it does not take you any longer to glance through the description to pick them out. Numerals are easily and quickly distinguished from letters by the visual and language centers in your brain.

Not everything that'd go in a header line is a number. "Wisdom," for instance, is not a number, but it's critical to know what kind of save you're making. Ideally, range/area wouldn't be numbers, either, because precise measurements in feet are only really useful if you're playing to scale on a surface of some kind. Secondly, 5e is so focused on 'fast combat,' that it really should be taking all but a few 'sparky ammo' spells and moving them to not-useable-in-combat rituals. Since karma failed us there, the least we can do is make looking up resolution info for spells as quick as possible.

 

[Lanefan]

That has nothing to do with putting critical information, like saving throws, range/area, &c in the header - like in AD&D. In fact, the my post that you liked neatly illustrates how even a single such line could neatly handle a wide range of spells.

Some spells can be so simple they have nothing but such header data and a line or two of description, while others might require a lot of column inches to explain their arbitrary, vague, complex, and easily abused effects.

What I don't see is how deleting the header information and forcing everyone to waste time digging through the whole text of the spell, every time, has any upside at all.

Absolutely. We're agreeing, for a change.

Re: casting times...

While it does add a layer of complexity to the initiative system - especially a cyclical one (does the caster's initiative re-set to the end of the casting, like when you delay, or does it 'magickally' (pi) re-set to his original rolled initiative each round; what happens when casting times wrap you into the next round; etc) - it is a traditional limiting factor on casters that we haven't seen in a very long time, and would finally make 5e neo-Vancian types a little more melee shy. It's an inconsistent balancing factor, as it makes the caster melee-shy (giving the melee types a raison detre - to stand in front and take hits for the all-important caster) and make missile fire a real issue for them - but the whole balancing factor ceases to exist in any battle with melee-oriented enemies engaged by allies...

Well for one thing I despise cyclical initiative and will never use it in a game I run; but were I forced to use it then yes, the caster's init. would reset each round. So, she could start a spell on 17, resolve on 11, then be ready to go again next time 17 rolls around. The only time your initiative would change is if a spell takes a full round or longer to cast; you'd then be pushed down to the next available spot. So, again the same example where she starts on 17 but as a full-round spell she doesn't resolve until 17 of next round, in this case her new-round action would try to start on a 16 - but wait, there's an Orc on 16 and the Pally's got 15, so she has to drop to 14 which becomes her new pegged initiative until-unless this happens again.

As for the last bit you state, there's times when the casters need to back off and let the brawlers do their thing. In fact, it's probably in the casters' best interests if all the enemies are engaged in melee, as their spells can be saved for later.

Lan-"and I'll be one of the melee guys, and heaven help you if you fry my ass"-efan

 

[Joe Liker]

Not everything that'd go in a header line is a number. "Wisdom," for instance, is not a number, but it's critical to know what kind of save you're making. Ideally, range/area wouldn't be numbers, either, because precise measurements in feet are only really useful if you're playing to scale on a surface of some kind. Secondly, 5e is so focused on 'fast combat,' that it really should be taking all but a few 'sparky ammo' spells and moving them to not-useable-in-combat rituals. Since karma failed us there, the least we can do is make looking up resolution info for spells as quick as possible.

Well, I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't be looking in the rulebooks at all for that kind of information. Not during combat. You should have made notations on the spellbook page of your character sheet before the session even began. If I were DM and my players kept grabbing the rulebook every time they cast a spell, I'd be having a few words with them.

I guess you and I have differing opinions about what headers -- and rulebooks -- are for.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't be looking in the rulebooks at all for that kind of information. Not during combat. You should have made notations on the spellbook page of your character sheet before the session even began.

Characters can have quite a few known spells, even those who don't just know their whole class list automatically. That's a lot of spells to be copying. You're probably going to have to look the text of the spell up fairly often, anyway. They're not just simple little keyword-heavy 'powers' you can put on a card. And, the DM's going to need to look up spells for monsters who are casters or have special abilities that function as spells, too.

Besides, why else would the spells be in alphabetical order, if not to facilitate look-up of individual spells in play? If they were organized to make it easiest to look them up during chargen/level-up or prep (and copy down pertinent information, as you suggest), they'd be by class/level.


:shrug: Maybe 'morningstar' will just print out all your spells on cards or something, and it won't matter.

 

[Joe Liker]

So now spells are complicated, and you're going to be reading the full descriptions often because there's too much information to distill into a small area? Interesting.