Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="w_earle_wheeler" data-source="post: 3572897" data-attributes="member: 35955">I want to make a 32-page book of spells from the d20 SRD. Do you want to help? This is the place to do it.If this thread takes off (and isn't crapped on immediately), it will contain spell edits, ideas, squiggles, and some d20 rule simplifications. And possibly some math that I don't understand. This isn't really a "basic" idea, but it's close enough that referring to it as basic won't be erroneous.I peered into the future and answered the following questions:Why make a 32-page book of spells? Why not? I've been thinking about it, and now I want to do it. The number is arbitrary and possibly impossible, but I'll do everything I can to get there.Why not just cut out a bunch of spells then? Because I want it to retain as many options as possible.If you don't like it, why don't you use XXX system, after all, the changes you're proposing are just like what I saw in XXX system? Good for XXX system! This is a project for d20 3.5. The Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Player's Handbook has 608 spells and averages 5.7 spell descriptions per page. Each page has 3 columns, with the header information presented in one column above each spell description.The Castles & Crusades Player's Handbook has only 365 spells, but manages to fit an average of 8.9 spells per page. The C&C book uses a two-column layout one each page, and also spreads the spell heading information into two-columns.So, using a Castles & Crusades style of presentation, the 608 D&D spells could theoretically be presented in 68 pages. Both books use approximately the same font size, page size and margins (and the amount per section taken up by illustrations has already been figured in).LAY-OUT TRICKSUsing 17" x 11" paper size for the booklet (folded and stapled, this gives us a standard 8 1/2" x 11" page size) we don't have many corners to cut. Both the D&D and C&C books use a 9 point font with the smallest acceptable margins, and we won't be able to push it any further. Presenting some details in nested boxes with the text might give us a few more inches to play around with, but that's about the only feasible trick available without making the whole thing look like a wreck.HARD EDITINGIn order to get this down to 32 pages, each spell will need some serious editing. My personal preference on the issue is that if a spell requires more than two paragraphs to explain what it does, then it's broken. A broad and unforgiving policy, I know.Imagine that each spell description can be cut in half. That brings us down to a 34-page, no frills booklet. But that's not good enough for us.CUTTING OUT SPELLSIn order to stay true to the goal of this project (presenting the PHB spells in a 32-page booklet) I would like to cut as few spells as possible. On the surface, this preference seems to make the project impossible. But I believe that there are enough redundancies in the spell list that this can be attained without compromising the basic philosophy.For example, each type of fireball and heal spell does not require it's own entry, merely a note in the main entry and a basic and logical system of spell advancement -- a modified Empower Spell feat option. Basically, any spell that a wizard can cast at 1st-level doesn't need a litany of "greater" type spells listed as well. This can all be handled with a built-in progression system based off of the mechanics behind the metamagic feats. In addition to simplifying the spell lists, we simplify the whole metamagic process by hard-wiring it into the rules.Any spell that appears to be another spell with a metamagic-type adjustment patched onto it can be removed.RULE CHANGES, STANDARDIZATION & SIMPLIFICATIONHere's an example of a change I plan for the core magic system in order to make this "basic" booklet work:All spells have the same required components (verbal, somatic and focus) and casting time (1 standard action). This creates a standard for all spells, and reduces the need for two descriptive lines per spell (Components and Casting Time). Every little bit counts.So that's where I'm starting. Next post will look at the consequences, benefits and tweaks of using a universal standard for components and casting times in order to cut out two lines of description from each spell.</blockquote>

Verification