What spells need to be simplified?

[Felon]

Most of the druidic divination spells are pretty vague. Stone Tell, Speak with Plants, and Commune with Nature are all pretty sparse. How much information can a rock or a plant tell you? How much information are you supposed to be able to glean from these spells. Stone Tell really seems quite redundant if you have track and a lot of Survival.

LOL, I wish more spells suffered from this level of "vagueness". Utterly specific, quantifiable effects that don't leave anything open to interpretation or creativity can suck all the magic right out of a spell. I long for spells to be more fluid and flexible like those Ars Magica.

Now, having said that, I am a big fan of streamlining. Take web, entangle, and grease and just what they're intended to do. Those stupid strength and escape artist DC's are just a waste of time.

 

[Pielorinho]

Animal Growth. Figuring out all its effects can take 10-15 minutes for a single creature; writing them out in advance takes forever.

We've simplified its effects:
-Size increases by 5' in each direction, and one category.
-Attacks and damage increase by 4.
-DR 10/magic.
-AC is unaffected.
-Flat +2 on saves (I think).
-Add 2 hp/die.

Something like that. No more figuring out increased weapon sizes, whether a particular weapon receives 1.5, 1, or .5 str bonus, adjusting stats according to new ability scores, and all the rest of it; just a bunch of flat changes. You still get the flavor, the spell stays at about the same power level (better for some creatures, worse for others), and it's far easier to use.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Oh, and
Moderator's Notes:

I don't want to see any more snippiness, condescension, or disrespect in this thread, please.

Daniel

 

[lukelightning]

Animal Growth.

In practice I've seen it simplified even further:

Druid casts animal growth on his tiger and 3 summoned brown bears.

DM: They demolish the enemies.

 

[KarinsDad]

Most of the druidic divination spells are pretty vague. Stone Tell, Speak with Plants, and Commune with Nature are all pretty sparse. How much information can a rock or a plant tell you?

Yes, this always cracked me up.

A stone’s perspective, perception, and knowledge may prevent the stone from providing the details you are looking for.

PC: "What did you see?"
Stone: "Nothing."
PC: "What touched you?"
Stone: "I felt nothing. Something touched me?"
PC: "What is underneath you?"
Stone: "I don't know. You do realize you are speaking to a stone, right?"

 

[lukelightning]

My brother as a DM was horrible with the various "speak with" spells.

Me: "I cast speak with animal"
Him: "The animal says it's hungry and attacks."

Me: "I cast speak with plants"
Him: "The plants yell at you for standing in their sunlight and attack."

I never had the courage to cast speak with stone.

 

[Vanye]

Meaning, don't force people to memorize a bunch of obscure effects or effectively ban them from casting the spell.

You don't need to memorize, it just write down the rules on an index card.

Could web be simplified? Yes. I think tying the break DC's more closely to the spell DC is an excellent idea. However, it's not difficult to:
a) look up entangled in the glossary, or
b) write it down on an index card or
c) print up the list of statuses (http://d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#abilityDamaged) and keep it handy.

A little prep work ahead of time for a spell that you use constantly is not going to break you.

 

[Pielorinho]

You don't need to memorize, it just write down the rules on an index card.

Could web be simplified? Yes. I think tying the break DC's more closely to the spell DC is an excellent idea. However, it's not difficult to:
a) look up entangled in the glossary, or
b) write it down on an index card or
c) print up the list of statuses (http://d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#abilityDamaged) and keep it handy.

A little prep work ahead of time for a spell that you use constantly is not going to break you.

I think that, like so many things, it's a matter of play preference. Some folks prefer rules to be very streamlined in order to minimize their out-of-game preparation time; other folks enjoy that prep time, and so they enjoy rules that are highly detailed. Neither approach is more respectable or worthy than the other.

Daniel