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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tzarevitch" data-source="post: 6359332" data-attributes="member: 1792">Surprised - Some of the wizard specializations are actually interesting. Diviner and Abjurer are probably the most interesting, necromancer is actually functional and looks survivable as long are you are playing in a setting where the authorities wont kill an necromancer on sight.Disappointed  - spell formatting in the book is BAD. This is easily the worst I've seen in any edition. 1.) The only indexing provided is a general list for bard, cleric, druid paladin, ranger, sorcerer and warlock.  Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and all specialist wizards have abilities (or the entire class) which depend on the school of arcane spell, which is indexed nowhere in the book. In order to figure out what your abilities do or even what you can cast you have to read through 78 pages of spells, single spaced. That's lazy publishing. An intern spending half a day with a word processor could have broken down the arcane spells by school for the classes that need it especially since they are the ones that made the school matter in the first place. 2.) Keywords buried in the body of the spell text should have been in boldface at the top. Why is the spell's component in bold at the top of the spell when that is optional gameplay information, but necessary gameplay information for the DM to quickly adjudicate it such as its area of effect, saving throw, damage type or any other  special condition it has, is buried in up to two, single-spaced columns of text? 3rd and 4th edition put the important information at the top or bolded it somewhere. Who thought burying it in the text like this was a good idea? I can tell you from many years of DMing that nothing wastes more time at the table than waiting for a player to read though his spell and tell me the pertinent information so I can actually adjudicate its effect. The first steps in adjudicating most spells in 5e are: can it affect the creature, and does it give a save? That information should be at the top. None of the spells in the book place it there. As an example Suggestion starts off telling you what the spell does before even addressing whether it worked. You have to get to the second paragraph to even figure out what the save is. If the thing saved or is immune, no one at the table cares what it was supposed to do. It's even worse if the DM is running the creature because you have to stop the game and read through the text yourself to find the saving throw. I don't know why they ignored past precedent on this and I really hope they fix this in later printings.</blockquote>

Verification