# Making spell descriptions less dense?



## Quickleaf (Oct 16, 2022)

Here's the _knock spell _from the 5e PHB:


> *Knock*
> _2nd-level transmutation_
> *Casting Time: *1 action
> *Range:* 60 feet
> ...




Here's the _knock _spell from the OSR Cairn RPG:


> *Knock: *A nearby mundane or magical lock unlocks – loudly.




D&D goes down the rabbit hole of "precise" language, which really unnecessarily increases word count without offering much more clarity. The problem is that when you multiply this effect across all the spells, it increases the cognitive load on the players (including GM) and the handling time at the table - more so for newer players.

Do we really need a list of examples for what constitutes a "container... that prevents access"? Probably not. We can figure that out.
Do we need the "multiple locks" proviso? Not if we stipulate _one _lock up front.
Do we need to know that the spell makes a sound "audible from as far away as 300 feet"? We've literally never checked whether something is within 300 feet when knock is used, since that's such a vast distance in a built environment, instead going entirely by feel.
Do we need to elucidate what suppressing a spell effect means? Probably not.

So functionally, the _knock_ spell could be written in One D&D more succinctly as (taking it from 137 words to 29 words)....

*Knock*
_2nd-level transmutation (action, V)_
One mundane or magical lock that you can see within 60 feet unlocks - loudly. An _arcane lock _is instead suppressed for 10 minutes.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 16, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> *Knock*
> _2nd-level transmutation (action, V)_
> One mundane or magical lock that you can see within 60 feet unlocks - loudly. An _arcane lock _is instead suppressed for 10 minutes.



This looks way better. I've always felt the same that most spells (and class features) are unnecessarily way too long. Spell descriptions shouldn't be more than 3-4 short sentences.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 16, 2022)

Indeed. Spells take such a huge space in the book, it would be beneficial to reduce their wordiness a little.

Shatter, 2nd-level transmutation (Magic Action, V/S/M)
Save: Constitution halves (construct and inorganic creature or objects save with disadvantage) 

A loud ringing noise erupts in a 10-foot-radius sphere centered on a point within 60, dealing 3d8 thunder damage on a failed save, adding 1d8 damage for each slot level above 2nd.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 16, 2022)

The hardest part about how to do spell write-ups is finding the middle ground between being concise and quick in the language for easy understanding, while at the same time making the language interesting enough to read as a type of literature.

We've have decades wherein players have said that they used to just read the AD&D books as books... even if they never played the game itself.  There was a feeling one could get, a falling into the fantasy, of reading things like the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.  That's something that I think many players still wish to maintain when it comes to these books.  As made obvious with an edition like 4E where it was exceedingly good as a rulebook-- giving precise rules on how to bring the things into the game-- but had that technical manual quality in many ways that some people said felt antiseptic.  The "fantasy" got lost in the fast descriptions because the writing was more about highlighting the numbers rather than provoking emotions of the game.

So finding that place between fantasy literature that reads well but obfuscates the rules needed to get across, and technical jargon that makes understanding easy and quick but doesn't highlight the essence of what these rules are trying to describe... is the sweet spot everyone is looking for.  I honestly don't know what the right answer oftentimes is supposed to be.  Because even the Knock example you gave is a wonderful representation of the issue-- the second version is clear and makes what the spell is trying to do very easy to understand... but at the same time in the PHB version that tells us all the different types of objects that can get unlocked... I get a definite vision in my head of all of these things along with what happens when the spell goes off-- the lock pops open, the manacles fall off the wrists, the chest latch flips up, etc.  My inner eye is visualizing all of these things in a fantasy context because of the more in-depth language.  And having that view from my inner eye gives me ideas of where and when a spell like this can be used, and thus the kinds of narration that I'll bring forth to make the images to my players more visually interesting.

At some point you certainly can go overboard, and I thus would not be averse to taking the PHB version and editing it down a little bit... but I also have the fear of the second version just not catching my interest as a fantasy reader as easily and thus we lose some of the emotion and feeling when the spell is used.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 16, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> Do we really need a list of examples for what constitutes a "container... that prevents access"? Probably not. We can figure that out.



You hope.
A DM could rule that a pair of manacles or a object stuck closed isn't a lock.


Quickleaf said:


> Do we need the "multiple locks" proviso? Not if we stipulate _one _lock up front.



One could be the who mechanism or each individual lock.


Quickleaf said:


> Do we need to know that the spell makes a sound "audible from as far away as 300 feet"? We've literally never checked whether something is within 300 feet when knock is used, since that's such a vast distance in a built environment, instead going entirely by feel.



How loud is loud?
This is there because knock the DM's adjudication of loudness can heavily affect the spell's usefulness.



Quickleaf said:


> Do we need to elucidate what suppressing a spell effect means? Probably not.



If I cast _arcane lock_ on my chest and you cast _knock_ on it, which spell remains on the object after the party pilfers the chest's contents?

So sure spells could be shorter. But sme content is near required because of the vast differences withn the huge D&D community.


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 16, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The hardest part about how to do spell write-ups is finding the middle ground between being concise and quick in the language for easy understanding, while at the same time making the language interesting enough to read as a type of literature.
> 
> We've have decades wherein players have said that they used to just read the AD&D books as books... even if they never played the game itself.  There was a feeling one could get, a falling into the fantasy, of reading things like the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.  That's something that I think many players still wish to maintain when it comes to these books.  As made obvious with an edition like 4E where it was exceedingly good as a rulebook-- giving precise rules on how to bring the things into the game-- but had that technical manual quality in many ways that some people said felt antiseptic.  The "fantasy" got lost in the fast descriptions because the writing was more about highlighting the numbers rather than provoking emotions of the game.
> 
> ...



I know exactly what you mean.

But most 5e spell descriptions, in my opinion, BOTH fail to inspire with fiction AND are too wordy.

For example, with my _knock _rewrite, I shaved off 108 words with no loss of clarity (arguably _increased _clarity because there's less to get hung up on). And still be well below the current space the PHB _knock_ spell takes up

You could certainly add a couple words back in to spice up the flavor, maybe describing the quality of the sound the spell makes or that the locks pop open with violent force.

In other words, improved succinctness/brevity and inspiring flavor at not at odds.


----------



## aco175 (Oct 17, 2022)

I would love to see this but fear the threads about everything for a spell.  Wizards would need a website dedicated to errata and examples of what they meant when writing the spell.


----------



## Shiroiken (Oct 17, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So finding that place between fantasy literature that reads well but obfuscates the rules needed to get across, and technical jargon that makes understanding easy and quick but doesn't highlight the essence of what these rules are trying to describe... is the sweet spot everyone is looking for.



Part of it is 5E not deciding what kind of game it wants to be. Every prior edition had certain expectations on how the game was going to be played, but either explicitly (4E) or by default from lack of options (1E). 5E tried to appeal to as wide a base as possible, which would include both sides on this. The idea option would be to put mechanics in a very short section, as described above, but the description would be more evocative. To use the Knock example:

*Knock* (level 2 transmutation; magic action, V, one lock within 60 ft)
You manipulate a single locking mechanism or stuck/barred portal into immediately opening, unleashing a thunderous knocking sound that can be clearly heard up to 300 feet away. If the lock or opening is protected with _Arcane Lock_, you suppress that magic for 10 minutes instead.      

It's much more concise than the original spell, but still provides plenty of imagery. For the Shatter example:

*Shatter* (level 2 evocation; magic action, V/S/M [chip of mica] 10' radius sphere within 60 ft)
*Con Save*: half damage (constructs and inorganic creatures/objects have disadvantage)
You create a powerful ringing noise that generates a shockwave within the area, dealing 3d8 thunder damage to all creatures and unattended objects.

The biggest issue I see is formatting the mechanic line when it wraps to the next. I'd suggest a hanging paragraph, but I'm also not a graphic designer, so...



Minigiant said:


> You hope.
> A DM could rule that a pair of manacles or a object stuck closed isn't a lock.



The OSR the OP uses for inspiration always puts the decision on the GM for just about everything, so this would be within their purview. You might disagree as a player, but people who enjoy this style of play aren't normally tangled up with RAW. For D&D, I'd add a bit more detail (as above), but still leave the DM some wiggle room.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 17, 2022)

The spell verbiage that drives me crazy is:

"The spell can penetrate most barriers, but it is blocked by 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, Or 3 feet of wood or dirt."

Repeating this detailed weirdness over and over again is a waste of ink.

The spell description is not the place to worry about the DM wanting to keep secrets. There are better ways to do this.

For example, similar to obfuscating Divination, let the _Nystuls Magic Aura_ spell include an option to conveniently block spells, like _Detect Magic_, _Detect Poison/Disease_, _Detect Thoughts_, _Locate Object_, _Message_, and any other plot-spoiling spell. So, if the DM needs to hide something in a particular room, just the cast this spell. Done.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 17, 2022)

Regarding _Knock_, I wouldnt even bother with "suppressing" _Arcane Lock_.

At most mention, "The _Arcane Lock_ spell counts as a magical lock", if for some reason this isnt obvious.

In other words, _Knock _dispels _Arcane Lock_. Why not?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 17, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> Here's the _knock spell _from the 5e PHB:
> 
> 
> Here's the _knock _spell from the OSR Cairn RPG:
> ...



Yeah, what you're suggesting is absolutely the right direction here.

5E's spell design is fundamentally at odds with its core philosophy. The core philosophy is that the DM decides stuff, and you don't need detailed rules for everything because of that. This is why skills and so on have extremely simple rules and an almost total lack of real guidance in 5E.


Shiroiken said:


> The OSR the OP uses for inspiration always puts the decision on the GM for just about everything, so this would be within their purview. You might disagree as a player, but people who enjoy this style of play aren't normally tangled up with RAW. For D&D, I'd add a bit more detail (as above), but still leave the DM some wiggle room.



I don't think you do need more detail for D&D, certainly not beyond which the OP suggests, because 5E consistently advocates for the OSR approach about just about everything - "the DM decides" - the only weird exception is spells, and frankly that exception should be eliminated, because all it serves to do is make spells weirdly advantaged over all other ways of doing things.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 17, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> At some point you certainly can go overboard, and I thus would not be averse to taking the PHB version and editing it down a little bit... but I also have the fear of the second version just not catching my interest as a fantasy reader as easily and thus we lose some of the emotion and feeling when the spell is used.



As a fantasy reader myself I can't see this at all.

The current PHB description is soul-less and mechanistic. It reads like the rules for a particularly boring boardgame. It has no flavour. The shorter version actually has more fantasy power because you can imagine it more, it doesn't have the same mechanistic list of conditions.

If the PHB version had more description/soul I could see your argument, but it has nothing but limits. There's no emotion there.


----------



## Delazar (Oct 17, 2022)

I’d prefer a short fluff text to introduce the spell, and then the pure crunch.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 17, 2022)

Delazar said:


> I’d prefer a short fluff text to introduce the spell, and then the pure crunch.



If so it should be extremely short. Major class abilities, which are less numerous and far more character-defining than spells rarely get more than a single short sentence of fluff text. If we let spells waffle on for multiple sentences of fluff, we should do the same for class abilities.

For example with Fighters, Fighting Style, Second Wind and Action Surge get one short sentence each. Extra Attack, a huge and vital feature, gets none. Indomitable gets none. ASI/Feat gets none.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 17, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> As a fantasy reader myself I can't see this at all.
> 
> The current PHB description is soul-less and mechanistic. It reads like the rules for a particularly boring boardgame. It has no flavour. The shorter version actually has more fantasy power because you can imagine it more, it doesn't have the same mechanistic list of conditions.
> 
> If the PHB version had more description/soul I could see your argument, but it has nothing but limits. There's no emotion there.



 This kind of stuff is all going to come down to personal matter of opinion I suppose.  Like I said... WotC seemed to want to find a middle ground for 5E between AD&D and 4E in the way they wrote their spell descriptions.  Whether or not they succeeded would be up to each reader to decide.  Same way whether or not @Quickleaf 's spell write up would be considered better or not to accomplish the same thing.


----------



## Delazar (Oct 17, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> If so it should be extremely short. Major class abilities, which are less numerous and far more character-defining than spells rarely get more than a single short sentence of fluff text. If we let spells waffle on for multiple sentences of fluff, we should do the same for class abilities.
> 
> For example with Fighters, Fighting Style, Second Wind and Action Surge get one short sentence each. Extra Attack, a huge and vital feature, gets none. Indomitable gets none. ASI/Feat gets none.



I’d love ALL class ability to be written in spell format!


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 17, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> This kind of stuff is all going to come down to personal matter of opinion I suppose.



I mean, I don't really think so.

There's just no real description or soul in the current PHB version. There's literally no flavour text, just a list of limitations.


DEFCON 1 said:


> WotC seemed to want to find a middle ground for 5E between AD&D and 4E in the way they wrote their spell descriptions.



Wait, do you think 4E had_ less _description/flavour than 5E?

Because that's just completely and totally wrong, here's 4E's Knock for example. Notice that it's got considerably more description than 5E, and even features a fancy bit of flavour with the glowing key:









						Knock
					

Knock is a 4th-level ritual.[PH:307] The Knock ritual allows you to open a single locked door, chest, gate, or other object. It even works against portals sealed with the Arcane Lock ritual or doors secured with bolts or bars that are on the far side, out of reach. You must defeat all the...




					dnd4.fandom.com
				




So if that's the implication, I'm afraid that is bass-ackwards.

2E AD&D's Knock is way longer but has even less flavour, much like 5E:









						Knock
					

The knock spell opens stuck, barred, locked, held, or wizard-locked doors. It opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains. If used to open a wizard-locked door, the spell does not remove the former spell, but simply suspends...




					adnd2e.fandom.com
				




Notice the awesomely vague "It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains." which might as well be designed to cause conflict/arguments lol.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Oct 17, 2022)

Delazar said:


> I’d prefer a short fluff text to introduce the spell, and then the pure crunch.



The fluff must match the crunch.  Which most 5e spells don’t


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 17, 2022)

@Ruin Explorer That's a single ritual you are using as your example, but I suspect the group of people who said back in 2008 that the 4E powers seemed antiseptic were looking at the entire book, wherein each power had but a single line of italicized flavor text along with a larger mechanical block of pure mechanics.  A lot of people didn't mind or liked the powers format and found them flavorful, but a lot of people didn't.  Personal taste.

Please note that I'm making no judgements on any of these versions of spell descriptions... AD&D, 4E, 5E, Quickleaf's edit to one spell.  They all are what they are, and they all were made to work for their respective games.  If they were successful or if they could have or could be done better or differently will come down to each individual reading it... or the WotC editors when it comes time for them to re-do the 2024 spell section.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 17, 2022)

You might be able to get away with a shorter, snappier spell description if you can somehow remove all the rules lawyers or have players willing to accept DM fiat without question. For example, "loudly" is an imprecise term. Loud like a tea kettle, a lawnmower or a bulldozer? Audible to anyone in the room or in the dungeon? One DM might interpret loudly as "can't be done from Stealth", another as "you've just put the whole complex on high alert". 

Most of the provisos are designed to either reign in abuse from players (well, a castle is a type of container, knock should open the portcullis) or to be used by the DM as a way to appeal to authority from the rule book itself (no, a container is...) Should that be the way the rule book works? Probably not, but everyone has a bad player/DM story where the outcome bordered on the precise language of the spell or power in question.

Brevity may be the soul of wit, but D&D is closer to contract law than poetry.


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 17, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> You might be able to get away with a shorter, snappier spell description if you can somehow remove all the rules lawyers or have players willing to accept DM fiat without question. For example, "loudly" is an imprecise term. Loud like a tea kettle, a lawnmower or a bulldozer? Audible to anyone in the room or in the dungeon? One DM might interpret loudly as "can't be done from Stealth", another as "you've just put the whole complex on high alert".
> 
> Most of the provisos are designed to either reign in abuse from players (well, a castle is a type of container, knock should open the portcullis) or to be used by the DM as a way to appeal to authority from the rule book itself (no, a container is...) Should that be the way the rule book works? Probably not, but everyone has a bad player/DM story where the outcome bordered on the precise language of the spell or power in question.
> 
> Brevity may be the soul of wit, but D&D is closer to contract law than poetry.



That's exactly it right there.

Me saying "loudly" is as functionally useful as the PHB saying "a loud knock, audible from as far away as 300 feet", it's just I took fewer words to say it.

My experience is that most people have no frame of reference for what a sound "audible from as far away as 300 feet" is comparable to, nor how such a sound would interact with being in an underground complex.

Your comparing it to something players would have a frame of reference for would be functionally more useful. Though probably terms like a "train whistle" or a "jet engine" would feel anachronistic, with a little thought something suitably faux medieval could be used like "loudly, like an elephant's call" or "as loud as a trumpet."


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 17, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> You might be able to get away with a shorter, snappier spell description if you can somehow remove all the rules lawyers or have players willing to accept DM fiat without question. For example, "loudly" is an imprecise term. Loud like a tea kettle, a lawnmower or a bulldozer? Audible to anyone in the room or in the dungeon? One DM might interpret loudly as "can't be done from Stealth", another as "you've just put the whole complex on high alert".
> 
> Most of the provisos are designed to either reign in abuse from players (well, a castle is a type of container, knock should open the portcullis) or to be used by the DM as a way to appeal to authority from the rule book itself (no, a container is...) Should that be the way the rule book works? Probably not, but everyone has a bad player/DM story where the outcome bordered on the precise language of the spell or power in question.
> 
> Brevity may be the soul of wit, but D&D is closer to contract law than poetry.



That's a fascinating perspective.

When I've had the most fun with D&D it's when we've threaded the needle between those two extremes.

And when I've run for my 11 year-old nephew and his friends we were about as far from your "contract law" metaphor as it gets, playing in an extremely creative space.

From my experience, the soul of D&D is closer to poetry than to contract law.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 17, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> So functionally, the _knock_ spell could be written in One D&D more succinctly as (taking it from 137 words to 29 words)....
> 
> *Knock*
> _2nd-level transmutation (action, V)_
> One mundane or magical lock that you can see within 60 feet unlocks - loudly. An _arcane lock _is instead suppressed for 10 minutes.




Probably someone has already said this, but the two spells don't do the same thing.

Assuming I knew nothing of the game's history, these are things that I would rule against using the second version of the spell:

a) "I cast knock to unbar a door." - Bars are not locks and they don't unlock.
b) "I cast knock to unbolt a door." - Bolts are not locks and they don't unlock.
c) "I cast knock to open the stuck door." - Doors that are stuck because of rusted hinges or warped frames are not locks and they don't unlock.

But all of that goes against the historical implementation of the spell.

Also I love that loudly is defined.  As a DM reading "loudly' I would assume, "A sound that would be clear to everyone in the room."  I would be imagining a lock unlocking with a loud "click".  Instead the spell defines it as something as loud and ringing as a hammer blow or a bell.  It's not a click, it's a "BANG!" that potentially everyone in a building hears and goes, "What was THAT?!?!?".  That's not at all clear from something as broad as "loudly" and totally transforms how I would imagine the spell playing out.

I strongly disagree.  The One D&D wording vastly reduces my cognitive load as a GM because it never forces me to stop and decide what the words actually mean.  Nothing involves more cognitive load than issuing a ruling because the rules are silent.  Yes, you could probably get away with not giving examples of the types of locks and fasteners it works on, but it probably does clarify for someone what is stuck imagining the spell is only useful on doors.   Also, since spells are little packets of narrative force they are traditionally ruled to do exactly what they say they do and only exactly what they say that they do.  So your version of knock doesn't unbar, unbolt, and unstick doors.

And actually, I'm not sure either is as perfectly clear and descriptive as I would want.  If I cast Knock on a door with one lock, that is also barred, bolted, and stuck, does it become openable or is only one condition removed and if so which one?


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 17, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> That's exactly it right there.
> 
> Me saying "loudly" is as functionally useful as the PHB saying "a loud knock, audible from as far away as 300 feet", it's just I took fewer words to say it.
> 
> ...



300 feet is 300 feet. Even if you don't want to get into acoustic debates, you know that 300 feet is a large section of a structure and if the guards are in the next room, casting knock is going to alert them, but if the guards are on the other side of the complex, they will not. Moreover, it squashes misinterpretation between the caster and the DM, the former who thinks it's going to make a reasonably loud ding and the latter who thinks it's a choir of church bells ringing all at once.







Quickleaf said:


> That's a fascinating perspective.
> 
> When I've had the most fun with D&D it's when we've threaded the needle between those two extremes.
> 
> ...



Again, if you and your players are on the same wavelength, that's cool. But the game can't assume they are.

A player once played a fighter who always described killing blows as decapitation. No special rules, just 0 HP = Highlander. The DM was cool with this because most of the time, killing an orc or goblin is just flavor text in the Mercer "how do you want to do this" sense. All went fine until the fighter, dominated by a mind flayer, critted and killed his friend the ranger. When it became time to raise the ranger after the fight, the DM noted that the fighter had decapitated the ranger as is his style and thus raise dead was of no use, they would need a resurrection spell. The ranger argued that there is no rule saying the fighter HAD to decapitate on every kill, and under the Normal rules he could be brought back with raise dead. That little bit of flavor cost another player his PC. 

Again, if you do not have a problem with fiat rules made by the DM, simpler rules are fine. But I find a bit more robust (though not Pathfinder robust) rules kept everyone on the same page.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 18, 2022)

if the choice is between,

4E style:





and 3.5E style:




I'm always for 3.5E style!


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 18, 2022)

Horwath said:


> if the choice is between,
> 
> 4E style:
> 
> and 3.5E style:



Heh, I strongly prefer the best of both worlds. The 4e consolidated spell statblock is extremely useful. The 3e narrative description adds flavor, and gives context to understand the quirks of a particular spell, and makes narrative adjudication easier (before deciding whether to roll dice or not − a narrative circumstance might make it plausible that a potential target is unaffected by the spell).

The spell does better to omit the "Components: V, S , M" entry. Instead each class and character concept decides what "focus" one uses to cast a spell, whether a Wand, a Symbol, a Mind, a Component Pouch, a Familiar, or so on. Each focus might have its own benefits.

(Note, if the Fireball was a detonating blast that pushed objects, it would also deal thunder damage, whose sonic aspect includes a shockwave.)

The first sentence of a spell description must always be strictly flavor to set the purpose and the tone of the spell, without any reference to numbers or mechanics.

For 5e 1DD, maybe something like:



*FIREBALL*
_3rd-Slot Evocation (Fire)_
*Casting Time:* 1 action
*Targeting:* 20-foot diameter sphere within 100 feet
*Duration:* Instantaneous
*Save:* Dexterity
*If Spell Succeeds:* 7d6 fire damage
*If Spell Fails:* Half damage

A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to blossom with a low roar in an explosion of fire. The streak travels in a line up to 100 feet away. It blasts in a 20-foot radius sphere centered at the point of destination. Each creature in the blast must make a Dexterity save. A target takes 7d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful save. The fire spreads around corners. It can damage and ignite any unattended objects.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 18, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> Your comparing it to something players would have a frame of reference for would be functionally more useful. Though probably terms like a "train whistle" or a "jet engine" would feel anachronistic, with a little thought something suitably faux medieval could be used like "loudly, like an elephant's call" or "as loud as a trumpet."



I mean, if it's good enough for Tolkien...



			
				The Fellowship of the Ring said:
			
		

> “They all ducked, and many fell flat on their faces. The dragon passed like an _*express train*_, turned a somersault, and burst over Bywater with a deafening explosion.”




Emphasis mine.


----------



## Blue (Oct 18, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> Do we really need a list of examples for what constitutes a "container... that prevents access"? Probably not. We can figure that out.



The number of times "Can I do Create Water in their lungs?  Is it an open container?" and such, I think we do.



Quickleaf said:


> Do we need to know that the spell makes a sound "audible from as far away as 300 feet"? We've literally never checked whether something is within 300 feet when knock is used, since that's such a vast distance in a built environment, instead going entirely by feel.



I've fielded many questions about how loud verbal components are, could they be whispered, and the like.  If there was clarity up front we'd all have the same expectations and be on the same page.

D&D is the gateway for more new players than any other single RPG.  Having clearly defined details like this help everyone playing, at the low cost of a bit of extra text for the details instead of just a general description.

So my vote is that yes, we do need that level of verbosity.


----------



## bloodtide (Oct 19, 2022)

As an Old School Gamer, OSR Gamer and 5E gamer, I can say........this is a can of worms.

You can only really have a decent rules lite game with a strong DM.  If you have a young, inexperienced or otherwise weak DM, then a rule lite game will just be a ruin of a non game.

When a spell or any written rule, says something like "you can target any creature you can see" , there are players that will push against that.  A couple players might just be clever, but most will be trying to ruin the game as part of a personal spotlight power trip.  A smart, powerful, aggressive DM can easily swat away any silly player "wacky interpretation" with a simple "nope, does not work.  The End."

And not every DM can, and not every DM is willing, to control a game with an Iron Fist.  So this opens it wide for game disruptions and ruined games by the pushing players.  5E, like many editions before it, has lots of hard rules for things like spell descriptions.   This is a great help for DMs that need it, as they can duck behind the rule book and point to a page to defend the game from pushing player attacks. 

And this does not even mention how many players...and some DMs...like the hard rules for spell descriptions so "everyone" knows exactly how the spell works as "everyone" follows the rules.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 19, 2022)

I’m surprised nobody has yet suggested just deleting all the casters.


----------



## Composer99 (Oct 19, 2022)

Personally, I'm all for trimming down spell descriptions as long as you can convey the same amount of information, or if any information is lost, it's stuff you don't mind losing.

I'm not quite convinced the proposed definition of knock in the OP is quite up to snuff, especially since it does actually reduce the spell's effectiveness (you can no longer end any securement or fastening other than locks with the spell). Personally, I'd also rather that categories of sound be defined separately in the rules so that you can say in spell descriptions that the spell "creates a loud sound" and everyone knows or can easily know what that means without the DM having to make it up on the spot - which also reduces the spell wordcount.

Something a bit more like...


> *Knock* (_2nd-level transmutation_)
> *Cast* 1 action; *Components* V,S; *Instantaneous*
> Choose an object you can see within 60 feet of you. This spell either suppresses the effect of an _arcane lock_ affecting the target for 10 minutes, or instantly unlocks, unbars, or unfastens any one thing that is locking, barring, or otherwise securing the target against being opened. The target emits a loud (page ##) knocking sound when the spell is cast upon it.



That's ~73 words (knocking a full ~60 off the 5e spell description), and, as I read it, it allows you to everything you could do with 5e knock, and insofar as there is any "ask your DM" element to the spell, it provides (IMO) clear guidance as to what ought to be affected. A lock on a door, for instance, is clearly and unambiguously a "one thing that is locking, barring, or otherwise securing the target against being opened", and so is, say, an iron spike holding that door shut, while, say, the strap keeping your backpack secured to your person - or an iron spike keeping the door open! - is not.

(If you don't want to have defined sound categories, than you add a few words to indicate the audible range of the knock - to my mind, it should be unambiguous to the players that casting this spell risks inviting any nearby creatures to investigate the noise, which the word "loudly" by itself does not do (IMO) - unless, of course, "loudly" is a defined keyword.)


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 19, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> You might be able to get away with a shorter, snappier spell description if you can somehow remove all the rules lawyers or have players willing to accept DM fiat without question.



I suspect the newer, younger audience…who vastly outnumber us…are as much like that as some of us are/were. I dunno; just a hunch.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, if it's good enough for Tolkien...
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.



I immediately stopped reading The Hobbit the moment there was a football simile. 

---

Given we are in the digital age, I think there is room for the multi-description method. Put the fluffy stuff in the books because people are likely to want to read fluff in books and might protest against the hard-coded details, put the hard-coded material in the digital tools to shut down any lack of clarity from the fluff and minimize the "convince your DM to do what you want" posts from UAs.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 19, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I’m surprised nobody has yet suggested just deleting all the casters.




Mazes & Manticore: the Manual of Martial Mastery
" _Play as a Fighter, Battemaster, Rogue, Berserker, Ranger, Knight, Monk, Bard or Crafter....all without spells!_ ''


----------



## Grantypants (Oct 19, 2022)

I think a variation on the 4e style might be the best option. Provide a line or two in italics describing what the spell does, then give all the dice mechanics, legalese, and exceptions in a box below. 
The downside is that takes up more space on the page, but I think the extra flavor on each spell is worth it.


----------



## ART! (Oct 23, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> I immediately stopped reading The Hobbit the moment there was a football simile.



That sort of thing pretty much disappears once the story leaves the Shire. Tolkien was good at switching prose styles to suit the moment and the tone.

I'm in favor of anything that can be done to make any rules text less dense and still get the gist across.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 23, 2022)

Horwath said:


> if the choice is between,
> 
> 4E style:
> View attachment 264259
> ...



Meanwhile I absolutely _despise_ the 3.5E style and find it a blight on gaming. Partly because it utterly slows down the act at the table and partly because of how it destroys any physical realism involved in the setting and turns it into just fiat physics that is unconnected to the real world.

I think that we can agree that the 4e and the 3.5 fireball descriptions are roughly equivalent to  up to the end of the first paragraph of 3.5 and the major difference in content is the two paragraphs beyond that. If we go by up to the end of the first paragraph and you want to change squares to feet I honestly don't care. But fireball is the textbook example of why I want to see this form of spell writing disappear.

The penultimate paragraph I find to be one toxic to communication, roleplaying, and worldbuilding because of the way it implies an alternate physics model that isn't really mentioned elsewhere. The paragraph I'm referring to is, of course:
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. *It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.* If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.​For the record Gold and Copper melt at just over a thousand degrees (C) and silver melts at just under it (and bronze has a melting point that that depends on the alloy but is somewhere round there) - so when four out of the five examples are about the same temperature I think we can call this consistent that it melts metals that melt at or below just over a thousand degrees). And it says melt - so the fireball must transfer enough heat to heat the gold, copper, and silver up past the thousand degree mark.

You know what else is just over a thousand degrees? The point where iron gets yellow-hot if we're using a colour spectrum or white hot if we're just talking about red hot vs white hot. Fireball puts enough heat into low melting point metals to melt them - why doesn't it turn swords and armour white hot? And in the process do interesting things to any sort of tempering or hardening. 

What else is something that's about a thousand degrees? A low end but functional crematorium. A thousand degrees transferred into a body will do truly horrible things to it, killing it. This makes Indiana-Jones-surviving-a-nuke-in-a-fridge feel a paragon of realism.

So what's going on with fireball? Should it be melting the flesh off peoples' bones and leaving them as charred bodies? Is it some sort of concealed "Heat Metal" spell and if so why doesn't it affect iron? Do metals in D&D just have different properties to the real world and in which case why isn't this mentioned elsewhere? All this because some hack decided to add in a throwaway line they thought would be thematic without bothering to think of the wider implications and the editors didn't stop. 3.5 confuses better fluff and worldbuilding with more fluff and worldbuilding - and by doing so it manages to undermine anyone else wanting to rebuild unless they go through line by line rather than just change fundamental assumptions.


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 23, 2022)

Composer99 said:


> Personally, I'm all for trimming down spell descriptions as long as you can convey the same amount of information, or if any information is lost, it's stuff you don't mind losing.
> 
> I'm not quite convinced the proposed definition of knock in the OP is quite up to snuff, especially since it does actually reduce the spell's effectiveness (you can no longer end any securement or fastening other than locks with the spell). Personally, I'd also rather that categories of sound be defined separately in the rules so that you can say in spell descriptions that the spell "creates a loud sound" and everyone knows or can easily know what that means without the DM having to make it up on the spot - which also reduces the spell wordcount.
> 
> ...



I really like your writeup. I think it preserves more of the original than my attempt, but still cuts down on the density. I'm curious @Celebrim how Composer's rewrite feels to you? I


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 23, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> I really like your writeup. I think it preserves more of the original than my attempt, but still cuts down on the density. I'm curious @Celebrim how Composer's rewrite feels to you? I




It's getting there.

I now want to know if I can Knock someone's belt to make their pants fall down (or at the very least force them to forgo the bonus of a belt of health).   Similarly for any such targeting of things on a person which might inconvenience them.   And is it the intention of the spell that they get no saving throw for such uses?


----------



## Storyteller Hero (Oct 23, 2022)

In each of my books of magic spells on DMsGuild, I always make sure to have a section with 1-sentence summaries of all the spells in the book, so no matter how wordy I make a spell, it won't be too much of a strain for readers to sift through the spells or get the basic ideas of what they do.

Being free to add as much as I want to a spell, or as much as I feel it needs, gives me creative freedom as a designer. The summaries I make provide relief from the dryness of dense text reading as well as save time for the reader. I feel that this approach might be the more efficient way to meet the needs on "both sides of the page".

Here are links to my works, if anyone is curious:

The Grim: Spells of Necromancy

The Prestige: Spells of Illusion

The Blast: Spells of Evocation

The Artificer (Revised) (contains a section with new spells) -- this one is PWYW

D&D Magic Spell Cheat Sheets -- this one contains 1-sentence summaries for the official published spells


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 23, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Meanwhile I absolutely _despise_ the 3.5E style and find it a blight on gaming. Partly because it utterly slows down the act at the table and partly because of how it destroys any physical realism involved in the setting and turns it into just fiat physics that is unconnected to the real world.
> 
> I think that we can agree that the 4e and the 3.5 fireball descriptions are roughly equivalent to  up to the end of the first paragraph of 3.5 and the major difference in content is the two paragraphs beyond that. If we go by up to the end of the first paragraph and you want to change squares to feet I honestly don't care. But fireball is the textbook example of why I want to see this form of spell writing disappear.
> 
> ...



 It basically uses cartoon and bad movie logic, like being able to hop on rocks in volcanoes safely across flowing magma pools.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 24, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Meanwhile I absolutely _despise_ the 3.5E style and find it a blight on gaming. Partly because it utterly slows down the act at the table and partly because of how it destroys any physical realism involved in the setting and turns it into just fiat physics that is unconnected to the real world.
> 
> I think that we can agree that the 4e and the 3.5 fireball descriptions are roughly equivalent to  up to the end of the first paragraph of 3.5 and the major difference in content is the two paragraphs beyond that. If we go by up to the end of the first paragraph and you want to change squares to feet I honestly don't care. But fireball is the textbook example of why I want to see this form of spell writing disappear.
> 
> ...




For fireballs to nearly instantaneously melt gold/silver/copper, they are either a _lot_ hotter than 1,000 degrees F. or normal rules of physics don't apply.

I ignore that part of the spell.  It makes no sense.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 24, 2022)

Incenjucar said:


> It basically uses cartoon and bad movie logic, like being able to hop on rocks in volcanoes safely across flowing magma pools.



Which is pretty much D&D in a nutshell.  The game of D&D * is * a cartoon-- or at the very least, story and myth.

Anyone who thinks D&D models physical reality in _anything_ is fooling themselves.


----------



## gorice (Oct 24, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> A player once played a fighter who always described killing blows as decapitation. No special rules, just 0 HP = Highlander. The DM was cool with this because most of the time, killing an orc or goblin is just flavor text in the Mercer "how do you want to do this" sense. All went fine until the fighter, dominated by a mind flayer, critted and killed his friend the ranger. When it became time to raise the ranger after the fight, the DM noted that the fighter had decapitated the ranger as is his style and thus raise dead was of no use, they would need a resurrection spell. The ranger argued that there is no rule saying the fighter HAD to decapitate on every kill, and under the Normal rules he could be brought back with raise dead. That little bit of flavor cost another player his PC.
> 
> Again, if you do not have a problem with fiat rules made by the DM, simpler rules are fine. But I find a bit more robust (though not Pathfinder robust) rules kept everyone on the same page.



This is odd, because, to me, the possibility of something that seems like 'a little bit of flavour' becoming important is a central part of what makes RPGs interesting. Otherwise I'm just playing a board game while making sound effects. I sympathise with the ranger player, but this sort of thing can cut both ways (so to speak).


----------



## gorice (Oct 24, 2022)

This fireball discussion is a good example of why the 4e approach is superior. A short, clear, evocative description lets everyone know what the thing does, and helps the DM with making rulings. No two tables are going to agree on the degree of movie logic vs. verisimilitude they want in the game, so it's best to be really clear about what the thing 'is' in the fiction, provide the most essential mechanical details, and then get out of the way.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 24, 2022)

Fireball is also one of those spells that gets put on a pedestal because of its iconic nature and long history of being something you talk your DM into making more powerful by way of your engineering degree or chemistry nerd cred. While I am all for making things more like 4E, it's also a special case in how extreme it is.


----------



## Lojaan (Oct 24, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> As an Old School Gamer, OSR Gamer and 5E gamer, I can say........this is a can of worms.
> 
> You can only really have a decent rules lite game with a strong DM.  If you have a young, inexperienced or otherwise weak DM, then a rule lite game will just be a ruin of a non game.
> 
> ...



This. 100% this. DnD is moving more towards "lawyer speak" for both spells, feats and abilities to combat the rise of the cheesemakers. 

You know the ones. The ones that say you can get the benefits of both dueling and 2WF at the same time by attacking with your offhand first, then sheathing that weapon and then attacking with your main hand.

Because it's technically allowed in the rules, this stuff really messes up organised play.

I dislike it a lot but I don't know what to do about it other than having two descriptions - one fun and flavoured, and one, preferably online so it doesn't affect word count, that is the full legal text with disclaimers.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 25, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> two descriptions - one fun and flavoured, and one, preferably online so it doesn't affect word count, that is the full legal text with disclaimers.



Interesting idea. I reminds me of a condensed dictionary versus an unabridged dictionary.

The simple (DM-decides) core books are the printed version.

The unabridged technical detailing − updatable with official rulings − including corner cases − is online.

It would be like the Errata publishing now, but formatted as a complete core text.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 25, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> As an Old School Gamer, OSR Gamer and 5E gamer, I can say........this is a can of worms.
> 
> You can only really have a decent rules lite game with a strong DM.  If you have a young, inexperienced or otherwise weak DM, then a rule lite game will just be a ruin of a non game.



As an Indie gamer and D&D gamer, nonsense. You do not need that strong a GM to run Fate, Apocalypse World, or Blades in the Dark.  What you need is an empowered GM with strong guidance to fall back on. This is because modern Indie games don't just say "here are the stats and it's up to you" but provide actual useful guidance. For that matter so did actual oD&D with things like XP for GP and rules for designing random dungeons.


bloodtide said:


> And not every DM can, and not every DM is willing, to control a game with an Iron Fist.



It's a good thing that in good games they don't have to use an iron fist to make up for the game being not fit for purpose on its own. However that takes actual design and development (which, oddly enough, Gygax did) and leaning into thematics to make the game be about something. Rather than attempting to be a generic one-size-fits-all system.


----------



## bloodtide (Oct 26, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> As an Indie gamer and D&D gamer, nonsense. You do not need that strong a GM to run Fate, Apocalypse World, or Blades in the Dark.  What you need is an empowered GM with strong guidance to fall back on. This is because modern Indie games don't just say "here are the stats and it's up to you" but provide actual useful guidance. For that matter so did actual oD&D with things like XP for GP and rules for designing random dungeons.



Well, I'm not naming "games".  There really only two ways to control problem players: specific rules or a DMs iron fist.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 26, 2022)

bloodtide said:


> Well, I'm not naming "games".  There really only two ways to control problem players: specific rules or a DMs iron fist.



There are however ways to prevent players being problem players and it's generally better to head things off upstream. Specific rules won't actually solve problem players and DM iron fists can create them.

For that matter Kender are so reviled because they turn otherwise non-problem players who are trying to be good players and follow the game's guidance into problem players.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 26, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> For fireballs to nearly instantaneously melt gold/silver/copper, they are either a _lot_ hotter than 1,000 degrees F. or normal rules of physics don't apply.
> 
> I ignore that part of the spell.  It makes no sense.



Fireballs, make no sense from a physics perspective any temperature that threatens to melt metal will boil your eyeballs and fry the lining of you lungs, mouth and throat. Even at temperatures of a few hundreds of degrees the best one could hope for is to be exhaling at the moment of the flash and have your eyes closed or you are dead or dying.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 26, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Fireballs, make no sense from a physics perspective any temperature that threatens to melt metal will boil your eyeballs and fry the lining of you lungs, mouth and throat. Even at temperatures of a few hundreds of degrees the best one could hope for is to be exhaling at the moment of the flash and have your eyes closed or you are dead or dying.



I think my fundamental problem with pre-4e fireballs is that most of D&D appears to have action movie physics. The metal melting comes from a looney tunes cartoon. It's wrong genre and wrong level of gonzo


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 26, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Fireballs, make no sense from a physics perspective any temperature that threatens to melt metal will boil your eyeballs and fry the lining of you lungs, mouth and throat. Even at temperatures of a few hundreds of degrees the best one could hope for is to be exhaling at the moment of the flash and have your eyes closed or you are dead or dying.



This is all true! To what extent should we make IRL physics the arbiter of magical effects, though? Because that seems like quite a slippery slope.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 26, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> any temperature that threatens to melt metal will boil your eyeballs and fry the lining of you lungs, mouth and throat.




Yes that’s why ignore the part about melting metal. 



UngainlyTitan said:


> Even at temperatures of a few hundreds of degrees the best one could hope for is to be exhaling at the moment of the flash and have your eyes closed or you are dead or dying.




It depends on how long it lasts. 1/1000 of a second would be pretty survivable. 

In any event, assuming normal humans have just a few hit points, yes fireball is insta-death.


----------



## GMMichael (Oct 27, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> So functionally, the _knock_ spell could be written in One D&D more succinctly as (taking it from 137 words to 29 words)....



It could, and should, have been written in 5e like that.

This is my knock:


> Alter 2
> Range: close
> Target: single
> D/M: 0/yes
> ...



About 47 words.  Lots of room for GM interpretation.  Affects locks, bars, bolts, doorstops,  and possibly doors (depending on how much you weigh).  It's up to the GM whether you can affect a bar without knowing its exact location on the other side of the door, or if a lock is a separate object from a door.  (Also contributing: the quality of your roll.)

Since someone mentioned fireball:


> Fire 3
> Range: short
> Target: multi
> D/M: -4/no
> ...



Will it melt metal?  Ask your GM.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 27, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> This. 100% this. DnD is moving more towards "lawyer speak" for both spells, feats and abilities to combat the rise of the cheesemakers.
> 
> You know the ones. The ones that say you can get the benefits of both dueling and 2WF at the same time by attacking with your offhand first, then sheathing that weapon and then attacking with your main hand.
> 
> ...



I think this is the entire idea behind sage advice?


----------



## Lojaan (Oct 27, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I think this is the entire idea behind sage advice?



If it is then it failed.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 27, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> If it is then it failed.



How so?


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 27, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Which is pretty much D&D in a nutshell.  The game of D&D * is * a cartoon-- or at the very least, story and myth.
> 
> Anyone who thinks D&D models physical reality in _anything_ is fooling themselves.



Which is exactly why spells shouldn't try to explain things in terms of physics (the melting metals of the 3.5 fireball mentioned above is a classic example of what not to do).  Spells should be operating on fairy tale logic, on intent and imagery, not as an alternate physics engine.

_Knock_ should just open a door, with a loud knocking sound, unless the door is magically warded against opening.  Having a conversation about "is the door actually bolted or barred, not locked" defeats the imagery.  Unlocking a belt or armor clasps defeats the imagery.  The image of the spell is a magical knock that bypasses a door.  That's all it should do, and it also shouldn't do any less.


----------



## Incenjucar (Oct 27, 2022)

Yeah, the urge to use engineering skill sets to interpret the abstraction of the game causes problems, especially when you start trying to make the rules match the conclusions. I know it's super hard to turn off that part of the brain sometimes, but the game is best served with things focusing on the story beats instead of the hypothetical (and often incorrect!) science as much as possible.
That said, a version of Knock that specifically also works on fasteners would be a great bard spell. :3


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 27, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> How so?



There are a lot of areas that needed "the RAW isn't quite where we wanted it to be, this is what the RA_*I*_ we were aiming for" like the included crawford blurb for the invisible condition or almost any of the druid rulings.  Instead it too frequently doubled down on obviously bad wording  when it didn't put out a ruling that was not at all supported by any of the RAW or plain reading. Too many of those & the GM is left with a late stage Jenga tower & a table of players who feel like there are a lot of arbitrary GM rulings with minimal if any logic behind them.


----------



## Lojaan (Oct 27, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> How so?



Because evidence - the internet is full of ways to exploit loopholes in the rules.

Also we don't need a notoriously inconsistent advice/opinion column. We need hard errata that is supported by and supports the game design principles.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 27, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Because evidence - the internet is full of ways to exploit loopholes in the rules.
> 
> Also we don't need a notoriously inconsistent advice/opinion column. We need hard errata that is supported by and supports the game design principles.



Almost every "rules exploit" turned out to be wrong. The internet will be full of false loopholes no matter what they write in the rules.

Also, you will have an advice and opinion column regardless of what is written in the rules. It's customer service for a TRPG company.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 27, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> There are a lot of areas that needed "the RAW isn't quite where we wanted it to be, this is what the RA_*I*_ we were aiming for" like the included crawford blurb for the invisible condition or almost any of the druid rulings.  Instead it too frequently doubled down on obviously bad wording  when it didn't put out a ruling that was not at all supported by any of the RAW or plain reading. Too many of those & the GM is left with a late stage Jenga tower & a table of players who feel like there are a lot of arbitrary GM rulings with minimal if any logic behind them.



It's been nearly a decade and in general that's not the state of the game (though as always the message board contingent varies from the norm) by the nature of message boards).


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 27, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> It's been nearly a decade and in general that's not the state of the game (though as always the message board contingent varies from the norm) by the nature of message boards).



Huh?  I'm not sure how that relates to my post did you quote the wrong post?


----------



## Lojaan (Oct 27, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> It's been nearly a decade and in general that's not the state of the game (though as always the message board contingent varies from the norm) by the nature of message boards).





Mistwell said:


> Almost every "rules exploit" turned out to be wrong. The internet will be full of false loopholes no matter what they write in the rules.
> 
> Also, you will have an advice and opinion column regardless of what is written in the rules. It's customer service for a TRPG company.




If you are happy with how things are - good for you. This thread is for how things could improve.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 28, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> If you are happy with how things are - good for you. This thread is for how things could improve.



This is not a general "how things are" thread. It' a specific topic. And I don't think a lot of people are unhappy about this specific topic. Some spells need to be improved but there isn't widespread complaint about the quantity of text used for spells.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 29, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I think this is the entire idea behind sage advice?



Sage Advice isn't easily searchable, even putting aside the validity of every ruling. I think the idea here would be a group has an argument about a rule, looks it up online and gets the more-detailed version with examples and rulings.


----------

