sooo.. the formating is terrible

[captpike]

before I go into anything more detailed I think I want to say that the formatting is as bad as 3e.

Spells are in the wrong place, in a list at the back not with the class
its a PDF they can hardly say it would cost more to put the spells with the classes

when I look at the class I want to see everything about it, I don't want to have the flip between several sections of the book in order to get a feel for how they work.

the very least they should do is order spells by spell level

no fluff and crunch separation.
it should be easy and fast to see what the rules are, and what is just suggestions for how things work in the game world. that is not the case

almost everything in the PDF has at least one useless sentence that gives some fluff or something before it gets to the parts you need to know.
I am not against having some suggested fluff in the PDF, but it should be marked in some way that makes it easy to see when you flipping through looking for something specific. Italicizing would be good for this, you rarely need to read fluff more then one time, you will need to look up numbers and such more then once.
this also means you can never confuse a fluff suggestion for a rule.

spells take up way too much space, and hide needed details
a spell that takes up half the page is a spell that is written poorly or is too complicated.

I should be able to look at the top of the spell and tell 90% of all the information, the only things that should be in the text are things that don't fit anywhere else. things that should be very rare.

verbose language where there is no need or it
having a paragraph here a sentice would due, this will slow down trying to learn the system alot.

a good example is when they say what vision races have
http://static.dyp.im/9CUi3rmXRR/large/6818ef63978c11a663d06e6f0e8629fa.png
rather then just say "Vision: darkvision(60ft)" they describe what darkvision is on every entry.

age is just as bad, rather then "Age: 75-700 years" they have a paragraph and then put the needed info at the bottom.

[CyberThread]

What portion are you reviewing?

I rather love the formating in the starter set

[captpike]

all of it, but mostly spells and races are what I mentioned.

[CyberThread]

all of it, but mostly spells and races are what I mentioned.



rules, starter set, pdf, printer book?

[Jeraa]

Spells are in the wrong place, in a list at the back not with the class
its a PDF they can hardly say it would cost more to put the spells with the classes

when I look at the class I want to see everything about it, I don't want to have the flip between several sections of the book in order to get a feel for how they work.

the very least they should do is order spells by spell level

Many spells are shared between classes. It is far easier (and takes up less space) to print the spell in one location, as opposed to printing it in every class description that uses it. And it is far easier to locate a spell in an alphabetical listing that to try to remember what level it is.


verbose language where there is no need or it
having a paragraph here a sentice would due, this will slow down trying to learn the system alot.

a good example is when they say what vision races have (*image removed*) rather then just say "Vision: darkvision(60ft)" they describe what darkvision is on every entry.

I agree. If the ability does not vary between races, then explaining the ability in a single location and just saying "Vision: Darkvision (60 ft)" should be enough.

[Envyus]

before I go into anything more detailed I think I want to say that the formatting is as bad as 3e.

Spells are in the wrong place, in a list at the back not with the class
its a PDF they can hardly say it would cost more to put the spells with the classes

when I look at the class I want to see everything about it, I don't want to have the flip between several sections of the book in order to get a feel for how they work.

the very least they should do is order spells by spell level

I don't view this as bad thing and I like it.



no fluff and crunch separation.
it should be easy and fast to see what the rules are, and what is just suggestions for how things work in the game world. that is not the case

almost everything in the PDF has at least one useless sentence that gives some fluff or something before it gets to the parts you need to know.
I am not against having some suggested fluff in the PDF, but it should be marked in some way that makes it easy to see when you flipping through looking for something specific. Italicizing would be good for this, you rarely need to read fluff more then one time, you will need to look up numbers and such more then once.
this also means you can never confuse a fluff suggestion for a rule.

I don't view this as bad thing and I like it.




spells take up way too much space, and hide needed details
a spell that takes up half the page is a spell that is written poorly or is too complicated.

I should be able to look at the top of the spell and tell 90% of all the information, the only things that should be in the text are things that don't fit anywhere else. things that should be very rare.
I don't view this as a bad thing and like it when stuff is explained and gives the fluff. It does not look poorly written or overly complicated to me.


verbose language where there is no need or it
having a paragraph here a sentice would due, this will slow down trying to learn the system alot.

a good example is when they say what vision races have
http://static.dyp.im/9CUi3rmXRR/large/6818ef63978c11a663d06e6f0e8629fa.png
rather then just say "Vision: darkvision(60ft)" they describe what darkvision is on every entry.

age is just as bad, rather then "Age: 75-700 years" they have a paragraph and then put the needed info at the bottom.c

I don't view this as a bad thing and I like that they explain everything.

[HylianKnight]

I agree with Envyus. This is suppose to teach new people how to play (5E) DnD. This is NOT a reference document or the SRD site. In line with this, this is not meant to be a barebones presentation of the rules - it's meant to be read through, to entice people to want to play along the way.

So yes, spells should be in their own section in the back. Spells are only there to be referenced by players makings Clerics and Wizards. No one who wants to learn the rules should see an entire spell list with descriptions impede their progress and force them to find the right place to skip ahead.

Yes darkvision should be spelled out each time. If someone wants to make a Dwarf Fighter, they should just have to read the Dwarf section to tell them everything they need to know. Once a person knows what Darkvision is, then they can just skip that block of text with no problem.

I, for one was scared that Basic DnD was going to be a barebones collection of abstract rules that would do nothing to bring in new players. I have been majorly impressed so far by how much attention has been given to it to make sure it reads well, and to not get caught up in rules minutia but to instead connect everything to the most central element - the roleplaying.

[da_chicken]

before I go into anything more detailed I think I want to say that the formatting is as bad as 3e.

Spells are in the wrong place, in a list at the back not with the class
its a PDF they can hardly say it would cost more to put the spells with the classes

It is, however, intended to be printed as evidenced by the "Printer Friendly" version.

Additionally, this is how spells appear in most editions. Many players will be familiar with this layout. Finally, having 6 pages for Fighter and 30 for Wizard would make the Classes section pretty awkward to read, too.


when I look at the class I want to see everything about it, I don't want to have the flip between several sections of the book in order to get a feel for how they work.

What did you do when you bought a second book in 4e? Did you have the same complaint about the feats in the PHB being in their own chapter? What about skills? It's not like many Wizards took Athletics (unless there was some absurd skill power I'm not aware of).

The style of the game is to reuse as many elements as possible, including sharing spells. Thus, it makes sense to consolidate the description list. 4e's was to invent a new name and new description for everything, even if it was identical in every way but name.


the very least they should do is order spells by spell level

They did this in the 1e and 2e PHB. It actually made it very difficult to look up a spell while playing, particularly in 2e where the page count doubled. Consolidated and alphabetized works a hundred times better in actual play. IMO, it's another thing they did in 4e that proves that you need to have computer aid to play the game and the books were little more than ashcan copies.


no fluff and crunch separation.

This is a matter of style. I prefer integrated. I think it's more appealing and more fun to read, and makes me feel like I'm a part of the game world instead of just playing a dice rolling game. I read someone earlier say they were tired of reading "stereo instructions" and that the new layout was much friendlier and easier to pick up. I don't want to feel like I'm looking at API documentation when I'm reading a RPG, and I'm someone who actually likes to read API documentation. I mean, it's still dry, but I like reading that a lot more than grinding through power descriptions that are so abstract that you can't even visualize what your character is doing.

[Lokiare]

It is, however, intended to be printed as evidenced by the "Printer Friendly" version.

Additionally, this is how spells appear in most editions. Many players will be familiar with this layout. Finally, having 6 pages for Fighter and 30 for Wizard would make the Classes section pretty awkward to read, too.



What did you do when you bought a second book in 4e? Did you have the same complaint about the feats in the PHB being in their own chapter? What about skills? It's not like many Wizards took Athletics (unless there was some absurd skill power I'm not aware of).

The style of the game is to reuse as many elements as possible, including sharing spells. Thus, it makes sense to consolidate the description list. 4e's was to invent a new name and new description for everything, even if it was identical in every way but name.



They did this in the 1e and 2e PHB. It actually made it very difficult to look up a spell while playing, particularly in 2e where the page count doubled. Consolidated and alphabetized works a hundred times better in actual play. IMO, it's another thing they did in 4e that proves that you need to have computer aid to play the game and the books were little more than ashcan copies.



This is a matter of style. I prefer integrated. I think it's more appealing and more fun to read, and makes me feel like I'm a part of the game world instead of just playing a dice rolling game. I read someone earlier say they were tired of reading "stereo instructions" and that the new layout was much friendlier and easier to pick up. I don't want to feel like I'm looking at API documentation when I'm reading a RPG, and I'm someone who actually likes to read API documentation. I mean, it's still dry, but I like reading that a lot more than grinding through power descriptions that are so abstract that you can't even visualize what your character is doing.

I didn't really care about this argument until you brought up 4E. Find me more than a few powers that are identical but have different names. I dare you. It's another of those internet memes that people repeat over and over and over.

[da_chicken]

I didn't really care about this argument until you brought up 4E. Find me more than a few powers that are identical but have different names. I dare you. It's another of those internet memes that people repeat over and over and over.

Don't be so literal, and don't be so defensive. The point isn't that they're identical word-for-word, it's that they invented a new power with a new name for the same thematic action.

Example: Compare Dragonfrost (Sor At-Will, "A gust of frost hammers your foe and knocks it back.") and Ray of Frost (Wiz At-Will, "A blisteringly cold ray of white frost streaks to your target."). Those sound like they should be doing the exact same thing to me, and they indeed do almost exactly the same thing mechanically, yet they have trivially different functionality (one pushes, one slows). In 4e, these are separate powers. In any other edition, they would be the same spell that would appear on the class list of two different classes.

I didn't say it was good or bad. It's just a different style. Since the style is different, the layout is different.

[Sartharina]

before I go into anything more detailed I think I want to say that the formatting is as bad as 3e.

Spells are in the wrong place, in a list at the back not with the class
its a PDF they can hardly say it would cost more to put the spells with the classes

when I look at the class I want to see everything about it, I don't want to have the flip between several sections of the book in order to get a feel for how they work.
1. Spells are shared between classes.
2. While spell access is a class feature, the spells themselves are not, and are also accessed through many other of the game's subsystems, such as magic items, monsters, locations, and ambient events.
3. Putting all spells in with the class would overbloat spellcasting classes. You can bitch about this making casters more powerful by giving them more options, but the expendability, diversity, niche application, and limitations on spells are what make them spells in D&D, and the quantity is mandatory (Along with the limited scope). Even as a PDF, every class should have about the same space dedicated to it for ease of skimming.


no fluff and crunch separation.
it should be easy and fast to see what the rules are, and what is just suggestions for how things work in the game world. that is not the case

almost everything in the PDF has at least one useless sentence that gives some fluff or something before it gets to the parts you need to know.
I am not against having some suggested fluff in the PDF, but it should be marked in some way that makes it easy to see when you flipping through looking for something specific. Italicizing would be good for this, you rarely need to read fluff more then one time, you will need to look up numbers and such more then once.
this also means you can never confuse a fluff suggestion for a rule.HALLELUJAH! What you are calling "Fluff Suggestions" are Rules. Tabletop games are not CRPGs. When you write out how to handle action resolution for a game system, you have to write it in the manner in which it interacts with the world you are playing in, not against some abstraction.


spells take up way too much space, and hide needed details
a spell that takes up half the page is a spell that is written poorly or is too complicated.

I should be able to look at the top of the spell and tell 90% of all the information, the only things that should be in the text are things that don't fit anywhere else. things that should be very rare.No,the text of the spell tells you what the spell actually does, what the spell is, what its effects are, and what makes it magic, and provides guidelines for the DM to arbitrate its effects and limitations. The top is simply for quick categorization purposes, not learning what the spell does. (And one of the biggest and dumbest problems with 3.5 is people treating the header text of a spell as the primary source on it, when the description is where it's actually at.) I'd rather the game NOT try to appeal to people who can't even be bothered to try to read it.


verbose language where there is no need or it
having a paragraph here a sentice would due, this will slow down trying to learn the system alot.

a good example is when they say what vision races have
http://static.dyp.im/9CUi3rmXRR/large/6818ef63978c11a663d06e6f0e8629fa.png
rather then just say "Vision: darkvision(60ft)" they describe what darkvision is on every entry.

age is just as bad, rather then "Age: 75-700 years" they have a paragraph and then put the needed info at the bottom.I advise you try re-reading the very first page of the PDF to understand what the game's saying.

This is an RPG, not an SRD.


Don't be so literal, and don't be so defensive. The point isn't that they're identical word-for-word, it's that they invented a new power with a new name for the same thematic action.

Example: Compare Dragonfrost (Sor At-Will, "A gust of frost hammers your foe and knocks it back.") and Ray of Frost (Wiz At-Will, "A blisteringly cold ray of white frost streaks to your target."). Those sound like they should be doing the exact same thing to me, and they indeed do almost exactly the same thing mechanically, yet they have trivially different functionality (one pushes, one slows). In 4e, these are separate powers. In any other edition, they would be the same spell that would appear on the class list of two different classes.

I didn't say it was good or bad. It's just a different style. Since the style is different, the layout is different.Whoa... I'm going to strongly have to disagree with you, especially if you consider these to be 'Similar powers" - the only common theme is the damage type. If you consider these two dramatically different spells to be similar, any other examples you might have are also suspect.

Just from this excerpt, "Dragonfrost" is clearly a sudden, forceful effect (Hence a "Gust") - closest mundane example I can think of is opening a door on a cold, windy day and being pushed back as the wind whirls around you. Or getting shot by a really cold airzooka big enough to knock you off your feet, as a more sensible one. "Ray of Frost", by contrast, is more like getting Liquid Nitrogen splashed on you - it hurts because its really frikken cold and you're slowed because the body really doesn't like being cold and starts shuddering/shivering and locking up to try to conserve heat and make the cold go away.

[Kurald Galain]

no fluff and crunch separation.

Good. That means that WOTC has learned from their past mistakes. 5E would never be successful if these were separate.

[Thrudd]

Most of the complaints I'm hearing boil down to "this isn't enough like 4e". This isn't 4e, get over it. Not that I think it is a perfect game, but c'mon. We can all continue playing the editions we like best regardless, nobody is taking away your old books.

In regards to fluff, this document is meant as an introduction for new players, including people who know nothing about D&D or TTRPGs at all. The use of descriptive prose alongside game mechanics is completely justified and even necessary here.

[Doug Lampert]

Most of the complaints I'm hearing boil down to "this isn't enough like 4e". This isn't 4e, get over it. Not that I think it is a perfect game, but c'mon. We can all continue playing the editions we like best regardless, nobody is taking away your old books.

In regards to fluff, this document is meant as an introduction for new players, including people who know nothing about D&D or TTRPGs at all. The use of descriptive prose alongside game mechanics is completely justified and even necessary here.

Yep, I strongly prefer 4th to 3rd, but many of these complaints are silly, this is much more similar to 3rd than 4th, that's been obvious for nearly 2 years.

I can't imagine how someone can simultaneously argue that all spell descriptions should be in each class description's section, but that it's unreasonable to define darkvision in each race's description. Really? Doesn't the same "everything must be self contained" that they're applying to classes also apply to races?

It's not unreasonable to say that a common ability held by multiple races should be defined once in its own section, but spells are in fact common abilities held by multiple classes, and it isn't unreasonable to say that they should be defined once in their own section.

Now the SPELL LIST arguably should be in the class description. Because what spells you can learn and cast actually is a class feature. Just as dwarfs having darkvision is in the dwarf write-up, it isn't unreasonable for the fact that wizards have fireball as a level 3 spell to be in the wizard write-up, but then to actually find out what a fireball does you look at the "spells" section, because it's a common element.

[rlc]

Well, since pretty much everything else had been covered

when I look at the class I want to see everything about it, I don't want to have the flip between several sections of the book in order to get a feel for how they work.
...
a good example is when they say what vision races have
http://static.dyp.im/9CUi3rmXRR/large/6818ef63978c11a663d06e6f0e8629fa.png


When I look at an ability, I want to see everything about it, I don't want to have to flip between several sections of the book in order to get a feel for how it works.

[lee7pwnage]

Now the SPELL LIST arguably should be in the class description. Because what spells you can learn and cast actually is a class feature. Just as dwarfs having darkvision is in the dwarf write-up, it isn't unreasonable for the fact that wizards have fireball as a level 3 spell to be in the wizard write-up, but then to actually find out what a fireball does you look at the "spells" section, because it's a common element.

EDIT: I mis-read this. I agree with Doug.

I have to disagree and say it shouldn't be split. The spell list will be drawn upon not only by, say, the wizard, but also by an number of NPCs (who may or may not be wizards), monsters, magic items, and prestige/other core classes later. They need to be neatly in one spot, rather than scattered throughout different classes.

[Composer99]

EDIT: I mis-read this. I agree with Doug.

I have to disagree and say it shouldn't be split. The spell list will be drawn upon not only by, say, the wizard, but also by an number of NPCs (who may or may not be wizards), monsters, magic items, and prestige/other core classes later. They need to be neatly in one spot, rather than scattered throughout different classes.

I would say that, as per Doug Lampert, each class' spell list should be in the class' entry, and the start of the spell description section should include either (or both) a spell list sorted by class & level (as currently in the D&D 5e Basic rules) or a spell list sorted by school.

[rlc]

Because the shown cleric domain does this, it's possible that they do. However. The shown wizard archetype doesn't, so I don't know.

[Psyren]

What I hate about the spell presentation is that there is no line in the spell description to say which spell list it's on. This is particularly annoying for the new spells like Misty Step, but I can only imagine what it's like for a new player. Someone coming in from, say, Dragon Age might think that wizards can heal while someone coming in from WoW might think Clerics have Sunburst.

[da_chicken]

What I hate about the spell presentation is that there is no line in the spell description to say which spell list it's on. This is particularly annoying for the new spells like Misty Step, but I can only imagine what it's like for a new player. Someone coming in from, say, Dragon Age might think that wizards can heal while someone coming in from WoW might think Clerics have Sunburst.

Agreed. I don't like that either.

It was bad in the playtest, because all the swift Ranger and Paladin spells were a bit confusing until you figured out what was going on.

IIRC, the Light domain grants Sunburst to Clerics, if that makes you feel better. :smallbiggrin:

[captpike]

Spells are in the wrong place, in a list at the back not with the class


Many spells are shared between classes. It is far easier (and takes up less space) to print the spell in one location, as opposed to printing it in every class description that uses it. And it is far easier to locate a spell in an alphabetical listing that to try to remember what level it is.

space is a non-issue in a PDF, even if its made to print its easy to make it such that you can have either by having the class spells in the class, then have them all in the back. you just say which ones you want to print.



So yes, spells should be in their own section in the back. Spells are only there to be referenced by players makings Clerics and Wizards. No one who wants to learn the rules should see an entire spell list with descriptions impede their progress and force them to find the right place to skip ahead.

really? that is your argument? "its too hard to flip past the classes, so every class should be short?" anyone who has a hard time fliping past 10 pages is not someone who is going to be able to read the document let alone play the game.


It is, however, intended to be printed as evidenced by the "Printer Friendly" version.

Additionally, this is how spells appear in most editions. Many players will be familiar with this layout. Finally, having 6 pages for Fighter and 30 for Wizard would make the Classes section pretty awkward to read, too.

again, PDF not printed, can easily have both.

and the last edition did not do this, so many players are not familiar with it.

I am sorry I am still not buying the "its harder to flip to page 30 then page 20" argument.




What did you do when you bought a second book in 4e? Did you have the same complaint about the feats in the PHB being in their own chapter? What about skills? It's not like many Wizards took Athletics (unless there was some absurd skill power I'm not aware of).

The style of the game is to reuse as many elements as possible, including sharing spells. Thus, it makes sense to consolidate the description list. 4e's was to invent a new name and new description for everything, even if it was identical in every way but name.

I said class, feats are not a part of the class, nor are skills, and yes some wizards did go Str secondary and take athletics.

no 4e's style was to not be lazy and to make up new game elements as they were needed. 3e's was to be as lazy as possible and re-use everything so much that half the classes were simply slightly altered versions of older classes

so in summary I am trying to think of situations where I would be looking up a spell and would know neither the class, nor the level of it and the only situation I can come up with are domains. in every other situation you would know both. and for domains you could easily say "you know sunburst (wizard Lv3)"

unless there are common situations I am missing when why not format them correctly? what common situation would you need to look up a spell and not know anything about it other then the name? certainly not when playing a character, nor when making one.


no fluff and crunch separation.


This is a matter of style. I prefer integrated. I think it's more appealing and more fun to read, and makes me feel like I'm a part of the game world instead of just playing a dice rolling game. I read someone earlier say they were tired of reading "stereo instructions" and that the new layout was much friendlier and easier to pick up. I don't want to feel like I'm looking at API documentation when I'm reading a RPG, and I'm someone who actually likes to read API documentation. I mean, it's still dry, but I like reading that a lot more than grinding through power descriptions that are so abstract that you can't even visualize what your character is doing.

that would only be true if its either or. if you separate fluff and crunch then those who want to take the suggested fluff as RAW can, and those who don't want to don't have to. so everyone gets what they want.
however when you don't do this you have no choice, if I wanted to refluff the system to suit me, change fluff on races, on powers and such I would need to change alot of the rules, and take the time to go through each spell and see what are rules and what is just fluff.

and of course NOT separating them goes against the goals of the system.



HALLELUJAH! What you are calling "Fluff Suggestions" are Rules. Tabletop games are not CRPGs. When you write out how to handle action resolution for a game system, you have to write it in the manner in which it interacts with the world you are playing in, not against some abstraction.

I guess your not big into RP Then, you want everyone to play the same way. you don't want anyone to be able to change their spells in ways that don't hurt anyone (besides your ego I guess).
if you don't want to use your imagination or to RP then yes you can and should the some suggested fluff but there is no reason the system should tell me how fireball works on any but a mechanical level.

what your saying would only be true if the system was only made to handle one setting, but that is not D&D. unless they have released a statement saying they will not release any other settings for the game, nor will they support homebrew settings.
no? thought so, that means they have to support every setting even those not out yet.


Good. That means that WOTC has learned from their past mistakes. 5E would never be successful if these were separate.

you mean the mistake that got them the top RPG for several years? that one? the one that only went south when they started making content that went against the basic premisses they layed out?

spells take up way too much space, and hide needed details



No,the text of the spell tells you what the spell actually does, what the spell is, what its effects are, and what makes it magic, and provides guidelines for the DM to arbitrate its effects and limitations. The top is simply for quick categorization purposes, not learning what the spell does. (And one of the biggest and dumbest problems with 3.5 is people treating the header text of a spell as the primary source on it, when the description is where it's actually at.) I'd rather the game NOT try to appeal to people who can't even be bothered to try to read it.


no the header is rules just as much as the text is, unless there is a rules I missed saying otherwise. the fact the text is so long will make every casters turn take 5x as long as it should.

verbose language where there is no need or it



Yes darkvision should be spelled out each time. If someone wants to make a Dwarf Fighter, they should just have to read the Dwarf section to tell them everything they need to know. Once a person knows what Darkvision is, then they can just skip that block of text with no problem.

in the least it should be made clear you have generic darkvision, the way its written implies that you have a spiecla kind of darkvision, why else would it be described in detail? nor is the sentice teling you why dwarfs have it needed.

Vision: darkvision(60ft) darkvision is [rules] is the most that could be needed.




I can't imagine how someone can simultaneously argue that all spell descriptions should be in each class description's section, but that it's unreasonable to define darkvision in each race's description. Really? Doesn't the same "everything must be self contained" that they're applying to classes also apply to races?

It's not unreasonable to say that a common ability held by multiple races should be defined once in its own section, but spells are in fact common abilities held by multiple classes, and it isn't unreasonable to say that they should be defined once in their own section.


because darkvision means you can see in the dark, and involves no choice, you either have it or you don't.

you have to pick your spells. and its time consuming and stupid to have to mark 5 pages in the back of the book so you can flip between them and see which one you want.

---

Well, since pretty much everything else had been covered

When I look at an ability, I want to see everything about it, I don't want to have to flip between several sections of the book in order to get a feel for how it works.

it is reasonable to have all the "wizard" things in one chapter, not so much to have every rule put in the book 5 times because whenever vision is mention they have to define how LOS and vision work.

[Arzanyos]

that would only be true if its either or. if you separate fluff and crunch then those who want to take the suggested fluff as RAW can, and those who don't want to don't have to. so everyone gets what they want.
however when you don't do this you have no choice, if I wanted to refluff the system to suit me, change fluff on races, on powers and such I would need to change alot of the rules, and take the time to go through each spell and see what are rules and what is just fluff.

and of course NOT separating them goes against the goals of the system.

I guess your not big into RP Then, you want everyone to play the same way. you don't want anyone to be able to change their spells in ways that don't hurt anyone (besides your ego I guess).
if you don't want to use your imagination or to RP then yes you can and should the some suggested fluff but there is no reason the system should tell me how fireball works on any but a mechanical level.

The problem with the argument that separating "fluff" and "crunch" gives everyone what they want is that it doesn't. First off, how would you even do that? Have all the fluff in a separate chapter, labeled, "Use this fluff if you're too lame to come up with your own campaign setting"? If you do that, then you will tear away the flavor with the fluff, uprooting it, leaving the flavor making no sense, while the "crunch" will be left sterile and unappetizing. Also, more on that after the commercial below.



what your saying would only be true if the system was only made to handle one setting, but that is not D&D. unless they have released a statement saying they will not release any other settings for the game, nor will they support homebrew settings.
no? thought so, that means they have to support every setting even those not out yet.


The system is made to handle multiple settings, but it is also made with a default setting in mind. settings are hard to make, and it takes time to make a good one, much more time than it would take to make, say, a combat system:smallwink:. Thus, D&D Next just assumes everybody will be in Forgotten Realms, and so the can use Forgotten Realms specific stuff. If they come out with another campaign setting later, it'll tell you what to swap out.

[Palegreenpants]

I agree that there needs to be a distinct separation of Fluff from Crunch. I'm the sort of DM who gets very annoyed when a player starts making world-assumptions based on the silly world-specific Fluff that they read in a PHB.

Also, to the OP. Punctuation and capitalization: these are the virtues of life.

[rlc]

Pike, you must have a strange definition of the term "reasonable."

[Kurald Galain]

I agree that there needs to be a distinct separation of Fluff from Crunch. I'm the sort of DM who gets very annoyed when a player starts making world-assumptions based on the silly world-specific Fluff that they read in a PHB.

That's not what f/c separation means. Rather, it's about being able to (somehow) play a platemail-wearing fighter using the crunch of the wizard class. So when he's casting a magic missile, it'd be refluffed to him running forward and stabbing someone, and his AC is low because it's really old plate mail, that sort of thing. Or, there'd be frequent situations where what a character does makes no sense ("you stab the skeleton in the forehead so that blood flows into its eye and it's blind now!") but it has to be accepted anyway because of the MST3K Mantra ("it's only a game, just relax").

Enabling this sort of behavior is precisely the main complaint against 4E, so it should be no surprise that WOTC has stepped away from it.

[Palegreenpants]

That's not what f/c separation means. Rather, it's about being able to (somehow) play a platemail-wearing fighter using the crunch of the wizard class. So when he's casting a magic missile, it'd be refluffed to him running forward and stabbing someone, and his AC is low because it's really old plate mail, that sort of thing. Or, there'd be frequent situations where what a character does makes no sense ("you stab the skeleton in the forehead so that blood flows into its eye and it's blind now!") but it has to be accepted anyway because of the MST3K Mantra ("it's only a game, just relax").

Enabling this sort of behavior is precisely the main complaint against 4E, so it should be no surprise that WOTC has stepped away from it.

Interesting. Its not how I generally view f/c, but its totally legitimate.
I might have made my comment more appropriate by saying 'lore/crunch separation.'

[captpike]

The problem with the argument that separating "fluff" and "crunch" gives everyone what they want is that it doesn't. First off, how would you even do that? Have all the fluff in a separate chapter, labeled, "Use this fluff if you're too lame to come up with your own campaign setting"? If you do that, then you will tear away the flavor with the fluff, uprooting it, leaving the flavor making no sense, while the "crunch" will be left sterile and unappetizing. Also, more on that after the commercial below.

do what 4e did and italicize it above the crunch. and add somewhere in the front that that is fluff. although in context it should be obvious.



The system is made to handle multiple settings, but it is also made with a default setting in mind. settings are hard to make, and it takes time to make a good one, much more time than it would take to make, say, a combat system:smallwink:. Thus, D&D Next just assumes everybody will be in Forgotten Realms, and so the can use Forgotten Realms specific stuff. If they come out with another campaign setting later, it'll tell you what to swap out.

it should assume no such thing except in places it has to, like gods.

We are not talking about a chapter we are talking about it spread so far and interwoven so much that it would take a dozen pages just to list where it is, and to say "ignore this in my setting"

it is not reasonable to require a DM to go through literally every spell, and rewrite them all just to take out the fluff that does not exist in his setting.

[Arzanyos]

@Kurald and palegreenpants,

Yeah, this is why I don't really like the word "fluff"

I see where palegreen is coming from, that it's annoying when your players make assumptions about your world based on default fluff. However, I think the default fluff is useful for newer DMs, Dms who don't have time to make their own world. Honestly, I think world assumptions might be something that just needs to be talked about with one's group. I have no idea what i'm saying.

Meanwhile, what Kurald is describing to me looks like reflavoring. I define fluff as the stuff that changes world to world, like the ecology of an ogre, the history of dwarves, stuff like that. Meanwhile, flavor is what drives the mechanics. A wizard's spell works differently than a rogue's sneak attack, because the wizard is casting a spell, not sneak attacking.

Fluff is useful, flavor is vital. But, that's just my opinion.

[captpike]

That's not what f/c separation means. Rather, it's about being able to (somehow) play a platemail-wearing fighter using the crunch of the wizard class. So when he's casting a magic missile, it'd be refluffed to him running forward and stabbing someone, and his AC is low because it's really old plate mail, that sort of thing. Or, there'd be frequent situations where what a character does makes no sense ("you stab the skeleton in the forehead so that blood flows into its eye and it's blind now!") but it has to be accepted anyway because of the MST3K Mantra ("it's only a game, just relax").

Enabling this sort of behavior is precisely the main complaint against 4E, so it should be no surprise that WOTC has stepped away from it.

that is just an absurd exaggeration. it means being able to play a fighter but call him a rogue, or being able to play a psion but be a wizard in game. or being able to reflavor your teleport powers to running really fast.

even if things were as extreme as you say so what? you don't like it don't play your game like that. having the game work at either extreme means it works at anything between them too. it means the players and DM not the system determine how you play.


@Kurald and palegreenpants,

Yeah, this is why I don't really like the word "fluff"

I see where palegreen is coming from, that it's annoying when your players make assumptions about your world based on default fluff. However, I think the default fluff is useful for newer DMs, Dms who don't have time to make their own world. Honestly, I think world assumptions might be something that just needs to be talked about with one's group. I have no idea what i'm saying.

Meanwhile, what Kurald is describing to me looks like reflavoring. I define fluff as the stuff that changes world to world, like the ecology of an ogre, the history of dwarves, stuff like that. Meanwhile, flavor is what drives the mechanics. A wizard's spell works differently than a rogue's sneak attack, because the wizard is casting a spell, not sneak attacking.

Fluff is useful, flavor is vital. But, that's just my opinion.

yes there should be default fluff, but it should be separated so that you can take it or leave it. your not forced to re-write rules and how spells work just so you can reflavor your character

[Kurald Galain]

I see where palegreen is coming from, that it's annoying when your players make assumptions about your world based on default fluff. However, I think the default fluff is useful for newer DMs, Dms who don't have time to make their own world. Honestly, I think world assumptions might be something that just needs to be talked about with one's group.

Good point. I think the way to deal with this is for the DM to type out his world assumptions before the first session (one page will generally be sufficient), and tell the players that that's what counts, not the default stuff in the PHB. After all, if you're going to play e.g. Dark Sun then not everything in the PHB is going to apply either.

[Arzanyos]

I think you should have to rewrite spells and rules to reflavor your character. Because I believe classes are more than the sum of their abilities, that they are archetypes, and that if your reflavor, your doing it wrong. The game should not have to support you doing it wrong. They don't need to have you be able to play the wizard as a rogue, because they have the rogue.

[captpike]

Good point. I think the way to deal with this is for the DM to type out his world assumptions before the first session (one page will generally be sufficient), and tell the players that that's what counts, not the default stuff in the PHB. After all, if you're going to play e.g. Dark Sun then not everything in the PHB is going to apply either.

that only works if its obvious where the rules end and fluff starts. when you can't tell its hard to know if that text in the spell is describing a rule needed to balance the spell fireball or if its just fluff.

[captpike]

I think you should have to rewrite spells and rules to reflavor your character. Because I believe classes are more than the sum of their abilities, that they are archetypes, and that if your reflavor, your doing it wrong. The game should not have to support you doing it wrong. They don't need to have you be able to play the wizard as a rogue, because they have the rogue.

so you want to play my character for me? you think every wizard should be the played the same? really? it must be boring to play a class for the second time given that you cant play him differently

there is no wrong way to play D&D if your having fun, the point of the rules it to give you as many options as possible. that it should be "a game for everyone" its even one of their goals.

[Palegreenpants]

Good point. I think the way to deal with this is for the DM to type out his world assumptions before the first session (one page will generally be sufficient), and tell the players that that's what counts, not the default stuff in the PHB. After all, if you're going to play e.g. Dark Sun then not everything in the PHB is going to apply either.

Yeah, I now make my setting's limits and lore very clear to new players. It works, but there are a few adamant weirdies who can't handle, say, a lack of Owlbears.

[captpike]

Yeah, I now make my setting's limits and lore very clear to new players. It works, but there are a few adamant weirdies who can't handle, say, a lack of Owlbears.

are you saying my owlbear summoner would not work in your setting?


....note to self, find way to make an owlbear summoner character....

[Arzanyos]

so you want to play my character for me? you think every wizard should be the played the same? really? it must be boring to play a class for the second time given that you cant play him differently

there is no wrong way to play D&D if your having fun, the point of the rules it to give you as many options as possible. that it should be "a game for everyone" its even one of their goals.

Dude, you can play different wizards without reflavoring. There are eight different schools you can specialize in. An Evoker will not be the same wizard as an Abjurer. And for classes with less options, it's the same. Sir Lance Lancedoom the mounted fighter and Fay Lanks the spearfighter are not the same character, even though they have the same class, and similarly shaped weapons.

Also, I don't believe the point of the rules is to give as many options as possible. The rules inherently limit your options. After all, fighters can do a whole host of things if your creative, not just move and attack the enemy. However, that's what everyone gravitates to, because that's the option in the rules.

[rlc]

Pike's arguing just to argue now

[Palegreenpants]

Pike's arguing just to argue now

You don't say? :D
Just wait, he'll quote this.

[Psyren]

Fay Lanks the spearfighter

...How did I not think of this? :smallbiggrin:

[Sartharina]

Spells are in the wrong place, in a list at the back not with the class


space is a non-issue in a PDF, even if its made to print its easy to make it such that you can have either by having the class spells in the class, then have them all in the back. you just say which ones you want to print.


really? that is your argument? "its too hard to flip past the classes, so every class should be short?" anyone who has a hard time fliping past 10 pages is not someone who is going to be able to read the document let alone play the game.


again, PDF not printed, can easily have both.

and the last edition did not do this, so many players are not familiar with it.

I am sorry I am still not buying the "its harder to flip to page 30 then page 20" argument.Space IS an issue in a PDF - Screen space is not infinite, the scroll bar isn't dynamic, bookmark space layout matters, and page composition and layout are critical even with 'endless' scrolling available.


I said class, feats are not a part of the class, nor are skills, and yes some wizards did go Str secondary and take athletics.

no 4e's style was to not be lazy and to make up new game elements as they were needed. 3e's was to be as lazy as possible and re-use everything so much that half the classes were simply slightly altered versions of older classes

so in summary I am trying to think of situations where I would be looking up a spell and would know neither the class, nor the level of it and the only situation I can come up with are domains. in every other situation you would know both. and for domains you could easily say "you know sunburst (wizard Lv3)"

unless there are common situations I am missing when why not format them correctly? what common situation would you need to look up a spell and not know anything about it other then the name? certainly not when playing a character, nor when making one.Finding a scroll of a spell comes to mind.

Also. Spells are not part of a class. The ability to cast spells are part of a class, but the spells themselves aren't.



no fluff and crunch separation.


that would only be true if its either or. if you separate fluff and crunch then those who want to take the suggested fluff as RAW can, and those who don't want to don't have to. so everyone gets what they want.
however when you don't do this you have no choice, if I wanted to refluff the system to suit me, change fluff on races, on powers and such I would need to change alot of the rules, and take the time to go through each spell and see what are rules and what is just fluff.

and of course NOT separating them goes against the goals of the system.Those who take the suggested fluff find themselves strung up by limitations on the fluff for sterilized mechanics. Those who change the fluff to something stupid irritate everyone else because they are trying to abuse mechanics and force square pegs into round holes.

D&D is an RPG, not an SRD. Also, while it lacks a single setting, it does have a metasetting instead. Magic works a certain way, there are certain races, etc. By changing fluff, you're changing rules. If you want to change something, don't be afraid to change the rules, which often need to sit down and shut up. They're guidelines used for arbitrating disputes.


I guess your not big into RP Then, you want everyone to play the same way. you don't want anyone to be able to change their spells in ways that don't hurt anyone (besides your ego I guess).
if you don't want to use your imagination or to RP then yes you can and should the some suggested fluff but there is no reason the system should tell me how fireball works on any but a mechanical level. Do you also get annoyed when engineers tell you how normal fires work on any level but a bare mechanical one? 'Fluff" is mechanical. A fireball is a burst of fire. Yes, it does Xd6 points of flaming damage, but the actually important detail is that a large area of space suddenly and briefly found itself on fire in a high-temperature conflagration.


what your saying would only be true if the system was only made to handle one setting, but that is not D&D. unless they have released a statement saying they will not release any other settings for the game, nor will they support homebrew settings.
no? thought so, that means they have to support every setting even those not out yet. Please learn what a metasetting is. D&D has a flexible metasetting, instead of a specific setting. That said, everything works a specific way. Do you own any 3.5 books? Read through them cover-to-cover. Particularly the Complete series, the Races of series, the environmental books (Dungeonscape, Cityscape, Stormwrack, Frostburn, Sandstorm), and the subsystem books (Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Expanded Psionics Handbook, Magic of Incarnum). Read the fluff. Also look through and read the Monster Manuals. Those define the metasetting of the game. Any individual setting within that metasetting can pick and choose what elements from that metasetting it uses, and add more (Through homebrewing for homebrew settings, or producing setting books ). Also read through the setting books for D&D 3.5, and notice something they do: They change rules, they add new ones. They add new mechanics, they add new races, they redefine races (MInotaurs are an ECL 8 monster in 3.5 that hit hard and can't be Mazed. Unless you're playing Dragonlance, where they're an ECL 0 playable race of sailors). They don't merely refluff the old into completely different things (Dragonlance doesn't merely refluff Half-orcs to be minotaurs, half-orcs, and its other brutal-but-strong races, and doesn't merely refluff Halflings to be Kender), and in those same sections provide the new context for the old/core content it does re-use - up to and including changing them in minor ways, like Eberron giving Talenta Plains Halflings weapon familiarity with boomerangs, tangats, and sharrash, and certain Elves familiarity with scimitars and double-scimitars.

If you want to change stuff, change stuff.

The fluff is also the important part of several feats.(Often accompanied by terrible mechanics that fumble in expressing the effect of the feat because of the demands of sterilized crunch).

In an TTRPG, the mechanics should serve the fluff, not the other way around.


you mean the mistake that got them the top RPG for several years? that one? the one that only went south when they started making content that went against the basic premisses they layed out?D&D has been the top RPG for 40 years. 4e fractured the base, and allowed Pathfinder (Which stuck with the model that kept D&D on top for 40 years) to take the lead.


that only works if its obvious where the rules end and fluff starts. when you can't tell its hard to know if that text in the spell is describing a rule needed to balance the spell fireball or if its just fluff.It is obvious where the rules end: At the period on the last page. Fluff is rules. If you're not afraid to change fluff, don't be afraid to change rules, too.

[captpike]

{scrubbed}

[Palegreenpants]

Yeah, I didn't even bother to read captpike's last post. Absurdity mixed with an almost willful disregard for capitalization, terrible.
'Pants has left the building.

[Sartharina]

first I am very sorry for you. You seam to lack a basic understanding of what fluff and crunch are. You have been told you are wrong, and even if you were not you either can read, or have someone to dictate to this means you lack the intellectual ability to understand.

so I will tell you one last time, in the hopes you will understand.

rules are those things you use to play the game, like how to hit, or how many health you have.How to hit and "how many health you have" are not the game. Those are status indicators for resolving conflict/arguments. How you play the game is in directing and deciding how a small band of exceptional individuals go on amazing, dangerous, and/or thrilling adventures in a fantastic world, often by delving into dark, dangerous dungeons aeons old and slaying the terrifying beasts within, then taking the ancient treasures within.


fluff however is stuff like "elves have pointed ears and live a long time" or "fireball starts off pea sized then gets bigger".

I am sure you can now see how "fluff is rules" now is both wrong, and makes you sound like an idiot. "Elves have pointed ears and live a long time" and "Fireballs start off pea sized, then conflagrate" are critical to building and presenting the framework of the fantastic world the exceptional band of heroes engage in their dangerous and thrilling adventures.


a scroll has to have the level of the caster on it anyway to know what it does. including the class of the spell as well is hardly a big deal.When you identify a scroll, all you learn is the name of the spell it has.


now, do you have any other reason not to order spells logically?Alphabetical is logical, especially if you're looking up a spell referenced elsewhere, such as in a scroll, from a spell list (Where it's segregated by class and level, and then ordered alphabetically). And, a spell that's one level for one class might be another level for another. There are about a dozen editions of D&D before 3.5 (Such as 2e, AD&D, and about 10 non-Advanced Dungeons & Dragons editions, such as BECMI, RC, OD&D...)


the class is what gives you the spells, moreover they are the biggest part of what a class gives you, its not like your going to have a non-spellcaster wizard.But class is not the biggest source of spells. Scrolls and potions are.


please define "sterilized mechanics" and say why they are bad. Game terms that interact with nothing but game terms, and have little/no bearing on Exceptional Characters going on Dangerous/Thrilling Adventures in Fantastic Worlds.


if someone else's refluffing irritates you its your problem not theirs. and if its just refluffing then no mechanics have changes so they can hardly be abusing anything. Refluffing changes mechanics, by changing the


the metasetting does not matter, the game must for for all homebrew settings, and please read the top about your miss use of "fluff".The metasetting does matter. If I choose to play, say, Dark Heresy in a different world than the WH40k universe, it will still have lots of the tropes of the WH40k setting, such as how magic works and how things are organized and what the races are, etc. Likewise, I can use Eclipse Phase to play in a custom transhuman cosmic horror setting that doesn't follow the official timeline or have the standard power groups, but still plays and feels like Eclipse Phase. The original settings are converted to metasettings. Of course, these are all rules changes that change expectations about the game as well. For a system with a metasetting (instead of a basic setting that I convert to a metasetting), the rules are still comprehensive, but how they fit together can be shifted around freely. Of course, there are still some rules tweaks needed, which is why I'm glad D&D has embraced an official setting - It makes it more clear that using a homebrew setting requires retweaking rules and expectations, and that gaming groups shouldn't be afraid to do so.


what does the bolded mean? if your talking about RL then don't this is D&D it has only tangential connections to RL.We're talking about how things work involving exceptional people on dangerous and thrilling adventures in fantastic worlds. The real world is also a fantastic one with exceptional people going on dangerous and thrilling adventures, and it's important to know how things actually work here, instead of trying to believe that you're actually able to do something completely different and get the different results you want instead of actually doing something that works within the presented world.



so the meta setting means nothing because it changes all the time? got itThe metasetting is the part that doesn't change and remains consistent, such as how magic works, what sorts of people there are in the world, etc.



sure there is some suggesting fluff for feats, but given its just suggested it hardly matters, also stuff like that is changed all the time.No, it isn't just suggestions.



that only works if the fluff is set in stone, THAT is only true if the setting never changes. the second you change the setting is the second that all the fluff needs to be changed. if all the mechanics were tied to that fluff then suddenly all your game is worthless.

the game needs to work with more then one setting, that means that its mechanics need to work on their own.It means the mechanics need to be flexible enough to be tweaked to update and be re-evaluated with changes in the setting. Again, I can run Dark Heresy in a number of fantastic worlds that don't actually have anything to do with Warhammer, and it still feels like Dark Heresy. I can do the same with Eclipse Phase, or Shadowrun. And unlike a computer game, a TTRPG only needs the ability to convey basic language to change, tweak, or update.

[Jeraa]

so have two PDF, one made logically with stuff where its easily found. and a legacy PDF for those who can't seem to look past 3e. problem solved.

Except you now have to double the time needed to make the PDF. That means someone isn't working on something else during that time, and WotC must pay double the money (in terms of that guys salary, as well as the editors salary to proofread both documents, etc). Again, it is just easier (And cheaper) to make a single PDF file. Yes, its shouldn't be much time or money, but it is still there.

And alphabetical order is far more logical than ordering by spell level. It just makes things so much easier to find. Besides, spells already have a list organizing them into different levels. That is what the class spell lists are (partially) for. Putting the actual spell entries in alphabetical order just makes it a whole lot easier to find the spell you are looking for. If you can't see that, I really have no clue what to tell you.

[captpike]

How to hit and "how many health you have" are not the game. Those are status indicators for resolving conflict/arguments. How you play the game is in directing and deciding how a small band of exceptional individuals go on amazing, dangerous, and/or thrilling adventures in a fantastic world, often by delving into dark, dangerous dungeons aeons old and slaying the terrifying beasts within, then taking the ancient treasures within.

"Elves have pointed ears and live a long time" and "Fireballs start off pea sized, then conflagrate" are critical to building and presenting the framework of the fantastic world the exceptional band of heroes engage in their dangerous and thrilling adventures.

sure hp is part of the game, its a part of the rules is it not? RP is part of the game, but so are the mechanics.

the game should allow me to change anything non-mechanical, it should even encourage it. if I want to say my "fireballs" are more like me heating the entire area sharply then letting the heat dissipate then I should be able to, I should not need a rule change to do it.



When you identify a scroll, all you learn is the name of the spell it has.

Alphabetical is logical, especially if you're looking up a spell referenced elsewhere, such as in a scroll, from a spell list (Where it's segregated by class and level, and then ordered alphabetically). And, a spell that's one level for one class might be another level for another. There are about a dozen editions of D&D before 3.5 (Such as 2e, AD&D, and about 10 non-Advanced Dungeons & Dragons editions, such as BECMI, RC, OD&D...)

so when I ID the scroll I learn the class it belongs to, so sortly by class would work then.

so you include the spell in different levels on different lists. that way I don't have to page through 3 spells that are not on my list for every one that is.



But class is not the biggest source of spells. Scrolls and potions are.

so your saying that in your games most times spells are cast its not by spellcasters its by items? and you think that is normal?



Game terms that interact with nothing but game terms, and have little/no bearing on Exceptional Characters going on Dangerous/Thrilling Adventures in Fantastic Worlds.

such things don't exist, every game term interacts in some way with the game or it would not exist. I don't see your problem



The metasetting does matter. If I choose to play, say, Dark Heresy in a different world than the WH40k universe, it will still have lots of the tropes of the WH40k setting, such as how magic works and how things are organized and what the races are, etc. Likewise, I can use Eclipse Phase to play in a custom transhuman cosmic horror setting that doesn't follow the official timeline or have the standard power groups, but still plays and feels like Eclipse Phase. The original settings are converted to metasettings. Of course, these are all rules changes that change expectations about the game as well. For a system with a metasetting (instead of a basic setting that I convert to a metasetting), the rules are still comprehensive, but how they fit together can be shifted around freely. Of course, there are still some rules tweaks needed, which is why I'm glad D&D has embraced an official setting - It makes it more clear that using a homebrew setting requires retweaking rules and expectations, and that gaming groups shouldn't be afraid to do so.

We're talking about how things work involving exceptional people on dangerous and thrilling adventures in fantastic worlds. The real world is also a fantastic one with exceptional people going on dangerous and thrilling adventures, and it's important to know how things actually work here, instead of trying to believe that you're actually able to do something completely different and get the different results you want instead of actually doing something that works within the presented world.


The metasetting is the part that doesn't change and remains consistent, such as how magic works, what sorts of people there are in the world, etc.

were we talking about a game with a setting that is set in stone like dark heresy then sure you would have a point. but D&D has always been a game that embraced multiple settings. it has to work for multiple settings.



No, it isn't just suggestions.

....I am sorry you feel you need to play like everyone else, the need to play like and only like the people who make the game.

but I don't, I want to play the way that works best for me, this means I have to be able to change small unimportant details like how fireballs work in game. if you cant wrap your hand around that, then I am sorry, but don't try and say only you are right.



It means the mechanics need to be flexible enough to be tweaked to update and be re-evaluated with changes in the setting. Again, I can run Dark Heresy in a number of fantastic worlds that don't actually have anything to do with Warhammer, and it still feels like Dark Heresy. I can do the same with Eclipse Phase, or Shadowrun. And unlike a computer game, a TTRPG only needs the ability to convey basic language to change, tweak, or update.
again Dark Heresy is a terrible example because its a game with a setting that is set in stone, the setting was a base assumption from the very first day they made the mechanics.

that is the opposite of D&D, D&D needs to work for any setting, from dark sun to eberon that means it needs to be clear what are mechanics that the game needs to work, and what is just fluff that can and should be changed every time you change settings.



Except you now have to double the time needed to make the PDF. That means someone isn't working on something else during that time, and WotC must pay double the money (in terms of that guys salary, as well as the editors salary to proofread both documents, etc). Again, it is just easier (And cheaper) to make a single PDF file. Yes, its shouldn't be much time or money, but it is still there.

And alphabetical order is far more logical than ordering by spell level. It just makes things so much easier to find. Besides, spells already have a list organizing them into different levels. That is what the class spell lists are (partially) for. Putting the actual spell entries in alphabetical order just makes it a whole lot easier to find the spell you are looking for. If you can't see that, I really have no clue what to tell you.

really you think moving text around a PDF would require hiring someone new?

even were that true they should go with the logical way, not the legacy way. if I am a wizard I only care about wizard spells, any others will only get in my way.

no, not it is not.

persons A and B are building wizards.
A is using a spell list that is alphabetical and so has to flip between 5 widely spaced pages to decide on what he wants for each spell level.
B can just flip to to the wizard section then go up and down the few pages that all wizard level 1 spells are placed on.
by the time A is done with level 1, B will be done with level 5.

same goes for at the table, B could easily flip to the wizard section and flip through to find what spells he has, A would have to mark like 12 widely spaced pages to do the same thing.

honestly its starting to look like everyone here has played 3e so long you don't see how bad it really is, even down to small things like formatting and such.

[Jeraa]

persons A and B are building wizards.
A is using a spell list that is alphabetical and so has to flip between 5 widely spaced pages to decide on what he wants for each spell level.
B can just flip to to the wizard section then go up and down the few pages that all wizard level 1 spells are placed on.
by the time A is done with level 1, B will be done with level 5.

same goes for at the table, B could easily flip to the wizard section and flip through to find what spells he has, A would have to mark like 12 widely spaced pages to do the same thing.

honestly its starting to look like everyone here has played 3e so long you don't see how bad it really is, even down to small things like formatting and such.

No. They each turn to the page with their classes spell list (which presumably will have small descriptions of the spells, like the spell lists in 3.X do) and choose their spells from that.

You are also ignoring the spells that would have to be reprinted in each list because multiple classes have access to them (at potentially different levels), taking up extra space. Even if the description said "X spell works like the Cleric spell of the same name", that is still wasted space that could of been put to better use. Granted, there aren't many of them in the Basic PDF, but they do exist.

And honestly, its starting to look like someone here prefers how things were done in the old days and can't see how bad it really was.

[da_chicken]

And honestly, its starting to look like someone here prefers how things were done in the old days and can't see how bad it really was.

No, he prefers 4e, and anything that isn't 4e is factually incorrect.

[rlc]

And if you point out any kind of similarities between the two to show him that 5e is, in fact, taking things from that edition, too, he either says nuh-uh or he ignores you.

[Millennium]

In terms of the more general formatting, it reminded me of my old Rules Cyclopedia. I kind of like it.

captpike's bit about "spells should be with the class" is grossly short-sighted. Putting everything with the class aids building only, and only even aids that slightly. The most common use case, by far, is during play, when you know a spell's name but may not remember the other details off the top of your head. An alphabetical listing of all spells is far easier to use in this much more common case, making it the clearly better option. It's possible to help builders by indexing the spells by class, and 5e's Basic PDF takes some steps toward this.

Admittedly, the index could be improved. They should put a very short description of each spell by its name in the index, like 3e did. But 3e's index, while better than this, still wasn't perfect: they should go beyond it, by also adding the page number for each spell. That way every spell gets into a single canonical location that's easiest to find in the most common case, but edge cases like building still get indexes to aid them.

There's actually another reason to put spells in a single location: the same spell can appear on more than one list, possibly at different levels depending on the class. To avoid space-wasting and error-prone repetition, each spell should appear in the books only once, but if they're listed in each class, one must consider the question of which class to list each one by.

[Jeraa]

Admittedly, the index could be improved. They should put a very short description of each spell by its name in the index, like 3e did. But 3e's index, while better than this, still wasn't perfect: they should go beyond it, by also adding the page number for each spell. That way every spell gets into a single canonical location that's easiest to find in the most common case, but edge cases like building still get indexes to aid them.

If they put a page number, you run into a problem. If you add a spell, you my have to go through the entire list and update every page number of every spell after the one you entered.

Granted that is not likely to happen, but if it does that would be a fair bit of work.

[Millennium]

If they put a page number, you run into a problem. If you add a spell, you my have to go through the entire list and update every page number of every spell after the one you entered.
That depends on what they're using to write the book. Most publishing packages these days have index-generation features that can keep the page numbers updated automatically. Heck; even Word can be set up to do it.

[da_chicken]

If they put a page number, you run into a problem. If you add a spell, you my have to go through the entire list and update every page number of every spell after the one you entered.

Granted that is not likely to happen, but if it does that would be a fair bit of work.

If you use a typesetting language like LaTeX, it handles all that for you. Obviously, game designers might not know LaTeX well and it's a grossly overcomplicated system and language. I don't know how well Adobe handles document layout like that, but the technology does exist.

[Millennium]

If you use a typesetting language like LaTeX, it handles all that for you. Obviously, game designers might not know LaTeX well and it's a grossly overcomplicated system and language.
LaTeX is one example of such a system (though technically it's MakeIndex that does this, rather than LaTeX per se). But like I said, there are plenty of others; even Word can do it. Making a thorough and comprehensive index is hard work, but the task I'm suggesting is much more basic than that, and it should be well within the capabilities of any software I could imagine them using.

I don't know how well Adobe handles document layout like that, but the technology does exist.
PDF isn't really a document creation format, per se. Most publishers nowdays create their stuff in something else (InDesign, Quark, some variant of DocBook, LaTeX, or, yes, even Word) and then export that to PDF. All of these have indexing capabilities.

[rlc]

I'd like a divine list and an arcane list, kind of like the list on pages 82-3, but the same thing in the alphabetical list with descriptions. That way, even if there are more classes that use the same spells, you can still go by the descriptor of arcane or divine.

[Jeraa]

I'd like a divine list and an arcane list, kind of like the list on pages 82-3, but the same thing in the alphabetical list with descriptions. That way, even if there are more classes that use the same spells, you can still go by the descriptor of arcane or divine.

But spells aren't Arcane-only or Divine-only. Some spells are cast by both arcane and divine casters, so you would have to reprint those spells in both sections, taking more space.

In the Basic PDF that is only Light, Detect Magic, Hold Person, Dispel Magic, Protection from Energy, and True Seeing, but in the full Players Handbook that can include many more. That means less space for other information. The only way to get the spell descriptions down to the smallest amount of space and be easy to use is to do a single, alphabetical listing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

But spells aren't Arcane-only or Divine-only. Some spells are cast by both arcane and divine casters, so you would have to reprint those spells in both sections, taking more space.

In the Basic PDF that is only Light, Detect Magic, Hold Person, Dispel Magic, Protection from Energy, and True Seeing, but in the full Players Handbook that can include many more. That means less space for other information. The only way to get the spell descriptions down to the smallest amount of space and be easy to use is to do a single, alphabetical listing.

What I would like to see is that all spells are broken into level first and then alphabetical order second.

Because when I look for a first level spell I don't want to have to keep flipping from the back to the front of the chapter.

This way as I go through the descriptions of the spells I don't have to take 10 minutes to find all my spells. I can go level by level and know what I can pick up quite easily.

[Kurald Galain]

But spells aren't Arcane-only or Divine-only. Some spells are cast by both arcane and divine casters, so you would have to reprint those spells in both sections, taking more space.

Yes. And then there's the bard, paladin, and ranger spell lists, which are distinct from the "main" arcane/divine list.

[rlc]

That's why I said arcane and divine instead of wizard and cleric. And they can always add lists, like a "nature" list, or something.
But, with spells that fit into more than one category, thst makes sense.

[captpike]

No. They each turn to the page with their classes spell list (which presumably will have small descriptions of the spells, like the spell lists in 3.X do) and choose their spells from that.

You are also ignoring the spells that would have to be reprinted in each list because multiple classes have access to them (at potentially different levels), taking up extra space. Even if the description said "X spell works like the Cleric spell of the same name", that is still wasted space that could of been put to better use. Granted, there aren't many of them in the Basic PDF, but they do exist.

And honestly, its starting to look like someone here prefers how things were done in the old days and can't see how bad it really was.

maybe for some people in theory, but a short one sentence summery of a spell is not enough to really judge a spell, were it enough you would not need anything else. and of course one read through of each is often not enough you have to read through them all then go back and check details like durations and area's. this means you will be flipping back and forth through the list of spells alot.

no I am not ignoring the fact they have to be reprinted, I know it and accept it. if they don't like it they should make spells unique to the class and not be lazy about making spells.


And if you point out any kind of similarities between the two to show him that 5e is, in fact, taking things from that edition, too, he either says nuh-uh or he ignores you.

point to one time where someone made an argument that I have no responded to before that I ignored.

in point of act there are very few similarities between 5e and 4e, and most of those that people say are there are hollow, at first glace they look sound but the more you look at them the more different you realize they are. like hit dice.




captpike's bit about "spells should be with the class" is grossly short-sighted. Putting everything with the class aids building only, and only even aids that slightly. The most common use case, by far, is during play, when you know a spell's name but may not remember the other details off the top of your head. An alphabetical listing of all spells is far easier to use in this much more common case, making it the clearly better option. It's possible to help builders by indexing the spells by class, and 5e's Basic PDF takes some steps toward this.

if your casting a spell you must know the class and level. how would you know how many you can cast if you don't know the level? in what situation would you cast a spell but not know the class and level of the spell?

the only good objection I have heard is item like scrolls, and even if scrolls, and potions exist like in 3e where they cast a spell on you you would already have to know their level just to know how they work. adding the class would hurt nothing whatsoever.



There's actually another reason to put spells in a single location: the same spell can appear on more than one list, possibly at different levels depending on the class. To avoid space-wasting and error-prone repetition, each spell should appear in the books only once, but if they're listed in each class, one must consider the question of which class to list each one by.

see above

[ImperiousLeader]

What I would like to see is that all spells are broken into level first and then alphabetical order second.

Because when I look for a first level spell I don't want to have to keep flipping from the back to the front of the chapter.

This way as I go through the descriptions of the spells I don't have to take 10 minutes to find all my spells. I can go level by level and know what I can pick up quite easily.

Your logic is valid, but a countering argument is that if you don't know the level of the spell, you have to look that up first. If I'm DMing a monster that casts "Dominate Person", it'll slow me down looking for the spell level first. Even as a player, I don't necessarily record which level my prepared spells are.

Ultimately, I'd like the gaming tools to allow me to search and filter the spells quickly. But for a print list ... alphabetical is succinct and acceptable.

What bothered me briefly was that Greater Invisibility and Greater Restoration were sorted by Greater first ... but then I noticed that 5e doesn't have spells cross-referencing each other. Greater Invisibility does not reference Invisibility at all. This is really good. Pathfinder and 3.5 drive me nuts with the whole "just like spell X, except for this and this and this and this ...."

The other interesting consequence of writing in the level of the spell is that we probably are not going to have spells existing at different levels for different classes. No "X is a 3rd level spell for Clerics, but a 4th level spell for Druids". You either get it or you don't. Again, I like this.

[rlc]

maybe for some people in theory, but a short one sentence summery of a spell is not enough to really judge a spell, were it enough you would not need anything else. and of course one read through of each is often not enough you have to read through them all then go back and check details like durations and area's. this means you will be flipping back and forth through the list of spells alot.

no I am not ignoring the fact they have to be reprinted, I know it and accept it. if they don't like it they should make spells unique to the class and not be lazy about making spells.I understand what the spells do just fine from their descriptions. And, more concise descriptions make it easier to remember what you're looking at.
And it actually makes sense for some classes to share at least some spells.




point to one time where someone made an argument that I have no responded to before that I ignored.

in point of act there are very few similarities between 5e and 4e, and most of those that people say are there are hollow, at first glace they look sound but the more you look at them the more different you realize they are. like hit dice.

You said there is no non-magical healing. Adrenaline is non-magical healing.



if your casting a spell you must know the class and level. how would you know how many you can cast if you don't know the level? in what situation would you cast a spell but not know the class and level of the spell?I actually agree with this, but I guess some people don't, for whatever reason.

[captpike]

I understand what the spells do just fine from their descriptions. And, more concise descriptions make it easier to remember what you're looking at.
And it actually makes sense for some classes to share at least some spells.

some sure, but past a certain point it stops being several classes sharing spells, and starts being one class being called different things, like the 3e wizard and sorc.




You said there is no non-magical healing. Adrenaline is non-magical healing.


point, and I was wrong. I was looking for more warlord like healing and missed that. I am still hoping for a real warlord.

[Fwiffo86]

if your casting a spell you must know the class and level. how would you know how many you can cast if you don't know the level? in what situation would you cast a spell but not know the class and level of the spell?


Are you just being obstinate on purpose? To answer your question: rogue using use magic device or whatever they call it in 5e. You just need the scroll and the name of the spell.

Quit thinking you way is better than anyone else's. Because it is no more or less valid than anyone else's.

How you want it, is nothing more than how you want it. You have made that clear. Move on.

[captpike]

Are you just being obstinate on purpose? To answer your question: rogue using use magic device or whatever they call it in 5e. You just need the scroll and the name of the spell.

Quit thinking you way is better than anyone else's. Because it is no more or less valid than anyone else's.

How you want it, is nothing more than how you want it. You have made that clear. Move on.

why would I argue a way I knew was worse? why would anyone?

as I have already said you need to know the spell level on consumables to use them, adding [wizard] hardly hurts anyone.

also in the case of greatly inconveniencing people using consumables or all spell casters I would pick the former.

its not like you cant have index of all spells with page numbers as to where they can be found if for some reason the consumable does not include the needed info.

[Fwiffo86]

why would I argue a way I knew was worse? why would anyone?

as I have already said you need to know the spell level on consumables to use them, adding [wizard] hardly hurts anyone.

also in the case of greatly inconveniencing people using consumables or all spell casters I would pick the former.

its not like you cant have index of all spells with page numbers as to where they can be found if for some reason the consumable does not include the needed info.

You opinion is noted.

[pwykersotz]

What bothered me briefly was that Greater Invisibility and Greater Restoration were sorted by Greater first ... but then I noticed that 5e doesn't have spells cross-referencing each other. Greater Invisibility does not reference Invisibility at all. This is really good. Pathfinder and 3.5 drive me nuts with the whole "just like spell X, except for this and this and this and this ...."

Just as fascinating to me is that Lesser Restoration and Greater Restoration don't overlap at all. Greater Restoration does not remove Disease, Paralyzation, etc. I like that the lower level spell isn't trivialized.

[1337 b4k4]

I have to agree with captpike that the spell lists should be by level and then alphabetical within their section. I don't think it needs to be divided by class, but as people have pointed out, this is not a reference book, it's a players book, as so the information should be presented in a flowing form rather than a data lookup form. To that end, having spells listed first by level helps players when choosing their spells. An index in the back (or in the case of the PDF, some quality bookmarking) would be plenty sufficient for locating spells by name when that is necessary.

[huttj509]

Your logic is valid, but a countering argument is that if you don't know the level of the spell, you have to look that up first. If I'm DMing a monster that casts "Dominate Person", it'll slow me down looking for the spell level first. Even as a player, I don't necessarily record which level my prepared spells are.

I think there's two situations to be considered, and a lot depends on which you think will be more of a hindrance.

a: Looking for a specific spell - Full spell list alphabetical wins handily. If you don't know the level for Dominate Person, you need to check D - D - D - D - D - D - D - D - D, 9 different sections.

b: Browsing options of a given level, to decide spell selection or such. Level first categorization is hugely beneficial here. Not only do you not need to keep flipping back to a table that IS categorized by level, but you can easily scan the page to compare to other spells of the same level, as opposed to flipping back and forth to different chunks of the alphabet.


In my personal experiences, I feel the need to check 9 different sections for a spell by name isn't as much of an issue for me (even if I don't know the level exactly, I generally know the ballpark, and I do pre-work noting page numbers of things I think I'll need to look up, such as spells on my spell list).

Browsing spells to decide what to take, (and noting places where the line summary doesn't quite convey things well) however, has a much higher "annoy" factor for me when the whole list is alphabetical. A lot more flipping back and forth, using bookmarks for easy references to flip for comparisons, etc.

Yes, ideal would be a fully searchable database, that could be sorted by alphabet, level, VSM, whatever, at will would be optimal. Definitely doesn't work for dead tree format, though, and more involved than a pdf can provide.

[Felhammer]

I think having a list of all the spells' names broken down by list class and level followed by a gigantic chapter full of the spells in alphabetical order is the best option here.

It is a waste of paper to print anything that is more than a sentence or two multiple times in a rule book. Classes share certain spells, so the 4E style of listing all the classes' spells in the class chapter is not viable.

Listing all of the spells descriptions in alphabetical order but broken down by spell level is a nice idea, especially when leveling up. The problem is that that system makes looking spell descriptions up in play more difficult as you have to remember that Spell X is level Y. That causes quite a bit of inefficiency when efficiency matters most. You have all the time in the world to look something up at home but you are holding up the game every time you crack the book open to verify a rule. Time at the table is simply more valuable than time at home. This will be even more true once we have more splat books and face the possibility of cracking open 5 books to find the spell you are looking for.

[Beleriphon]

I think having a list of all the spells' names broken down by list class and level followed by a gigantic chapter full of the spells in alphabetical order is the best option here.

I was going to say, why not do that. You have a full wizard spell list by level, then you can go look up the exact description in the alphabetical list. That make sense to me when classes can and do share spells.

[ImperiousLeader]

I think there's two situations to be considered, and a lot depends on which you think will be more of a hindrance.

a: Looking for a specific spell - Full spell list alphabetical wins handily. If you don't know the level for Dominate Person, you need to check D - D - D - D - D - D - D - D - D, 9 different sections.

b: Browsing options of a given level, to decide spell selection or such. Level first categorization is hugely beneficial here. Not only do you not need to keep flipping back to a table that IS categorized by level, but you can easily scan the page to compare to other spells of the same level, as opposed to flipping back and forth to different chunks of the alphabet.

I definitely agree on the annoyance of flipping from page to page while picking spells. It is even more vexing if one is working off the pdf on a tablet, like I did during the playtest. However, in general, I'd say that the first scenario, hunting for a specific spell, is more likely to happen at the table in the middle of play. So I see the reason to optimize the organization of spells for use at the table.

[archaeo]

I just hope WotC figured "anybody using the pdf knows about ctrl-f, so we'll save the indexing and table-of-contentsing for the PHB." Spells in particular aren't named terribly often in the Basic document, making it an easy search; the only real issue is comparing spells to choose what you want from a particular spell level, but the constrained spell list makes it pretty easy to come away from browsing spells with a general understanding of what's going on.

The realities will be very different for the PHB, which is going to have significantly more spells if I'm not mistake. While it's all well and good for Basic's few dozen spells to all be jumbled together, the full game's list would be fairly unusable in a similar format. I suppose it remains to be seen, though there's no reason somebody can't tweet at Mike or something to ask; PHB's at the printer's, after all.

[captpike]

Just as fascinating to me is that Lesser Restoration and Greater Restoration don't overlap at all. Greater Restoration does not remove Disease, Paralyzation, etc. I like that the lower level spell isn't trivialized.

it seams to be incorrectly named then. calling anything a "greater" version implies that its better then the other non-greater one. not that its sorta similar and higher level



I have to agree with captpike that the spell lists should be by level and then alphabetical within their section. I don't think it needs to be divided by class, but as people have pointed out, this is not a reference book, it's a players book, as so the information should be presented in a flowing form rather than a data lookup form. To that end, having spells listed first by level helps players when choosing their spells. An index in the back (or in the case of the PDF, some quality bookmarking) would be plenty sufficient for locating spells by name when that is necessary.


why not by class as well? short of a cleric MC wizard what situation are you going to get in where you are going to want to mix the two?



I think having a list of all the spells' names broken down by list class and level followed by a gigantic chapter full of the spells in alphabetical order is the best option here.

It is a waste of paper to print anything that is more than a sentence or two multiple times in a rule book. Classes share certain spells, so the 4E style of listing all the classes' spells in the class chapter is not viable.

Listing all of the spells descriptions in alphabetical order but broken down by spell level is a nice idea, especially when leveling up. The problem is that that system makes looking spell descriptions up in play more difficult as you have to remember that Spell X is level Y. That causes quite a bit of inefficiency when efficiency matters most. You have all the time in the world to look something up at home but you are holding up the game every time you crack the book open to verify a rule. Time at the table is simply more valuable than time at home. This will be even more true once we have more splat books and face the possibility of cracking open 5 books to find the spell you are looking for.

there is going to be some small overlap sure, but that is hardly a reason not to have all the classes spells in one place. one would hope they have learned from 3e and will not have so much overlap that half the class play the same because they share a spell list.

if your playing you know your class, and you have to know the level of the spell so you know what slot to mark off. I fail the see how it would take more time.

---
also I would hope they are not going to just put references to spells in the MM, I would hope they would have learned by now that that doing such means it will take 2x as long to run any spellcaster, mean you have to carry twice as many books and it makes the MM incomplete.

[1337 b4k4]

why not by class as well? short of a cleric MC wizard what situation are you going to get in where you are going to want to mix the two?

Any situation wherein a class or character uses spells from more than just a single spell list.

[da_chicken]

I think having a list of all the spells' names broken down by list class and level followed by a gigantic chapter full of the spells in alphabetical order is the best option here.

It is a waste of paper to print anything that is more than a sentence or two multiple times in a rule book. Classes share certain spells, so the 4E style of listing all the classes' spells in the class chapter is not viable.

Honestly, I think 3e did it best. Spell lists by class and level have a blurb with short details, alphabetic lists say in the header which classes get the spell.

[captpike]

Any situation wherein a class or character uses spells from more than just a single spell list.

what sort of situation would that be where you would need to refer to both at the same time? if your picking spells then you have to do one class then another, you cant mix your spell slots. if your looking them up it still would be faster go by class then by level then by the name of the spell.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked for review and probably permanently.