Why aren't classes listed in a spell's header?

[gkathellar]

See topic. It seems kind of odd, and having to check the spell lists constantly (and often individually) adds to the difficulty of reading any spells section in any document. Is there a reason for this, or is it just sloppiness?

[Waffle_Iron]

See topic. It seems kind of odd, and having to check the spell lists constantly (and often individually) adds to the difficulty of reading any spells section in any document. Is there a reason for this, or is it just sloppiness?

The whole book is sloppy.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No. The whole 5e spell chapter is one of the worst I've ever seen in an RPG- notice that they don't summarize what the spells do in the class lists like they used to, either. I highly recommend ditching the paper copy and using an app or website instead; there are some good ones out there.

[Gastronomie]

It's perhaps because it's sloppy.

But I propose another reason, which is "because they might add new core classes later".

[comk59]

It's perhaps because it's sloppy.

But I propose another reason, which is "because they might add new core classes later".

That's what I assumed.

[R.Shackleford]

No. The whole 5e spell chapter is one of the worst I've ever seen in an RPG- notice that they don't summarize what the spells do in the class lists like they used to, either. I highly recommend ditching the paper copy and using an app or website instead; there are some good ones out there.

I want to write this on a nerf* bat and go hit the WotC team with it. Like, not hurt anyone, just be incredibly "younger sibling" level of annoying.

5e has a good core but my god is wotc actively trying to screw things up.

Edit

Nerd bat.. lol.. I guess technically that would make my nerf bat a nerd bat...

[gkathellar]

But I propose another reason, which is "because they might add new core classes later".

But ... they did that in 3.5, and it wasn't a problem. It didn't decrease the utility of having the core classes in the spell's header, certainly.

I mean, I guess that the most plausible explanation, it just strikes me as a bit apologist.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But ... they did that in 3.5, and it wasn't a problem. It didn't decrease the utility of having the core classes in the spell's header, certainly.

I mean, I guess that the most plausible explanation, it just strikes me as a bit apologist.
And given the pace of new material, seems unlikely.

[R.Shackleford]

And given the pace of new material, seems unlikely.

Which is good for the brand game, I'm sure!

[Segev]

I think their thought process was something along the lines of there not being different levels for a spell based on class anymore, so it was all "unified" and thus there's no need for it.

If so, it was short-sighted, because yes, having the cross-reference-ability of not having to go back to the spell-by-class lists to see if a given spell belongs to a given class would have been incredibly convenient.

It may also - still short-sightedly - have been a conceit that no spell is "intrinsically" part of a given class, so the class spell lists are just telling you what you have by default. Feats and the like can give you access to spells, so having spells list what classes get them would be "wrong" somehow.

I don't think this a good reason, either, but...it's possible.

[Shining Wrath]

So that new classes can have a spell list published without having to republish the PHB.

[Waffle_Iron]

Segev: I doubt that much thought was put into it. It was more likely just lazy designing. The game is awesome, but the book reeks.

[Kish]

As gkathellar said:

But ... they did that in 3.5, and it wasn't a problem. It didn't decrease the utility of having the core classes in the spell's header, certainly.

I mean, I guess that the most plausible explanation, it just strikes me as a bit apologist.
They didn't republish the 3.5ed PHB to mention that warmages could also cast fireball, and I never saw anyone who found that confusing or thought they should have. Why would they need to "republish the PHB" when it's 5ed?

(Without even getting to the "new classes? when? 2020?" point.)

[R.Shackleford]

As gkathellar said:

They didn't republish the 3.5ed PHB to mention that warmages could also cast fireball, and I never saw anyone who found that confusing or thought they should have. Why would they need to "republish the PHB" when it's 5ed?

(Without even getting to the "new classes? when? 2020?" point.)

I think that time line puts them in 6e.

[Blue Lantern]

Which is good for the brand game, I'm sure!

If you ask me, it is.

[IShouldntBehere]

It could have been a page count issue. There are a lot of spells and even adding 1-2 lines of Class Header each would be enough to add a 2-3 pages to the books total count.

If they were brushing hard against their allotted space something would have to go, be it art or the phrasing in a couple class features or part of the status effect summary list etc.. The spell headers may have just gotten the chopping block to save that.

[Cybren]

No. The whole 5e spell chapter is one of the worst I've ever seen in an RPG- notice that they don't summarize what the spells do in the class lists like they used to, either. I highly recommend ditching the paper copy and using an app or website instead; there are some good ones out there.

The layout/readability of the PHB is borked in general. There's really no purpose to the "parts" when they have subchapters, for example. (And they put Part 1 Classes Page n in the bottom corner, where 1) it makes you think classes are part 1, 2) it's not immediately visible, and 3) is stinky) In order to expedite everything shortly after 5E came out I made a googledoc with each class's spell list hyperlinked to the spell descriptions. I've since switched to dnd-spells, but in the interim it was a looooot easier than trying to flip through the phb


It could have been a page count issue. There are a lot of spells and even adding 1-2 lines of Class Header each would be enough to add a 2-3 pages to the books total count.

If they were brushing hard against their allotted space something would have to go, be it art or the phrasing in a couple class features or part of the status effect summary list etc.. The spell headers may have just gotten the chopping block to save that.

This is my guess. The other one being they just forgot how to make a readable book

[R.Shackleford]

If you ask me, it is.

For the brand, sure, but it isn't for the game.

Hell, the game isn't even complete.

[Segev]

For the brand, sure, but it isn't for the game.

Hell, the game isn't even complete.

I'm probably going to regret inviting this can of worms being opened, but... what is it missing to be considered "complete" by your definition?

[R.Shackleford]

I'm probably going to regret inviting this can of worms being opened, but... what is it missing to be considered "complete" by your definition?

I just kinda realize what I don't like about 5e. They took a lot of good stuff and kinda stopped half way.

The monster manual is a mess. The DMG is a book of ideas that doesn't teach new DMs or give experienced DMs much of anything new to work with that they wouldn't already have.

The PHB core rules are awesome. But the PHB is rushed and choppy. They wanted a simple low fiddly TotM system but jumbled a bunch of battle map phrases and ideas in there (which "battle map" could have been in the DMG and left out of the PHB).

For the MM and DMG it's large things but for the PHB it's a massive amount of little things that seemed to have been rushed or ignored half way through.

Also it seems like different people worked on different sections of the PHB and didn't talk to each other... Or one section was made and then another but they didn't go back and check their previous work


Edit

It would be like getting a video game that is glitchy and you tell the devs but their response is "people like it, if you don't then code it yourself".

[Blue Lantern]

For the brand, sure, but it isn't for the game.

Hell, the game isn't even complete.

I disagree, I believe is good for the game as well.

[Grey Watcher]

If you want to be cynical abut it, maybe it was an effort to sell Spell Cards.

[bardo]

If y'all recall "Destructive Smite" from the first printing of the PHB, it was on the Paladin spell list but there was no spell description for it... This leads me to believe WotC doesn't have a database of 5e spells, and that "Chapter 11 - Spells" is WRITTEN by a person rather than GENERATED by a computer from a spell database that a person updates.

On a related note, looking at how bad the index is makes me wonder if WotC uses publishing software or are they hacking it all together on a typewriter like Gygax did with the original.

My answer to OP is "because someone would have to manually go through 300+ spells, check which class can cast each of them, then update each of them". That's too much work and too likely to introduce inconsistencies.

Bardo.

[Cybren]

If y'all recall "Destructive Smite" from the first printing of the PHB, it was on the Paladin spell list but there was no spell description for it... This leads me to believe WotC doesn't have a database of 5e spells, and that "Chapter 11 - Spells" is WRITTEN by a person rather than GENERATED by a computer from a spell database that a person updates.

On a related note, looking at how bad the index is makes me wonder if WotC uses publishing software or are they hacking it all together on a typewriter like Gygax did with the original.

My answer to OP is "because someone would have to manually go through 300+ spells, check which class can cast each of them, then update each of them". That's too much work and too likely to introduce inconsistencies.

Bardo.

I did it in an afternoon with my DM, so... seems unlikely. You have staff so you can pay them to do work. that's kinda how capitalism works

[R.Shackleford]

I disagree, I believe is good for the game as well.

Please explain how letting your product stagnate is good for it? 3e and 4e was doing fantastically well (yes, 4e was out selling Pathfinder up until Essentials came out... Essentials was fricken bad for the most part) without using this stagnating system.

How does your game get better when you do nothing to help it along?



I did it in an afternoon with my DM, so... seems unlikely. You have staff so you can pay them to do work. that's kinda how capitalism works


Lol, dude, an economic system has no bearing on how well a company will be handled. Capatalism doesn't automatically mean your company will make the BEST decisions.

[bardo]

I did it in an afternoon with my DM, so... seems unlikely. You have staff so you can pay them to do work. that's kinda how capitalism works

I'm sure you and your DM also caught that "Destructive Smite" from the Paladin spell list doesn't have a spell description. My point is that WotC didn't.

Bardo.

[bardo]

On a related note, 3rd introduced spells that are different levels depending on the caster (e.g. Cleric 2, Ranger 3). In 5e we're back to each spell having a single spell level no matter who casts it. I wouldn't mind going back to splitting the spell descriptions by level like it was in 2nd. All the cantrips, then all the first level spells, then second, etc. Less page flipping in low level campaigns. I'm sure newer players and DMs would find the Spells chapter less intimidating if they only have to read the first couple of sections to get started.

Bardo.

[R.Shackleford]

On a related note, 3rd introduced spells that are different levels depending on the caster (e.g. Cleric 2, Ranger 3). In 5e we're back to each spell having a single spell level no matter who casts it. I wouldn't mind going back to splitting the spell descriptions by level like it was in 2nd. All the cantrips, then all the first level spells, then second, etc. Less page flipping in low level campaigns. I'm sure newer players and DMs would find the Spells chapter less intimidating if they only have to read the first couple of sections to get started.

Bardo.

It would help stop Bards from being better Rangers than Rangers :p

[Segev]

IIRC, spells appeared at different levels on various class lists in 2e and 1e, as well. It's just that they fully reprinted the lists, and the "repeat" printings said, "this functions just like the [class] version of the spell."

But animate dead, in particular, has always (prior to 5e) been a 4th level arcane spell and a 3rd level divine spell.

[Theodoxus]

Lazy editing. Probably the same horse poop that explains the pooptastic index. "Mounted Combat" - See Combat, Mounted.

Thanks for the extra 17 letters instead of just saying Page 114.

So f'n annoying. I gave up looking at the index and went to pdf searches. I'm happy I bought the book - but it's literally become the group table book because I don't crack it open anymore.

[R.Shackleford]

Lazy editing. Probably the same horse poop that explains the pooptastic index. "Mounted Combat" - See Combat, Mounted.

Thanks for the extra 17 letters instead of just saying Page 114.

So f'n annoying. I gave up looking at the index and went to pdf searches. I'm happy I bought the book - but it's literally become the group table book because I don't crack it open anymore.


Annoyed

The act of being annoyed.

[DracoKnight]

I'm sure you and your DM also caught that "Destructive Smite" from the Paladin spell list doesn't have a spell description. My point is that WotC didn't.

Bardo.

They released an Errata for the PHB, and in the Errata, they clarified that Destructive Smite was a typo, and Destructive *Wave* is the spell.

[R.Shackleford]

They released an Errata for the PHB, and in the Errata, they clarified that Destructive Smite was a typo, and Destructive *Wave* is the spell.

Amateur move.

[gkathellar]

On a related note, 3rd introduced spells that are different levels depending on the caster (e.g. Cleric 2, Ranger 3). In 5e we're back to each spell having a single spell level no matter who casts it. I wouldn't mind going back to splitting the spell descriptions by level like it was in 2nd. All the cantrips, then all the first level spells, then second, etc. Less page flipping in low level campaigns. I'm sure newer players and DMs would find the Spells chapter less intimidating if they only have to read the first couple of sections to get started.

It'd make sense, anyway. The only reason to do alphabetical listing is because you intend for lots of spells to appear in multiple lists at different levels. If you're not doing that, listing-by-level is a lot easier to use for a lot of purposes.


I did it in an afternoon with my DM, so... seems unlikely. You have staff so you can pay them to do work.

Pretty much. You print a list so that it's easier to cross-reference, ctrl-f each item, add a line of text, and then ... you're done. It'd take about 2-4 hours if you're actually willing to just sit down and do it. Hell, hire a temp to do it, it's not hard.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It'd make sense, anyway. The only reason to do alphabetical listing is because you intend for lots of spells to appear in multiple lists at different levels. If you're not doing that, listing-by-level is a lot easier to use for a lot of purposes.
Unless you're looking for a spell and don't know the level, which I imagine is fairly common among those of us who don't spend our free time arguing about spells on the internet.

[WickerNipple]

Lazy editing. Probably the same horse poop that explains the pooptastic index. "Mounted Combat" - See Combat, Mounted.

Thanks for the extra 17 letters instead of just saying Page 114.

Yes, the index is absolutely rage inducing. I have wanted to stab whoever compiled that thing since the first time I looked at it.

[gkathellar]

Unless you're looking for a spell and don't know the level, which I imagine is fairly common among those of us who don't spend our free time arguing about spells on the internet.

... point taken.

[Slipperychicken]

I think they did it as an attempt to save space because they're putting out books and not online documents.

Also, organizing the spells alphabetically is very good for looking up spells during the game, when you already remember the spell's name, but not the other stuff.


If y'all recall "Destructive Smite" from the first printing of the PHB, it was on the Paladin spell list but there was no spell description for it... This leads me to believe WotC doesn't have a database of 5e spells, and that "Chapter 11 - Spells" is WRITTEN by a person rather than GENERATED by a computer from a spell database that a person updates.

On a related note, looking at how bad the index is makes me wonder if WotC uses publishing software or are they hacking it all together on a typewriter like Gygax did with the original.

If they were good enough with technology as they should be, then they would have been selling legal properly-formatted PDFs of 5e books by now, and updating them with things like sage advice rulings and errata. Catalyst did it for the newest edition of shadowrun, and I've seen tiny indie devs do it too. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the 5e devs didn't even have a database of spells.

[TheProfessor85]

If you want to be cynical abut it, maybe it was an effort to sell Spell Cards.

This reason alone, they didn't rush it or get sloppy. They did it for money

[R.Shackleford]

This reason alone, they didn't rush it or get sloppy. They did it for money

Nah, well yes for money, but people would have bought spell cards regardless of what's in the PHB.

People used spell cards in 3e and 4e when when the indexing was a bit better :smallwink:

[gkathellar]

This reason alone, they didn't rush it or get sloppy. They did it for money

I dunno. "Never allege to malice what can be explained with stupidity," and all that.

[R.Shackleford]

I dunno. "Never allege to malice what can be explained with stupidity," and all that.

Also, yes.

[JeenLeen]

As an argument on WotC's behalf, I think it could be because of a new way of looking at spells. As others have noted, spells are no longer different levels for different casters. I see leaving the class names off as emphasizing that spells have their own level and are not themselves aligned to any class. The sidebar describing the Weave supports this. A spell can be arcane or divine depending on who casts it, and differ folk cast different spells, but none of that changes the inherent level of the spell. So, that info is tangential to the spell itself and thus left to another section of that chapter.

Now, I do agree that it is annoying. When I was trying to select spells for my Arcane Trickster, it was very hard to find those illusion and enchantment spells that were also on the wizard list without an annoying flipping back and forth between pages.

[Theodoxus]

Unless you're looking for a spell and don't know the level, which I imagine is fairly common among those of us who don't spend our free time arguing about spells on the internet.

I have all the spells in an excel file. It includes Product (PHB, EE, SCAG, etc) Page number, Class access, subclass access, level, school, casting time, duration, components, material cost (including consumed or not), saving throws, ritual tag, concentration tag and if it gets a boost from higher casting level.

It's handy dandy for finding all the Int save spells or what rituals a cleric has access to.

Plus, it's in alphabetical order, so solves that problem too... imported onto my tablet, it's table accessible...

[Vogonjeltz]

See topic. It seems kind of odd, and having to check the spell lists constantly (and often individually) adds to the difficulty of reading any spells section in any document. Is there a reason for this, or is it just sloppiness?

1) There's already a list of spells by class before the spell descriptions.

2) Consequent to #1 this redundancy would add bloat for no real added value.

3) There are numerous subclasses that get access to spells even though the core class does not, this would lead to added confusion for no added value (same as #1 and #2).

4) Adding more fiddly bits runs counter to the streamlining ethos of 5e, and provides more opportunities for errors that could be missed in the editing stage.

TLDR: Placing the classes which could access the spell under each heading is a bad design.

[WhiteEagle88]

I have an app on my phone called "5e Spellbook" by TitaniusAnglesmith that is pretty awesome. Has sections for spells by class, a master list arranged by level and a place to enter homebrew spells. I recommend checking it out.

[Cybren]

1) There's already a list of spells by class before the spell descriptions.

2) Consequent to #1 this redundancy would add bloat for no real added value.

3) There are numerous subclasses that get access to spells even though the core class does not, this would lead to added confusion for no added value (same as #1 and #2).

4) Adding more fiddly bits runs counter to the streamlining ethos of 5e, and provides more opportunities for errors that could be missed in the editing stage.

TLDR: Placing the classes which could access the spell under each heading is a bad design.

I take it you haven't ever played a spellcaster

[Scaleybob]

I think it was a mixture of laziness, an oversight, and a misguided attempt to make the spell list seem more old school. The First Ed version didn't list what class could take the spell, so the new trying to pander to the Grognards version doesn't either. (At least I seem to remember the 1st Ed AD&D PHB didn't list who could take what spell in the spell entry. I may be horribly wrong, and sounding all bitter.)

I do really like D&D5, but whoever laid out those rulebooks, and decided what went where really needs yelling at. I can't help but feel it was done on purpose to echo the old style rulebooks. (I hope I'm right about this - if that's not reason why those books are like that, then there's no excuse.)

[Giant2005]

It is to soften the blow for when bindings fall apart on these crappily made books.
The bindings fall apart, then you scan the remains into a pdf, then you bookmark, and hyperlink the remains while fixing issues like this.
That is what I did - my pdf now has the classes written in the spell level line of each spell description, and they hyperlink back to that class's spell list.
The pdf is more useful than the book to the extent that I am actually pretty glad that wotc has such crappy bindings.

[Grod_The_Giant]

1) There's already a list of spells by class before the spell descriptions.
Which tell you nothing about what the spells do, making them useless for making choices.


2) Consequent to #1 this redundancy would add bloat for no real added value.
So you're looking through the chapter itself, because you want to make an informed choice. You see a cool spell! Cue flipping back to see if it's on your list. See flipping back to constantly check what your options are.


3) There are numerous subclasses that get access to spells even though the core class does not, this would lead to added confusion for no added value (same as #1 and #2).
As both subclasses explicitly mention drawing from the Wizard list, I'm unsure why that would be necessary. Alternatively you could just write "Arcane Trickster 2" by the spell itself


4) Adding more fiddly bits runs counter to the streamlining ethos of 5e, and provides more opportunities for errors that could be missed in the editing stage.
Adding clearer labeling and explanation is the polar opposite of a "fiddly bit."

[Joe the Rat]

Hell, they could have gotten clever and used the class icons instead of class names. That would have been cool. Added pointless formatting for the unaware, quickhand for those who know.

The main reason I see not to do it is because of how fluid "class spell" is. Ignoring the spell-poaching classes, Clerics, Land Druids and Warlocks can have out-of-list inclusions through their "domain" lists. Add more archetypes, and suddenly you're incomplete. It's a very weak argument, but I would not be surprised if this is their public-facing argument. Those add-ons are explicitly exceptions, and only the most thickheaded would insist your Feypack Warlock can't have faerie fire because the spell doesn't list it as a Warlock spell.

...given some of the rules answers they are giving, this might have been a smart move.



I think it was a mixture of laziness, an oversight, and a misguided attempt to make the spell list seem more old school. The First Ed version didn't list what class could take the spell, so the new trying to pander to the Grognards version doesn't either. (At least I seem to remember the 1st Ed AD&D PHB didn't list who could take what spell in the spell entry. I may be horribly wrong, and sounding all bitter.)Pre-3, spells were listed in class lists, by level. You already knew you were looking at Cleric/Druid/(Illusionist)/Wizard spells. The other part-time casters cribbed off of those lists. If they really went old school, they would have gone back to level-based lists. I admit that I prefer that format, but I see where that can be a problem when you are trying to find a spell by name alone.

[Toofey]

I'm sure you and your DM also caught that "Destructive Smite" from the Paladin spell list doesn't have a spell description. My point is that WotC didn't.

Bardo.
I don't have "Destructive smite" on the paladin spell list in my book. I went and checked (as a sometimes copy editor I love that kind of goofy mistake) as soon as I saw your previous post.

[Laurefindel]

1) There's already a list of spells by class before the spell descriptions.

2) Consequent to #1 this redundancy would add bloat for no real added value.

3) There are numerous subclasses that get access to spells even though the core class does not, this would lead to added confusion for no added value (same as #1 and #2).

4) Adding more fiddly bits runs counter to the streamlining ethos of 5e, and provides more opportunities for errors that could be missed in the editing stage.

TLDR: Placing the classes which could access the spell under each heading is a bad design.

What Vogonjeltz said

Removing redundancy is not laziness; it's proper editing.

You start by choosing your class, which in turn gives you a spell list which improves with levels. You then have all the information you need to find and read your spells since they are presented in alphabetical order. Working your way from the spell back to your class is backwards.

[Giant2005]

What Vogonjeltz said

Removing redundancy is not laziness; it's proper editing.

You start by choosing your class, which in turn gives you a spell list which improves with levels. You then have all the information you need to find and read your spells since they are presented in alphabetical order. Working your way from the spell back to your class is backwards.

It isn't redundancy, it is convenience.
Flicking back and forth from the spell list and the spell description isn't as convenient as the spell description containing all of the relevant information.
Convenience and user friendliness is the difference between a good product and a less good product. 5e has enough redeeming properties to be considered a good product regardless, but it is an objective truth that making it more convenient/user friendly would make it an even better product.

[IShouldntBehere]

It isn't redundancy, it is convenience.
Flicking back and forth from the spell list and the spell description isn't as convenient as the spell description containing all of the relevant information.
Convenience and user friendliness is the difference between a good product and a less good product. 5e has enough redeeming properties to be considered a good product regardless, but it is an objective truth that making it more convenient/user friendly would make it an even better product.


It would add gobs to the page count, which was likely set in stone before writing & editing where anywhere close to finished. That means the 320 we got was all were ever going to get. Sure it'd be a useful feature but you'd have to cut something else to fit it in. As features go it's really only all that useful during new spell selection, if you need to refer to the text of a specific spell already chosen or that's part of entry it wouldn't add anything over the alphabetic sorting. Since the feature is only something you'd use during spell selection and spell selection is something that happens pretty infrequently (only during character creation & level up) I can see why it would be a pretty low priority when considering what you can fit and what you can't.

[Giant2005]

It would add gobs to the page count, which was likely set in stone before writing & editing where anywhere close to finished. That means the 320 we got was all were ever going to get. Sure it'd be a useful feature but you'd have to cut something else to fit it in. As features go it's really only all that useful during new spell selection, if you need to refer to the text of a specific spell already chosen or that's part of entry it wouldn't add anything over the alphabetic sorting. Since the feature is only something you'd use during spell selection and spell selection is something that happens pretty infrequently (only during character creation & level up) I can see why it would be a pretty low priority when considering what you can fit and what you can't.

I added the classes to the spell details on my PDF and it obviously didn't add anything to the page count - there is plenty of room to write the class names on the same line as "3rd-level evocation" or whatever level and type the spell in question is.

[Tanarii]

The clear intent is the process is:
1) Check spells available to your character on your class list, or other spell list (ie specific to subclass)
2) Look up spells alphabetically in Magic section

As far as I can see, it's working as intended for every class except Wizards (and by extension EK & AT), as there is no "spell list" by schools in the PHB, and the Wizard spell list doesn't include that info. But there's no inherent need for them to build in a reverse look-up for starting with a spell then figuring out who can cast it.

[Siosilvar]

At which point, the question is why not include the short descriptions like previous editions (well, 3rd for sure, I never actually looked at 4th) did? As it is, you have to flip back and forth through the entire chapter repeatedly, looking up a spell and then looking up the name of the next one.

My group did character creation a few weeks ago. I am notoriously slow at character creation, coming from a 3.5 background five years ago so I want to look up every option for my entire adventuring career. It took me 20 minutes to roll up a first level paladin. The casters in the group took an hour. The "intended" process is horribly slow.

[Xetheral]

1) There's already a list of spells by class before the spell descriptions.

2) Consequent to #1 this redundancy would add bloat for no real added value.

Cross-referencing is always valuable. From the very first day I saw the PHB, I've been frustrated by the lack of proper cross-referencing in the spell descriptions, because it makes reading those descriptions an exercise in frustration. Answering the basic question "Which classes get this spell?" requires checking each and every spell list and each and every subclass description. A proper cross-reference to this basic information is valuable because it spares the reader lots of page-flipping.

Also, see my response to Laurefindel below:


What Vogonjeltz said

Removing redundancy is not laziness; it's proper editing.

You start by choosing your class, which in turn gives you a spell list which improves with levels. You then have all the information you need to find and read your spells since they are presented in alphabetical order. Working your way from the spell back to your class is backwards.

The PHB is more than just a set of instructions to use when creating a character... it's the primary reference manual for the entire system. As such, it will be consulted by the DM, by the players outside of character creation, and by prospective buyers considering the system, none of whom will be approaching the book in the strictly-linear manner you envision.

Furthermore, even character creation isn't the one-directional process you envision. Even people who follow a generally-linear format will be need to read ahead to learn what each choice means in order to make an informed decision. Someone trying to decide between two spellcasting classes, for example, may want to consider their spell lists (which, in the absence of short descriptions in the lists, requires reading the descriptions themseleves), and such a comparison is only aided by the ability to see at a glance whether a particular spell belongs only to one class (whose list you found it from) or to both.

Finally, many players may have a specific set of abilities in mind that they want their character to posses. This can be for RP reasons (e.g. a chacter envisioned would be able to accomplish x, y, and z) or for mechanics reasons (e.g. a particularly potent combo), and both are equally valid approaches. Either way, the ability to see in a spell description which classes get that ability is incredibly useful when trying to design the character and consider trade-offs. This is even more true for DMs who build NPCs on the PC chassis, because DMs are highly likely to start with knowing what they want the NPC to be able to accomplish (for plot or balance purposes), and work backwards to pick the class(es).

[Mandragola]

I agree it's deeply unhelpful not to list the classes that can take a spell by each spell. Equally, not listing the schools of spells in the class list - or at least the wizard list - is annoying for wizards, EKs and ATs.

For me the most annoying thing about the phb is the index though. Any time you look something up it seems to say "see some other thing", so I have to flip to somewhere else in the index to find it. Why the hell can't it just give me the page number where stuff like climbing (see movement), help action (see under action) and so on are? It would take them less ink to just give me the page.

Sorry for the off topic rant. Both issues lead me to feel like, while it's a really great rule set that I like a lot, the actual design of the phb itself is pretty unhelpful.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm inclined to think that the index was created by a computer program and only lightly edited, rather than doing the proper thing and paying someone to do it. That's the only reason I can think of for it to include crap like "cold damage" and so many "see____."

You know what else would have been really nice? Lists for the subclass casters so you can tell at a glance what spells you have access to, rather than trying to pour through the wizard list for valid options.

[Mandragola]

I'm inclined to think that the index was created by a computer program and only lightly edited, rather than doing the proper thing and paying someone to do it. That's the only reason I can think of for it to include crap like "cold damage" and so many "see____."

You know what else would have been really nice? Lists for the subclass casters so you can tell at a glance what spells you have access to, rather than trying to pour through the wizard list for valid options.

Hmmm. I don't know if a computer program could be that stupid to be honest. Maybe. Someone would have had to tell the program not to just tell me where the thing was in the book, but instead to look for the section it was in and then tell me to look somewhere else in the index. I have no good things to say about that person.

Listing out the spells that EKs and ATs can take would be an option I suppose, but I think I prefer the idea of listing the schools in the class lists. That would work for those classes, and is of interest to specialist wizards as well.

[bardo]

Any time you look something up it seems to say "see some other thing", so I have to flip to somewhere else in the index to find it. Why the hell can't it just give me the page number where stuff like climbing (see movement), help action (see under action) and so on are?

The more I think about it the more convinced I become that WotC just doesn't know how to use computers. Any publishing software -seriously ANY publishing software- would produce a better index than that. It must have been written by hand. I've already made the case of why I believe the spell lists and descriptions were written by hand. They must have 20 interns going over printed papers looking for spelling mistakes.

Start sending your resumes to WotC or we'd never see an official PDF version of the books.

Bardo.

[bardo]

I'm inclined to think that the index was created by a computer program and only lightly edited, rather than doing the proper thing and paying someone to do it. That's the only reason I can think of for it to include crap like "cold damage" and so many "see____."

Putting "see____." into an index distinctively a human action. If someone programmed the computer to write "see____." (instead of having the computer reprint the page numbers of the other entry) then we are probably dealing with the work of a sadist who's very much enjoying this thread.

Bardo.

[Vogonjeltz]

I take it you haven't ever played a spellcaster

You take it wrongly.


You know what else would have been really nice? Lists for the subclass casters so you can tell at a glance what spells you have access to, rather than trying to pour through the wizard list for valid options.

Which would have required extra page space and been pointless since it wouldn't cover spells in new books automatically the way simply referring to the rules for each subclass do, it also doesn't take into account that those classes can often take from any spell on the shared lists.

[Sigreid]

I think it was to "encourage" people to buy the spell card sets.

[Cybren]

You take it wrongly.

And you don't use any third party aids or supplements or websites to expedite reading spells?

[Vogonjeltz]

And you don't use any third party aids or supplements or websites to expedite reading spells?

No, it takes only seconds to flip to any given spell, they're listed alphabetically after all.

[Cybren]

No, it takes only seconds to flip to any given spell, they're listed alphabetically after all.

Well don't you just have golden thumbs

[Vogonjeltz]

Well don't you just have golden thumbs

Who's got two functional thumbs and knows their abcs? This guy! Eyyy!

[Pex]

The more I think about it the more convinced I become that WotC just doesn't know how to use computers. Any publishing software -seriously ANY publishing software- would produce a better index than that. It must have been written by hand. I've already made the case of why I believe the spell lists and descriptions were written by hand. They must have 20 interns going over printed papers looking for spelling mistakes.

Start sending your resumes to WotC or we'd never see an official PDF version of the books.

Bardo.

Revenge of the Dawizard guy!

[R.Shackleford]

You take it wrongly.

Which would have required extra page space and been pointless since it wouldn't cover spells in new books automatically the way simply referring to the rules for each subclass do, it also doesn't take into account that those classes can often take from any spell on the shared lists.

So, they need to take into account the future? Then why didn't they just make the list for 6e spells? Or 7e spells?

They need to be focused on the game they are making/selling but so much of the PHB and their actions since really show us that they aren't paying attention to their product and trying to grow their brand.

[mgshamster]

Well don't you just have golden thumbs

I'm seriously confused by this. How difficult is it to bookmark the list page, either with a piece of paper or your finger, while flipping through the other pages? Since the spells are listed alphabetically, you can easily find them.

I mean, have you never done research in a real brick and mortar library before? Even for a school essay?

[Cybren]

I'm seriously confused by this. How difficult is it to bookmark the list page, either with a piece of paper or your finger, while flipping through the other pages? Since the spells are listed alphabetically, you can easily find them.

I mean, have you never done research in a real brick and mortar library before? Even for a school essay?

I mean, I literally said my solution was to scan the text of the spell list and make a hyperlinked document with every class list by level so

[mgshamster]

I mean, I literally said my solution was to scan the text of the spell list and make a hyperlinked document with every class list by level so

Oh. I guess you haven't.

For your education, this is what a bookmark looks like: Real Bookmark (http://m.imgur.com/qCsgd6e?r")

It's really easy to use, you just place it on the page you want to have easy reference to, and then use it to physically flip to that page when you want to see it again.

[Cybren]

Oh. I guess you haven't.

For your education, this is what a bookmark looks like: Real Bookmark (http://m.imgur.com/qCsgd6e?r")

It's really easy to use, you just place it on the page you want to have easy reference to, and then use it to physically flip to that page when you want to see it again.
0) I know what a bookmark is

1) I was illustrating that my own particular laziness was not my reason for being unsatisdied with the book
2) printing out bookmarks for each of the spells is great but doesn't change that there is absolutely no way you can put one on each spell, the best you get is just bookmarking each alphabetically
Thus
4) casually looking at your classes spell list and trying to figure to determine which spells you want involves flipping back and forth, where putting a short description on each of the lists by level & listing which classes get the spell in the descriptions would vastly help readability.


The phb has a good number of issues with layout and formatting, it just happens that is the most egregious

[mgshamster]

0) I know what a bookmark is

1) I was illustrating that my own particular laziness was not my reason for being unsatisdied with the book
2) printing out bookmarks for each of the spells is great but doesn't change that there is absolutely no way you can put one on each spell, the best you get is just bookmarking each alphabetically
Thus
4) casually looking at your classes spell list and trying to figure to determine which spells you want involves flipping back and forth, where putting a short description on each of the lists by level & listing which classes get the spell in the descriptions would vastly help readability.


The phb has a good number of issues with layout and formatting, it just happens that is the most egregious

*blink blink*

Huh. You really have never used a bookmark before.

You mark the spell list, not each individual spell. Then you just quickly flip back and forth. You can easily just hold the interim pages upright to reduce physical flipping. Like this. (http://doycetesterman.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/stock-footage-a-man-flips-through-pages-in-an-old-book.jpg)

It's not difficult.

I recommend spending more time with real books than electronic ones.

[Xetheral]

*blink blink*

Huh. You really have never used a bookmark before.

You mark the spell list, not each individual spell. Then you just quickly flip back and forth. You can easily just hold the interim pages upright to reduce physical flipping. Like this. (http://doycetesterman.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/stock-footage-a-man-flips-through-pages-in-an-old-book.jpg)

It's not difficult.

I recommend spending more time with real books than electronic ones.

While that helps with not losing your page, it doesn't help with the need to look through each and every spell list to find out if a given spell is on it.

[Cybren]

While that helps with not losing your page, it doesn't help with the need to look through each and every spell list to find out if a given spell is on it.

And it doesn't help someone looking at a spell that tickles their fancy quickly learn who can cast it. And "you can just flip back and forth" is not a valid solution to "i don't want to flip back and forth"

[Tanarii]

And it doesn't help someone looking at a spell that tickles their fancy quickly learn who can cast it. Nor is helping people who want to browse all the spells, which isn't a necessary or typical technique to make or level a given character, require an unnecessary organization technique that wastes space. Thus driving up the price of an already expensive and unweildy book.

It's something that you can expect hardcore optimizer to do, or hardcore nerds who are just reading the book end to end. But those folks are either going to utilize additional tools online anyway, or are reading for personal enjoyment beyond character making reasons. (Note: I assume we're all the kinds of nerds that would do that, because we're on a D&D forum :smallbiggrin: )

Edit:what absolutely is missing is schools for wizard spells. Because that is necessary info to make many wizards, and all EKs and ATs.

[R.Shackleford]

Nor is helping people who want to browse all the spells, which isn't a necessary or typical technique to make or level a given character, require an unnecessary organization technique that wastes space. Thus driving up the price of an already expensive and unweildy book.

It's something that you can expect hardcore optimizer to do, or hardcore nerds who are just reading the book end to end. But those folks are either going to utilize additional tools online anyway, or are reading for personal enjoyment beyond character making reasons. (Note: I assume we're all the kinds of nerds that would do that, because we're on a D&D forum :smallbiggrin: )

Edit:what absolutely is missing is schools for wizard spells. Because that is necessary info to make many wizards, and all EKs and ATs.

Here lies the basic problem.

The book wasn't designed for players in mind. The book was designed to promote the brand but be cheaply made and feed the hype train.

The book is designed with just enough effort anyone getting into the hobby will pick it up and read it.looks and think "oh neat". But if you are a regular user or hardcore gamer? This book isn't for you. Sure, you can use it, but it's not going to go above and beyond to accommodate you.

WotC doesn't really care about the regular/hard core crowd... They are pandering to the casual gamer so their brand expands. The problem with this is that when you are only expanding your brand and not expanding AND deepening your game, eventually all you are going to have is casual gamers.

Edit

They did this once before with 4e Essentials.

4e D&D did really well despite WotC massive screw ups early on. However, they couldn't stay out of their own way and tried to pander to the casual crowd with Essentials. Now some good came out of it (Ranger and Bard, omg, so much fun) but a lot of bad came out of it too (Fighter... smh). It ultimatly failed because D&D at that point was a brand and not a game...

Damn, I should have seen all this coming, I dropped the ball on this one.

[Cybren]

It's far more likely if it weren't an oversight they just wanted to save on page count and keep information density low. As infuriating as the class spell list section is, it looks clean. A formatting that gives each spell a deception & school would take up a significant amount of extra pages if it retained a clean look

[Giant2005]

WotC doesn't really care about the regular/hard core crowd... They are pandering to the casual gamer so their brand expands. The problem with this is that when you are only expanding your brand and not expanding AND deepening your game, eventually all you are going to have is casual gamers.

You make a lot of sense, except for this quoted section.
Denying the regular/hard core crowd isn't the same as pandering to the casual gamer. Even if the casual gamer has no use for listing the classes in the spell descriptions, doing so wouldn't harm them at all. If it wouldn't harm them and could potentially benefit them, then it isn't catering to their needs, it is just needlessly denying the needs of others.

[gkathellar]

Nor is helping people who want to browse all the spells, which isn't a necessary or typical technique to make or level a given character, require an unnecessary organization technique that wastes space. Thus driving up the price of an already expensive and unweildy book.

It really doesn't - the book wastes a ton of space already on things like making sure that no class shares any of its pages with another class. But even without cutting back on things like this, let's take a look at the current header layout:


[INSERT SPELL NAME]
X-level [school]

Casting Time: [insert]
Range: [insert]
Components: [insert]
Duration: [insert]

Now, off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of ways to save lines of text with that format. Let's go through them:
Use the blank space between spell level and casting time - this is a good place to put classes.
Put the entries for casting time and range on a single line, as they only take up about half a column each
Put the components and duration on the same line where possible (doable in some cases, though not all)

Also, I get that all the art is part of why it's such a good-looking book, but if WotC had been really desperate for space they could have reduced the size of any one of the spell chapter's numerous paintings and gotten a full half-column (or a full page, in the case of the painting on 232).

So yeah, there's plenty of space in just that chapter alone.

[R.Shackleford]

You make a lot of sense, except for this quoted section.
Denying the regular/hard core crowd isn't the same as pandering to the casual gamer. Even if the casual gamer has no use for listing the classes in the spell descriptions, doing so wouldn't harm them at all. If it wouldn't harm them and could potentially benefit them, then it isn't catering to their needs, it is just needlessly denying the needs of others.

It isn't about what will be the harm in it. It's more of a "this is how much effort we really need to put into a product" mentality.

Sure, it wouldn't hurt to take that extra step, but why do that if your target audience doesn't need it? Or even know they want it?

It isn't like they are specifically saying "hardcore/regular gamers, screw you *flips us off*"... Just that they have a target audience of new and casual players that they are designing a game/brand for and will focus on what they think that audience needs/wants.

If you are a new player you don't need or even know you want the same things as a regular or hardcore gamer.

I'm a casual videogamer now, the wife takes the ps4 most of the time :p, and my needs and wants just don't match hers. I'm OK with a great solo campaign... She wants a good solo campaign and great multi-player campaign. Of course for videogames they tend to target hardcore gamers just as much as us filthy casuals lol.

Point is. They aren't actively flipping us off, they just happen to be flipping us off by being our bro for a long time but now they are dating our recent ex.

[Cybren]

It really doesn't - the book wastes a ton of space already on things like making sure that no class shares any of its pages with another class. But even without cutting back on things like this, let's take a look at the current header layout:



Now, off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of ways to save lines of text with that format. Let's go through them:
Use the blank space between spell level and casting time - this is a good place to put classes.
Put the entries for casting time and range on a single line, as they only take up about half a column each
Put the components and duration on the same line where possible (doable in some cases, though not all)

Also, I get that all the art is part of why it's such a good-looking book, but if WotC had been really desperate for space they could have reduced the size of any one of the spell chapter's numerous paintings and gotten a full half-column (or a full page, in the case of the painting on 232).

So yeah, there's plenty of space in just that chapter alone.

Also, the phb might be expensive, but the only way it could be classified as unwieldy is because of poor formatting and a near unusable index

[R.Shackleford]

Also, the phb might be expensive, but the only way it could be classified as unwieldy is because of poor formatting and a near unusable index

Idk man, it is an improvised weapon and my friend's baby-hand just can't grip it well enough to hit people with.

[Tanarii]

But if you are a regular user or hardcore gamer? This book isn't for you.I disagree. It is made precisely for regular users. It isn't made for hardcore users (ie anyone posting on the third page of a forum thread), but most hardcore users don't really need it anyway.

[Chronos]

Redundancy is not a problem. It can lead to problems, like conflicting information appearing in different places. And they have that problem: They got confused about whether one of their spells was called "Destructive Wave" or "Destructive Smite", and used both in different places, and they got confused about whether the spell "Trap the Soul" exists.

The solution to that problem is to make a single non-redundant spell database, and to then use a computer to generate all of the sections of the book from it. We know that they did not do this, because if they had, mistakes like the "Destructive Smite" one would have been impossible.

Back when I got my PHB, I (like many others) had to immediately go through and make my own database of spells, because what was printed simply wasn't usable as-is (the only sense in which it's "usable" is that it contains almost enough information to make creating such a database possible). Instead of WotC going through this effort once, we had thousands of players doing it on their own. Now, that's bad redundancy.

And the formatting is bad in other places, as well. There are plenty of places where the book says things like "See chapter 5", but there is no way to find chapter 5. The only way to know what chapter you're in is to flip back page by page until you get to the start of the chapter.

[Cybren]

And the formatting is bad in other places, as well. There are plenty of places where the book says things like "See chapter 5", but there is no way to find chapter 5. The only way to know what chapter you're in is to flip back page by page until you get to the start of the chapter.
IF you happen to know the title of the chapter, you'll notice in the bottom corner near the page number it says the title of the chapter... but not the chapter number. Instead it only says what "part" it is, which isn't a particularly useful piece of information... Ideally the chapters would be visible, either with a header on each page, or a color coded border, or, y'know, something

[R.Shackleford]

I disagree. It is made precisely for regular users. It isn't made for hardcore users (ie anyone posting on the third page of a forum thread), but most hardcore users don't really need it anyway.

Casual Players: New players who may or may not be getting into the hobby. Players who play AL and *maybe* homegames.

Regular Players: Players who may play AL games but also plays home games. Typically plays more than the casual gamer.

Hardcore: Players who definately plays homegames and also comes on forums. May or may not play AL.

The book was made for casual players. It has enough to draw you in but wasn't really edited well enough to work for regular or hardcore D&D players. The level of effort really shows that they don't expect their main audience to notice these issues (or else a bit of effort would be put into editing).

[Tanarii]

The book was made for casual players. It has enough to draw you in but wasn't really edited well enough to work for regular or hardcore D&D players. The level of effort really shows that they don't expect their main audience to notice these issues (or else a bit of effort would be put into editing).

I disagree with your assessment. I think it works as intended for both casual and regular players.

Edit: I also disagree with your definitions. I've seen more regular but not hardcore players in home games than I ever will in AL. Mostly because I've introduced them to the game, but still. Official play does get some newer players just being introduced to the game, but I see far more hardcore players. Because it takes special effort to go out and find a game store, as opposed to just play with your friends at home or in the college dorm.

[Pex]

It really doesn't - the book wastes a ton of space already on things like making sure that no class shares any of its pages with another class. But even without cutting back on things like this, let's take a look at the current header layout:



Now, off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of ways to save lines of text with that format. Let's go through them:
Use the blank space between spell level and casting time - this is a good place to put classes.
Put the entries for casting time and range on a single line, as they only take up about half a column each
Put the components and duration on the same line where possible (doable in some cases, though not all)

Also, I get that all the art is part of why it's such a good-looking book, but if WotC had been really desperate for space they could have reduced the size of any one of the spell chapter's numerous paintings and gotten a full half-column (or a full page, in the case of the painting on 232).

So yeah, there's plenty of space in just that chapter alone.

11 pages could have been used for something else by not having Appendices B & C, the different pantheons and planes of existence. They're nice but not crucial information. The cleric section did its job already showing how domains can be relevant to deities of different pantheons. The only thing a player needs to know is the pantheon of the gameworld he's playing in.

[Tanarii]

11 pages could have been used for something else by not having Appendices B & C, the different pantheons and planes of existence. They're nice but not crucial information. The cleric section did its job already showing how domains can be relevant to deities of different pantheons. The only thing a player needs to know is the pantheon of the gameworld he's playing in.

Lol yeah it's pretty hard to argue with that. They would have made fine DMG material.

[Cybren]

Lol yeah it's pretty hard to argue with that. They would have made fine DMG material.

I assume they would have been in the DMG... if the DMG had been released at the same time as the PHB. The staggered release of the books kind of locked them in to incorporating some setting information in the PHB

[Madbox]

Personally, I think that a lot of the disorganization is reflective of the development process. If you look at the stuff from before the official release, there is a lot of confusion. For example, in the Acquisitions Inc podcast where the basics of 5e are being explained, they say that they have a file with a bunch of Word docs, and they plainly have to search all over for info, taking minutes to answer simple questions. I know that was all beta-testing prototype stuff, but that's all the more reason it should be well-organized, so that playtesters can actually find gameplay issues.

[AmayaElls]

Personally I don't find the spell list too hard to use, even when I am looking through the spells and then flicking back to the class spell lists. I just put a finger in page 207 and then start flicking through spells, I see one that I like and flick back to the lists and scan that. I will admit 4 years of university and an already high reading speed means I can skim a page for the spell I am looking for in a couple of seconds, maybe faster than your regular player, but it works well.

As for people suggesting they could make use of "wasted" space in the spell descriptions themselves.

The break between the title block and basic detail block is not a full line, but rather about .75 of one put in there to better differentiate the sections of the spell.
This differentiation has the design purpose of making it easier to skim read for quick information.
The block with Casting time, Range, components and duration is also designed to be simple to skim read, moving range next to casting time could slow a skimmer down a bit and sometimes moving duration up and not others would definitely impact the skimmer.


The spell lists currently have a similar text density to many of my textbooks from university (I just checked) and I know many people then that struggled to focus on or even skim such texts even when they had good headings. It is good design to leave "white space" to allow a reader to better process what she is reading. Keeping the current page limit I think the only smart way to increase the information while still being simple to read and skim would be to remove some of the art, and I am not sure this would be enough. Also a lot of thought would need to go into exactly how this information was displayed in a design sense in order for it to be accessible to the skim reader but not distracting or slowing.

While I do agree at times the handbook is poorly written I do think that a lot of thought was put into the multimodal visual design of the work and this is vital. I kind of wish they could get both right though.

[tsotate]

If page limits were the reason, they could have saved some space by dropping the truly awful halfling art (or maybe it's animated turnip art, that happens to be in the halfling section).

[Vogonjeltz]

So, they need to take into account the future? Then why didn't they just make the list for 6e spells? Or 7e spells?

They need to be focused on the game they are making/selling but so much of the PHB and their actions since really show us that they aren't paying attention to their product and trying to grow their brand.

The future of the current game. 6e or 7e won't have an impact on what spells EKs or ATs can access, but splat books like SCAG or PotA do.


While that helps with not losing your page, it doesn't help with the need to look through each and every spell list to find out if a given spell is on it.

Given that you're only going to be one class at a time, why would you need to check each and every class to see if they have access?

Or is this in service to arguments online and not actual game play?


Edit:what absolutely is missing is schools for wizard spells. Because that is necessary info to make many wizards, and all EKs and ATs.

This was released online as a free addendum. I don't know offhand if they added it into future printings though.


Now, off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of ways to save lines of text with that format. Let's go through them:
•Use the blank space between spell level and casting time - this is a good place to put classes.
•Put the entries for casting time and range on a single line, as they only take up about half a column each
•Put the components and duration on the same line where possible (doable in some cases, though not all)

These suggestions would turn the entries into word bricks that are not just aeshtetically displeasing to the eye, they are also more difficult for a reader to accurately parse. The benefit is far outweighed by the confusion such changes are likely to cause.


11 pages could have been used for something else by not having Appendices B & C, the different pantheons and planes of existence. They're nice but not crucial information. The cleric section did its job already showing how domains can be relevant to deities of different pantheons. The only thing a player needs to know is the pantheon of the gameworld he's playing in.

There's already an index in front of the spell descriptions telling the reader exactly what spells each class has access to.

Removing unique information to reiterate information that is already provided is the worst possible sin in editing, and would be a total disservice to the customer, robbing them of value.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I had assumed the answer to this question was "loose coupling".

Apparently many people think that'd be giving someone too much credit.