How 5e Abilities Should Read

[PeteNutButter]

I know this going to garner much hate, but I think the rules for 5e in general are relatively poorly written. I've nothing against the rules themselves, just their presentation. I feel like I'm going to have to gouge my eyes out if I read, "You can't use this ability again until you complete a short or long rest," one more time. Now that they started the edition this way we won't be free from "You can't use this ability again until you complete a short or long rest,"--damn it now I have to gouge my eyes out--until they release 6e.

Class abilities and such should have a layout like spells that looks something like the following:

Name: [Ability Name]
Description: [Fluff]
Mechanics:[Important to keep these separate, as names and fluff often conflict with mechanics, such as Green Flame Blade with a hammer etc.]
Action Cost: Action, Bonus Action, Free Action, Move Action, Passive
Uses/Recharge: x times per Short Rest, Long Rest, Once per Turn, Unlimited, Special(see mechanics text)

From there you only need a brief explanation in the phb of what exactly each entry means, i.e abilities with a recharge labeled short rest, recover on short and long rests. Doing that would probably save a good amount of paper in the phb as well as immeasurable space in all future books... which is just more space for content!

I realize the designers may have made a conscious decision to make the rules appear in a more narrative fashion (maybe to distance from 4e?), but to me it just seems clumsy and overly wordy. It especially bothers me when I am trying to write homebrew in a way that makes it look like it could be official, forcing me to use the clumsy rules methods.

What do you folks think? Do you favor the more narrative style that we have? Or would you prefer a more concrete approach like I've suggested?

[Hrugner]

I'd prefer this. Actually, there's a ton of revisions I'd make to the layout of the game books for usability and clarity.

[Kane0]

Seconded. It would be nice to be able to read through all abilities laid out in a nice way like spells are.

[Lazarus Long]

That was one of the strengths​ of 4e. The layout led to an easier load for citation. The Character Builder layout was cool, despite the subscription fee.

LL

[ATHATH]

"You can't use this ability again until you complete a short or long rest," (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTSA_sWGM44)

[Tanarii]

IMO they did it to move away from the idea that rules are divided into fluff and mechanical. A good move.

[PeteNutButter]

"You can't use this ability again until you complete a short or long rest," (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTSA_sWGM44)

/eyes


IMO they did it to move away from the idea that rules are divided into fluff and mechanical. A good move.

I respect your position here, but the problem is every time there is a conflict with fluff and mechanics, the mechanics wins. Fluff only exists in the realm of mechanics as a method of confusion. People tweeting questions about GFB with hammers, and using sneak attack when not even remotely sneaking etc, are just evidence of poorly written and named abilities.

IMO fluff is important, but there needs to be a clear delineation. Mixing the two is just asking for trouble. Maybe you could tell me what the upside is? All I see is a lack of clarity and confusion...

EDIT: I forgot to mention the ease of access when scanning through the pages. It is just more easily read through when broken down like I suggested. I've seen 3 different players not understand Bardic Inspiration, because the phb (at least the edition most of us have) has the last couple paragraphs on a different page. The important ones that tell you it isn't UNLIMITED.

[RedWarlock]

Totally reactionary to 4e, in my opinion. The pure-text format drives me crazy, especially for monster blocks.

[BurgerBeast]

IMO they did it to move away from the idea that rules are divided into fluff and mechanical. A good move.

Seconded.

Formatting abilities as presented by the OP, in my opinion, has two negative side-effects in addition to the fluff-mechanics separation (which is very important, in my opinion).

1. It creates the impression that RAW are prescribed in all cases, leading to an approach to the RAW that is more or less: D&D is the sum total of the written rules, nothing more and nothing less.

Whereas a different (and in my opinion, better) approach is that D&D is a game designed to facilitate the ability to do anything, facilitated by a human brain in conjunction with a core mechanic (or small set of core mechanics). While some of the RAW are prescribed, much of the RAW outline mere boundaries to what is permitted, to give leeway for the DM to exercise judgment.

2. To some extent it limits the capabilities of the rules by restricting them to particular guidelines. This is a difficult concept for me to articulate (so I will butcher it), but in general it is better to decide on what you want the game abilities to be, and then let the format fall into place. Creating the mold first restricts possibilities in what you can introduce later.

In my opinion, 4e was full of abilities that were handled better by not forcing them into the 4e styled format. But in order to preserve the format, they changed the conceptual framework of the abilities to fit the mechanics.

[Millstone85]

I realize the designers may have made a conscious decision to make the rules appear in a more narrative fashion (maybe to distance from 4e?), but to me it just seems clumsy and overly wordy.Well, 4e would have stuff like...
Fluff: Disintegrate. You fire a green ray from your wand. Whatever the emerald beam hits disappears in a puff of gray dust.
Crunch: You don't need a wand. The spell deals damage even on a miss, just less. The spell has no actual mechanic to disintegrate anything into gray dust.

This to me was the real waste of ink. 5e's fluff and crunch are not so jarringly divorced from each other, and we may have to thank the current format (or lack thereof) for it.

[Marcloure]

I think this choice of writing was made based on the feedback that "4E looks like a video game", and that people seems to don't like it. So, to diverge from 4E, D&D 5e has a much more natural writing than a specific writing, in the sense that the mechanics and fluffly text has flow of discourse. By doing this, 5e tries to build the sensation of a gap between pen-and-paper RPG and video games.

For instance, taking the same spell (a fireball) with the same mechanincs, these are the two way of writing proposed here. In D&D 4E the fireball text block is something like:

"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame."
Area: 20 ft. radius circle within 150 ft.
Targets: Every creature in the area.
Spell Save: Dexterity.
Damage: 8d6 fire damage.
Saved: Half damage.


In a more natural language (as in D&D 5e), it is like this:

"A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot radius must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."

[Hrugner]

IMO they did it to move away from the idea that rules are divided into fluff and mechanical. A good move.

That's a good concept, but that would require far more careful wording than the product delivered.

[Kane0]

That would be why the flavor and description comes before the mechanics, no? Thats the way they do it now, there's just no Effect: put between the two like spells do.

[Zalabim]

Well, 4e would have stuff like...
Fluff: Disintegrate. You fire a green ray from your wand. Whatever the emerald beam hits disappears in a puff of gray dust.
Crunch: You don't need a wand. The spell deals damage even on a miss, just less. The spell has no actual mechanic to disintegrate anything into gray dust.

This to me was the real waste of ink. 5e's fluff and crunch are not so jarringly divorced from each other, and we may have to thank the current format (or lack thereof) for it.

Literally:
Disintegrate Wizard Attack 19

A brilliant line of ravening green energy bursts from your pointing finger. Where the emerald beam touches, flesh and bone disappear in a puff of gray dust.

Daily - Arcane, Evocation, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature or object
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex. You automatically hit an unattended object with this power.
Hit: 4d10 + Intelligence modifier damage, and ongoing 10 damage (save ends).
Aftereffect: Ongoing 5 damage (save ends).
Miss: 2d10 + Intelligence modifier damage, and ongoing 5 damage (save ends).

And killing blows are all fluff, in 4E. That's why you're allowed to KO instead of kill with any attack.

Still, only slightly exaggerated. Interestingly, it has no damage type.

[Unoriginal]

I like the current way. IMO. It might be reactionary from 4e, but I'd say the reaction was warranted.

[Millstone85]

A brilliant line of ravening green energy bursts from your pointing finger. Where the emerald beam touches, flesh and bone disappear in a puff of gray dust.
Still, only slightly exaggerated.This is not how my version of the 4e PHB reads.

I suppose that flavor text was so out of touch with the rest of the spell that it must have been errata'd at some point.

Edit: They also nerfed the damage by 1d10, really?


And killing blows are all fluff, in 4E. That's why you're allowed to KO instead of kill with any attack.Meh. This was their chance to make Disintegrate more than yet another damage spell, what with the Raise Dead ritual requiring a part of the corpse.


Interestingly, it has no damage type.Neither did Eldritch Blast, yet Magic Missile dealt force damage.

[Zalabim]

I looked up someone else's picture of the block rather than go digging in my garage. A distressing number (and type) of errata exists for 4E. That change might have come out of Essentials, since Evocation wouldn't have originally been a meaningful tag.

It's partially a missed opportunity, but partially not necessary. It doesn't have to say it destroys the body for a player or GM to say it can destroy a body. It should maybe say that it has to destroy the body. Disintegrate does certainly destroy objects. I think making sure certain iconic spells are also good in 5E is another lesson learned from reactions to things like this and 4E's Fireball.

[Cybren]

I like the current way. IMO. It might be reactionary from 4e, but I'd say the reaction was warranted.

Yeah, if the pendulum swung too far, it only did so by a little. I prefer this way. I know that the Magic R&D team has talked about how they did something similar where they've stopped being too rigorous in using identical templating for similar effects, so that spells feel more unique even if it's just because they word things differently from time to time

[2D8HP]

I can't tell if your format would make it easier or harder to follow any given rule.

Please cite something from the PHB (either a quote or a page number), and then re-write with the proposed format.

That way I may be able to tell, otherwise I'm just not following what the difference is.

[Theodoxus]

I looked up someone else's picture of the block rather than go digging in my garage. A distressing number (and type) of errata exists for 4E. That change might have come out of Essentials, since Evocation wouldn't have originally been a meaningful tag.

It's partially a missed opportunity, but partially not necessary. It doesn't have to say it destroys the body for a player or GM to say it can destroy a body. It should maybe say that it has to destroy the body. Disintegrate does certainly destroy objects. I think making sure certain iconic spells are also good in 5E is another lesson learned from reactions to things like this and 4E's Fireball.

I'm positive it came from essentials - I only had the original core and there are things like 'aftereffect' that aren't in my memorybank of recollection...

@OP, It would be awesome if gaming books were written like Bibles - many different interpretations so you can get the one you like best. All fluff, All crunch, happy medium, formatted X or Y or Z; apocryphal or RAW only... a study version notated by the devs, or just plain vanilla PHB... Then we could fight over what the "True" version of the rules are, rather than what they're supposed to mean. LOL

[PeteNutButter]

Yeah, if the pendulum swung too far, it only did so by a little. I prefer this way. I know that the Magic R&D team has talked about how they did something similar where they've stopped being too rigorous in using identical templating for similar effects, so that spells feel more unique even if it's just because they word things differently from time to time

See 5e could learn a whole hell of a lot if they copied more from MTG. Older cards aside, the game is very well written. It has:
-Clear delineation of fluff, via flavor text in italics.
-Keyword abilities that save time and ink when used properly (pointless when they have to keep writing things out)
-Clear language usage. If a spell "targets" something that is specific and has predictable interaction with things that prevent targetting etc. In 5e if a spell targets something we aren't really sure how to handle it. I ruled at my table that GFB can be twinned because it only "targets" one creature in an MTG sense.

The thing about 5e being more narrative, it loses so much clarity at the same time. They wanted to leave more up to the DM, but IMO they just didn't bother finishing the rules. D&D since its inception has always given the DM full authority to whatever he or she likes, freely changing rules etc. 3.5e got out of hand once they started to have full charts for every theoretical skill check, making everything by the book. 5e doesn't need that it just needs a bit more clarity in writing. Why can't the Monster Manual be more clear on what contributes to a monster's AC or saving throw DC? These things have to be reverse engineered on the fly. What about size mechanics? Same thing.

Bottom line is a lot of what they intentionally left out has caused a lot of confusion. The sage advice column is proof of this.

[Cybren]

There is no such thing as "fluff".

[Tanarii]

There is no such thing as "fluff".
Yeah. It's an artificial construct, the idea that things are either fluff/non-mechanical or mechanical. But there are plenty of rules in various RPG rulebooks that don't fit into the fluff/mechanical view of RPG rulebooks. IMO it's a view that's destructive to rules interpretations and discussions, and it needs to be discarded.

[Fayd]

And re: the short/long rest thing, from a rule construction example, it's a good example of doing things correctly. Because a long rest and a short rest are two different things; mechanically a long rest does not Necessarily include a short rest. If you had an ability that said "refreshes on a short rest" without also saying on a long rest, by the canons of construction, it would not refresh on a long rest, and that would probably be bad.

[Pex]

I realize the designers may have made a conscious decision to make the rules appear in a more narrative fashion (maybe to distance from 4e?), but to me it just seems clumsy and overly wordy. It especially bothers me when I am trying to write homebrew in a way that makes it look like it could be official, forcing me to use the clumsy rules methods.



This.

Writing every single power the same way in 4E contributed to the "sameyness" feeling people (like me) got about the game. X[W] type (color) damage + [condition (save ends if harmful) or someone moves)], X can equal 0. However, I do understand your point of annoyance of having to read the same phrase or paragraph over and over. 3E had it too such as with the repetition of introducing class skills and how increasing spellcasting worked for prestige classes. In the beginning of 3.5 people here were creating their own prestige classes and used the exact same wording. A glossary page that provides the verbiage definitions necessary to be referenced with short hand terms and then use those short hands for the rest of the book would be an easier read.

[Theodoxus]

And re: the short/long rest thing, from a rule construction example, it's a good example of doing things correctly. Because a long rest and a short rest are two different things; mechanically a long rest does not Necessarily include a short rest. If you had an ability that said "refreshes on a short rest" without also saying on a long rest, by the canons of construction, it would not refresh on a long rest, and that would probably be bad.

Because replacing ""You can't use this ability again until you complete a short or long rest" with "You can't use this ability again until you complete a rest" is confusing?

I agree, the repetition is annoying. Anything that refreshes on a short rest also refreshes on a long. I dare you to find any ability that directly contradicts this. Sure, deleting three words doesn't seem much - but when used on every. single. thing. that refreshes on a short rest? That's a LOT of things... space is a premium.

[PeteNutButter]

And re: the short/long rest thing, from a rule construction example, it's a good example of doing things correctly. Because a long rest and a short rest are two different things; mechanically a long rest does not Necessarily include a short rest. If you had an ability that said "refreshes on a short rest" without also saying on a long rest, by the canons of construction, it would not refresh on a long rest, and that would probably be bad.

That is why I specifically said you'd need a brief glossary to explain what the entries mean. Short rest recharge abilities always recharge on a long rest or short rest. You say it once in the beginning of the book, so you don't have to say it 50 times plus countless times in any future book released.

In response to people's input above, what about a compromise, keeping the "fluff" and mechanics together, but keeping other essential data in a nice clear and concise format. Like:

[Ability Name]
[Description Fluff and mechanics]
[action usage (might be redundant with what is stated above)]
[resource/recharge]

These are just rough examples, but I think you can get my point.

Divine Smite
When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage. The extra damage is 1d8 plus 1d8 per level of spell slot expended, to a maximum of 5d8 when expending a fourth level spell slot. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is a fiend or undead.
Action Cost: No action, Triggered (Once per Melee Hit)
Resource: Spell Slots

Flurry of Blows
Immediately after you take the attack action you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.
Action Cost: Bonus Action
Resource: 1 Ki Point

Ki
Your training allows you to harness the mystic energy of ki. You gain one ki point per monk, level as shown in the Monk table. Your ki fuels various monk features. If a kit ability calls for a saving throw the DC is 8+ proficiency bonus + your Wisdom Modifier.
Action Cost: Passive, Resource
Recharge: Short Rest

Turn Undead
As an action you present your holy symbol and speak a prayer censuring the undead. Each undead that can see or hear you within 30 feet of you must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save it is turned for 1 minute or until it takes any damage...
Action Cost: Action
Resource: Channel Divinity
The idea is to put tags on things. Most things have either a resource cost, or a recharge. Why not just recognize it and use shorthand? You can use the same format for any feature. Sometimes its redundant, but that's ok as its future use outweighs any redundancy.

[Tanarii]

Because replacing ""You can't use this ability again until you complete a short or long rest" with "You can't use this ability again until you complete a rest" is confusing?Yeah, I agree with you and the OP on this. There are certainly concepts that can be tightened up and explained in a single place.



[resource/recharge]
Not recharge. If the term 'recharge' gets used, we'll be right back to accusations of 'video gamey'. The term is far too loaded. Even if that's what the long winded "You can't use this ability again until" amounts to, it's best to avoid the term like the plague. :smallyuk:

[N810]

I'd just be happy if they where consistent with their words...
like attacks, attacking, in hand, weapon, combat and melee. I would have been better
if they used magic the gathering like keywords with specific definitions.
and preferably have those keywords in bold.

[Tanarii]

if they used magic the gathering like keywords with specific definitions.
and preferably have those keywords in bold.
The problem with that is for many people, it makes the game feel too much like a game, and not enough like a set of rules for resolving actions by an imaginary character in a fictional world. It drags them out of suspension of disbelief.

Which is kind of a weird complaint given D&D's wargaming origins. But there you have it.

[Millstone85]

Not recharge. If the term 'recharge' gets used, we'll be right back to accusations of 'video gamey'. The term is far too loaded. Even if that's what the long winded "You can't use this ability again until" amounts to, it's best to avoid the term like the plague. :smallyuk:Creature stat blocks use "recharge".

[da_chicken]

Description: [Fluff]
Mechanics:[Important to keep these separate, as names and fluff often conflict with mechanics, such as Green Flame Blade with a hammer etc.]

This bit is a problem. 5e was intended to treat fluff and mechanics as one and the same. You're not supposed to ignore the fluff and only read the crunch; the fluff doesn't carry less weight so separating the two is nonsensical. It would be making a distinction that the game developers explicitly want DMs and players to avoid.

Why is fluff important? Because intent and expectation can easily be conveyed with natural, plain language explanations, but doing so with only mechanical or technical language is very cumbersome and complex. Fluff is important because it means the game developer doesn't have to spend a couple hours on every game element making sure it's mechanically correct. You can be general, give the minimum technical parameters possible, and still end up with a functional game element because you can just tell the player what they're supposed to do with it.

[Tanarii]

Creature stat blocks use "recharge".that's invisible to the players.

[Fishybugs]

That's a good concept, but that would require far more careful wording than the product delivered.

Why? Why do people have to have every detail spelled out for them? I wonder how these players who have to have specific interpretations for every interaction in D&D have any fun.

"What???!!!?? There's no rules on sitting in a chair??? What lazy designers!!!! Don't they know a halfling chair won't work for a goliath? What if I want to sit in a halfing chair?? How do I know what to do if the book doesn't tell me???"

[PeteNutButter]

Why? Why do people have to have every detail spelled out for them? I wonder how these players who have to have specific interpretations for every interaction in D&D have any fun.

"What???!!!?? There's no rules on sitting in a chair??? What lazy designers!!!! Don't they know a halfling chair won't work for a goliath? What if I want to sit in a halfing chair?? How do I know what to do if the book doesn't tell me???"

There is a reasonable expectation for rules in the game, which should cover at the very least common combat. No one is asking for this.

Why should these rules exist and be clear? It gives the players some agency in the world. Without them it'd be just a story.
DM: Ok goblins attack. It takes a few rounds. The ranger and the paladin take 6 damage. You kill the goblins.

The rules also provide a good bit of balance between the classes which may or may not be easily upset by an on the fly call. Does the Great Weapon Fighting Style work on extra dice like smite? Well it should looks like it does RAW, but allowing it buffs one of the stronger classes. Implications of DM rulings on the fly can have far reaching effects, and most DMs are hesitant to overrule their previous rulings in the name of consistency. I''ve seen DMs who would be great if they were more aware of their on the fly rulings, and their consequences.

Types of things I've seen with bad on the fly DM calls, when people don't know or respect RAW:

Paladin: As a bonus action I cheer the ranger on!
DM: Ok! Ranger, you can add 1d6 to your next attack roll because the paladin is such a great leader. Bard, it's your turn.
Bard: Um... well, can I use my class feature to do what he just did for free without multi-classing?

Paladin: I hit the enemy in the legs so that he falls over.
DM: Ok he failed his dex save. Battlemaster, your turn.
Battlemaster: Um, I use tripping attack.

Paladin: I hit the enemy over the side of the head to daze him.
DM: Ok he failed his wis save. He is stunned! Monk, your turn.
Monk: I use stunning strike...

Or one I've seen all the time: Allowing people to use features of feats they don't have, without explaining rules changes up front.
Paladorc (Sword and Board): I cast shield.
DM: Ok the goblin missed you then.
Valor Bard: Hmm if I'd have known that was a thing without warcaster, I would never have taken it as a feat...

There are two morals to these stories. 1.) Paladins are jerks. 2.) DMs making rules up without actual guidance often does a disservice to game balance, which can really leave other players feeling overshadowed. To be clear I am not saying DMs shouldn't allow creative play, just that rules in combat are clearly defined (or should be) and when they aren't bad things can happen which ruin the fun for other players.

[Leith]

5e's natural wording also to remove a barrier for new players. In the 4e PHB there are numerous sections explaining the shorthand for powers. Otherwise no one would know what "close burst 3" means. 5e cut down on that in many ways: spells give ranges in feet, duration in minutes and hours and special abilities mostly just use plain language. The purpose of this is to make the game easier to learn and easier for players to manipulate.

Fluff doesn't really exist in a role-playing game because everything is fluff. The mechanics are just a way to resolve one piece of fluff interacting with another. It's something that bothered people about 4th, I think; the implication that story and drama and fluff were secondary to mechanics.

[Vogonjeltz]

I respect your position here, but the problem is every time there is a conflict with fluff and mechanics, the mechanics wins. Fluff only exists in the realm of mechanics as a method of confusion. People tweeting questions about GFB with hammers, and using sneak attack when not even remotely sneaking etc, are just evidence of poorly written and named abilities.

Can you give an example that you think has a contradiction between the description of an ability and the way it operates?

The GFB with hammers sounds like user error, not any flaw in the system.


Because replacing ""You can't use this ability again until you complete a short or long rest" with "You can't use this ability again until you complete a rest" is confusing?

It would be bad writing to be deliberately vague in these circumstances. They did it correctly to include both when both circumstances are appropriate and only one when only one is appropriate.

[Theodoxus]

Can you give an example that you think has a contradiction between the description of an ability and the way it operates?

The GFB with hammers sounds like user error, not any flaw in the system.



It would be bad writing to be deliberately vague in these circumstances. They did it correctly to include both when both circumstances are appropriate and only one when only one is appropriate.

It wouldn't be deliberately vague if it was mentioned once "Anytime you take a long rest, you gain all the benefits of a short rest."

[Hrugner]

Why? Why do people have to have every detail spelled out for them? I wonder how these players who have to have specific interpretations for every interaction in D&D have any fun.

"What???!!!?? There's no rules on sitting in a chair??? What lazy designers!!!! Don't they know a halfling chair won't work for a goliath? What if I want to sit in a halfing chair?? How do I know what to do if the book doesn't tell me???"

I appreciate the need for mockery, but I'll go ahead and answer your question without retorting if you don't mind.

When looking at broadly described abilities with little mechanical description, a player and a DM need to work out exactly what the ability can do. One of the more notoriously under defined abilities is the Conjuration school's minor conjuration ability. The description taken literally means that a player can create a non magical weapon that is magical, can create food as long as it can be eaten without being damaged, can only make 3 feet of rope, can create any spell book they've seen complete with contents regardless of their familiarity with the contents, can make 10 pints of poison, can create any alchemic weapon, and so on. It's a potentially indispensable ability with weird limitations, but I don't think it's intended to be. There's others of course, such as the illusionist's malleable illusion and how it interacts with the creation spell, or what constitutes loose earth for the move earth spell.

Or the player can blunder through trying to use their ability and be surprised when it works or doesn't work. It's a cool effect if you're playing a foolish character, but not so much if your character knows their own powers.

[Cybren]

I appreciate the need for mockery, but I'll go ahead and answer your question without retorting if you don't mind.

When looking at broadly described abilities with little mechanical description, a player and a DM need to work out exactly what the ability can do. One of the more notoriously under defined abilities is the Conjuration school's minor conjuration ability. The description taken literally means that a player can create a non magical weapon that is magical, can create food as long as it can be eaten without being damaged, can only make 3 feet of rope, can create any spell book they've seen complete with contents regardless of their familiarity with the contents, can make 10 pints of poison, can create any alchemic weapon, and so on. It's a potentially indispensable ability with weird limitations, but I don't think it's intended to be. There's others of course, such as the illusionist's malleable illusion and how it interacts with the creation spell, or what constitutes loose earth for the move earth spell.

Or the player can blunder through trying to use their ability and be surprised when it works or doesn't work. It's a cool effect if you're playing a foolish character, but not so much if your character knows their own powers.

I'm going to say the exact opposite: using plain language and making the intent clear with the rules is better for these scenarios. What minor conjuration does is eminently obvious unless you have a poor grasp of english (which is fair and possible), or are an obnoxious munchkin prone to bad-faith arguments about rules minutia . The former case is understandable, but more complex Gamey writing wouldn't solve that, and could possibly pose a greater barrier to non-english speakers that haven't learned Dungeons and Dragonseese, but the latter shouldn't be written for and should really be discouraged from playing.

[Hrugner]

It's hardly munchkiny to want to know how much you can get out of an ability. Which of the examples I gave do you think are "bad faith arguments"?

[Cybren]

All of them

[Hrugner]

All of them

Only 3 feet of rope is munchkiny? Come on now, you aren't even trying here.

[Cybren]

No, I said it's a bad faith argument.

[Hrugner]

No, I said it's a bad faith argument.

What about the magical non-magical object. That's not even an argument just ambiguity in the ability itself. What's so "bad faith" about poison creation? Poison is certainly an object well within the ability's description. And hell, wondering what constitutes loose earth is also a valid question. These are all things hoped to be solved by natural language that are in no way addressed by the natural language. Is seeking specificity really that much of a problem?

[Snails]

The problem with that is for many people, it makes the game feel too much like a game, and not enough like a set of rules for resolving actions by an imaginary character in a fictional world. It drags them out of suspension of disbelief.

Which is kind of a weird complaint given D&D's wargaming origins. But there you have it.

I agree with the OP at a personal level, but I think you nailed the reasoning.

5e purposefully tones down the stat blocks to make it look more friendly and accessible to casual gamers. A "Recharge: Short rest or long rest" at the end of the ability description is overall easier on my eyes, but it looks unnecessarily opaque to the more casual gamer and makes them feel like they are deciphering a puzzle rather than playing a game.

5e designers are very consciously keeping the casual gamer in mind, and that is probably the biggest reason for eschewing splatbooks, which is a huge change from splatbooks on a regular release schedule. Gamers like us (mostly) enjoy overthinking stuff on a forum are happy with splatbooks. Casual gamers get agitated if you point them to 4 books to make a PC. Picking a class then one of three subclasses is about the limit of the patience of the casual gamer for delving into mechanics -- which is why 5e is designed such that you never have to look at a feat. (As for race & background, that feels enough like RPing that no one minds that.)

[iTreeby]

See 5e could learn a whole hell of a lot if they copied more from MTG. Older cards aside, the game is very well written. It has:
-Clear delineation of fluff, via flavor text in italics.
-Keyword abilities that save time and ink when used properly (pointless when they have to keep writing things out)
-Clear language usage. If a spell "targets" something that is specific and has predictable interaction with things that prevent targetting etc. In 5e if a spell targets something we aren't really sure how to handle it. I ruled at my table that GFB can be twinned because it only "targets" one creature in an MTG sense.

Magic the gathering breaks down at a certain point too though. There are cards with Oracle text that don't resemble the original text because they didn't work in the sets they were printed in. Like void maw. For a while it was possible to put a sorcery spell (splinter if anyone cares) into play, they solved the problem by changing the rules. Mtgs rules get really complicated when you start talking about "the layers" which never even appear on a card.

[Tetrasodium]

I agree with others that the weaving together of fluff & crunch was generally a good thing for all the reasons given. something about "You can't use this ability again until you finish a short or long rest" drives knives into my brain & I'm not sure why. I think that it's related to adjective order but can't find anything to contradict short or long as being backwards; but aall of the examples with multiple sizes are largest to smallest. I think it might justy be running into another one of them.
http://www.grammar.cl/english/adjectives-word-order.htm
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/about-adjectives-and-adverbs/adjectives-order


unless you start learning other lamguages with a different adjective order, it's just something you learn while learning to speak because you sound like a crazy person speaking gibberish if you do it out of order. For example...

"The barbeque burlap green big fancy apron" sounds like gibberish... "The fancy big green burlap barbeque apron" actually sounds reasonable if you remove a n adjective or two into the realm of reasonable.

"a short or long rest" feels strange "a long or short rest" feels ok

[N810]

or they could just replace it with "rest".
meaning any kind of rest, but other things
may still refer to just a "long rest"
as that would be more specific.

[Beelzebubba]

Because replacing ""You can't use this ability again until you complete a short or long rest" with "You can't use this ability again until you complete a rest" is confusing?

A Short Rest is a specific term in the game. A Long Rest is too.

They stand out from the normal word 'rest'. They are easier to look for in a Glossary, they stand out as subheads on Page 186 - it's best to just train people to use unique gaming terms exactly rather than adding the ambiguous term 'Rest' into things.

It isn't necessary, but it's good to be precise with these things. This is a general content and reference best practice you get from writing and technical guidelines.

[JBPuffin]

Yeah, if the pendulum swung too far, it only did so by a little. I prefer this way. I know that the Magic R&D team has talked about how they did something similar where they've stopped being too rigorous in using identical templating for similar effects, so that spells feel more unique even if it's just because they word things differently from time to time

Wait, what? I admit, I haven't been keeping track of Magic, but when...what...why would you make that game harder to play and interpret? It's like trading a 4K monitor for a 1080p screen; things just become blurrier. Ugh.

(Note on Oracle: It's a combination of errata and dictionary, showing you how things have changed along withbwhat they are. Sometimes, the rewording isn't much more intuitive, though...)

I hadn't actually thought about it much, but come to think of it, I do miss the cards from 4th. Spells aren't too far from those, admittedly, which may explain why I only have played casters thus far, but it'd be nice not to have to deal with "druids aren't proficient with metal armor" and "redemption paladins lose their martial weapon proficiency" just because WotC didn't split fluff and text more immediately.

[Cybren]

Wait, what? I admit, I haven't been keeping track of Magic, but when...what...why would you make that game harder to play and interpret? It's like trading a 4K monitor for a 1080p screen; things just become blurrier. Ugh.

(Note on Oracle: It's a combination of errata and dictionary, showing you how things have changed along withbwhat they are. Sometimes, the rewording isn't much more intuitive, though...)

I hadn't actually thought about it much, but come to think of it, I do miss the cards from 4th. Spells aren't too far from those, admittedly, which may explain why I only have played casters thus far, but it'd be nice not to have to deal with "druids aren't proficient with metal armor" and "redemption paladins lose their martial weapon proficiency" just because WotC didn't split fluff and text more immediately.



You seem to have misunderstood. I don't remember if it was Forscythe or Maro, but one of them wrote about how in the early days of magic, they used willy nilly wording to accomplish things. As the game became more popular and WotC became more experienced, they started standardizing the cards, but that sacrificed some amount of resonant flavor. A few years back, they started being a little more varied with the way they word their cards, so that occasionally they can accomplish an effect in a more unique way, allowing the game mechanics to tell the story of the card and feel more unique.

[Slipperychicken]

I think refusing to separate lore and rules helps people understand that the rules' purpose is to support and enforce the lore, and encourages thinking about intent instead of legalese. RAW isn't supposed to be some dissociated pile of logic that exists for its own sake while distorting lore around it.

At the same time, we could use a little more clarity and categorization, and some rules constructs like feats could use some more text outlining the lore explanation behind them.

[Vogonjeltz]

I appreciate the need for mockery, but I'll go ahead and answer your question without retorting if you don't mind.

When looking at broadly described abilities with little mechanical description, a player and a DM need to work out exactly what the ability can do. One of the more notoriously under defined abilities is the Conjuration school's minor conjuration ability. The description taken literally means that a player can create a non magical weapon that is magical, can create food as long as it can be eaten without being damaged, can only make 3 feet of rope, can create any spell book they've seen complete with contents regardless of their familiarity with the contents, can make 10 pints of poison, can create any alchemic weapon, and so on. It's a potentially indispensable ability with weird limitations, but I don't think it's intended to be. There's others of course, such as the illusionist's malleable illusion and how it interacts with the creation spell, or what constitutes loose earth for the move earth spell.

Or the player can blunder through trying to use their ability and be surprised when it works or doesn't work. It's a cool effect if you're playing a foolish character, but not so much if your character knows their own powers.

Do you really not understand that the form of the weapon must be a nonmagical one, but the conjured object radiates light making it obviously abnormal? (And thus less than useful for being discrete or pawning off a fake).

Similarly, the object can't weigh more than 10 lbs or exceed the size limits, so yeah 3 feet of rope is the limit, the spell book would, at best, be the form of a book, it obviously wouldn't include contents, and liquids aren't discrete inanimate objects unto themselves (nor could they be created without already having a container, as they'd just spill all over the place uselessly.

[JBPuffin]

You seem to have misunderstood. I don't remember if it was Forscythe or Maro, but one of them wrote about how in the early days of magic, they used willy nilly wording to accomplish things. As the game became more popular and WotC became more experienced, they started standardizing the cards, but that sacrificed some amount of resonant flavor. A few years back, they started being a little more varied with the way they word their cards, so that occasionally they can accomplish an effect in a more unique way, allowing the game mechanics to tell the story of the card and feel more unique.

Are we talking Stasis Snare vs Oblivion Ring (aka making new ways to do the same thing) or Pacifism vs Another Pacifism (rewording the same effect)? I'm complaining about the idea that using different words to describe the same effect is needless complication. If it's the former, well...You have to do that to keep making cards people want to buy. If it's the latter, it is what I take issue with.

Maybe it's just the video gamer in me, but I could care less about the stories the game is intending to tell through mechanic/fluff amalgamation. It's my job as the player to write the stories; Wizards has all kinds of articles and publishers to leverage to write their stuff, their "This is the plotline of Innistrad..." or "this type of paladin comes from this order..." What matters to me in mechanics are clarity and efficacy, not why the color of my robes leaves me incapable of casting healing spells.

I apologize if this is incoherent. It just doesn't make sense to me why people would prefer vagueness and muddling for the "sake of immersion?" Maybe it's because I'm constantly inculcated in fantasy and don't need to be immersed so much as relocated...

[IShouldntBehere]

If I wanted straight up mechanics based resolution I'd be playing a tabletop wargame or card game like Warmachine, Malifaux or Magic: The Gathering. These games offer clear-cut procedural answers to all game states in an objective way to faciliate what these games are about: Head-to-Head competition where a Winner and a Loser are determined in a fair way.

In an RPG I'm not looking for fairness or clarity rules beyond what I need to get some semblance of stable play going. I care much more about more about what and how a disintegrate spell works in-universe than I do how many d6s of damage it causes. The d6s are useful shortcuts for common combat situations but creating a holistic experience imagining another world requires covering so many more situations than any rule designer could ever convenience of, let alone give considerations to in their RAW.

I don't want the rules for the game to be tightly bound to the half-dozen or so situations a hard pressed writers had time to consider when penning the book. Any move to a format more in line with

Fluff: Here is a description, it basically means nothing. Good luck or whatever, use your own skins or I don't we nobody gives a ****.
Mechanics: Here's what it does, nuts to any in game sensibilities thought-shalt-obey the RAW.

Is a move I don't want.


EDIT: Given a choice between given a version of the game with every piece of crunch wiped from pages and being left to fend for myself with the remainder with only ad-hoc free-form, or a version with far stricter mechanical conventions and only "as suggested" fluff I'd probably take the former.

[Tanarii]

I apologize if this is incoherent. It just doesn't make sense to me why people would prefer vagueness and muddling for the "sake of immersion?" Maybe it's because I'm constantly inculcated in fantasy and don't need to be immersed so much as relocated...Because, as I said up-thread, many people find the separation of mechanics and so-called fluff to cause a breakdown in suspension of disbelief. Or to put it another way, the more separate they are, the more 'video game-y' and less 'imaginary fantasy role playing' they find the game to be. Since you're a video gamer, and by the sounds of it a MtG player, as well as a TRPG player, it's hardly surprising you wouldn't share the view that this is likely to happen. Nor I suspect would you find it to be a negative thing if the game was more 'video game-y' in some regards. (Or at least, I doubt you'd find the term to be a pejorative.)

Personally I grew up playing D&D as a blend of a board-game & choose-your-own-adventure book in the mid-80s. So to me, it's a kind of a weird complaint. OTOH I've decided to take it at face value and moved away from viewing 5e through a 2eC&T/MtG/3e/4e lens. It took some time to deprogram myself of 20 years of thinking though.

[Albions_Angel]

Im kinda on the side of wanting more hard and fast rules for certain things. 5e combat it supposed to be super fast, but I am really struggling to get my players to actually do anything quickly, and some of it is down to them trying to get spells to do stuff they really shouldnt do, while other issues arise from their lack of familiarity, mixed with the rather wordy nature of some things.

Lets take 2 examples from my game just 2 hours ago.

In one situation we had a sorcerer use 3 different spells on 3 subsequent turns. Firebolt, Acid Splash and Chromatic Orb. The order was Fire/Orb/Acid. Now, Ill admit, as the DM, Im not as up on all the spells as I should be, but then again, Im supposed to leave it to my players. All 3 spells start off with the fluff text "Your hurl THIS at an enemy". Firebolt then immediately says "Make a ranged spell attack". Cool. Would be nice if it said it clearly and separately, but at least its near the start. Its the first thing you do when you cast it, so its the first bit of "crunch" you read. Chromatic Orb posed a minor issue. The player actually started by rolling the attack (as he should have), when a more experienced player said "Wait, just check that a sec. Its a first level spell and not many of those have attack rolls". So we pull it up and... the relevant bit of info is practically the last thing in the description. Not helpful. THEN he goes and rolls an attack for Acid Splash, because, you know, it reads exactly like the start of the two ranged attack spells. Except then he asked for a dex save and I know that its usually attack OR save, not both. So we go to that and have to try and NOT find the rather cumbersome phrase "make a ranged spell attack against the target", which, im sorry, took me a while to figure out actually meant you roll a dice when I first read it.

The second example was when they accidentally set fire to a book shop. Now, I had been making it clear that the air was very dry and the shop very old. The fire starts and spreads a little each round. By the time someone tries to do something about it, half the 3 foot high, 10 foot long case is ablaze. Druid goes "I put it out with druidcraft". I go "uh, no you dont. Its quite a big fire." "But its about the same size as a halfling and thats Small. And Druidcraft snuffs out a Small campfire." "Uh, but thats still rather smaller than a book case. Besides, the place is very dry." "But it says in the rules!" "Honestly, thats just fluff. Druidcraft doesnt really do all that much, mechanically." "Wait, I wasted a cantrip?" "Well, im sure it will come up useful at some point, just not really here." "So can I cast it lots to put out the fire?" "Well, not really, its spreading quite fast." "Well can I create a breeze to slow it down. Or Make the books wet. THats a harmless sensory effect". "You cant, but it wont do anything." ... and so on. What would have been helpful is a line like "Druidcraft: You can snuff out or light any fire that fits within a 1ft cube. In addition, you can do a number of things like create a harmless sensory effect that fits within a 5ft cube, or make a single bud, leaf or flower bloom instantly." Clear, mechanical limits help define the fun. The player gets to roleplay it however they want, but at least the DM can point to actual numbers.

[Unoriginal]

A fire that fills a 1,5m x 5m space is not going to be "the size of an halfing" or "Small".

A Small creature would only occupy a small part of that space.

[ProphetSword]

Maybe it's just the video gamer in me, but I could care less about the stories the game is intending to tell through mechanic/fluff amalgamation. It's my job as the player to write the stories; Wizards has all kinds of articles and publishers to leverage to write their stuff, their "This is the plotline of Innistrad..." or "this type of paladin comes from this order..." What matters to me in mechanics are clarity and efficacy, not why the color of my robes leaves me incapable of casting healing spells.

I apologize if this is incoherent. It just doesn't make sense to me why people would prefer vagueness and muddling for the "sake of immersion?" Maybe it's because I'm constantly inculcated in fantasy and don't need to be immersed so much as relocated...

Because not everyone is like you. There are a lot of different kinds of people in the world, and not all of them look at things the same way you do. Nor should they.

[IShouldntBehere]

Seriously on what planet is 3ft by 10ft about the size of a halfing. Hell, Shaq could probably easily fit in a space 3ft across it's shortest dimension and 10ft across it's longest. I mean it'd be Shaq's corpse rather than actually Shaq, because Shaq would be dead because Shaq isn't fireproof but by no reasonable measure is that "small" crunch-defined or otherwise.

Also how is "This cantrip is not an immediate and total solution to this one problem right now" equivalent to "This is a wasted cantrip that is totally useless". Even if one could say the spell should rightly snuff the fire and it was arbitrarily not stopped from doing so, it still would have 3 other bullet points worth of uses. Just because something can't fight blazes does not mean one is left with something useless. (even if it's lack of ability to fight blazes is the result of an on-the-spot arbitrary nerf to keep things on the rails. Which this wasn't by the way but just sayin').

Certainly if one scoured all crunch from the game and "Small" as a size category was not a thing and we were just free-forming "torch candle or small campfire" that bit of confusion would have been erased by the lack of mechanics more than anything else.

[Albions_Angel]

Sorry, I forgot to say only half the shelf was on fire >.< My bad. Its late.

Essentially it was 5ft square space and 3ft high. The space a halfling would occupy.

EDIT: Actually, I didnt forget to put that, but it is poorly laid out. It's almost a metaphor! Or something. It's late. I wish there were more hard numbers. Sorry everyone hates me.

[Hrugner]

Do you really not understand that the form of the weapon must be a nonmagical one, but the conjured object radiates light making it obviously abnormal? (And thus less than useful for being discrete or pawning off a fake).

Similarly, the object can't weigh more than 10 lbs or exceed the size limits, so yeah 3 feet of rope is the limit, the spell book would, at best, be the form of a book, it obviously wouldn't include contents, and liquids aren't discrete inanimate objects unto themselves (nor could they be created without already having a container, as they'd just spill all over the place uselessly.

I understand that you've made rulings on what the ability can do. Is the obviously magical replica of a non-magic weapon a magic weapon for all other purposes? The rules don't say so we make a ruling. Is the 3 feet on a side a limitation on the form as it's created letting us make a spool of rope much longer, or is it a hard ruling on any possible measured dimension or deformity available to the object. Can we not make a 3x3x3 cube of something because the measure of opposite corners is longer than 3ft? Can we not make any liquid because it could be spread along a surface area longer than 3 feet?

As for me, I rule you can make the spool of rope only worrying about the weight restriction, you can't fill the spell book with spells but can create it, our table removed any liquids because it created too many problems, and removed consumables of any form. Also, the sword doesn't count as a magic weapon. That makes the ability work but it requires a fair bit of additional rules that aren't expressly written. And as you see we disagree about the rope, and while we agree about the spell book, the ability itself is clear that we should both be wrong. Sage advice rules in favor of the spellbook creation, so even that ruling may run against the intent of the ability.

The lack of definition in this ability is indefensible.

[Unoriginal]

Sorry, I forgot to say only half the shelf was on fire >.< My bad. Its late.

Essentially it was 5ft square space and 3ft high. The space a halfling would occupy.

EDIT: Actually, I didnt forget to put that, but it is poorly laid out. It's almost a metaphor! Or something. It's late. I wish there were more hard numbers. Sorry everyone hates me.

You did say it was half of the shelf that was on fire.

Thing is, it's not because an halfling would stand in this space that the halfling occupies it entirely. Halflings are not 5 by 5 by 3 cubes. So the player's reasoning was unsound.

[Cybren]

The lack of definition in this ability is indefensible.

It's really not, and the intent and function of the ability is extremely obvious.

[Pex]

I don't mind fluff in the books as long as I don't have to be married to it. I may want to play a fiend warlock because I want its class abilities, but my Pact is with the Phoenix where my job is to incinerate Evil and rebuild a better world from the ashes it caused. I could be a Lawful Good Vengeance Paladin of Ilmater. I force those who commit suffering upon others to suffer themselves to know of the pain they cause such that they won't cause suffering anymore.

[Hrugner]

It's really not, and the intent and function of the ability is extremely obvious.

Hook me up then cause I'm not getting it. Then pass it along to the guys who wrote the book since they disagree on a few points as well.

[Vogonjeltz]

I understand that you've made rulings on what the ability can do. Is the obviously magical replica of a non-magic weapon a magic weapon for all other purposes? The rules don't say so we make a ruling. Is the 3 feet on a side a limitation on the form as it's created letting us make a spool of rope much longer, or is it a hard ruling on any possible measured dimension or deformity available to the object. Can we not make a 3x3x3 cube of something because the measure of opposite corners is longer than 3ft? Can we not make any liquid because it could be spread along a surface area longer than 3 feet?

As for me, I rule you can make the spool of rope only worrying about the weight restriction, you can't fill the spell book with spells but can create it, our table removed any liquids because it created too many problems, and removed consumables of any form. Also, the sword doesn't count as a magic weapon. That makes the ability work but it requires a fair bit of additional rules that aren't expressly written. And as you see we disagree about the rope, and while we agree about the spell book, the ability itself is clear that we should both be wrong. Sage advice rules in favor of the spellbook creation, so even that ruling may run against the intent of the ability.

The lack of definition in this ability is indefensible.

You're confusing logical consequences of the listed restrictions for rulings. That's ok, it's an easy mistake to make.

The rule is that it can't be more than 3 feet on a side, not a diagonal. As far as can be told, liquids and gases aren't considered objects by the game. Every reference to them puts them in the category of phenomena, not objects.

Take a look at the DMG rules for Objects, it exclusively lists solid states of matter. No liquids, no gases.

[Hrugner]

Take a look at the DMG rules for Objects, it exclusively lists solid states of matter. No liquids, no gases.

I don't have a DMG so I'll take your word for it. I guess it's nice that the rest of the ability's description exists somewhere. Thanks for the tip.

[Zalabim]

If it helps any, and I bet it doesn't, later printings show Minor Conjuration poofs if the object takes or deals any damage, or something to that effect. It doesn't mattered if a conjured club is magical because you can't hit people with it.

[Dr. Cliché]

I actually have a different issue with "You can't use this ability again until you complete a short or long rest," - placement. It almost always seems to be placed right at the end of an ability, rather than at the beginning (e.g. "Once per short or long rest...").

The reason I find this annoying is that, especially early on, I'd see an ability that would look really great . . . until I ran into this clause.

Basically, it's the 'false hope' aspect, wherein an ability first seems to be usable at-will, until you get to this obnoxious clause.

I much preferred the 3.5 wording, where the ability would always start with how many times it can be used (1/day, 1/hour, 1/minute etc.). It also made it easier for purposes of reference - since it put that information at the beginning of the description rather than the end.