Spells organization in the phb

[Tanarii]

I was just reading the Alexandrian article about OD&D lamenting how Gygax arranged by level and how the 3rd edition finally change it to a superior method of spell list followed by alphabetical spells.
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4101/roleplaying-games/reactions-to-odd-gygaxian-rulebooks

Now we all know 5e uses the same system, spells by class and a list followed by alphabetical cells of all levels.

Does anybody else find this is atrocious and annoying as I do? Why the heck can't they be arranged by level? If you have to look up a spell during a game you've already messed up. What matters is being able to easily find all the spells that you can select From a given level easily, during character creation and during leveling up (known spells) or preparing after a long rest. We can't have them arrange my class anymore because spells can appear on more than one list, but it's always the same level. Far superior organization would be to separate them by level in alphabetically within the level.

What are your thoughts.

[Dork_Forge]

Whole heartedly agree, I look things up digitally when needed, I certainly couldn't be digging through that huge list in the middle of play in a physical book. Things just get even worse if you're using some Xanathar's spells too.

[MaxWilson]

I was just reading the Alexandrian article about OD&D lamenting how Gygax arranged by level and how the 3rd edition finally change it to a superior method of spell list followed by alphabetical spells.
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4101/roleplaying-games/reactions-to-odd-gygaxian-rulebooks

Now we all know 5e uses the same system, spells by class and a list followed by alphabetical cells of all levels.

Does anybody else find this is atrocious and annoying as I do? Why the heck can't they be arranged by level? If you have to look up a spell during a game you've already messed up. What matters is being able to easily find all the spells that you can select From a given level easily, during character creation and during leveling up (known spells) or preparing after a long rest. We can't have them arrange my class anymore because spells can appear on more than one list, but it's always the same level. Far superior organization would be to separate them by level in alphabetically within the level.

What are your thoughts.

I'm with you on this. Arranging spells by level instead of by name is more evocative and exciting ("these are all the 9th level spells!") and better matches what you're likely to be doing when you're flipping through that section of the rule books--you're probably trying to choose spells by comparing your options against each other. Having to consult a separate list to even find out what spells you have available at that level is an unneeded distraction.

The Alexandrian has some great insights into game structures and scenario design, but also some curious blind spots when it comes to 3rd edition and system design.

[Aussiehams]

Agreed 100%

[Nifft]

Spells-by-name is useful for looking up a spell when the level isn't fixed, and makes sense in 3.5e where the same spell can appear on different lists at different levels.

5e doesn't benefit from alphabetization nearly as much as 3.5e did.

Gygaxian level-by-level worked great in 1e where there were no shared spells -- a Wizard's Reincarnation spell wasn't the same as a Druid's Reincarnate, for example, though one did reference the other. If a spell appeared on multiple lists, like Detect Magic, the text would either reference the previous text, or duplicate parts of it.

(That's probably why 3.5e had weird class-specific text in some spells, like True Seeing showing different info to a Cleric than a Wizard -- it's a vestige of the prior editing process.)


Having all spells for all classes in one section isn't all that useful to me.

What would be most helpful is grouping spells by class and, within that, by level. This is very wasteful to do in a book, but can be accomplished by a computer very easily.


WotC should continue to print books in whatever backwards manner they'd prefer, but then also MAKE ALL SPELL TEXT AVAILABLE ONLINE so we can write tools to display it as we wish.

[Tanarii]

Honestly almost everyone I know that can afford them uses spell cards. If they chopped out 80 pages of the PHB and knocked the price down by $10, and replaced it with "see spell cards (sold separately)" ... well everyone would scream about price gouging and not being a complete rule set is what would actually happen. :smallamused: So I guess they kinda have to include them in the core rules, but it's almost wasted space.


Spells-by-name is useful for looking up a spell when the level isn't fixed, and makes sense in 3.5e where the same spell can appear on different lists at different levels.

5e doesn't benefit from alphabetization nearly as much as 3.5e did.

Man, it's been so long since I played 3e. I Was thinking the different levels thing went out with AD&D. But still, I liked AD&Ds method even if it meant some "see Magic User level 2 spell" stuff.

[OldTrees1]

1) Which is easier to remember about a spell? Its level or its name? The easier stat to remember is the better general access reference index.
2) Which index is sufficient for finding a spell? Name based indices can find the Fireball by name. Level based indices require spell level, and then require spell name.
This is why I like the spell chapter having the full descriptions be in alphabetical order.

3) However alphabetical, school, spell level, and class are all useful indexes.
That is why the spell lists in 3rd edition were structured Class -> Spell Level -> School -> Alphabetical.


Think of it as a way to implement cross indexing such that multiple use cases have useful indexes, rather than eliminating a common index just because you don't use it (5E why did you make it harder to index by school and then include Eldritch Knight & Arcane Trickster?).

[Tanarii]

1) Which is easier to remember about a spell? Its level or its name? The easier stat to remember is the better general access reference index.
2) Which index is sufficient for finding a spell? Name based indices can find the Fireball by name. Level based indices require spell level, and then require spell name.
This is why I like the spell chapter having the full descriptions be in alphabetical order.

Generally the process is:
spell List -> level you're interested in picking spells from -> names within that level

[OldTrees1]

Generally the process is:
spell List -> level you're interested in picking spells from -> names within that level

My sampling differs from yours.

Generally the process is:
During level up -> Class list -> Spell level -> Name -> Description*
All the rest of the time -> Name -> Full description

Frequency:
I do the former process less than once per level because I plan ahead during leveling up. However even if I do it once per level that is at most 20 times. The latter process happens more often in my experience. Those that check spells every level up often reference their spells multiple times per level. How often do you look at your spell cards? That is why the cross indexing is valuable.

Complete Key:
Notice how I can find the spell by name if it is alphabetized but I would require both the level and the name if it was sorted by level -> name. For the main index you would want a complete key rather than a compound key.

*D&D lists sometimes forget to make this step easier. The list itself can have a short description of each spell.

I understand you are skewed toward one of those index methods. But the benefit of cross indexing is that multiple preferences are satisfied rather than only your own. Lists are a great place for class -> level -> name. If the chapter also went level -> name then you would lose the cross indexing. That would slightly improve your use case while removing an entire use case.

[J-H]

I use an app to look up spell stats.
I think having them organized by level and then by alphabet within the level would be better.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd say that overall, alphabetical order is better-- it allows for spells to appear on different lists more gracefully, and it's easier to look up specific spells mid-game. (Especially when a monster or magic item references a spell without giving a level). That said, 5e's particular implementation is awful, since the class lists give no hint as to what the spells do, and the individual spell entries don't mention what classes can use the spells.

[yellowrocket]

Im glad none of you are the sole source for source books at your table. I have to pull up spells for all of them or have them look. If each class had their own list with complete text by level it would be a full book all by it self.

I just dont get how the current consolidated spell text (once, alphabetically)is that much if an issue for you that youre asking for spells to be printed multiple times. Cause if its only printed in its entirety under the first entry you'd be complaining about that and how you needed to manually cross reference them.

Theres still a list by class and level list included in the book, ita just not the full text. They decided to consolidate when multiple classes could use the same spell. Reverting to a by class by level publishing of spell text would either increase the number if pages substantially, or do nothing to reduce the need to cross reference.

So aside from a general need to complain, I'm failing to see what advantage a reversion would be.

[Composer99]

Each spell described once, and all spell descriptions sorted alphabetically, is preferable to alternatives in a printed text, at least IMO. The only thing missing from the PHB spell descriptions is which classes have that particular spell on their list.

For spell lists, again, the PHB is fine, except that within each spell level of each class' list, perhaps it should have either sorted by school first or included each spell's school.

[Tanarii]

All the rest of the time -> Name -> Full description

Frequency:
I do the former process less than once per level because I plan ahead during leveling up. However even if I do it once per level that is at most 20 times. The latter process happens more often in my experience. Those that check spells every level up often reference their spells multiple times per level. How often do you look at your spell cards? That is why the cross indexing is valuable.
If someone has to reference the book during play, something has already gone wrong. For starters, you're allowing books at the table. :smallyuk: Nothing brings the game to a crashing halt like someone needing to find an obscure rule (which including a single spell description) in the rule book. If you don't have spellcards, when leveling or otherwise preparing the spell write it into a word doc and print it out. Something. Anything.

[yellowrocket]

If someone has to reference the book during play, something has already gone wrong. For starters, you're allowing books at the table. :smallyuk: If you don't have spellcards, when leveling or otherwise preparing the spell write it into a word doc and print it out. Something. Anything.

Youre right when im playing with people who've never played before, in a place where I dont have my own printer, I should print every spell and then make another copy for each game because everyine knows how durable a sheet of paper is.

Or I could bring the hard cover book that I payed for that has equipment prices for when we're in town. That defines class abilities more clearly than the app.

Or ya know when you do a session 0 and 1 in the same sitting. So easy to predict wheat classes people are going to pick. Sheesh.

The level of condescension is disgusting.

[Tanarii]

Each spell described once, and all spell descriptions sorted alphabetically, is preferable to alternatives in a printed text, at least IMO. The only thing missing from the PHB spell descriptions is which classes have that particular spell on their list.
Single descriptions to save space are fine. I'm saying that sorting by level first, then alphabetically within each level, cuts down on cross-referencing when doing spell comparisons. Either choosing a known spell or preparing spells. Which is IMO when most folks will be referencing the book.

I think the reason they didn't add which classes have the spell on their lists because so many subclasses get custom spell lists.

[BurgerBeast]

I prefer a single alphabetical list. As someone mentioned earlier, it is a single index that always works, so it’s the only piece of information you need to find a spell. It doesn’t take long to look something up alphabetically. If it does, you can always practice that skill.

[Tanarii]

I prefer a single alphabetical list. As someone mentioned earlier, it is a single index that always works, so it’s the only piece of information you need to find a spell. It doesn’t take long to look something up alphabetically. If it does, you can always practice that skill.
It's flipping between 10 spells across 30 pages vs 10 spells on 3 pages that bugs me. :smallamused:

Honestly I should just use online resources and open them in different browser windows. But unfortunately online resources often include incorrect spell text.

[Xetheral]

I much prefer a single, alphabetized list. As others have said, dividing the list by levels means you need to know the level of the spell to find its full text, creating an unnecessary extra step.

Regardless of one's perspective on the desirability of looking things up at the table, I'd rather have the lookup process be as fast as possible.

Similarly, Monster Manual statblocks don't list spells by level. During prep (or at the table), when familiarizing myself with a monster's capabilities, I don't want to have to cross reference the class spell lists to figure out what level it is before I can find the spell description.

[Tanarii]

Similarly, Monster Manual statblocks don't list spells by level. During prep (or at the table), when familiarizing myself with a monster's capabilities, I don't want to have to cross reference the class spell lists to figure out what level it is before I can find the spell description.Good point for non-slot monster spellcasters.

[Temperjoke]

Yeah I think the current design in the PHB is the best compromise for space limitations versus ease of access for all aspects, since many spells are now the same across classes. Maybe as a side thing, they could release pdf files of complete spells by class, so you could have all of the spells a particular class can access in one list. Make it a charity release or something.

[KOLE]

I’ll die on this hill, man. Alphabetical is terribly annoying, especially when you’re trying to examine all the spells of the next level at level up. You’ll find yourself bouncing all over the book. Monsters without levelled slots are pretty niche tbh, how often do you deal with that? I’d much prefer the book being more convenient 90% of the time, especially for what most players need it for. Besides, honestly, if you’re running a caster as a DM you’re already adding more work for yourself, you can easily write the spell level in the margins of the statblock.

[Keravath]

In my opinion, the only time listing the spells by level is better is when you are trying to compare the spells directly, either selecting spells to prepare or choosing spells on leveling up.

The rest of the time alphabetical makes far more sense to me for looking up individual spells since I only need the name to find it, not the name AND the level.

Someone wants to cast Banishment. They know the name ... but what level was that spell? They now have to look up the level, find the page with that particular level of spells on it and finally search alphabetically to find the spell description. I'd rather just start with the alphabetical search.

I've played with the listings from previous editions and even AD&D listings were more irritating that 5e. You had to find the listing for magic-user spells, illusionist spells, cleric spells, druid spells ... each in a separate part of the book ... each organized by level. If you had the name of a spell but not the class or level it could be painful to find the description.

In addition, at one point spells could appear on different class lists at different levels. This isn't an issue with 5e so far but it makes alphabetical listing make more sense and be more efficient. (e.g. in AD&D cure light wounds was a first level cleric spell but a 2nd level druid spell, detect magic was a 1st level magic user, cleric and druid spell but a second level illusionist spell ... 1e printed the header for detect magic FOUR times ... then just to justify the printing space, they tweaked the duration/area of effect/components required for some of the versions while referring the text of the spell back to the cleric version).

So, no :) , I do NOT think the organization of the spell lists in earlier versions is better than the alphabetical approach taken in the 5e PHB :)

[KOLE]

Someone wants to cast Banishment. They know the name ... but what level was that spell? They now have to look up the level, find the page with that particular level of spells on it and finally search alphabetically to find the spell description. I'd rather just start with the alphabetical search.
)

Literally in what circumstance would this ever happen? You can’t cast the spell without burning the appropriate spell slot. How does the player even know they can cast banishment? Have they developed Amnesia? Why didn’t they put it under the appropriate spot in their spell sheet? This is some serious straw grasping.

[JackPhoenix]

Spell descriptions are good as they are in alphabetical order. The class spell lists preceding that section, however, could use some work. 3e was much better in that regard... besides the level and name, you've got a short description of what the spell does, and a school for wizards. You still had to refer to more detailed description if you wanted to know more details, but for a quick check, it was sufficient.

[Christew]

3e was nice in that it included class lists by level with brief spell descriptions before the alphabetical full list. Best of both worlds. These days I just use electronic resources for quick lookup.

The 5e PHB is a true masterwork of poor layout. The index that is absolutely rife with examples of "See X" instead of using fewer characters to just put the page number is one that drives me particularly crazy.

[TigerT20]

So in summary of the opposition's points:
Alphabetical is better when a player doesn't know what the spell they want to cast does (so doesn't have spell cards, an app or whatever), doesn't know the spell's level (so hasn't written it on their character sheet - how do they even know they have the spell?) and after all that, will want to save table time by not having to search through several levels.
Because you can't save table time by say, researching spells beforehand. Or getting the aforementioned spell cards.
I'd say the one excuse is a cleric, druid or other prepared caster who's grabbing a spell they know exists but didn't bother to do anything other than skim because they thought it would never come up. Or a wizard who only scribed a spell that very session. A spell you have specifically selected to be a part of your arsenal? You should know what it does.

[Vegan Squirrel]

Personally, I can see benefits to both ways. I'd probably slightly prefer to see the spells by level, but that's not the biggest issue to me. 3rd edition's quick descriptions on the spell lists were genius, and often enough of a reminder that you wouldn't have to look up the full spell text unless there was a weird interaction. That model should have been copied. I also think page numbers should be included when spells are referenced elsewhere (Monster Manual, modules, etc.). Something like this:


Spellcasting. The acolyte is a 1st-level spellcaster. Its spellcasting ability is Wisdom (spell save DC 12, +4 to hit with spell attacks). The acolyte has the following cleric spells prepared:

Cantrips (at-will): lightPH 255, sacred flamePH 272, thaumaturgyPH 282
1st level (3 slots): blessPH 219, cure woundsPH 230, sanctuaryPH 272

Do the same thing for class spell lists, magic items, and special features with spell effects. Then it doesn't matter as much if the spell list isn't alphabetical, because anywhere you see the spell name, it tells you what page to turn to. I've been using this whenever I build an NPC or monster with spells, and it saves so much time not having to skim through the spells to find what you want.

One other note, I've seen a few comments scolding players for not knowing what level their spells are. Keep in mind that magic items and class features might reference spells without requiring you to use leveled slots. For instance, the Way of the Four Elements and several warlock invocations specify a spell by name without any associated spell levels, or you could find a wand, staff, or potion with a spell effect. Then there are wild magic surges and the like, where any of a number of spells could randomly show up.

[MaxWilson]

My sampling differs from yours.

Generally the process is:
During level up -> Class list -> Spell level -> Name -> Description*
All the rest of the time -> Name -> Full description


How do you keep track of which spells come from PHB vs. Xanathar's/EE/SCAG/UA?

Ordering spells by level, then name, means the ordering remains useful even once you add more sources: a list of 9th level spells to choose from and compare remains a list of 9th level spells. But an ordering which is also trying to be an index loses its usefulness if the index is incomplete.

Not an issue of course if you don't use Xanathar's, etc.

[iTreeby]

It's pretty much worth it to use spell cards, just so you can organize it how you want. Just wish there were less typos...

[OldTrees1]

If someone has to reference the book during play, something has already gone wrong. For starters, you're allowing books at the table. :smallyuk: Nothing brings the game to a crashing halt like someone needing to find an obscure rule (which including a single spell description) in the rule book. If you don't have spellcards, when leveling or otherwise preparing the spell write it into a word doc and print it out. Something. Anything.

I disagree, and the current layout caters to both of us instead of only you. Please don't be so draconian in your badwrongfun crusade.


It's flipping between 10 spells across 30 pages vs 10 spells on 3 pages that bugs me. :smallamused:

Honestly I should just use online resources and open them in different browser windows. But unfortunately online resources often include incorrect spell text.

I’ll die on this hill, man. Alphabetical is terribly annoying, especially when you’re trying to examine all the spells of the next level at level up. You’ll find yourself bouncing all over the book.

If that is your annoyance, then why not flip between 10 spells on 1 page. The 5E class lists are terribly formatted. They could have had short descriptions for every spell. If they did then most of your comparison would be achieved on that 1 page.


How do you keep track of which spells come from PHB vs. Xanathar's/EE/SCAG/UA?

Ordering spells by level, then name, means the ordering remains useful even once you add more sources: a list of 9th level spells to choose from and compare remains a list of 9th level spells. But an ordering which is also trying to be an index loses its usefulness if the index is incomplete.

Not an issue of course if you don't use Xanathar's, etc.

When you are concerned with all spells of Nth level, then the class list system is still ideal in both the single source and the multiple sources situations. You look at the Nth level spells in the class list, in each sourcebook you are searching through.

When you are concerned with finding the full description of Resilient Sphere, then searching by level, name is slower than searching by name in both the single source and multiple source situations. Source -> Level -> Name takes 3 keys vs Source -> Name. So even with an exhaustive search on the Source key, the alphabetical order is faster to find a specific spell.

While having multiple sources to index through does slow down the process, it slows it down equally for both systems. So I do not consider it to favor one or the other.

And you are right that splitting a list into two places does decrease the efficiency of any indexing system. It does so by adding another key to the compound key. Just like ordering by level adds another key when searching for a specific spell. That is why I am grateful that there exists cross indexing. The class list is optimized for class, level based searches. The chapter is optimized for name based searches.

[Necroanswer]

I just wish they put the school in the spell list by class, like they did with sor/wiz in 3.5e. Maybe mark ritual and concentration spells in the lists. Otherwise its okay.

[Grey Watcher]

Spells listed alphabetically is more useful in certain circumstances. If you have, for example, a racial feature (like a Tiefling's Hellish Rebuke) or a class feature (like a Warlock's invocation) you don't necessarily have the spell's level handy, so finding it by name is more useful.

Even if you are a caster, you really only need to sort the spells by level when preparing (or chosing spells known). In my experience, the names are generally a complete enough shorthand for that purpose. If it were sorted by level and you were in mid combat and have to look up how Phantasmal Killer works, you'd still going to end up looking it up alphabetically within the smaller space of 4th level spells. So they cut out the middle man and went with alphabetical.

Sorting by level just isn't practical in most actual play situations.

[Tanarii]

Sorting by level just isn't practical in most actual play situations.
Sure. But neither is referencing the book.

[Grey Watcher]

Sure. But neither is referencing the book.

There's a reason they're trying to push everyone to use the digital tools, yes. But if you're using the digital tools, the print book layout doesn't matter at all, so it makes sense to design the book layout for people who, for whatever reason, are using the book in play.

[Nifft]

There's a reason they're trying to push everyone to use the digital tools, yes. But if you're using the digital tools, the print book layout doesn't matter at all, so it makes sense to design the book layout for people who, for whatever reason, are using the book in play. Rent-seeking is their reason, right?

It needs to be easier for us to write our own tools, since historically their digital tools have been worse even than their layout and indices.