Difference between revisions of "Spell List Suggested Improvements"
FerretDave (talk | contribs) (Output Sheet Layout Review / redo - Spells) |
LegacyKing (talk | contribs) m (Edits, and rearrange a few things...) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Overall Aim is to reduce the page count for spell lists, whilst still keeping all the relevant information clearly visible. | Overall Aim is to reduce the page count for spell lists, whilst still keeping all the relevant information clearly visible. | ||
− | For low level characters, its not a massive headache, for high level (especially clerics), it can get excessive. 28 pages of spells is the current record (no prizes for beating this though). | + | For low level characters, its not a massive headache, for high level (especially clerics), it can get excessive. 28 pages of spells is the current record (no prizes for beating this though). |
+ | |||
+ | [I would need to actually count, but I think it was 28 it could have been more ;) - LegacyKing | ||
+ | |||
For users of the [R]SRD, the spell descriptions are pretty short - a single line usually, whereas for homebrew and Pathfinder, there is often several lines of text. | For users of the [R]SRD, the spell descriptions are pretty short - a single line usually, whereas for homebrew and Pathfinder, there is often several lines of text. | ||
Line 7: | Line 10: | ||
NOTE - while FEATS use a short DESC and have an option (only via homebrew I think) to use a far longer BENEFIT field, I don't believe that spells have this functionality. | NOTE - while FEATS use a short DESC and have an option (only via homebrew I think) to use a far longer BENEFIT field, I don't believe that spells have this functionality. | ||
To gain from this, we'd need a code update to output either the DESC or BENEFIT for Spells (as a seperate option than for feats), and to actually get anything of value, LST editors would have to code up seperate BENEFIT for each spell with a lengthier description. Is that of value? | To gain from this, we'd need a code update to output either the DESC or BENEFIT for Spells (as a seperate option than for feats), and to actually get anything of value, LST editors would have to code up seperate BENEFIT for each spell with a lengthier description. Is that of value? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Homebrewers might think so, but I doubt it would find much use in the official release sets, so be a low priority feature request to be honest. - LegacyKing | ||
Consider variants: | Consider variants: | ||
Line 18: | Line 23: | ||
---------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ||
− | Current default for 5.17. | + | Current default for 5.17.10 and earlier versions till 5.17.1 for comparison |
LEVEL 0 | LEVEL 0 | ||
Line 25: | Line 30: | ||
School: Conjuration (Creation) [Acid] SR: No Target: One missile of acid Caster Level: 3 | School: Conjuration (Creation) [Acid] SR: No Target: One missile of acid Caster Level: 3 | ||
Effect: Orb deals 1d3 acid damage. | Effect: Orb deals 1d3 acid damage. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Before than, Effect was on the Second Line and a lengthy description would be boxed to waste a lot of space. - LegacyKing | ||
This is 3+ rows - 2 headers and then the description | This is 3+ rows - 2 headers and then the description | ||
Line 40: | Line 47: | ||
For each LEVEL heading 'LEVEL x', add: | For each LEVEL heading 'LEVEL x', add: | ||
− | + | * Default casterlevel | |
− | + | * Concentration check | |
− | + | * Spells (of this level) castable per day | |
For each SPELL entry | For each SPELL entry | ||
− | + | * position the [V,S,M] components field (in bold) as a prefix to the description, to aid in searching for specific types (non-somatic spells when silenced for example) | |
+ | Done -LegacyKing | ||
+ | |||
Spell Resistance - as Suffix or to desc? But not *between* 'effect:' and the actual desc. | Spell Resistance - as Suffix or to desc? But not *between* 'effect:' and the actual desc. | ||
DC - put as suffix to desc? or as prefix? Retain on header line? | DC - put as suffix to desc? or as prefix? Retain on header line? |
Revision as of 05:21, 10 February 2012
Overall Aim is to reduce the page count for spell lists, whilst still keeping all the relevant information clearly visible.
For low level characters, its not a massive headache, for high level (especially clerics), it can get excessive. 28 pages of spells is the current record (no prizes for beating this though).
[I would need to actually count, but I think it was 28 it could have been more ;) - LegacyKing
For users of the [R]SRD, the spell descriptions are pretty short - a single line usually, whereas for homebrew and Pathfinder, there is often several lines of text.
NOTE - while FEATS use a short DESC and have an option (only via homebrew I think) to use a far longer BENEFIT field, I don't believe that spells have this functionality. To gain from this, we'd need a code update to output either the DESC or BENEFIT for Spells (as a seperate option than for feats), and to actually get anything of value, LST editors would have to code up seperate BENEFIT for each spell with a lengthier description. Is that of value?
Homebrewers might think so, but I doubt it would find much use in the official release sets, so be a low priority feature request to be honest. - LegacyKing
Consider variants: A low level bard with just a handful of spells - could afford to have a full text copy of the book source A medium level wizard with a few dozen spells - would want a 2 or 3 line description for most spells A high level cleric with far too many spells to mention - may just want a one line description for each spell. Is there value in the CODE working with possibly three different levels of description (DESC-SHORT, DESC-MEDIUM and DESC-LONG/BENEFIT)? It would be down to homebrew and lst editors to actually take advantage of this however.
This may be easier solved by merely providing an alternative 'condensed' spell list for those with too many spells, that restricts the output of the DESC to a single line, allowing many spells to be output on one page.
Current default for 5.17.10 and earlier versions till 5.17.1 for comparison
LEVEL 0 Name Save Information Time Duration Range Comp. Source oooooAcid Splash 1 standard action Instantaneous Close (30 ft.) V, S PHB35e: P.196 School: Conjuration (Creation) [Acid] SR: No Target: One missile of acid Caster Level: 3 Effect: Orb deals 1d3 acid damage.
Before than, Effect was on the Second Line and a lengthy description would be boxed to waste a lot of space. - LegacyKing
This is 3+ rows - 2 headers and then the description
Drews current 5.17.10 new version: LEVEL 0 Name School Time Duration Range Caster Level Source oooooAcid Splash Conjuration (Creation) [Acid] Standard Action Instantaneous Close (50 ft.) Caster Level: 10 PHB: p.196 Target: One missile of acid; EFFECT: [SR: No] You fire a small orb of acid at the target. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. The orb deals 1d3 points of acid damage. [V,S]
This is 2+ lines, one header and an extended description, with some fields moved from the header onto the desc line.
Updates to the 'standard' spell sheet:
For each LEVEL heading 'LEVEL x', add:
- Default casterlevel
- Concentration check
- Spells (of this level) castable per day
For each SPELL entry
- position the [V,S,M] components field (in bold) as a prefix to the description, to aid in searching for specific types (non-somatic spells when silenced for example)
Done -LegacyKing
Spell Resistance - as Suffix or to desc? But not *between* 'effect:' and the actual desc. DC - put as suffix to desc? or as prefix? Retain on header line? Target - suffix or prefix to desc? retain on header line? bold or italic for string'target:' Source - put as (right justified) suffix on last line of desc, retain on header line, or - if feasible - rotate the text 90 degrees and have it expand down the very far right hand side as a 'narrow' column across both header and desc lines? I.e
Source display suggestion:
header blah blah P 1 effect blah blah H 9 blah blah blah b B 6
(with the 'PHB 196' characters actually rotated 90', to be read on by tilting your head to one side
Caster level - add as bracketed value after the spell name (in the name field) but only if it differs from the default (which is shown on the LEVEL header row). Or move into Desc line (prefix or suffix?) Remove string 'Class level' from spell line at least.
Remove the text 'Effect:' either completely(?) or replace with 'Desc:' ? Prevent spells from wrapping from one page to the next, if it wont fit, force it to start on a new page Grey highlight - rather than alternate grey/white background for each spell, just use the highlight on each header row, making the desc clearer to read? Domain spells - indicate in italic rather than with an asterisk? Or increase size of asterisk?