Spell List Suggested Improvements

Spell List Introduction

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 20:16, 10 February 2012 (EST)

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 20:16, 10 February 2012 (EST)

JIRA raised to allow BENEFIT to be used on SPELLS as well as Feats, gives homebrewers the option to implement themselves.

Variants

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.

---

Comparison of Layouts

Current default for 5.17.10 and earlier versions till 5.17.1 for comparison (Could do with a screen shot here)

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 20:16, 10 February 2012 (EST)

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.

Requested Updates

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 20:16, 10 February 2012 (EST)

• 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:'

Placing the Target Text in the Comps/Source area doesn't work out: LegacyKing 20:16, 10 February 2012 (EST)

Screen shot

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Target not Good

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Long Spell Name

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

NEW SPELL LEVEL HEADER

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Caster Level shown after spell NAME if different from base

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Domain Spell Display, Fixed PCGen Version, CR added to Footer

More Tweaks

• 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

• • Neither option is feasible within the row, I can't do it as inline text, it needs it's own block to do alignment styles. LegacyKing 20:16, 10 February 2012 (EST)
  • I can't think of any easy method to 1) implement it; and 2) think it would expand beyond the confines defeating the condensed space request. LegacyKing 20:16, 10 February 2012 (EST)

• 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.
  • Might be tricky, I have to wrap my head around how to accomplish that, LST code it'd be easy, if value neq to base, then display. In xslt it's probably '<if:test ??? &neq; "casterlevel"> or some such, will need to consult for that LegacyKing 20:16, 10 February 2012 (EST)
  • DONE -- LegacyKing 18:23, 11 February 2012 (EST)

• Remove the text 'Effect:' either completely(?) or replace with 'Desc:' ?
  • I suppose that is an option. LegacyKing 20:16, 10 February 2012 (EST)
• Prevent spells from wrapping from one page to the next, if it wont fit, force it to start on a new page
  • Need to consult for assistance in how to enforce that. LegacyKing 20:16, 10 February 2012 (EST)
• 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?
  • Same as above, need to consult a guru. LegacyKing 20:16, 10 February 2012 (EST)
• Domain spells - indicate in italic rather than with an asterisk? Or increase size of asterisk?
  • Increased Size of the Asterisk - no screen shot yet LegacyKing 20:16, 10 February 2012 (EST)

Latest Screen Shot of Current Work

Further comments for above screenshot: Comps - is there benefit in including the actual word 'COMPS:' or just use the familiar bracketed [V,S,M] style ? Caster level appears to have a very wide column alloted, it only needs to be 2 characters wide? How about putting the 'school' into the same field as the spell name (not in bold), and make the name field (slightly) wider - free's up some space to add target back onto header line?

Thinking like:
oooooAcid Splash (Conjuration (Creation) [Acid]) | 1 standard action | Instantaneous | Close (30 ft.) | Target: One missile of acid |CL:3 |PHB35e: P.196
[V,S] | Effect: Orb deals 1d3 acid damage. | [SR:No]

(adding pipe symbol to show field seperation for clarity only) --FerretDave 21:03, 10 February 2012 (EST)

You're using a spell with a short target, I'm not pulling out the lengthy target examples. Target in the old rev I believe takes up three columns. You'd end up wasting space if we placed it back on the 1st line. I'm not crazy about combining the spell name with school, in that case there is a special block and I'd rather leave that be. I haven't seen any spell name in the usual sources that would require additional space. 22:32, 10 February 2012 (EST)

The extra width was to account for school being included in the same field, working on the basis that 'Name+School' in one field would not need as much space as 'Name'&'School' as two seperate fields. We perhaps need to have an example of a spell that is long (in each field) and another example that is short, so we can see how different formats affect each one, from the screenshot there are only really 'short' target fields. --FerretDave 00:32, 11 February 2012 (EST)

Size of columns - has this been determined statistically, or by guesswork? Does anyone have any stats of the min/average/max size of each spell field, across a sample of the most common lst files ? --FerretDave 21:52, 10 February 2012 (EST)

That was determined by someone else, those can be edited. -- 22:32, 10 February 2012 (EST)~

• alter the number of checkboxes to match the 'usual' number/day for that spell level

See discussion: [1]