Getting maneuver text down to a reasonable size.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Lago, it's totally game dependent. And when you're talking about cleaning out cruft in the way abilities function, you're talking about a serious game change.

But, yeah, that's a pretty good list. There are some changes I would make, even for a 3e or 4e clone, but it's a good start.

[K]

I'd probably cut half of those keywords, then remove about ten that are just game terms and not keywords.

[Username17]

You have to make a distinction between when an effect is dispelled, when it is countered, and when it is suppressed. But those are just words in a glossary at the back of the book - not actual keywords that need to be incorporated into the physics engine. What needs a keyword is something to differentiate between something that Counterspell can counter and something it can't.

Really complicated shit in D&D probably needs to be simplified anyway. The thing where Dispel Magic counters a spell being cast, dispels an ongoing spell effect, and suppresses an ongoing magic enchantment from non-spell sources is fucking bullshit. It should just have some keywords of acceptable targets and fucking dispel those things.

-Username17

[Murtak]

Why would you define your keywords before writing both your physics rules and your abilities? That seems wildly counterintuitive.

[K]

Why would you define your keywords before writing both your physics rules and your abilities? That seems wildly counterintuitive.

You'd write them at the same time, revising and dropping them as you go until you end up with the fewest number of keywords.

I mean, take Frank's dispel magic example. I'd probably sketch out the three basic forms, then on review drop the Counter and either Suppress or Dispel keyword (either one would work as the default way of stopping instant and duration magic effects).

Then when I made Antimagic field, I'd probably settle on the Suppress version because it would defeat instant effects while casting, allow me to turn on and off magic items, and I could call function it for dead magic zones. I could then delete the Dispel version because it's not adding much and I'd end up with duration magic being a little more powerful and interesting.

Once I'd decided that antimagical stuff worked that way, Mordenkainen's disjunction and dispel evil write themselves. I'd have to then make a decision about what to do with break enchantment and remove curse. (Probably, I'd write new curse rules that have any flavor at all, something better than the stupid DnD curse rules we have now. Curse gets to be a new key word.).

So as you can see, the design process doesn't really have an order. Just that series of choices had me losing two keywords, gaining one, and altering the effects of several spells. Still, it's the way to do it because now I totally can write up Ruby Ray of Reversal in 60 seconds flat and in under five sentences.

[Pseudo Stupidity]

Actually, Pseudo already explicitly said he's too lazy to look up rules or read them in the first place. So yeah, he can go play MTP, and we can talk about good ways to write rules for a system that actually has rules.

No, I said looking up rules is immersion breaking and something you want to avoid as much as possible. Simple yet elegant rules at what you want to shoot for. Fire descriptors with ratings adding on to things it melts would be fine if you just list commonly used metals. Let the people who want magnesium in their game look up magnesium and see which metal it is closest to in order to determine the rating of fire that melts it (or causes it to burst into white-hot blinding light).

Approximation and keywords are definitely the way to go. Dispel magic being "suppresses target spell/item/effect for <duration> if you succeed in an opposed CL check. You may instead ready an action to cast dispel magic in order to attempt to suppress the next spell cast by the target by succeeding in an opposed CL check" would be much better than the 4(?) paragraph monstrosity it is now.

[Username17]

Having a dispel effect that is distinct from suppression is absolutely vital. Dispel ends an effect as if the duration came up. Suppression negates the effect for as long as the suppression conditions apply.

It's weird but kind of cool where you're covered with magic acid or some shit and then you walk into an AMF and you're not and then you walk back out and you're covered with acid again. But tracking that kind of horse shit for dispel magic is horseshit. At no time do I want to have a dispelling addiction, where I have to have my mummy rot dispelled every seven hours for the foreseeable future.

-Username17

[tussock]

I reckon magic suppression is a bad idea. Far too much work for what it does.

Magic items should just be rebooted on command (or a short rest, or a day, depending on the item, as normal for it's use), but are otherwise dispelled. Curses can likewise reboot their spell affect on the target (unless you dig out break enchantment, which can remove curses and maybe disenchant items).

Which suggests items should all just cast spells on their user as long as they're wielded/worn, and use the standard stacking/countering rules too.


As for spell/action text, natural language FTW. Fireball is just a ball of magical fire that explodes from its projected seed (damage, range, volume, done). Want to know what magic fire does to some random material? Check the table of spells vs material saves in the DMG. A 1/2 page, total, maybe refers you to environmental hazard rules for fires and smoke in enclosed spaces.

[Username17]

I reckon magic suppression is a bad idea. Far too much work for what it does.

You need suppression. Otherwise you can't have effects like Earthbind (suppresses Flight).

-Username17

[Pseudo Stupidity]

I'd imagine long term effects would be dealt with by break enchantment/remove curse. I think dispel magic being a sort of quick fix is a cool piece of flavor and makes it so world-changing magic (magic that keeps giant floating island in the air and such) isn't so easily destroyed by a lucky CL check.

Then again, that has fuckall to do with the discussion at hand.

[K]

Having a dispel effect that is distinct from suppression is absolutely vital. Dispel ends an effect as if the duration came up. Suppression negates the effect for as long as the suppression conditions apply.

It's weird but kind of cool where you're covered with magic acid or some shit and then you walk into an AMF and you're not and then you walk back out and you're covered with acid again. But tracking that kind of horse shit for dispel magic is horseshit. At no time do I want to have a dispelling addiction, where I have to have my mummy rot dispelled every seven hours for the foreseeable future.

-Username17

AMF in general is a good object lesson on what not to do, so rewriting from there is a the starting point. The number of people who understand how it is supposed to work are far fewer than the one's who don't, so some new mehcanics need to replace it.

That being said, I can't really think of anything that I'd want dispelled.

I mean, Mummy Rot is a curse and I don't want an extra spell/slot tax for some monsters, so there should probably be some kind of thematic curse mechanics to deal with it that just ends the duration like killing the Patient-0 mummy for mummy rot specifically (and other conditionals for other curses).

Physical objects and creatures made by magic should probably just be immune to suppression and dispelling. The proper means to destroy them should be to actually destroy them physically or kill them. In this way, we'd never again have to field another question about golems/intelligent swords/summons and AMFs and dispels.

[Murtak]

Why would you define your keywords before writing both your physics rules and your abilities? That seems wildly counterintuitive.

You'd write them at the same time, revising and dropping them as you go until you end up with the fewest number of keywords.

I entirely agree. I was responding to the insanty of compiling a list of effects in a vacuum.

What keywords you want obviously depends on your game. DnD needs keywords to deal with energy types. Anything taking place in the world of the Malaz needs keywords specific to holds. Exalted requries keywords for charms and combos. Trying to anticipate all of these is futile.

[Username17]

That being said, I can't really think of anything that I'd want dispelled.

Any condition should be dispellable. While I'm OK with suppressing an ability, I really don't want to suppress a negative status effect - I want to fucking cure it. When my character stops being a stone statue, I need to be able to stop keeping track of that shit. Petrified goes to "Not Petrified", not "Petrified plus Suppression of Petrification". That's bloody obvious, the alternative is clearly a book keeping nightmare.

-Username17

[K]

That being said, I can't really think of anything that I'd want dispelled.

Any condition should be dispellable. While I'm OK with suppressing an ability, I really don't want to suppress a negative status effect - I want to fucking cure it. When my character stops being a stone statue, I need to be able to stop keeping track of that shit. Petrified goes to "Not Petrified", not "Petrified plus Suppression of Petrification". That's bloody obvious, the alternative is clearly a book keeping nightmare.

-Username17

All the positive and negative status effects are the book-keeping nightmare well before you decide how to deal with them. Any streamlining of the system is going to need to address that well before you get to the keyword stage of development.

"Petrified" shouldn't even be a status. It should just be a way of being dead like "disintigrated" or "converted to green slime."

[tussock]

I reckon magic suppression is a bad idea. Far too much work for what it does.

You need suppression. Otherwise you can't have effects like Earthbind (suppresses Flight).

Earthbind: Flight cannot happen in the area of the spell, any creatures flying or levitating in the area fall to the ground without harm and may use other movement.

What did I miss? Works too well now? Ah well, stick it up a level.

[Username17]

I reckon magic suppression is a bad idea. Far too much work for what it does.

You need suppression. Otherwise you can't have effects like Earthbind (suppresses Flight).

Earthbind: Flight cannot happen in the area of the spell, any creatures flying or levitating in the area fall to the ground without harm and may use other movement.

What did I miss? Works too well now? Ah well, stick it up a level.

What you've missed is that you've attempted to use the natural English expression "cannot happen" to substitute for the game mechanical concept of ability suppression. You haven't gained any clarity and indeed you have lost some because now you're relying on individual DMs to pick up on the fact that "cannot happen" is a strong definitive statement in order to get them to determine that a higher level ability that says flight of some kind does happen is still beaten by Earthbind.

So now you have introduced a lot of ambiguity into the spell at the cost of making it like three times as long as it needs to be. And that is why having consistent game terms like "Suppressed" and "Dispelled" is a good thing.

-Username17