Saving page count

[Arnim Thayer]

Would it be possible to consolidate some of the common wording from weapon descriptions into a section much like the one used to categorize Light weapons, One-handed weapons and Two-handed weapons?

I noticed that every bow has the sentence "you need at least two hands to use a bow, regardles of size." That sentence appears at least four times in descriptions, whereas having a text block in the Weapons general text would save word count.

Example:
Bows: You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardles of size.

Reach Weapons: A person armed with a reach weapon can strike opponents 10 feet away with it, but can't use it against an adjacent foe.

Simply adding the word Bow to the end if the description for a Longbow, Composite Longbow, etc. means that this rule applies to all with this designator. The same couls be apllied to reach weapons (with noted exception for the Spiked Chain.

Example:
Ranseur [Reach Weapon]
A character with a ranseur gains a +2 bonus on Combat Maneuver checks to disarm an enemy.

Not technically a game problem, I know. Just a suggestion to clean up word count so nothing ends up onthe editing room floor. Thoughts?

[James Jacobs]

This isn't a bad idea, but the benefit of repeating the text is that someone who's not necessarily familiar with reach weapons, for example, and who finds a magic ranseur, can then find all the rules he needs right there in the weapon description. He doesn't have to go mining in additional charts or other sections of the book to figure out the rules.

Consolidating wordcount is a noble goal, of course, but not always in the best interest of the rules. We'll certainly be keeping an eye out for places where we CAN do so without sacrificing clarity, of course!

[minkscooter]

I still think the descriptors are a good idea, even if the text is repeated in weapon descriptions. They cater to the experienced player, who can then tell at a glance what the weapon does without having to read the description. In the example above, I would shorten the descriptor to [reach] rather than [reach weapon].

Descriptors could be really helpful if you knew that any rule specific to the weapon not covered by the descriptors always came at the end, possibly even after a label like Special:

[Anguish]

The answer: more keywords.

[minkscooter]

What's the question?

[Adam Olsen]

It's a hard line to walk. Consider 3.5's spell chains, which generally sucked.

An alternative here is to cluster all the bows together. i.e., you have a Bows section with a small common description, immediately followed by each of the bows, followed by the next clusters (polearms?). Visual cues are key to pulling this off, so that you can immediately perceive the sections and not be lost in the masses of text.