Living Document: Design Notes
Paths Not Taken: Standards and Style outlines differences between how I will write and how source material has been written. In this post, I offer an example and some explanation.
The evasion class feature shows much of what I’m trying to simplify. In the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, three base classes grant evasion: monk, ranger, and rogue.
Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level or higher, a monk can avoid damage from many area-effect attacks. If a monk makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, he instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if a monk is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless monk does not gain the benefit of evasion.
Evasion (Ex): When he reaches 9th level, a ranger can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If he makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, he instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the ranger is wearing light armor, medium armor, or no armor. A helpless ranger does not gain the benefit of evasion.
Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.
Each version is specific to the class granting the feature, and the ranger has two other changes. If someone talks about what evasion does, which one is correct? If, somehow, a class offers evasion that differs in other ways, how hard will that be to see?
Let’s simplify things and create a canonical ‘evasion’:
Evasion (Ex): On a Reflex save against a ‘Reflex half’ attack, you instead take no damage. You cannot use evasion when helpless.
(I will give my thoughts on the rewording, see On Rewording Formulaic Text, below.)
Then the classes have:
Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level, you gain evasion, usable when wearing light armor or no armor.
Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level, you gain evasion, usable when wearing light armor or no armor.
Evasion (Ex): At 9th level, you gain evasion, usable when wearing light armor, medium armor, or no armor.
The key points of evasion (no damage on a successful save, must not be helpless) are the same for everyone. The individual classes now add only what matters to that class: when you get it, and the armor limitations. I don’t have to compare ‘what evasion does’ between classes, because that doesn’t change.
I think in practice I would arrange the armor types differently for the ranger. It would feel better if they were arranged in order of weight, ascending or descending. I haven’t done this yet because right now they fit the common convention. In future I probably will. Actually, I’m more apt to go off encumbrance than I am armor type… with armor types applying that encumbrance level.
Admittedly, these versions do not make it clear what class they apply to. Outside the class description, though, is that important?
On Rewording Formulaic Text
I changed
Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.
to
Evasion (Ex): On a Reflex save against a ‘Reflex half’ attack, you instead take no damage. You cannot use evasion when helpless.
This removed many words, and seems less precise. This is a change from the convention of spelling everything out explicitly, to accepting a few basic principles.
- ‘Successful’ is a zero-value word here. A ‘failed save’ is the default outcome, the only interesting save result is ‘success’.
- Often when saving throws are mentioned in text, it is as simple as ‘Reflex half, DC 16’. Why use ten words to describe a situation that is captured in text as two, ‘Reflex half’? With spells they don’t even include the DC, just ‘Reflex half’ in the Saving Throw line of the stat block.
I want to examine formulaic text to see what can be removed or simplified. The formulaic text isn’t as bad as it seems because it’s recognized by the reader. This the benefit of formulaic text. Still, it can probably be simplified.
Recombining Text
I am trying to balance things here.
The ‘data guy’ side of me likes the principle of Don’t Repeat Yourself (DRY) because it helps keep things consistent. Should I ever change how evasion works, I do so in one place. It makes it harder for me to create a deviation from the standard definition by accident.
The ‘ease-of-use guy’ in me doesn’t want to have to look in two places to understand my class.
Most RPG rule books lean to satisfying ease of use, and I can’t really argue against that choice. My approach can gave me both.
- While writing and designing, I can have the ability definitions in one place. DRY principle.
- When publishing, I can reintegrate the abilities to make more fulsome text.
That is, by separating the text I also make it easier to recombine. In the class feature I can do something like:
Evasion (Ex): At 2nd level you gain evasion, usable when wearing light armor or no armor.
- On a Reflex save against a ‘Reflex half’ attack, you instead take no damage. You cannot use evasion when helpless.
Then in a ‘class features’ document (like the Echelon Reference Series) I can have
Evasion (Ex): On a Reflex save against a ‘Reflex half’ attack, you instead take no damage. You cannot use evasion when helpless.
- Monk At 2nd level you gain evasion, usable when wearing light armor or no armor.
- Ranger At 9th level you gain evasion, usable when wearing light armor, medium armor, or no armor.
- Rogue At 2nd level you gain evasion, usable when wearing light armor or no armor.
This lets me have the best of both worlds, I feel. I satisfy the ‘data guy’ side of me, and keep it easy to satisfy the ‘ease-of-use guy’. By separating the definition from the grant, I can avoid accidentally introducing deviations from the canonical definition. I can still add a new ability, and grant that differently… but I avoid introducing deviations caused by lack of attention.