[5e Shaped] Version 8+

As part of  #168: Expand Equipment I've revamped armor and update equipment to match the newer format. I'm now looking at changing "Attacks" to encompass weapons, homebrew shotguns that use saving throws, healing potions, DMG bombs, vials of acid, ball bearings, wands of paralysis, etc. Therefore the current organizational structure is not appropriate. I think there is value in having "do stuff" (Attacks) be separate from "have stuff" (Equipment). However if that divide in the equipment is maintained I can't decide how to rename the "Attacks" section. Should I use this organizational structure? What should I name "Attacks" in this organizational design? Should I name it "Equipment" and instead rename the current equipment to "mundane equipment"?

The obious thing would be something like "actions" but that might be confusing because of D&D naming.. Also how will you handle multiple actions that can be done with an item? I.e. You can attack with spear using 1 hand or 2 hands or you can throw it.

Same way it's handled now with "Attacks", "Actions", etc. (all in the same macro). "Actions" is a reserved word for a currency to be used in combat so that's not an option.

How about 'Inventory' for the "have stuff" items. Not sure about the "Do Stuff" items, maybe leave it as 'Attacks' as most things of that nature are attacks. Either that or use 'Actions' to match the NPC sheet, as "doing something" is an action and using an item is generally an action, bonus action, or reaction. Edit: Not sure what you mean by  "Actions" is a reserved word for a currency to be used in combat so that's not an option But if 'Actions' is out, maybe just stay with 'Attacks'

BP said: Edit: Not sure what you mean by  "Actions" is a reserved word for a currency to be used in combat so that's not an option But if 'Actions' is out, maybe just stay with 'Attacks' An Action is a currency to be spent in combat. The NPC page uses "Actions", but things like reactions and bonus actions are not included in that section - reactions have their own section. It would be too limiting to separate equipment by activation type I think. Using a weapon isn't an Action, it can be part of an Attack Action, but it's not an Action. Same thing for "Attacks" - the items I listed above do not all have an "Attack", so that name doesn't work either.

Kryx said: An Action is a currency to be spent in combat. The NPC page uses "Actions", but things like reactions and bonus actions are not included in that section - reactions have their own section. It would be too limiting to separate equipment by activation type I think. Using a weapon isn't an Action, it can be part of an Attack Action, but it's not an Action. Same thing for "Attacks" - the items I listed above do not all have an "Attack", so that name doesn't work either. I like inventory. Operations? Activities? Procedures? Processes? Applications? Just ideas.

I do like "Equipment" for what is currently "Attacks" and "Inventory" for what is currently "Equipment". Dark Souls uses a similar divide.

You list the word Weapons and then a list of things that are just non-standard weapons.  Why not just call the section Weapons .  The only exception would be Healing items that are included.  I would say Weapons + Healing Items = Tools ?

"Equipment" works but might cause some confusion at first. How about "Usage Items", or just "Items"? I think you nailed it with renaming the "Equipment" section with "Inventory" My 2 cps worth.

I would propose a division into three sections: 1. Weapons (What is now Attacks) 2. Gear (Usable Items) 3. Equipment (Mundane Equipment as it is now) With the terminology of Gear being taken from the PHB "Adventuring Gear" Section, that goes into detail describing quite a few of the items you put forth as examples and how to use them. Note: Personally i think Inventory is a good term, but feels a little bit to "videogamey" to me if you guys catch my drift here. When have you ever referred to the equipment your character carries as his inventory for example? Doesn't quite fit the tone and realistic approach of DnD in my opinion.

I like equipment and inventory. I've never played Dark Souls, but the distinction felt immediately intuitive to me. It doesn't feel videogamey to me at all, mostly because the section that would be renamed inventory would actually be an inventory of items that your character is carrying. It's a perfectly accurate word to use for it.

Why not offense, defense, equipment? Honestly, "attacks" is fine too. While attacking technically means something special in D&D 5e, the meaning of the section wouldn't be lost on anyone. Another idea is "weapons" which is abstract enough to mean anything used for offense. Weapons, defense, equipment edit: the anomaly is having healing potions in what is otherwise weapons. I'd keep those in equipment. If healing pots are moved, then offense or weapons works.

zerosius said: I would propose a division into three sections: 1. Weapons (What is now Attacks) 2. Gear (Usable Items) 3. Equipment (Mundane Equipment as it is now) With the terminology of Gear being taken from the PHB "Adventuring Gear" Section, that goes into detail describing quite a few of the items you put forth as examples and how to use them. A section's name should make it easily identifiable what goes in what section. Gear  vs Equipment  is not a clear enough naming distinction (Equipment vs Inventory is probably similar, but much less pronounced). "Adventuring Gear" in the PHB includes many usable items (Ball bearings, vials of acid), but it mostly includes mundane equipment such as Backpack and Bedroll. Does Weapons  include things like Vial of Acid, Alchemist's Fire, and DMG bombs? Two of those have attacks and act as weapons the same as a thrown weapon while the bombs are similar except they use a saving throw instead of an attack. Seems like a hard distinction to make in many cases. If we want to divide by type a more natural divide might be: Offense would cover all Weapons and Vial of Acid, Alchemist's Fire, DMG bombs, homebrew shotguns, Ball Bearings, Caltrops. It would function very similarly to "Attacks", but not require an attack. Utility would cover all Potions (Healing, Fly, Invisibility, etc) as well as Wands and other. It would have healing and content. Equipmen t would cover things like backpack, bedroll, torch, climber's kit. It would have content. My main concern would be that some of those offensive items could be thought of as utility (Ball Bearings, Caltrops), and some Utility items may have offensive uses (Wand of Paralysis?). That divide feels a bit hard to make work for all cases which is why I think I lean toward not having such a divide, but I'm not decided.

I think you are right that the divide will be forced, what ever you name it. Just keep it as equipment. 

Gary W. said: I think you are right that the divide will be forced, what ever you name it. Just keep it as equipment.  I agree - maybe make it possible to sort the items somehow, so that items with a "use" effect or "attack" possibility are listed ahead of Equipment that do not. Players are usually more interested in getting a quick overview of possible items they can use in an action rather than items that just have a value. A Ring of Jumping is more interesting as a player than a mundane Gold Ring.

Gediablo said: I agree - maybe make it possible to sort the items somehow, so that items with a "use" effect or "attack" possibility are listed ahead of Equipment that do not. Players are usually more interested in getting a quick overview of possible items they can use in an action rather than items that just have a value. A Ring of Jumping is more interesting as a player than a mundane Gold Ring. Isn't that what the quick list is for? 

Personally, I see no reason to further sub-divide. I think fewer sections that have more versatile use are going to serve a larger group of players. That's something the old shaped sheet was very good at. When asked to describe the sections my players said, "These are my weapons to use against the bad guys (to them "use" means an attack roll or save, i.e. weapons, wands, bombs, arrows, caltrops, rubber chickens, etc). This is my stuff to defend with (armor, shields, magic rings of defense, cloak of protection, front door of the tavern they ripped off as a shield, etc). This equipment is my other stuff (potions of healing, rope, bag of holding, skull trophy from the drow priestess) They've even worked out that under equipment, they use the handy reorder function to move stuff they use in fights to the top of the list, like healing potions. Or some use "quick" in that fashion, so that items which use dice are under quick, and the more "static" items are not under quick. Suggestion Weapons, Defense, Equipment

"Weapons" for things that make attack rolls "Items" for equipment that has a function or casts a spell "Equipment" for gear that just needs to be listed. That second one seems to be the stickler. "Resources"? "Special Equipment"?

TheWebCoder said: Suggestion Weapons, Defense, Equipment "Weapons" is a narrowly defined name that doesn't quite fit all items that would belong in that category such as Alchemist's Fire, Acid Flask, DMG Bombs, Wand of Paralysis. "Offense" might be a better name for such a grouping. This grouping leaves utility items without a home - things like Potion of Healing, Potion of Flying, Potion of Speed, etc. The current divide is basically usable items (missing several categories), armor, and miscelaneous items. I think there are 2 directions to move toward: Option 1: Generally defined buckets Equipment (Weapons, Alchemist's Fire, Acid Flask, DMG Bombs, Potions, Wands, Spell Scrolls, Backpack, Bedroll, Climber's Kit) Defense (Armor, Shields, Unarmored Defense, Ring of Protection, etc) This could be feasible with proper type declarations along with filtering. Option 2: Generally defined buckets, but with a miscellaneous section Equipment (Weapons, Alchemist's Fire, Acid Flask, DMG Bombs, Potions, Wands, Spell Scrolls, etc) Defense (Armor, Shields, Unarmored Defense, Ring of Protection, etc) Inventory (Backpack, Bedroll, Climber's Kit) Option 3: More specifically defined buckets Offense (Weapons, Alchemist's Fire, Acid Flask, DMG Bombs, Wands, etc) Utility? (Potions, Wands, Spell Scrolls) Defense (Armor, Shields, Unarmored Defense, Ring of Protection, etc) Equipment (Backpack, Bedroll, Climber's Kit) This would need to define the lines a bit better, though I think the line between #1 and #2 will be hard to define. I'll need to ponder the requirements a bit more.

I'd personally lean towards #2 or #3. With #2, instead of Equipment, maybe "Weapons & Magic Items" defines it better?

Perhaps something more akin to your right hand column, which has subsections for feats, traits, abilities or whatever. One container for everything carried by the character, with subsections for each category: Equipment  --Weapons  --Armor  --Magic Items  --Miscellaneous The general problem with any kind of categorization seems to be the overlap. An instrument of the bards that has a variety of attack and utility spells, a +3 Defender weapon which gives attack and defense buffs, and so forth. I like the idea you've touched on of one big bucket with filters. That way, an individual user can arrange things into categories that make sense to them and—similar to the spell filters—can turn off display for things they won't need in combat, for instance.

keithcurtis said: I like the idea you've touched on of one big bucket with filters. That way, an individual user can arrange things into categories that make sense to them and—similar to the spell filters—can turn off display for things they won't need in combat, for instance. Filtering would still have to be defined by me. It'd be a list of tags larger than the ones presented in Option 3. Something like: Weapon Consumable Utility Magic Adventuring Gear I don't think I want to combine Defense into the whole thing as that adds complexity to all items that probably won't use it. The Defender weapon property is a temporary bonus chosen on each turn so it isn't really such a good example. I too like the Racial Traits, Class Features, Feats, and Traits section. Those (besides Traits) are all defined by 5e though so that makes them easier to organize.

Option 4: Offense (Weapons, Alchemist's Fire, Acid Flask, DMG Bombs, Wands, Spell Scrolls, etc.) hurt the bad guy Defense (Armor, Shields, Unarmored Defense, Ring of Protection, etc) defend from the bad guy Inventory (Backpack, Bedroll, Climber's Kit, Potions, Misc Magic and Non-Magic items) other stuff

TheWebCoder said: Option 4: Offense (Weapons, Alchemist's Fire, Acid Flask, DMG Bombs, Wands, Spell Scrolls, etc.) hurt the bad guy Defense (Armor, Shields, Unarmored Defense, Ring of Protection, etc) defend from the bad guy Inventory (Backpack, Bedroll, Climber's Kit, Potions, Misc Magic and Non-Magic items) other stuff Why are commonly used items (Potions, Magic items) relegated to the group with the "useless items"? Either there is a group for totally mundane items and that purposefully doesn't include usable items, or those mundane items are just included in the normal items. Mixing the two doesn't quite work imo.

Kryx said: TheWebCoder said: Option 4: Offense (Weapons, Alchemist's Fire, Acid Flask, DMG Bombs, Wands, Spell Scrolls, etc.) hurt the bad guy Defense (Armor, Shields, Unarmored Defense, Ring of Protection, etc) defend from the bad guy Inventory (Backpack, Bedroll, Climber's Kit, Potions, Misc Magic and Non-Magic items) other stuff Why are commonly used items (Potions, Magic items) relegated to the group with the "useless items"? Either there is a group for totally mundane items and that purposefully doesn't include usable items, or those mundane items are just included in the normal items. Mixing the two doesn't quite work imo. Honestly, the system you have now is perfect for my players, if the attacks area didn't require a literal attack roll (i.e. call if offense or weapons and allow attack roll or save items), and the defense area had a "custom" option (for rings, cloaks, etc). Everything else goes under equipment or gear or whatever you want to call it. tl;dr I don't think the last category is "useless items", rather they are used less often in combat than the things under offense and defense. Otherwise I have to scroll past portable hole to click wand of fireballs? Ick. My 2c. Always open to what you come up with.

However, it works it, if wands are in there, it sounds like attacks will get the option to have melee spell and ranged spell attacks. My players will love that. Right now their attacks have that because they kept them through conversions from old versions. I don't think they realize they can't create a new, convenient attack button for bigby's hand anymore. :) The anal ones might object. They love using that section as a catch all for everything they do offensively.

Uses Police! OMG, that's such a great feature. I don't know when that happened, but it delights me. All right. Go back to your equipment squables. :)

Robert D. said: However, it works it, if wands are in there, it sounds like attacks will get the option to have melee spell and ranged spell attacks. Whatever the "Attacks" section becomes it will never encompass spells attacks. Spells belong in the spells section. I'd suggest you try the newish repeat functionality on spells or click the attack and damage links in the chat output. Repeat is probably the best and easiest and it functions nicely.

I'll show it to them, but they are ornery, and they like the simple attack template for something like Bigby's hand which is hitting over and over again throughout a fight like an attack. :) I suspect they won't change their grognard ways.

I like that addition too, BTW. The repeat spell link. Neat. But Uses Police. OMG. That cracked me up. I know that was probably Lucian, but still.

Robert D. said: they like the simple attack template for something like Bigby's hand which is hitting over and over again throughout a fight like an attack. That's exactly what the repeat functionality of spells is used for. It's a simple template that only includes the vital parts of the spell.

I'm in favour of Option 2 (Equipment/Defense/Inventory). I think it's the easiest to grok - stuff you click to use/do, your armour, and then all the other crap you carry.  Filters allow more customization but they can be fiddly to use and they require a steeper learning curve. My more casual players find filters a roadblock to accessing features, especially when you combine the options of various filter states with edit-mode on or off. It takes a bit of learning - worth it for spells, definitely, but maybe not here. Personally I'm in favour of calling the first category "actions" - I know that an Action is a resource in 5e, but it's also a term used loosely in the PHB itself. For example: "The most common actions you can take are described in the "Actions in Combat" section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action." "Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action ." "Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction ." " Improvising an action:  Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character's ability scores." "READY: Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn so that you can act later in the round using your reaction. First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it." "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action ." My arguments are: 1. It's least confusing to use terminology players are already familiar with. An Equipment/Inventory distinction or similar isn't used in D&D elsewhere. 2. Although an Action is a resource, the PHB is very loose with using the word "action" to describe things a character can do in combat, using it for reactions, bonus actions, improvising actions, attacks, using objects, and even the action you can take after you use the Ready Action action (!!). This covers all the use-cases for an Action section of the Shaped Sheet - potions, wands, weapons, bombs, etc.  So yeah, I vote for Actions/Defense/Equipment, but I'd also be happy with the Equipment/Defense/Inventory option. Oh, and thanks again for your work on the sheet, and let me say that I'm excited about this new feature - we use a lot of magical items with charges and uses in our campaign so this will be really useful. 

Tim said: "The most common actions you can take are described in the "Actions in Combat" section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action." That is describing the currency "Action", not the english term action. Tim said: "Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action ." That is describing a specific type of action - a bonus action. Tim said: "Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction ." That is describing a specific type of action - a reaction. The other examples follow the same pattern. Ready action uses your Action, Improvising uses your action. Tim said: My arguments are: 1. It's least confusing to use terminology players are already familiar with. An Equipment/Inventory distinction or similar isn't used in D&D elsewhere. Attacking with a weapon is most commonly part of an Attack Action. It is not an action itself and often can be done multiple times. Meaning the name would be incorrectly used. See NPCs for example. In their actions section they have all of their normal actions and Multiattack which is an action that uses another action multiple times. Also on NPCs you'll see that reactions and bonus actions are part of their own sections. The name "Actions" does not fit the section. I should've been more clear in my original question that this word isn't an option.

Robert D. said: However, it works it, if wands are in there, it sounds like attacks will get the option to have melee spell and ranged spell attacks. My players will love that. Right now their attacks have that because they kept them through conversions from old versions. I don't think they realize they can't create a new, convenient attack button for bigby's hand anymore. :) The anal ones might object. They love using that section as a catch all for everything they do offensively. The new repeat option on spells is handing for stuff like that Robert. Can either put it into a macro or set it up as a trait. 

The name "Actions" does not fit the section. I should've been more clear in my original question that this word isn't an option. Fair enough, your call.  I think Equipment and Inventory would work ok.

Tim said: The name "Actions" does not fit the section. I should've been more clear in my original question that this word isn't an option. Fair enough, your call.  I think Equipment and Inventory would work ok. Not to be a curmudgeon, but those two words are basically synonymous within this context. I'd have no idea intuitively how to distinguish them 

TheWebCoder said: Not to be a curmudgeon, but those two words are basically synonymous within this context. I'd have no idea intuitively how to distinguish them With Equipment it's equipped, you're wearing it. With Inventory you're carrying it/have it on your person. I find it easy personally but I guess I can get why it wouldn't.

After thinking some more about it, i think i like this distinction the best: 1. Offense 2. Defense 3. Utility 4. Equipment Although originally not a fan of "Offense" as a term, as i was thinking about alternative terms for the Armor Section and what would fall under this category if it were to make sense, i think "Defense" is the only really good way to present it, making "Offense" an easily understandable counterpart, that offers a clear distinction. I am a big fan of Utility as a term as well, although personally i still see "Gear" as a clear enough distinction. Since you Guys and Kryx in particular don't seem to think a distinction would be clear enough there, i think Utility fits the bill here evenly well.

I still like "Items" for equipment with functionality. There's a long history in D&D of a correlation between "item" and "a thing you have that has some useful property or action"/ It also has a connotation of being something unique or special. "What equipment do you have?" "Um, messkit, bedroll—" "No, what items do you have?" "Oh! Miracle Max gave me this Holocaust Cloak."

I don't see any point in changing how your sheet handles equipment vs arms and armor.  Please, don't overcomplicate it.  I say keep it in the same format (which is how it is right now) as the normal 5e character sheet unless it leads to faster loading times.

Jebediah S. said: I don't see any point in changing how your sheet handles equipment vs arms and armor. The current behavior does not cover many cases that are listed above. Jebediah S. said: Please, don't overcomplicate it. Changing from 3 sections to either 2, 3, or 4 sections with some some clarifications on what belongs in each section isn't overcomplication as far as I see it.

keithcurtis said: I still like "Items" for equipment with functionality. [*SNIP*] I like Items also, but are we going to have a separate section for "magic items" (rods, staves, wands, etc) then?

zerosius said: 1. Offense 2. Defense 3. Utility 4. Equipment This structure (also option 3 above) is quite nice. If I'm going to hurt or hinder an enemy it's likely to be in offense. If I'm going to help myself/my allies or create a distraction it's likely to be in utility. If I have some protective item it's likely to be in Defense. Everything else would go in the miscellaneous category. I'm inclined to think that this is a straightforward representation of item types that define the way in which they are primarily used. That distinction could help a PC make choices on their turn based on their goals that turn.

Kryx said: zerosius said: 1. Offense 2. Defense 3. Utility 4. Equipment This structure (also option 3 above) is quite nice. If I'm going to hurt or hinder an enemy it's likely to be in offense. If I'm going to help myself/my allies or create a distraction it's likely to be in utility. If I have some protective item it's likely to be in Defense. Everything else would go in the miscellaneous category. I'm inclined to think that this is a straightforward representation of item types that define the way in which they are primarily used. That distinction could help a PC make choices on their turn based on their goals that turn. I really like this solution too 

Kryx said: Robert D. said: they like the simple attack template for something like Bigby's hand which is hitting over and over again throughout a fight like an attack. That's exactly what the repeat functionality of spells is used for. It's a simple template that only includes the vital parts of the spell. Except when I turned that on for Arcane Hand, it reproduced the entire descriptive text of the spell, which is what they are trying to avoid.

Maybe I'm missing something. When I turn it on for lightning bolt, it's not reproducing damage at all, JUST the descriptive text.

Robert D. said: Except when I turned that on for Arcane Hand, it reproduced the entire descriptive text of the spell, which is what they are trying to avoid. The content is meant to not be shown. It seems there is a bug. Robert D. said: Maybe I'm missing something. When I turn it on for lightning bolt, it's not reproducing damage at all, JUST the descriptive text. Repeat will show whatever is in the formula, but hide content and higher level. Lightning Bolt isn't a case where a repeat would be appropriate. Call Lightning would be a good example.

Dvergr76 said: keithcurtis said: I still like "Items" for equipment with functionality. [*SNIP*] I like Items also, but are we going to have a separate section for "magic items" (rods, staves, wands, etc) then? I don't see why you should. It would be a catch all for things that have active, programmatic abilities. Equipment would just be things like 50' rope and 10' pole. Items would be things with rolls or rules attached.

keithcurtis said: I don't see why you should. It would be a catch all for things that have active, programmatic abilities. Equipment would just be things like 50' rope and 10' pole. Items would be things with rolls or rules attached. Equipment: "the necessary items for a particular purpose.", "the implements used in an operation or activity". Item: "an individual article or unit, especially one that is part of a list, collection, or set." By english definitions your options should be reversed. (It would match Option 2 above, but renaming Inventory to Items). 2 general categories (Equipment & Inventory/Items) and 1 specific category (Defense) doesn't make much sense imo. Option 1 and Option 3 have more defined organizational structures that more clearly identify the type of things that belong in each section.

And, not to be reductive, but the section titles are tiny and at the bottom of the boxes - they aren't a huge part of the user-experience. You learn what a particular box on the sheet is for and then you probably never look at that title again.  I agree that there's probably a good use-case for breaking up the behaviour into "I want to hurt something" vs. "I want to help or heal" vs. "I just want to look at all the other random stuff I'm carrying", which makes the offence/defence/utility/equipment a decent choice. Grouping offence and utility together potentially makes the user hunt through weapons when they're looking for potions, for example.  I'd argue for the order being Offence, Utility, Defence, Equipment - since that's the order of how likely you are to be interacting with those sections in combat, but that's minor.