Spell and Monster Organization

[meek75]

OK,

I am in the process of building a DnD 5e realm. I am thinking about ways to organize spells and monsters. My issue is that I sort these categories differently depending on my purpose at the moment. For example, sometimes I want an alphabetical list of all spells and other times I want to see all only spells of a particular level. The same is true with monsters. Sometimes alphabetical is best and sometimes I want to see only certain challenge ratings. I see three options for doing this.

1- Use tags and then filter by spell level or CR when I need to do so. This is way makes a lot of sense and seems to be the intended way of doing it in RW. However, I find the filtering process to be a bit cumbersome and I use these filters very often.

2- Place the CR and level as a suffix and then sort by suffix when I want to do so. I think I am leaning towards this method.

3- Create groups and use the relationships feature. For example, all 2nd level spells would go in a group called "Level 2 Spells". When I want to see the spells of that level I open the group and use the content links.

Are there other options I'm missing? What solutions have you guys found most helpful? I'd love to here how others accomplish this.

 

[ruhar]

I would use 2 and maybe 3. If you know you'll be looking at one specific group a lot including 3 with 2 would be helpful. I don't know of other ways and would like to hear about them if there are.

 

[meek75]

So, I went with all three options. I put the level as a suffix, created groups for each spell level and created a "Member" relationship for each spell. I also created the alphabetical list. On question, is there a way to sot by suffix? I can sort by prefix, but can't seem to sort by suffix.

I attached a screen shot.

 

[ruhar]

Looks good. I'm curious why you have the individual snippets in Overview instead of one snippet.

 

[Acenoid]

Looks good, I will also update my realms and add such lists...

 

[meek75]

Looks good. I'm curious why you have the individual snippets in Overview instead of one snippet.

In order to let me filter by each tag I have them all entered as separate snippets. Putting them in a "Overview" section just made sense to me.

 

[ruhar]

In order to let me filter by each tag I have them all entered as separate snippets. Putting them in a "Overview" section just made sense to me.

<CUT> This response was meant for a different discussion.

 

[Gord]

So, I went with all three options. I put the level as a suffix, created groups for each spell level and created a "Member" relationship for each spell. I also created the alphabetical list. On question, is there a way to sot by suffix? I can sort by prefix, but can't seem to sort by suffix.

I attached a screen shot.

Very nice job with this. I liked the workaround with the spell level group with the (I assume) link to the alphabetical list. This approach would work well with creatures too. Tags for the levels would be another way around the problem but I find them somewhat time consuming to set up and then filter the data. (I know this is probably just me).

Since I am working on a 5th ed campaign too, I'm curious as to how easy you found it to enter all the data and import it quickly. I find it very time consuming even if I do have a source I can cut and paste from. Since I own all the books, this is particularly irritating to me.

 

[meek75]

Very nice job with this. I liked the workaround with the spell level group with the (I assume) link to the alphabetical list. This approach would work well with creatures too. Tags for the levels would be another way around the problem but I find them somewhat time consuming to set up and then filter the data. (I know this is probably just me).

Since I am working on a 5th ed campaign too, I'm curious as to how easy you found it to enter all the data and import it quickly. I find it very time consuming even if I do have a source I can cut and paste from. Since I own all the books, this is particularly irritating to me.

Yes, it does take too much time, especially if you want to set up all the individual snippets. The fastest way is to simply cut and paste the whole block of text into a single snippet. That also looks fine if you take s moment to do some formatting, but then you don't have the tags. You can still go in and manually tag the entry though, if you find that easier. I like having the tags so I can use the filters if I so choose. If you want it to be prettier you can format a topic entry exactly as you want, with colors and formatting, and then duplicate the topic over and over. The draw back with doing that is losing the quick create feature (and I use quick create a lot).

 

[MNBlockHead]

In order to let me filter by each tag I have them all entered as separate snippets. Putting them in a "Overview" section just made sense to me.

I did the same thing. The "overview" section of my spell articles are, for the most part, just tags. This allows me to slice and dice them in the filters easily.



I just have all my spells under the spell category, appearing alphabetically. I like what you did with the lists, but to me it seems duplicative to the tags. Also, I rarely need to see just "2nd level" spells. Instead, I want 2nd-level cleric spells. Tags allow me to list them as I need them. I do agree, however, that it takes a little longer to build a filter than to just exand a list. But I already put so much time in entering the spells that creating relationships to multiple list articles is more extra work than I want to deal with—I'd rather spend a few more seconds running a tag filter when I need a specific grouping.

As for prefix and suffix, I don't use prefix. For suffix, I just put "Spell". I did that to help differentiate a spell article from other articles and topics with the same or similar names when creating autolinks.

 

[AEIOU]

I like your approach MNBlockhead. The tags work well for this.

Instead of separate groupings for spells by level, I'm planning to create a master spell table by class with all spells listed by level. The list would then automatically link to the appropriate entries. And if I don't have a spell entered in yet, it'll be obvious by no linkages.

Your suffix use is good too.

 

[meek75]

@MNBlockHead Yeah, the tags and groupings are definitely duplicating each other functionally. I'm a visual person and prefer having lists to look over. I put in the tags so I can leverage the filtering when I need to, but find the groupings sufficient most of the time. I could totally see a less visual person going your route and skipping the groupings. It does take extra time and its value is subjective.

What snippet types are you using for spell range and casting time? It looks like you have labels that are part of the snippet. I use a numerical snippet for range, but it won't let me put "feet" in the box after the number. I use text snippets for casting time, duration, ect. But I then have to manually put in the label each time.

 

[MNBlockHead]

Every snippet in the Overview section, except the field below components, is a tag field.
I'm not sure I'll every want to filter spells by range or duration, but enough of these values were the same from spell to spell that it made more sense to select from a pick list than type in each time. When I came across a new value, it was easy to just add a new tag value.

The field below "components" is a text field for me to enter material components on spells the require them.

 

[Gord]

If you create new tags in their own new tag domains, you will get the heading showing up to the left. I did this for the following:
Spell Casting Time (tags were action, bonus, reaction, other, and ritual for example)
Spell Class
Spell Components
Spell Duration
Spell Level
Spell Range
Spell School

Source might be useful as well so I know what book it came from and I'll probably put it in too

So far this allows me to quickly choose the multiple classes and schools without lots of typing. Entering the new tags took very little time to set up. This also allows easy entry of special notes in the annotation area for things like specific components or costs. I debated leaving Concentration and the time required to be entered in the annotation area as well but decided to just make tags for it under Duration. For example, an entry might have a "1 round" duration tag and a "Concentration, up to 6 rounds" as a second tag.

I've used your idea of the two groupings for level and alphabetical listings but created each of them as a subcategory under Spell/Power. This way I can add other subcategories if I find I want them. I'm debating whether I want to make a subcategory for each letter of the alphabet but it is not necessary now from what I can see. Perhaps later if the spell lists get too large. If I need it, I think I will just make a Spells by Letter subcategory and use it like the Spells by Level list where it just links to each spells topic.

 

[meek75]

After reading the comments here I changed the way I'm going to organize by level. Rather than creating groups, I think it is easier to just have a single article that lists all the spells bu level and then let the auto linking do its thing. See the attached pic.

 

[AEIOU]

Yup. That's how I'd do it, Meek75.

I originally went down this road because I wanted to identify all of the NPC's with their locations in a city. Even the bit players that are only a line saying "Commoner 1, owner". I didn't want entries for every single person so a table with every person was my compromise with myself. I can open that entry and search for a name and find out where everyone is very easily. And if a bit player becomes a regular, I add a new entry and it links automatically. And if I mention a name of some random beggar or merchant, I can add it to refer back to later without having to deal with a full entry.

 

[Gord]

I've used your idea of the two groupings for level and alphabetical listings but created each of them as a subcategory under Spell/Power

I misspoke. I should have said "topic" for the alphabetical and level lists of the spells.\, not grouping.

The way you are doing it now is similar to the way I do.