D&D 5E Spells in Stat Blocks are Terrible

[jadrax]

I'm guessing some of those will be in the MM at all. What else?

Thaumaturge.

Well, lets start by looking at the last open play test.

• Aranea (Spell Level 2, variant only)
• Dark Acolyte (Spell Level 1)
• Dark Adept (Spell Level 1)
• Dark Priest (Spell Level 2)
• Death Knight(Spell Level 3, variant only)
• Demon: Glabrezu (Spell Level 8)
• Devil: Asmodeus (Spell Level 9)
• Devil: Gelugon (Spell Level 5)
• Devil: Pit Fiend (Spell Level 9)
• Drow (Spell Level 2)
• Giant: Storm (Spell Level 5)
• Lich (Spell Level 5)
• Rakshasa (Spell Level 5)
• Yuan-ti: Halfblood (Spell Level 2, variant only)

Note: Some obvious contenders, such as the Human Witch Doctor do not actually cast spells.

 

[Jester David]

The starter set has monster statblocks crossing pages, which is a much bigger annoyance for me. Spells affect *some* monsters but when there's page overlap it affects *any* monster.

The Starter Set was really tight for space, having to be stand alone. The few lines describing spells for each spellcaster would have cost them a monster or an encounter. It's not *that* hard to reference and when it's the same spells as the PCs are using it's easy enough to just know what the spells do. And with Basic having a printer friendly option it literally takes one minute to make a spell reference sheet or spell cards.

I'll wait until I see the Monster Manual to really judge. I imagine the format for those monsters will be very different.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Well, lets start by looking at the last open play test.

Thanks. I'd xp, but I've given you some too recently, alas.

If all of the different fiends get them, I can see how that would become unwieldy. Especially when running fiend heavy encounters.

Thaumaturge.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The absolute worst offender is a certain boss NPC's statblock in Lost Mine of Phandelver which mentions a spell that, forget about being described in the statblock, isn't described in the Starter Set! Oops.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

If we start to see monster statblocks making reference to spells in splatbooks, I will agree that that's a problem

*When

 

[jadrax]

If all of the different fiends get them, I can see how that would become unwieldy. Especially when running fiend heavy encounters.

Yeah, they have actually been pretty restrained, Its not like 3.5 were everything supernatural is pretty much a spell caster.

I also quite like the fact it makes Balors and Pit Fiends more distinguishable, as only the Pit Fiends are now actual spell casters.

The absolute worst offender is a certain boss NPC's statblock in Lost Mine of Phandelver which mentions a spell that, forget about being described in the statblock, isn't described in the Starter Set! Oops.

Oops indeed.

 

[Dausuul]

If we start to see monster statblocks making reference to spells in splatbooks, I will agree that that's a problem

*When

No, not "when." "If." That was the word I picked and I meant it. I do not regard this as a likely occurrence.

You want to post something, post it yourself.

 

[hayek]

I am bemused by the all the responses along the lines of "I have been playing for a billion years and do not need to look up spells" responses.

That's GREAT for you. But isn't this edition supposed to be especially friendly to new players?? Whether referencing or memorizing spell lists is not issue for veterans who post on D&D-specific forums isn't the point. The point is that we're apparently now asking new-to-moderately-experienced DMs to memorize spells just to be able to run combat smoothly.

Call me crazy, but that SEEMS like it might be problematic for them.

This x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

This issue is a perfect example of selection bias - polling people on D&D forums who have played the game for years, and will be consuming/reading/devouring every morsel of product over and over again is not in anyway a good representation of whether this is a problem. By all means, print some 'advanced' monster manuals with loads of 'Arcane Know-it-all Liches' and 'Grimy, the undead former Spell Librarian' with lists and lists of spells with no descriptions for those that are into it. Everyone should have the fun they want to have.

Just don't force this unwieldy piece of rules formatting on unexperienced DMs (or even experienced DMs who aren't into d&d for the fun of looking up and reading rules). I play a lot of d&d and am deeply familiar with the rulesets I'm using (mostly 2nd Edition these days) and I still can't stand seeing a spell list in a monster description. I do NOT use these spell lists, as they are way too cumbersome. I generally just make-up some spell-like effect on the spot that seems cool, 'cause I know I won't remember every nuance of the spells listed and I (and my players) don't want to stop play to go page-flipping.

 

[Reynard]

I, for one, think it is perfectly acceptable to assume the DM is going to read and subsequently prepare for the adventure in advance, including looking up spells. Moreover, i think it is perfectly acceptable for some percentage of monsters/enemies to require some degree of mastery on the part of the DM to run properly. D&D is, and always has been, a game with varying degrees of complexity in both play and prep. I think that is a net positive, even if there are moments when its can be irritating.

On the upside, if it really is a deal-breaker, the OP won't have to endure it. It's worse when a thing is a PITA but not a deal-breaker because then you have to put up with it (or change it) in order to play the game you like. Example that I think is comparable: Pathfinder APs burying important information in the body of the text instead of calling it out for ease of use.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

No, not "when." "If." That was the word I picked and I meant it. I do not regard this as a likely occurrence.

You want to post something, post it yourself.

Well, I vehemently disagree with you, and that was the purpose of my post. If you can't handle being quoted, may I suggest lurking?