D&D 5E Spells in Stat Blocks are Terrible

[Tormyr]

Clearly they should print the books such that, when you touch a spell in a monster description, it expands the text to the full description.

Yay! Pop-up books!

 

[hayek]

There's that word again.

There doesn't need to be an excuse - it's an entirely valid way for the monster stat block to be structured.
I'll happily concede that the Starter Set has a case for expanded spell blocks if the space had fit, but I have a definite preference for non-expanded monster stats.

But again, the MM isn't locked in yet, so maybe you can convince the devs to adopt your preferred style. It's probably not too late, as yet... just please don't declare that other preferences have no validity at all. It's just as bad as the mocking the OP and others for caring about this issue.

Woah, I thought we were getting on the same page, but I guess not. I reference you again to my '3 points' premise. I'm not saying it's an invalid way to do a stat block because in my opinion it's annoying. I'm saying it's an invalid way to do a stat block because it contradicts the stated goal of the game.

Perhaps an exaggerated analogy would serve well here:

1) McDonald's comes out with the new McBarbecue sandwich
2) It doesn't have any Barbecue on it at all, it's just a chicken patty
3) I go on a McDonald's forum and say "This is crazy - they put a chicken patty on the McBarbecue sandwich, it doesn't make sense!"
4) Some people respond by saying "I like the chicken patty, it's delicious, what's the problem? It's a perfectly valid sandwich, lots of people clearly like it"

Just because some people on this board don't mind spell lists in stat blocks does not disprove anything about what I'm arguing - which to summarize again is 1) one of the key stated goals of 5E is to make the core play experience easy to play without requiring system mastery and without letting rules (or rules-referencing) get in the way. 2) Dropping spell lists into a monster's stat block with no summarizing information on what those spells do or how to use them contradicts the goal outlined in point #1.

To be clear, I understand there's room for argument, you may believe that 1) one of the key stated goals of 5E is NOT to make an easier play experience or 2) that spell lists in stat blocks actually DON'T slow down play at all and DON'T require system mastery to use effectively or even 3) there's another key goal of 5E that is more important than easier play and this goal is somehow served by putting detail-less spell lists into stat blocks.

 

[MarkB]

And with the Basic rules, I am screen capturing the spells (or paragraph) I need and inserting it into my Adventure doc.

So when the monsters casts Magic Missile, I just tap the screen (or refer to the printout I made) Done.

Yeah, given that, currently, all the spells available are listed in a freely-available PDF document, it's a matter of a mere few minutes' copy-pasting to create a fully-detailed personal spellbook for each of the spellcasting NPCs in the adventure. That's likely to remain true for at least the vast majority of spellcasting NPCs and monsters in forthcoming adventures and Monster Manuals.

EDIT: Okay, so I hadn't actually tried that yet, and only just read that the Basic Rules PDF doesn't support copy'n'paste. Understandable, but annoying.

RE-EDIT: However, as pointed out by [MENTION=6776887]Tormyr[/MENTION], the printer-friendly version works fine for copy'n'paste.

 

[Uller]

To be clear, I understand there's room for argument, you may believe that 1) one of the key stated goals of 5E is NOT to make an easier play experience or 2) that spell lists in stat blocks actually DON'T slow down play at all and DON'T require system mastery to use effectively or even 3) there's another key goal of 5E that is more important than easier play and this goal is somehow served by putting detail-less spell lists into stat blocks.

...such as space requirements. ..

What about conditions imposed on a character by a monster's attack? Should the definition of paralyzed be listed in the ghoul entry or should the DM be expected to look it up if he isn't familiar with it? Would it not be equally valid to say there is no excuse for not defining relevant conditions in a monster stat block? What about definitions of odd movement modes such as flying or burrowing?

 

[Cyberen]

And I politely reiterate that this decision doesn't need "excuses", and I think that people seeing this as a dealbreaker should tone down the hyperbole.
Concerning those "stated goals" of newbies-friendliness, imagine that the non native english speakers are hosed for at least 6 months. Then, complain about the terrible pain of having to cross-reference something. Seriously.
I kind of get the point, but I have no sympathy for the hyperbole.

 

[Sammael]

I'm a non-native English speaker. Even though we play in a different language, we reference official rules content in English. Always have, always will. But searching for a spell in the middle of an encounter (because I don't always have 8+ hours to prep for a 4-hour session) is a PITA, even though we use tablets and smart phones at the table. It slows the game down unnecessarily.

 

[Tormyr]

Yeah, given that, currently, all the spells available are listed in a freely-available PDF document, it's a matter of a mere few minutes' copy-pasting to create a fully-detailed personal spellbook for each of the spellcasting NPCs in the adventure. That's likely to remain true for at least the vast majority of spellcasting NPCs and monsters in forthcoming adventures and Monster Manuals.

EDIT: Okay, so I hadn't actually tried that yet, and only just read that the Basic Rules PDF doesn't support copy'n'paste. Understandable, but annoying.

Did you try it on the "printer-friendly" PDF? It seems to work fine.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

As for D&D Basic - since it's an electronic product with no space constraints there's really no excuse for not adding at least a summary of any spells listed there.

Here's my problem with summaries: They cause problems when any information at all is cut to make them.

Let's say we have Fireball as a spell. The full description says something like:
"A pea sized bolt leaves your hand and travels to a point within 300 ft. When it arrives, it becomes a ball of fire, doing 8d8 damage to all creatures in 30ft radius area. Creatures who make a Dex save take half damage. If the bolt is stopped before its destination, it explodes when it touches an object with the same resulting It also sets unattended items on fire doing 1d6 fire damage per round to the object. You can put items out by spending an action. V, S, M. Casting time: One action. Material components: Bat Guano and Sulfur."

How do you shorten that without losing valuable information that might come up in game? Which piece of information is "not important"?

I'm not a 4e hater, so please don't take this as me slamming 4e....but that's why a lot of people were frustrated with 4e. It chose to "shorten" things by removing information that it didn't consider important and in the process made monsters seem to be a collection of numbers with no roleplaying attached to them.

If you choose not to shorten them, then you run into the problem where each spell now almost is as long as the full description of the monster. So if the monster has 5 spells, it's 5 times longer than it was before. You also have the same text of a spell reprinted 10 or 20 times in the same book for no good reason.

I think that having a list of spells that you reference for certain creatures is the best compromise.

 

[Sammael]

Let's say we have Fireball as a spell. The full description says something like:
"A pea sized bolt leaves your hand and travels to a point within 300 ft. When it arrives, it becomes a ball of fire, doing 8d8 damage to all creatures in 30ft radius area. Creatures who make a Dex save take half damage. If the bolt is stopped before its destination, it explodes when it touches an object with the same resulting It also sets unattended items on fire doing 1d6 fire damage per round to the object. You can put items out by spending an action. V, S, M. Casting time: One action. Material components: Bat Guano and Sulfur."

How do you shorten that without losing valuable information that might come up in game? Which piece of information is "not important"?

The above description is very easy to condense:

Fireball: Range 300 ft or until it touches an object; target: all creatures in 30 ft radius; damage 8d8 fire, Dex save for 1/2; objects within radius start burning (1d6 fire per round).

Components are unnecessary for creatures, casting time is implied.

The actual 5E fireball:

Fireball (L3): Range 150 ft; target: all creatures in 20 ft radius sphere (spreads around corners); damage 8d6 fire, Dex save for 1/2; objects within radius start burning; damage +1d6 for each slot above L3

 

[hayek]

And I politely reiterate that this decision doesn't need "excuses"

I guess this word has a strong connotation that some people take offense to? Just replace it with the word "reason", as in "There's no reason the McBarbecue sandwich should have no Barbecue and just have a chicken patty on it". I use it to imply a logical fallacy in the game not trying to attain its own stated goals.

and I think that people seeing this as a dealbreaker should tone down the hyperbole.

Not sure if this is in reference to me or not, but assume so since I already won the award for hyperbole. I never claimed this was a dealbreaker and do not see it as such. I am excited to play 5E and will do so happily even if every monster in the Monster Manual has spell lists in its stat block.

I will nevertheless still point out items that I believe are flaws in the game in order to: 1) commiserate with other people who see the same issue 2) possibly devise house rules and/or prep methods to alleviate the issue 3) possibly offer vague community feedback to designers and/or freelancers who read these forums, but mostly 4) to pass the time on a rare light afternoon at work

Concerning those "stated goals" of newbies-friendliness, imagine that the non native english speakers are hosed for at least 6 months. Then, complain about the terrible pain of having to cross-reference something. Seriously.
I kind of get the point, but I have no sympathy for the hyperbole.

This is another flaw to point out, however it is one that will be remedied in time, whereas design flaws in published products likely will not be remedied.