D&D 5E Spells in Stat Blocks are Terrible

[Crothian]

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

One down, many to go. All we need to do is write them up like this and place it in a word document for all to enjoy and the problem is solved!

 

[am181d]

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.

I think you're taking some liberties with the "key stated goals" of 5e to support your argument. They're clearly looking to streamline the game, which they clearly have. No one ever said that in ALL CASES the amount of times you need to reference the rules will decrease. Even if we accept that "reduce the amount of time spent referencing the rules" was a goal, they couldn't achieve that goal even if certain individual functions now took MORE time.

An argument could be made that spell summaries make the stat block harder to work with and that KEEPING spell summaries works against stated goals.

Both views/approaches are reasonable.

 

[Sammael]

One down, many to go. All we need to do is write them up like this and place it in a word document for all to enjoy and the problem is solved!

That's where we differ. I don't want to carry around a 20-page printout or search through a 20-page document for stuff that's essential to running a monster. I want it integrated in the creature's stat block. And if I have to rewrite all stat blocks for an adventure, that's way, way too much work for me - enough that I won't even consider running a 5E game, much like I don't want to run a Pathfinder game. And considering that I am the biggest spender of money on books in my extended RPG group, that's not really good for WotC.

 

[hayek]

...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?

There's some common sense to follow, as not every single rule should be duplicated. But, yes, I believe the paralyzed condition should be included in the ghoul's stat block, as it will definitely need to be referenced in order to resolve that combat. Forcing page-flipping rules referencing time on the table is not amenable to quick/easy play. Certainly some corner cases/niche abilities don't need to be described, but if it is very likely to be used (such as a ghoul's paralyzing touch) then it should be at hand and not force rules referencing on the table. The space requirements become a good indicator of when your monster is way too complicated to be feasibly played by a non-rules intensive group. If when you throw in all the conditions/spells/movement powers it uses, and you come up with 10 pages of rules not commonly known (i.e. outside of basic attack/movement rules), that monster is way to complicated and needs to be redesigned or moved to an 'advanced' monster manual.

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...

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

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.

As above, if this much information is needed to run a monster in the game, then the game has failed its stated goal of being easier to play and not feeling like a giant communal rules-reading. If you're telling me that all the relevant rules for running a monster fit in a 15-page spread because of all of the spells/conditions/powers they throw out, then I'm telling you that is a monster that no one other than an uber-experienced, advanced DM should be using. In an advanced module for people who enjoy that? Go for it!! In the 'Core' game that is supposed to be easy to pick up and play, this kind of monster is a guaranteed bad play experience in 1 of 2 ways: 1) The play (and fun) grinds to a halt as the DM references rules for 5-10 minutes 2) The monster's abilities are ignored by the DM as they are too overwhelming to process at the table, and consequently the monster is not the big bad threat it was advertised to be. This happened every time I threw my party against a lich back in 2nd edition in my 'formative' years of high school d&d - I always got overwhelmed by the spell list (and didn't want to stop to read all of its spells) and just had it attack, then was shocked when this 'terrifying, deadly' monster just did d6 claw damage.

By the way, you didn't really think I was gonna put up a post without a numbered list in it did you!

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

I don't think that's /quite/ the stated goal. Certainly, 5e is set up to grant some benefits to system masters - asymmetric balance and class design and long spell lists all raise the bar on system mastery, for instance. And the idea of being rules lite is summed up in 'ruling not rules,' so if you don't want to look up a spell because it'll slow the game down, don't: just make up what the spell does on the spot based on the name and as much (if any) of it as you remember.

There you go: streamlined.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Oh, well, next time rather than an actual gameplay concern about paging through books at the table, I'll pick some vague philosophical reason like "Hit Points: How Do They Work?"

by OP I meant opening post, not you.

 

[MarkB]

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

Good tip, thanks - it does indeed. In that case, I stand by my original comment.

 

[Cyberen]

WotC has already addressed this issue.
The middle ground is : supernatural / spell like abilities are contained in the spell block, genuine spell casters use PC caster rules.
In the very particular case where you DM an adventure module published by WotC AND you feel overwhelmed by playing a spell caster AND you don't want to spend any time to either read / summarize / change the spells AND you're not ready to wing it up, I guess you are in mild trouble 1 encounter out of 10.
I sympathize, though, as I find the Keywordic editions (4e, but also 3e) much harder to DM than those less jargony. But clearly, 5e seems to be already more user friendly on this front.
Rather than copypasta of summaries that should be written on the DM screen, I hope published adventures would provide tactical guidelines for the complex monsters. Having a clear statements of the effects intended by the designers is much more enlightening for the DM, and also for the players as they are using the same toys (and I find a dual wielding rogue more daunting to play - deciding between Cunning Action or an off hand attack, getting hiding and SA opportunities, etc. - than a basic Wizard).

 

[Stormonu]

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

possibly even:

Fireball (L3): R 150 ft; 20 ft. Radius sphere; 8d6 fire (ignitable); Dex save 1/2; upgrade +1d6 fire/spell level

Monster spells don't *have* to work like PC versions, which can give the DM some leeway when shortening them like this.

Also, I disagree with cutting out spell lists as much as possible. Presenting casters with spell lists instead of always turning them directly into monster powers has one advantage - if the DM wants to swap a given spell out for another, its an implied option (for example, imagine a Flameskull with sleep instead of magic missile. of course, in this case that same DM would have to be familiar enough with the replacement spell to work without the abbreviated form.

 

[hayek]

And the idea of being rules lite is summed up in 'ruling not rules,' so if you don't want to look up a spell because it'll slow the game down, don't: just make up what the spell does on the spot based on the name and as much (if any) of it as you remember.

I just feel like a new, inexperienced DM will not be savvy and/or bold enough to make a call to house rule a spell on the spot. Besides monster stat blocks are there to help people not have to figure out on the spot what a reasonable adversary can do. I would argue that a summary version, such as that outlined by Sammael above is the perfect balance, as it gives a general overview. Those that want a quick/easy play experience can use 'ruling not rules' to decide incidental information like what catches on fire from it, what action is needed to put out that fire, how much does having a canteen of water on hand help? Whereas people that want a more rules-heavy play experience can take time to look up the full spell description.