D&D 5E Spells in Stat Blocks are Terrible

[fanboy2000]

by OP I meant opening post, not you.

Dude, he wrote the opening post.

 

[hayek]

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 can't emphasize enough, I have no problem with this. I'll be just fine using spellcasting monsters (even if it's not my preference that they have spell lists). My argument has always been that my personal preference (and the personal preferences of others on this forum) is irrelevant to the argument that spell lists in stat blocks are a bad thing.

The reason they are bad is that 5E is trying to offer a new kind of d&d that has a base version that is not rules intensive and does not take up table time with rules referencing (with add-on module options that give you all the rules you want). Yes, I understand this will not be an issue in every combat, I'm not saying it's ruining the game. I'm saying that given the choice between a summary of spell effects and no summary, 5E should provide a summary since it is immensely helpful in the game achieving its stated aims.

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).

I agree with this completely.

 

[Crothian]

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.

If you print out all the spells with full write up from the basic set that would be about 20 pages. Fireball took 2 lines so it would be about 4 pages. If reworking a few stat blocks that cast spells is too much work for you then don't buy or play 5e. I'm fine with that as 5e is not going to be for everyone and it is better to make that determination now then after you spend money on the books. I do love that your ego is so high that you think what your buying habits matter for WotC. When you do decide to buy in or not can you make sure I know? It's going to be like inside trading information for my Hasbro Stock.

Mod Note: Folks, DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL. Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster. Also remember that snark is basically failed communication - if the guy doesn't already agree with you, all being snarky does is drive them away from you. ~Umbran

 

[Obryn]

by OP I meant opening post, not you.

I... What? Who do you think wrote the OP?

 

[hayek]

I think you're taking some liberties with the "key stated goals" of 5e to support your argument...

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.

I've always said that reasonable minds could certainly disagree with my argument. I would be curious about the argument you reference, though. How would spell summaries make a monster harder to run?

If the reasoning is similar to the issue that Majoru Oakheart highlighted - that it would create an entry with pages and pages of text because of all the spells/conditions the monster has access to that you have to list a summary of. Then I would have the same retort - if you collect all the text that's actually needed to run that monster in one place and find it's 10+ pages, then you have made a monster that's too complex for anyone but an advanced DM to run at their table. Your monster should be moved to an 'advanced monsters' module, and should not be included in the core/basic game.

 

[Uller]

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...

So you are saying there is a line somewhere and judgement is needed to decide what should be reprinted verbatim (or summarized in someway) and what should be referenced. You want to err on the side of print anything that might be needed. The editors had to decide between that space. It sounds like they followed your advice for _most_ monsters...most will have one or two powers at most beyond a normal attack. But as others have mentioned, NPCs with the spell casting ability will just have a list of spells. I don't see how that's unreasonable.

 

[Stormonu]

One thing I'll add. i hadn't thought about it until I started reflecting on this, but in 1E/2E, though I used creatures with just spell lists, I often avoided creatures with a handful of spells because I disliked spending a lot of time reading and figuring out spell entries (especially in game). If 5E blocks had quick summarries, I think I'd be more likely to use spellcasting monsters.

Now, of course the downside is that something like a 20th level wizard would have a stat block that would likely take up the whole page and it'd still be a lot of sorting through information for what the monster could do. In that case, just a simple spell list (with no summary) might be in order - with some strategy advice. Coures, that then begs the question, what's the cut off point for switching between summaries and lists (cuz its so complex, youre going to HAVE to read up ahead of time).

 

[MerricB]

I... What? Who do you think wrote the OP?

Obviously you have a twin you don't know about, Obryn!

Anyway, here's Mike Mearls on the issue from an interview with the Escapist:

Mike Mearls:: So in the [Monster Manual] there aren't too many hard and fast general rules. There's stuff like legendary monsters that are general concepts that creatures use, and we wouldn't want to add that to every stat block because it's either big or once you've learned it once you're just using it again and again. We tried whenever possible that within the stat block we give you everything you need to run the monster. So when you're referring to it you don't have to do much flipping back and forth. There are some spells for monsters, but we tried to make those fairly straightforward spells like fireball that you wouldn't necessarily have to check the Player's Handbook or basic D&D to use.

Whenever possible though we tried to give creatures unique abilities. When you look back at 3rd Edition it tried to default to spells. I don't want to say we're doing the opposite, but when it's a unique ability it's faster for us to say "This creature can hurl an area attack that is a burst of fire" instead of saying "This creature can cast fireball." So for instance the Beholder has eye rays, and it says "Here's what happens when when it zots you with its eye rays now make a save" instead of referring to a spell. We tried to use spells only when it's clear that the monster is a spellcaster - like here's an NPC Wizard. There's an appendix on quick-building NPCs. Those creatures will typically use spells. There's a sample acolyte - a divine spellcaster - with a few quick spells.

Bolding: That feels like more of an 80s Basic D&D approach, with each creature having its own special abilities.

Mearls: Yeah. We also want to make sure that we're not using spells as something abstract. If something is casting fireball we want to be clear that it's actually casting the spell fireball.

Bolding: But if it throws blasts of hellfire that's going to be something different?

Mearls: Yeah.

Cheers!

 

[Uller]

...if you collect all the text that's actually needed to run that monster in one place and find it's 10+ pages, then you have made a monster that's too complex...

I agree with this. And as Merric pointed out, it sounds like Mike Mearls agrees with this...except for spell casters (not monsters with powers that could reasonably be replaced with spell, but honest to goodness spell casters).

I really liked 4e's monster blocks and design concept...even for run of the mill spell casters...but sometimes you want a monster to be a spell caster and have all the flexibility that infers.

Look at a the 4e Lich (Monster Vault Lich Necromancer)...It's a fine monster...it's got an aura (Necromantic Aura), a cool melee attack (Vampiric Attack), a controllery ranged attack (Freezing Claw) and a controllery AoE attack (Enervating Tendrils) along with a couple interesting move and minor actions. All good.

But it doesn't feel like a spell caster to me. I want my liches to have the same flexibility as a PC wizard and generally follow the same rules. I don't want the Monster Manual (or even an adventure) to limit itself the way 4e caster type monsters are. I want actual spell casters. And if the choice is 1) a full page or more of reprinted spells with every caster 2) limiting caster NPCs to just 3 or 4 spells (with full descriptions) or 3) a list of suggested prepared spells, I'd much prefer 3. The stock monster should (as Mike Mearls suggested) stick with common spells that most DMs will be familiar with...but if I want my NPC wizard to cast Evard's Black Tentacles instead of Wall of Fire, I can swap the latter for the former and keep right on trucking without much worry.

 

[hayek]

So you are saying there is a line somewhere and judgement is needed to decide what should be reprinted verbatim... NPCs with the spell casting ability will just have a list of spells. I don't see how that's unreasonable.

Let's say they publish an adventure module where the players have to fight a bunch of sickly, elderly acolytes of the God of Lightning. These priests have no interesting powers to speak of and are too weak to even lift a sword and have no melee or ranged attack, however because of their limited priestly devotion they can cast two spells (and that's it): Lightning Bolt and Cure Wounds. The spells are the ONLY interesting thing about these enemies, and there's only 2 spells. I would argue it is very unreasonable to not print at least a summary of those spells in the stat block, as it already takes up so little space, and you're basically guaranteed to have to look the spells up (or play the enemies VASTLY different from how they are intended).

In general, I don't see any reason for a blanket rule of 'we won't print any spells'. I think spells that will need to be quickly referenced in a fast-paced/tense scenario such as combat/sneaking/social interaction should be handy and not cause a break in play by forcing a rules look-up. Extrapolating that reasoning to a more realistic example: say there's a powerful demon that can cast Fireball, Detect Invisibility, Suggestion, Divination, and Control Weather - I would propose that a summary should be provided for Fireball, Detect Invisibility, and Suggestion. Divination and Control Weather could simply be listed in a line as 'See Spell Description: Divination, Control Weather', as those are relevant to the creature's back story and away-from-immediate-action impact on the game, but unlikely to be relevant in a tense, time-sensitive scenario. These are the judgment calls I'd like the designers to make, but they are not doing so with the blanket rule of 'no spell descriptions'

I agree with this. And as Merric pointed out, it sounds like Mike Mearls agrees with this...except for spell casters

Mearls' quote is actually encouraging, and it's good to know they recognize the importance of making core monsters easy to play. If you're going to have spell lists, there are at least ways to alleviate the issues they cause, and at least they seem to be taking these steps. I just don't get why they need to handcuff themselves with a blanket rule about no spell descriptions.

but sometimes you want a monster to be a spell caster and have all the flexibility that infers... Look at a the 4e Lich... But it doesn't feel like a spell caster to me. I want my liches to have the same flexibility as a PC wizard and generally follow the same rules...

And I would never want to take that away from you. I'm just arguing that a monster such as that should be in an 'Advanced' Monster Manual, so as not to be a land-mine waiting to trip up a new DM (or a rules-light DM), who's just trying to quickly snap through an encounter with a spell-casting creature, and doesn't want to get caught having to look up a ton of rules (or play the creature ineffectively).