D&D 5E Change to how spellcasting monsters work in the MM and other monster books.

[robus]

I have the book and really appreciate his approach to interpreting the monster stats in order to reveal appropriate strategy when running the monster at the table, but that’s not enough to actually deal with the nuts and bolts of a monster as the combat churns on. While the OPs approach might be a bit too wordy for my taste, I have been doing similar things to try and distill the combat oriented spells down into stuff I can practically wield in the moment.

i do like the categorization idea a lot.

 

[Flamestrike]

I dont have this problem at all.

I know the spells, what works and what doesn't, and as I tend to know my party (and the encounters) well enough before hand, I also generally know what spell they're going to cast and even in what order.

 

[Quickleaf]

I like this. I was thinking to myself of trying to make something similar, maybe breaking spells up into 3 categories, offense, defense and utility.

Any idea where I can get a template for a spell description like you'd find in the phb? DMs Guild?

No sure what you mean by a template. I mean, my example pretty much was a template: Action; 60 ft; Conc. 1 min; 20-ft radius sphere; Dex save; 4d6 fire (half). That's action required; range; duration; area of effect; save (or attack); and effect.

While I think your idea for categorizing spells as offensive, defensive, or utility is useful when creating the monster/encounter, it's actually less useful in actually playing the monster. That's why monsters tend to be broken down according to traits (usually always active), actions, bonus actions, and reactions – those are what a DM is looking when quickly scanning the stat block during play.

 

[R_J_K75]

No sure what you mean by a template. I mean, my example pretty much was a template: Action; 60 ft; Conc. 1 min; 20-ft radius sphere; Dex save; 4d6 fire (half). That's action required; range; duration; area of effect; save (or attack); and effect.

While I think your idea for categorizing spells as offensive, defensive, or utility is useful when creating the monster/encounter, it's actually less useful in actually playing the monster. That's why monsters tend to be broken down according to traits (usually always active), actions, bonus actions, and reactions – those are what a DM is looking when quickly scanning the stat block during play.

By template I meant as spells are formatted in the PHB.

As far as the categorization I was thinking for NPC's more than monsters or for monsters that cast spells as spell-like abilities. I understand that everything else in the MM are basically traits and are independent from spells so there's no sense in categorizing them.

 

[robus]

By template I meant as spells are formatted in the PHB.

As far as the categorization I was thinking for NPC's more than monsters or for monsters that cast spells as spell-like abilities. I understand that everything else in the MM are basically traits and are independent from spells so there's no sense in categorizing them.

Yep - the spell lists really change the capabilities of the monster/NPC (even monsters with innate spellcasting). I do something similar to Quickleaf, though not quite so abbreviated. But I have tended to focus on the offensive spell options rather than thinking about a better mix of defensive, offensive and the third one which now eludes me

 

[R_J_K75]

Yep - the spell lists really change the capabilities of the monster/NPC (even monsters with innate spellcasting). I do something similar to Quickleaf, though not quite so abbreviated. But I have tended to focus on the offensive spell options rather than thinking about a better mix of defensive, offensive and the third one which now eludes m

Yep - the spell lists really change the capabilities of the monster/NPC (even monsters with innate spellcasting). I do something similar to Quickleaf, though not quite so abbreviated. But I have tended to focus on the offensive spell options rather than thinking about a better mix of defensive, offensive and the third one which now eludes me

I called it utility spells, fly, spider climb, stuff like that. Then theres rituals but those dont count in this conversation. The game is set up for means to the effect as to where if set up to just effect, it would be much easier to execute in play.

 

[robus]

I do something similar to Quickleaf, though not quite so abbreviated.

For example here's how I abbreviate Contagion:

Contagion (5) R Touch +9 Dur 7 days. Inflict disease. Hit: target is poisoned. At end of target’s turn make DC 17 Con save. 3 success target resists. 3 fails target is subject to Flesh Rot. Creatures flesh decays. Disadvantage on Charisma and vulnerable to all damage. Any effect that removes or ameliorates disease applies.

Edit: underscore indicates concentration, (5) is the spell level, R Touch is the range, +9 is the attack bonus, Dur is the duration.