D&D 4E How should 4e handle monster spell-like abilities

[Kobold Avenger]

I actually like certain monsters having a bunch of spells to use, but much like any NPC non-spontaneous casters it's rather annoying keeping track of which spells they're going to be using in combat. And if there's one thing I really don't like about spell-like abilities is keeping track of which spells have how many uses per day.

Now I feel a that a method to handle spell-like abilities in a new edition of D&D would be to give monsters "rulings" spell lists much like cleric domains or specialized spell-caster lists. A monster could have the rulings: Fire, Illusion and Evil up to a certain level, and they be able to use spells from that list as spell-like abilities. They would either work with point costs of spells (which might be too much book-keeping) or be tiered in some way which all low level spells of a ruling can be used at will, and the others have per day uses or slots.

Out of a ruling a monster had, the statblock would actually emphasize which spells they are more likely to use if they happen to know all spells in a ruling up to a certain level, or maybe rulings work in which only certain spells are known, and the ones in the statblock are the spells that a typical monster of that type knows.

 

[green slime]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the problem with the present system.

In what way is a monster with spell-like abilities worse than running an NPC spellcaster?

 

[Kunimatyu]

Monsters should have very tightly focused combat SLAs, 2-3 at most(unless SLAs are their 'thing'). I'm tired of running creatures like balor and marilith who have enough SLAs that you generally figure out optimal tactics well after you've finished running the encounter.

I don't think breaking things down in the domain-ish way you describe would help too much, though.

 

[Razz]

I don't have a problem with spell-like abilities. It's no different remembering what an NPC sorcerer's spells are or a wizard's prepared spells in combat.

Actually, it's easier than spells because you don't have to worry about whether or not the spell-like ability has a verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP component.

 

[green slime]

Monsters should have very tightly focused combat SLAs, 2-3 at most(unless SLAs are their 'thing'). I'm tired of running creatures like balor and marilith who have enough SLAs that you generally figure out optimal tactics well after you've finished running the encounter.

I don't think breaking things down in the domain-ish way you describe would help too much, though.

Why this focus on combat? Why can't monsters have SLA that are beyond combat? If combat is inevitable, what is wrong with taking the time (all of five minutes, if it is that important an encounter), reading through and writing a quick little preplanned battle strategy?

 

[I'm A Banana]

My design notes for monsters with SLA's:

#1: If you want them to have a lot of spells, give them a level of Wiz or Sorc. This works well with a system where caster level and spell access increases with character level, rather than with class level, so that a 20HD monster doesn't just pick up Magic Missile, but rather picks up Meteor Swarm (for instance). Diverse and potent magics come from spellcasters.

#2: Theme!. Make the SLA's adhere to some sort of logical pattern of powers. For all the monsters that can teleport and read minds and summon, there's only a fraction that probably *should* be able to. Not every monster needs to be able to teleport, plane shift, and take your thoughts, just to make it powerful.

#3: Different Uses. If a monster has both Fireball and Lightning Bolt, the DM has too many similar choices. Each spell should fill it's own niche. A creature can have one blasting spell, one defensive spell, one tool spell, etc. Don't give it abilities that mimic what it can already do. If your critter can already lob exploding balls of fire, it doesn't need Fireball, too.

Oddly enough, I feel 3e suffers too much from some hold-over abilities for monsters. Back in 1e, if things could teleport and the like, that meant that the PC's couldn't escape them "for cheap." Creatures no longer need these abilities, by and large, because if PC's cheaply escape them, that's okay.

I actually like certain monsters having a bunch of spells to use, but much like any NPC non-spontaneous casters it's rather annoying keeping track of which spells they're going to be using in combat. And if there's one thing I really don't like about spell-like abilities is keeping track of which spells have how many uses per day.

I think 4e might fix this by possibly making resource management by the encounter, rather than by the day. This balances perfectly for monsters, who are usually only in one encounter anyway. I foresee many "use this once every X rounds" abilities.

Now I feel a that a method to handle spell-like abilities in a new edition of D&D would be to give monsters "rulings" spell lists much like cleric domains or specialized spell-caster lists. A monster could have the rulings: Fire, Illusion and Evil up to a certain level, and they be able to use spells from that list as spell-like abilities. They would either work with point costs of spells (which might be too much book-keeping) or be tiered in some way which all low level spells of a ruling can be used at will, and the others have per day uses or slots.

Good idea for an enforced theme, though I think that each individual monster should probably have it's own uniquely chosen SLA's, myself, rather than using some metasystem to govern them.

Out of a ruling a monster had, the statblock would actually emphasize which spells they are more likely to use if they happen to know all spells in a ruling up to a certain level, or maybe rulings work in which only certain spells are known, and the ones in the statblock are the spells that a typical monster of that type knows.

It'd work. I'd still prefer more customized behavior, but it'd work.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Why this focus on combat? Why can't monsters have SLA that are beyond combat? If combat is inevitable, what is wrong with taking the time (all of five minutes, if it is that important an encounter), reading through and writing a quick little preplanned battle strategy?

I usually do come up with a quick little strategy, but when the monster has 5-10 SLAs, that gets increasingly difficult. More to the point, Mearls et al. are right -- most D&D combats do take around 5 rounds, and monsters with more than 3 signature abilities generally just get lost in the clutter(and aren't as memorable for the players).

I'm not opposed to out-of-combat SLAs, as long as they stay as far away from the combat abilities as possible, but I do -not- like wading through a ton of abilities to find the good ones -- my time is valuable and finite.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I don't have a problem with spell-like abilities. It's no different remembering what an NPC sorcerer's spells are or a wizard's prepared spells in combat.

Actually, it's easier than spells because you don't have to worry about whether or not the spell-like ability has a verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP component.

Sure, it's easier, but running NPC casters is probably THE hardest thing to do in D&D, combat-wise. I can handle legions of 1-3 ability monsters, but if you bust out a few casters, that's when I recruit a vice-DM for the session.

 

[GreatLemur]

Now I feel a that a method to handle spell-like abilities in a new edition of D&D would be to give monsters "rulings" spell lists much like cleric domains or specialized spell-caster lists. A monster could have the rulings: Fire, Illusion and Evil up to a certain level, and they be able to use spells from that list as spell-like abilities. They would either work with point costs of spells (which might be too much book-keeping) or be tiered in some way which all low level spells of a ruling can be used at will, and the others have per day uses or slots.

I'm not sure if giving monsters spell-like abilities as themed sets would be the best way to do things; it could lead to some illogical inclusions, and sounds rather like it would larger suites of SLAs than are necessarily desirable.

However, I'd strongly support a point-based system for tracking their use. Sure it's some bookkeeping, but it's a hell of a lot less bookkeeping than the current method, which effectively requires each spell-like to be tracked with its own (generally very small) point pool. Plus, I've never understood the logic behind sets of magical powers that each run on a different resource.