Monsters with spell lists is not a good sign

[pemerton]

Another vote for 4e statblocks. They are awesome.

I've never been a big prepper, so for me monsters with spell lists isn't a prep issue. It's a play issue, as I have to cross-reference books and crunch numbers (eg the monter's caster level). 4e speeds this up hugely. If anything, 4e has too many keywords in its statblocks that still require turning to the glossary to resolve.

 

[jshaft37]

I don't want monsters or NPCs to have the same abilities that PC's have. I want them to have 1 or 2 cool/unique abilities (special traits) that will be memorable for the PCs during the encounter. If I want to give a monster a spell or power from the PC list, I can do that myself.

For example give the Dark Adept "Fiery Tendrils" (1d6+3, Sphere 5' within 50', Restrained, Grant Advantage) rather than spell slots.

A mix of 4E Monster Vault and Threats to the Nentir Vale, especially the stat blocks, and B/X style monsters and maybe some 2E fluff.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm in the "Set spell lists on fire, put back actual powers." camp.

If they want to USE spells hey that's fine, but I have absolutely no interest in memorizing individual spells. Especially since the spells in this edition are 95% garbage text.

 

[Aldarc]

I too would prefer having the monster stat block all in one place and no monster spell-lists. Cross-referencing is an unnecessary pain for the DM. It was something that 4e got right.

 

[wilrich]

I wholeheartedly agree with the opening post of this thread! This is VERY troubling.

I fully intend to express myself to WotC directly through playtest feedback, but I also want to add my voice here in case they peruse these forums and to make sure I speak up as much as possible in the hopes that my voice will be heard.

This could be a complete dealbreaker for me. The single greatest 4e innovation was self-contained monster stat blocks -- seeing spell lists in monster stat blocks is very discouraging and could end any interest I have in 5e.

 

[drothgery]

Yeah, all monster powers explicitly spelled out in the write-up please. Monsters don't get spells that need to be looked up elsewhere, even if they're NPC spellcasters.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Spell lists are a good thing, and it's really cool to see them back. Like others, I found spells easy as heck to memorize and they required -much- less time to use IMO versus a hundred fiddly, mildly different powers in 4e in monster stat blocks. I'd rather not backslide to 4e's take on things.

I like spells for flavor reasons, but not always for basic combat abilities.

For things like fiends and dragons, I'd prefer to see a tight list of abilities, and then a list of spells the creature can cast as a ritual. That way you can have demons with animate dead and dozens of other cool flavor spells, but only a handful of fun, useful combat abilities.

Otherwise you have the "1-2-3 demon" phenomenon:
1.DM runs the demon his first time. Party easily defeats it.
2.DM runs demon a second time, using more of its abilities. Party is challenged.
3.DM runs the demon with full and complete knowledge of its ins and outs. Party is utterly outclassed by a crazy combination of SLAs.

 

[Lanefan]

Otherwise you have the "1-2-3 demon" phenomenon:
1.DM runs the demon his first time. Party easily defeats it.
2.DM runs demon a second time, using more of its abilities. Party is challenged.
3.DM runs the demon with full and complete knowledge of its ins and outs. Party is utterly outclassed by a crazy combination of SLAs.

I like this - a monster that scales itself as the party advances in level, without changing a thing!

As for monster spells: if the opponent is a spellcaster (e.g. drow wizard, human cleric, goblin shaman, etc.) it kinda needs to have some spells to cast. 1e modules usually just list 'em right in with the rest of the opponent's stats and numbers, but then 1e monster write-ups are also the right length; as in short. And as the spells are almost always the same ones your PCs are casting all the time anyway, the quite valid assumption is you'll already have at least a vague idea of how they work, having seen them cast hundreds of times before. (and if you're a brand new DM don't worry if you have to look up the spell, chances are you're looking it up when your PCs cast it too, and it'll come to you in time)

Having used a couple of 4e modules in my game I can say this: those monster write-ups are a pain, and far too long. Att. 1, dmg 1d6+5 - how hard is that? But I'll give 'em this: at least they put 'em in with the encounter, as opposed to some other page in the back of the module like 3e did.

Lanefan

 

[Kunimatyu]

I like this - a monster that scales itself as the party advances in level, without changing a thing!

In this case it's actually the DM scaling.

A specific example:
When I first ran Babau in 3.5, they were nasty dissolve-your-weapon ambushers.

The most optimal way to run them, though, is to have the Babau teleport to where it can endlessly counterspell the party's casters (at-will Dispel Magic SLA!) without the party's melee being able to touch it. If the Babau is badly injured but not dropped to 0 over one round, it can teleport miles away, heal up, and come back. I'm not so sure they're CR6 anymore...

 

[vagabundo]

I've no problem with monster using spells. I do have a problem with having to memorise all the spells from the PHB or having to do a tonnes of prep time to run the damn things.

If they include an easily referenced block so I can run them at the table, great. Yes, they take up some extra space, but they are worth it for those of use who dislike spending our prep time on mechanics, I must prefer spending the little prep time I get working on events, stories and interesting characters.