Monsters with spell lists is not a good sign

[Neonchameleon]

Incidentally, does this mean that people are actually using stat blocks straight out of the monster manual during play? Monster books are usually my facorite books. However, in over ten years, I've only done this a few times, usually for summoned monsters and always out of desperation. Regardless of how it's formatted, the monster in the manual is an 'average' monster, something I would never want my PCs to encounter. Thus, I'm not really seeing how usability of a stat block in play is a big issue.

Life is too short for 'average'.

Yes. I routinely do this.

To echo pmerton, I absolutely and emphatically run monsters straight out of the monster manual in 4e. I run a sandboxy campaign - who the PCs choose to fight is up to the PCs not the DM. And I've been known to prepare for where I thought they were going and have them head off twenty five miles in the opposite direction to somewhere I only had a rough outline of. I don't have the time or inclination to prepare every monster in the campaign world or the wandering monster table on the offchance the PCs could meet them.

As for all monsters in the monster manual being average, not in 4e they aren't. The kobold writeup in Monster Vault has IIRC the Kobold Minions (semi-combatants who can wield slings), kobold quickblades (really nippy skirmishers who shank you harder the further they move in a turn), Kobold Dragonshields (Defenders of the Eggs), and Kobold Slingers (complete with slinging pots full of stuff). And, I think a chieftain and dragon shaman.

These aren't average kobolds. This is an organised force of kobolds of varying types - which tells me far more immediately how kobolds organise themselves than a single statblock - it certainly isn't wasted space. For that matter it shows me about the social organisation what the 2e Monstrous Manual only tells me. And certainly doesn't lead to average kobolds. It instead leads to a force of kobolds with some elites wandering around.

Okay.

It is not clear to me whether or not you are a DM. In any case, you do not speak for all of us. Preparing monsters and NPCs is the primary form of preparation I do.

And I prepare the NPCs. I prepare their motivations, and pick their trained skills and rituals. Their combat statblocks can come straight out of Monster Vault in 4e - this will not make them average.

This is common to 4e DMs. Because the 4e Monster Manual (and in particular the later ones like Monster Vault and Threats to Nentir Vale) are significantly more awesome than those in previous editions.

Moreover, PF has done something rather nice in creating simplified templates that are easy to apply quickly, which addresses exactly this issue. It shouldn't be a time-consuming process.

If the PCs are fighting monsters I didn't expect them to even meet for the next few months then two minutes is a time consuming process.

Moreover, as I alluded to above, what else is there to work on?

Social organisation, worldbuilding, plotting the session.

All of this reasoning misses the real problems with using monster stat blocks as written. If a monster entry says for example "8 HD, Advancement: 9-24 HD"

Then I'd agree with you. I'd not consider the monster manual fit for purpose. Fortunately I DM 4e - our monster manuals don't pull that rubbish. What we get instead are the default ogres, cave-ogres (smaller and weaker ambushers who are on the edge of the tribe), ogre juggernauts (bigger and stronger ogres who use their brute force to crash through the enemy), ogre storm shamans, Arena-trained ogres, Ogre Ironclads (a.k.a. "Oh F**k! That ogre's wearing plate armour!"), etc. (These are actual examples of MM3 and MV ogres in 4e)

Beyond the purely philosopical backing, the reason to change monster stats to surprise the PCs; many players are quite familiar with the monster manual. It's not good if the player knows the basic stats of whatever he's fighting before the battle starts. It also allows for a more tactically engaging game, because more of the rulebooks comes into play.

This sounds like a hell of a lot of work to simply get to the equivalent of Monster Vault. Even if I'm familiar with the monster manual, it helps make the game tactically engaging - I know we have to split that hobgoblin shield wall up for instance. And four kobold quickblades and a clutch of minions darting through the middle of the party are going to be a completely different challenge from two kobold dragonshields trying to keep us off three really obnoxious kobold slingers. This, of course, has nothing to do with more of the rulebooks coming in to play. Just different parts.

Well, okay. But if you talk ablout monster stat blocks not being usable during play (as some have in this thread), to me this is like saying that you don't cook and walking into a grocery store and complaining that the food is broken because you can't eat it right away.

And to me it's like compaining that the restaraunt we are used to using is overrun with cockroaches and we're being redirected to the old grocery store that sold bland food at an extortionate markup to the point that eating at the restaraunt was actually cheaper.

You would never expect to read the entry for "elf" or "fighter" in the PHB and be able to run a character without doing any character creation.

Of course you wouldn't. But there is a vast difference between the work a player needs to put in to his one and only character and a DM needs to put into every single NPC. Most NPCs don't need tweaking for combat. And when you roll up a PC you expect them to last months and be spotlighted. Not maybe last half a session before going down under the PCs swords - or last a dozen or more sessions but only walk onto the stage to haggle with the PCs.

4e monster design philosophy IME, and in the experience of many other DMs, simply leaves 3.X or pathfinder monster design in the dust. And what we're getting is a huge step backwards on current showing.

 

[Savage Wombat]

But there's a line here. I don't care if your big flaming demon gets his powers from special "demon flame" power entries instead of SLAs. That's fine.

But if I see a lich, an powerful undead wizard transformed by necromancy, he'd darn better be able to do something besides go "zap" every round and be hard to kill. And I don't see why a goblin shaman shouldn't use the same spell system as the heroes. Is there a difference in how he gets his magic?

 

[Transformer]

Neonchameleon--

Amen. Even though I like 4e, I don't think many things about it are unequivocally better than previous editions, but monster stat blocks and the crunchy part of the MM absolutely are. 5e must must must bring back 4e-style statblocks. Once you DM them, everything else is miserable.

But if I see a lich, an powerful undead wizard transformed by necromancy, he'd darn better be able to do something besides go "zap" every round and be hard to kill. And I don't see why a goblin shaman shouldn't use the same spell system as the heroes. Is there a difference in how he gets his magic?

I don't care if actual NPC spellcasters use the same spells as the PCs, and even have a similar progression in how many spells/day of what level they get (though there's no point in giving them more than they could possibly use in a combat); that's fine, as long as every spell in the book is carefully designed with NPCs and well as PCs in mind. But the presentation must allow for every spell a prefabbed NPC can cast to have a 1 or 2 line summary in a concise statblock. If I have to have 10 different pages in two different books bookmarked to run a spellcaster monster in 5e, I simply won't DM 5e. I'm not doing that to myself. I know many 4e DMs feel that way.

 

[jadrax]

But there's a line here. I don't care if your big flaming demon gets his powers from special "demon flame" power entries instead of SLAs. That's fine.

But if I see a lich, an powerful undead wizard transformed by necromancy, he'd darn better be able to do something besides go "zap" every round and be hard to kill. And I don't see why a goblin shaman shouldn't use the same spell system as the heroes. Is there a difference in how he gets his magic?

This. I have no use for a game where only the PCs get flexible magic.

 

[Doug McCrae]

And I don't see why a goblin shaman shouldn't use the same spell system as the heroes. Is there a difference in how he gets his magic?

Shamanism involves entering a trance state to interact with spirits and the spirit world. It's quite different from Vancian spell casting, which is about the memorisation of quasi-scientific formulae.

Traditionally D&D sets up a world where PCs from the 'civilized' lands, with their platemail, crossbows, and spellbooks, cross the frontier to kill and steal from tribal creatures such as goblins, and even stranger entities deep below the Earth.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This. I have no use for a game where only the PCs get flexible magic.

In 4e I open the ritual casting system to the relevant NPCs - but ritual magic from NPCs seldom (although not never) happens onscreen. And I've never used or seen it in a fashion where the exact details were necessary. And in 5e with 4e style statblocks I'd do the same. The statblock gives me the spells that will be used on the spur of the moment - the equivalent in 3.X to the prepared spells (ignoring buffs) that can be cast in a few seconds.

[MENTION=1932]Savage Wombat[/MENTION], the reason a goblin shaman shouldn't use the same casting system as the NPCs is that it's pointless tedium for the DM to stat. Nine goblin shamans out of ten are going to only have walk on parts. What I need to know is that other goblins look up to them, how they keep order, and what they do in combat if I think the PCs are going to gank them. I don't need to roll out every time the shaman tries charming a goblin. At most he should therefore have a simplified version of the PC's spell system. The players each have one PC to run. I have one shaman, one apprentice shaman, a boss, an underboss, eight worg riders plus worgs, and thirty two tribesmen to run. Making the shaman as complex as a PC (as giving him exactly the same magic system pretty much does) means I've got a lot of pointless things to worry about.

The Lich in combat does go a mixture of zap and animate skeleton - and a few more wizardly tricks. And by the time I need his statblock that's most of what he'll be doing. He'll also be animating entire graveyards in hour long rituals. But I certainly don't need to track his ingredients every time he does so. And unless the PCs plan to start stealing souls I just need to say he's animated his skeletal fire-breathing horse, I don't need to tell the PCs how.

 

[Hautamaki]

Don't tell my players but... I don't prep anything monster stat-wise at all. The monsters get their stats when the PCs encounter them. My key for a room might be: 5 orcs. When the PCs burst into the room and ask what they see I'll say 'You see 5 orcs (randomly grab 5 orc minis) looks like there's 2 with sword and shield, 2 with spears, and one shaman looking fellow. (My PCs are now level 4 so these should be elite orcs to pose any problem for them) These orcs look tougher than your average orc! Especially this guy! (randomly point to one--that guy is now the leader of this little group and has enough HP to take 2 or 3 hits and a better attack and defense bonus, the rest I'll give only enough attack and defense to hit/dodge about 40% of the time and only enough HP to barely survive on a weak hit) Roll initiative puny humans! (while they do this, I scribble in a spot for HP and make up a spell I want my shaman to cast. Probably something simple and firebally for an Orc Shaman).

Voila: 0 prep-time encounter ready for business.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I think you're acting like you have to personally write-up a spellcaster every time you want to use one. If you're willing to use the "goblin shaman" pregen from the MM in 4e, you should be willing to use a "goblin shaman" with a short list of pre-prepared spells. You don't have to make every monster spellcaster a specialist; you don't have to give every dryad druidic shapechanging; you can, however, say that a goblin priest of malglubiyet is functionally the same as a PC cleric and thus uses the same spell list, instead of making up a "curse of malglubiyet" power out of whole cloth.

I think you're imagining the typical worst-case scenario of statting out a 16th level wizard NPC, instead of just saying "well, shamans cast spells the same way PCs do". Take your standard level-effective monster template, and jot down a few spells they can cast. Done.

 

[pemerton]

Well, okay. But if you talk ablout monster stat blocks not being usable during play (as some have in this thread), to me this is like saying that you don't cook and walking into a grocery store and complaining that the food is broken because you can't eat it right away.

You would never expect to read the entry for "elf" or "fighter" in the PHB and be able to run a character without doing any character creation. It seems very unnatural to me that some people expect that out of their monsters. If anything, a monster stat block should look more like a mix of race and class information, because it serves the same purpose. It is a character creation tool.

Example stat blocks are fine, but I hate paying for stat blocks in my books when I can write better ones myself. I'd rather see the "Orc Warrior 1", "Orc Shaman", and "Orc Warlord" published separately for people who use that sort of thing, rather than clogging up the core monster manual.

It seems to me that you're running together the player and the GM roles.

The players build and play PCs. These can be as detailed as you like. I happen to like Rolemaster, but I'm also coming to like 4e quite a bit.

The GM build and runs situations. These situations include, over the life of the campaign, dozens and dozens of monsters. They are not PCs. They don't have the same screen time. They are not run by me with the same mechanical care and devotion (given that at any one time I'm probably running mutiples of them).

Monster stat blocks, for me, are not character creation tools. They are story elements expressed mechanically. If I can't read it and run it, it's not doing it's job. If I want to create my own story elements expressed mechanically, I don't need to buy a Monster Manual!

A monster isn't a task. It is a character in the story. A more interesting monster makes for a more interesting story (up to the point where the monster detracts from the story because the DM is showboating). An 'average' monster is not worth the game time for me that I would spend running it. If I'm going to spend time out of my busy life to fight a D&D battle, it had better be more interesting than mowing down some orcs straight out of the monster manual.

To echo [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] (with whom I seem to be agreeing a lot lately!), this suggests that you're not that familiar with the 4e Monster Manuals.

I haven't used any orcs in my 4e game, but I've used lots of goblins, hobgoblins and gnolls. And the MM entries for these are excellent. Especially gnolls. My PCs have probably fought over a dozen gnolls, and I suspect I've never had to duplicate a stat block more than two or three times - I have gnoll hunters, gnoll archers, gnoll flesheaters, disease spreading gnoll mystics of Yeenoghu (I can't remember their official name at present), gnoll skulkers, and a host of other gnolls. Plus hyenas. Plus a system where it was very easy to stat up a hyena pack (as a swarm) when I needed one.

Hobgoblins are similar in diversity, and with their phalanx tactics and resilience play very differently from gnolls. Goblins too.

These are far and away the best monters books I've encountered for an RPG.

 

[pemerton]

But if I see a lich, an powerful undead wizard transformed by necromancy, he'd darn better be able to do something besides go "zap" every round and be hard to kill.

I've used one lich to date in a 15-level campaign. It lasted three or four rounds. So it's three or four (I can't remember now) standard action options, plus an interrupt or two, were ample.

It's non-combat stuff happened off stage, as part of the sceneframing process rather than action resolution, so I didn't need mechanics for that.