Monsters with spell lists is not a good sign

[Kinak]

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.

Last time I ran a lich in combat was 2nd Edition, although he showed back up as a friendly NPC in 3e. It literally never occurred to me I might want to stat him up as an actual PC spellcaster.

I'm thinking about it right now and it still doesn't sound like a very good idea. Even as a recurring villain that showed up nearly a dozen times and was in at least a hundred rounds of combat (total) with the PCs.

This was long before 4e, but there's just no appreciable difference between an NPC spellcaster and an enemy with half a dozen daily abilities, falling back to a less powerful ability (spell/item) if the fight lasts that long.

DMs are obviously welcome to do whatever they want with their monsters, but an NPC had better be getting player-level screentime if I'm putting player-level detail into it.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Dausuul]

I know that only the NPC spellcasters have these lists (so far), but I don't think it is unreasonable for us to shout out about it. I'd leave in the option for people who want to spend the time hand crafting the numbers and spell lists for their NPCs and just give the rest of us an easier, 4e type, solution.

Nobody's making you handcraft anything. The question is, when Wizards does the work of preparing the stat block for a spellcaster, should they include a spell list or convert the spells to powers, 4E-style?

I'm in favor of having the spell list along with a one-line brief on what each spell does. I also think actual spellcasters should be rare. A gnoll witch doctor shouldn't be a cleric or wizard, it should be a monster with some witchy powers. A lich, however, is explicitly an undead wizard, and I think there is a strong case that it should cast the same kind of spells a wizard does.

Look at it the other way. You say it's a massive pain to prep spell lists for spellcasting monsters. I agree. But I also want to have lich wizards and mummy clerics who cast spells like PCs. So why do I have to go to all the trouble of writing up spell lists for them? Why can't WotC make up a spell list and put it in the stat block for me to use?

 

[Incenjucar]

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?

4E had rules for making monsters that use PC powers.

You can make a lich that uses the same spells that the PCs use.

You can make a goblin that uses the same powers as a shaman.

 

[KidSnide]

Monsters cast spells for two reasons:
(1) Monsters cast spells because they will attack PCs by casting spells at them (or otherwise use spells in combat).
(2) Monsters cast spells when the PCs aren't around because they are doing things in the world and spell casting is a part of that.

Type (1) spell casting should have enough information in the stat block so the DM can run the combat without having to look up the spell. Even if the caster is using a standard fireball, the stat block should include the range, area, damage and save info. Sure, there may be more information that is occasionally looked up, but the stat block just needs the info used in 95% of the combats that involve that monster.

Type (2) spell casting shouldn't be detailed in the stat block. It should be possible to give a monster the capabilities of a 9th level wizard without filling 5 pages of information.

So, for monsters with a couple magic combat tricks -- those should be written out in the spell book. They may also be traditional spells (designers shouldn't shy away from that when appropriate!), but only the combat info is needed.

For traditional spellcasters used in combat, the scenario designer needs to figure out what spells those casters are likely to cast over the 2-5 rounds they will be alive in combat and provide combat stats for those spells. A list of the remaining capabilities is enough. True spell casting supervillains might end up with a long stat-block, but that's fine. They are exceptional characters who may be fought multiple times and it's OK if their combat abilities are complicated. The game still needs to be able to concisely publish the stats of a human war wizard without making the character some kind of special "not really a wizard" wizard.

-KS

 

[Drabix]

As the DM, I want to spend my time developing story, and interesting ways to challenge my players. After switching to Pathfinder, I'm spending twice as much time looking up monster spells in what seems to be three or four different aread during my prep time. That's time NOT being spent on story, etc. My players like Pathfinder character generation, but they're noticing the adventures are not as engrossing from a plot perspective. IMO, 4e got this right.

 

[Consonant Dude]

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. I would struggle to run a game without a small library of stats that I made myself. And I don't find it excessively time-consuming, because I know the rules and I work fast. If I wanted, I could limit the sources that I used (instead of referencing dozens of books) and do it even faster. If I needed to, I could buy premade stats from various sources (though I personally wouldn't),

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.

He might not speak for every DM but there are many like him and I am one

I think it's good that both sides of the fence can say how they feel and hopefully, WotC can come up with a way to satisfy most of us. Or maybe not. But that's why everybody should speak his mind.

And since you mentioned Pathfinder: You might find some things "quick" and "simplified" but they aren't enough for me. That's just how I see it. People who play Pathfinder tend to see things as simple when others find them extremely complicated.

Personally, it's definitely a game I hope DnD Next does not take inspiration from.

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.

That might be where the disconnect comes from. To me, it's not the stat blocks that make the creatures, monsters, NPCs populating the world interesting. There's different ways to flavor things other than stats and rules.

Moreover, as I alluded to above, what else is there to work on? There is campaign prep, getting the setting ready and such, but I don't know what else there is to spend time on outside the game once that's done, and that's mostly done before the 1st session. D&D is primarily an improvisational game. Looking at published adventures, I can't imagine why a DM would waste time creating that much information in advance. D&D rules are mostly about representing living creatures through character stats; it follows that most prep should take the form of character stats of some sort.

That's definitely not how I want to spend most of my prep time. To me it's more about backstory, motivation, context, personality and all the ramifications that come with this. Not to mention how those things are impacted when the PCs are interacting with the world and those characters and creatures.

I do think there is a balance to be had. I'm not saying monsters should be bland. But I'd rather have a stripped down approach that I can build upon and focus on what's important for me.

I'm sure others might prefer something else but heh, this is a good time to tell WotC what we each prefer and hopefully, they figure out what's best.

 

[Boarstorm]

Maybe I missed something, but aren't the monsters with spell lists, y'know... spellcasters?

Why wouldn't a NPC (monster) cleric draw from the same spell lists as PCs?

 

[vagabundo]

Nobody's making you handcraft anything. The question is, when Wizards does the work of preparing the stat block for a spellcaster, should they include a spell list or convert the spells to powers, 4E-style?

I'm in favor of having the spell list along with a one-line brief on what each spell does. I also think actual spellcasters should be rare. A gnoll witch doctor shouldn't be a cleric or wizard, it should be a monster with some witchy powers. A lich, however, is explicitly an undead wizard, and I think there is a strong case that it should cast the same kind of spells a wizard does.

Look at it the other way. You say it's a massive pain to prep spell lists for spellcasting monsters. I agree. But I also want to have lich wizards and mummy clerics who cast spells like PCs. So why do I have to go to all the trouble of writing up spell lists for them? Why can't WotC make up a spell list and put it in the stat block for me to use?

When I said a 4e type solution I meant something that has all the information ready to go in the stat block. I'm ambivalent about what form it takes (one liners, powers, etc). Again no problem with NPC using spells I'm just thinking of how to run this in game and how much of a PITA it will be when creating my own NPCs. 4e just made it too easy.

 

[drothgery]

Maybe I missed something, but aren't the monsters with spell lists, y'know... spellcasters?

Why wouldn't a NPC (monster) cleric draw from the same spell lists as PCs?

That's really not the issue (though an NPC in a module should have his/her pepared spells preselected). The issue is that they gave a list of spells instead of statting them all out in the monster's stat block.

 

[Dausuul]

When I said a 4e type solution I meant something that has all the information ready to go in the stat block. I'm ambivalent about what form it takes (one liners, powers, etc). Again no problem with NPC using spells I'm just thinking of how to run this in game and how much of a PITA it will be when creating my own NPCs. 4e just made it too easy.

I'm dead sure they will have guidelines for homebrewing monsters just like 4E did, and that you'll be able to use those guidelines to make NPCs as well. You'll note that the berserker (which is essentially an NPC human fighter) is built in the 4E style.

But the game should support people who like having NPC casters play by the same rules, and that means there need to be at least a handful of caster-type monsters with spell lists.