Monsters with spell lists is not a good sign

[pemerton]

Incidentally, does this mean that people are actually using stat blocks straight out of the monster manual during play?

Yes. I routinely do this.

 

[AstroCat]

Please add me to the 100% all monster abilities in one place group. I hated all the BS notes I needed for the 3.5 monsters, and all their crazy abilities and unique feats, etc. After running a 2 year campaign I vowed never to DM 3.5 again.

I eventually had a lot of issues with 4e but one of the best things it did in my opinion for the DM was all the monster stats in one place, easy to read and ready to go without tons of prep and crappy notes to deal with. Life is busy enough, DM'ing can be a chore, anything that helps that cause will help the game overall.

Put all the info in one place, in every module every time the monster comes up. Done and done, more playing less mess.

 

[Transformer]

If PCs have spell lists, monsters have spell lists.

This is a colossal practical problem for most groups. One person controls a PC, and that person has controlled that PC from the beginning and knows its abilities inside and out. a DM has to control multiple monsters as well as run everything else in the game, and frequently he's using a given monster for only the first or second time. In other words, there is a clear, huge, practical reasons why PCs have spells lists and monsters must not.

And, while looking up things is annoying, having content duplicated just so it can be in a monster stat block is really annoying, because it means I'm paying money for the same content multiple times. It also tends to make stat blocks unwieldy. I hate when monsters go over 1 page. Hopefully, online tools can make referencing easier, but there really no better ways of doing this.

Definitely, having content duplicated is annoying. There is a constant trade-off between duplicating content and not including everything in a place where it is a useful reference. The only question is where the balance lies. I would say with monsters with complex, detailed spells and abilities, the balance easily lies on the side of needing it as a reference within the monster stat block. DM prep time and combat length are massively increased otherwise.

I agree monsters going over one page is a pain. I don't think they'll have to with a concise 4e-style statblock, even with added environmental and lore information.

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.

Yes, definitely, many (most?) DM regularly use stat blocks right out of the book. Reworking every stat block takes time, lots of time, even if the system facilitates it well. And sure the monsters are average for the fantasy world of the game, but are they "average" for the players (i.e., have the players seen that particular stat block before many times, so it's old hat and boring)? That's unlikely; to the players even the average monster (in the game world) is still interesting.


I'm normally a bit less direct when I post on here, but this is too important a practical issue to hedge on. It is absolutely a dealbreaker for tons of DMs. If I'd have to manually look up half a dozen spells during combat (or in prep for a game) just to run an interesting magical monster, I would not run that system. It's just too much of a colossal pain. A one or two line summary of every spell-like ability a monster has is an absolute must for a usable monster manual. This is one area where 4e was a massive, super-practical, game-changing improvement. I'm not going back.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I would prefer for all information to be in one place. Even if that means bigger stat blocks to encompass this.
Spells become difficult though. Perhaps the most important spells/spell-like abilities for the monster could be given an abbreviated write-up in the block with the rest simply referred to?
However, what I would really like to see in "adventure modules", is an appendix of monster run sheets that can be printed out, but designed to be easily usable at the table by a DM. These would have every single piece of information on them.

It is going to be hard to balance this issue right.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Zaukrie]

As a DM, and I know the monster part isn't really worked on much, it was PAINFUL to even open the monster document and look at it. I can't imagine trying to run a game that way again. Please, please, please use 4E stat blocks for monsters.

That is all on this topic for now...

 

[Nork]

If PCs have spell lists, monsters have spell lists.


And, while looking up things is annoying, having content duplicated just so it can be in a monster stat block is really annoying, because it means I'm paying money for the same content multiple times. It also tends to make stat blocks unwieldy. I hate when monsters go over 1 page. Hopefully, online tools can make referencing easier, but there really no better ways of doing this.

***

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'.

I'm going to apologize for stomping all over you here, but I think you said something that does need a bit of stomping on. It sounds good (because who is against 'excellence'), but it is realistically a fairly pernicious trap.

The productivity tanking minutia of cross-referencing rules, building monsters out with templates, or applying character classes does massive damage to most playgroups by making life hell for the DM. It is generally bad for the game as a whole.

Average is better than 'above average' when average has four times the productivity because they implement a fast and serviceable solution to solve their task and then moves on to solve the next problem (or three) instead of piddling around gold-plating everything the work on because they want to be 'above average'.

Using easy to use low work stat blocks for 'average' monsters allows a DM to spend very little time building monsters, and thereby have more time to work on the rest of the adventure. A full system constructed of average sub-systems will stomp all over a partial system with a handful of gold-plated features. This holds true for an adventure.

Average monsters make better adventures because there is more to experience in the adventure. One snarky comment by the King's interesting daughter that makes the players laugh is worth ten times the return on a gold-plated monster in a world with a boring daughterless-king with little thought put into his personality. Average monsters make finished adventures that are ready on game night, and not a half-finished mess that is being winged through because it blew pass the deadline like a bullet train on the way to Tokyo. Average monsters make DMs continue DMing instead of being burnt out because every adventure doesn't require them to spend a colossal amount of time crunching to get it done.

Life is too short to start over-ambitious projects that never get finished.

4E monster blocks were designed that way for valid reasons. Extremely valid reasons.

 

[Thraug]

When I saw the spell lists the first thing that came to my mind was, "they are going back to this antiquated spell lists only to bring back what once was, not because they are a superior way to handle monster powers".

With enough negative feedback we should convince WOTC to change these spell list into simple to use and easy power blocks. Last thing I want is 2.5 pages for one monster, listing the gory details of some bizarro polymorph spell with 8 paragraphs of text. I also won't use a monster if I have to look up the spell in a book or use an online aid just to run a monster. Nope, been there, done that, and after 4e monsters, I won't go back to it.

 

[Flobby]

Yes please get rid of spell lists for monsters. One thing that 4E got right was monsters--don't take a step backward.

 

[Shemeska]

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.

 

[Flobby]

Most people, myself included, have to look them up each time. It's a hastel. Then there is the problem of having a monster with X/day abilities--which amounts to X/encounter.