D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[Bill Zebub]

I think the semantic argument has become silly. If I ask you in what book the rules for Beholders are, what will you say?

Mostly the PHB. Actions/reactions/bonus actions. Initiative and turn order. Attack rolls, saving throws, movement, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Where do you find the rules for, say, an ogre?

EDIT: And I'm really not just being semantic/argumentative. I see the MM as in the same category as Adventure Path: primarily content to be used with the rules.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would suggest that there are rules in the MM, but that the stat blocks are not among them.

Yeah, exactly. It's primarily a source book, with lots and lots of specific rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Mostly the PHB. Actions/reactions/bonus actions. Initiative and turn order. Attack rolls, saving throws, movement, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Would you? For reals? If someone during the game asked you to hand them the book which has the rules for Beholders you'd give them PHB and not MM? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Would you? For reals? If someone during the game asked you to hand them the book which has the rules for Beholders you'd give them PHB and not MM? I seriously doubt it.

Well, you have to admit, the phrase "the rules for Beholders" is kinda weird. In 40 years of D&D I don't think I've said the words "the rules for X" where X is a monster. Have you?

Maybe "the rules for creating a golem" or "the rules for becoming a lich".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, you have to admit, the phrase "the rules for Beholders" is kinda weird.

No.

In 40 years of D&D I don't think I've said the words "the rules for X" where X is a monster. Have you?

Yes.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No.


Yes.

Huh.

You learn something new every day.

So what context do you use that in? Because in this thread I believe you've been saying "stat bloc" not "rules".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Huh.

You learn something new every day.

So what context do you use that in? Because in this thread I believe you've been saying "stat bloc" not "rules".

I think it is pretty normal to say 'rules for monsters' and things like that. And it is really weird for me to see people arguing that these things are not rules. Are spells rules, are feats rules, are class and race writeups rules?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think it is pretty normal to say 'rules for monsters' and things like that. And it is really weird for me to see people arguing that these things are not rules. Are spells rules, are feats rules, are class and race writeups rules?

The rules for monsters are on the first few pages of the MM.
And some are in the PHB and DMG I am sure.

But stat blocks are no rules. They are as much rules as your specific character is. Those blocks are results of applying rules. And none of them are fixed. Oterwise your elven character is against the rules, because you have abilities that your MM elf does not have.
Or an Orc who misses an arm and can't use tge great axe and now attack only with a hand axe. All against the rules?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The rules for monsters are on the first few pages of the MM.
And some are in the PHB and DMG I am sure.

But stat blocks are no rules. They are as much rules as your specific character is. Those blocks are results of applying rules. And none of them are fixed. Oterwise your elven character is against the rules, because you have abilities that your MM elf does not have.
Or an Orc who misses an arm and can't use tge great axe and now attack only with a hand axe. All against the rules?

That they aren't fixed in a sense that you can make modified versions of them do not in nay way or form stop them from being rules. Beholder rules contain rules for what its eye attacks do. If these are not rules, then its eyes mechanically do nothing!

 

[niklinna]

It's so nice to see a thread on enworld not devolve into bickering over the meaning of jargonwords.