Already done, the spells and monsters from the adventure that are not in basic are online for free.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Please Put Spell Blocks in all Modules
- Thread starter ren1999
- Start date
Already done, the spells and monsters from the adventure that are not in basic are online for free.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
I am genuinely curious what the 1d20+0 in your example means.
Okay, I'll bite. This is my first time trying a multi quote message, so hopefully I don't screw it up.
2. Looking at your argument later about using shorter descriptions, I can see your point here if they used shorter descriptions. 12 spells might only take 24 to 36 lines, but that is a significant portion of a column, and a wizard with that many spells might currently only take 4-6 lines for the spell names. Several spellcasters can easily add several pages in this scenario. Most of my thoughts on this are that the spell block needs to be in its entirety to be useful, and that would take up a page or two or more per wizard. Either of these scenarios would cut down on content because these books are bound in 32 page increments. So you either increase the book by 32 pages and increase the cost, or you cut pages of content to make room for the spell blocks.
3. The short description of a spell does really need to be more than a line to be useful. If all that is included is range, area, damage and saving throw, any spell that has other stuff is left out. A DM might forget that shocking grasp makes the target lose its reaction on a hit and attacks with advantage on metal armor. Or that beacon of hope can be used on any number of creatures and gives them advantage on wisdom saving throws and death saving throws and maximizes any healing they receive. Prismatic spray, as you point out later, would be a nightmare.
While spells can have two types of attack mechanisms (spell attack or auto hit with DC), one of 6 different saving throws, different durations, bonus or regular or reaction actions, targets, shapes, etc. Each spell does not change. Magic Missile always has the same text. Beacon of hope always has the same text. Fireball always has the same text. Wish always has the same text. Because they take up significant space and never change, they are a prime candidate for inclusion by reference. This is what is done in the stat block for spellcasters right now. The attack roll modifier and DC are the same for a NPC across all of their spells. So these can be put in the NPC stat block instead of in the text for each spell.
2. You are right that it looks like the general scheme is to have the creatures at the end of the book instead of inline. I think the starter set is the same way, and the recent encounters seasons have been that way. I have had my head in a 3.5 adventure path that has the monsters and traps in-line. While the new way of doing things would not interfere with the story, placing even abridged spell blocks in the stat blocks would still require a decision to make a longer book or cut other content.
3. I absolutely agree with this. As you pointed out, the creatures are in the back of the book and not inline to the story. The only items in the appendices are the backgrounds, creatures, NPCs and magic items that are unique to the story. They are part of the unique content of the story. Every other background, magic item and creature can be found elsewhere and are not in the book. While HotDQ has an online supplement, it looks like it contains stuff that was not necessarily in basic D&D at the time, and the MM and DMG were not available at the time of HotDQ's release. Future books might not have online supplements.
If a DM wants additional spell info with a creature's stat block, they can easily copy and paste from the basic pdf or type up what they want. If they keep a list of what they typed, they only need to type each entry once and only type them as they are needed (i.e. they probably do not need to type up Wish). I do this. I do not have the spells memorized, so I have a page (or 2 or 3) of spells for the NPC so that I can quickly scan what it does and make sure I do not miss anything.
1. Most spells cannot be summarized in less than a line, the cantrips above would each take at least two if not 3 lines when printed out.
2. Looking at your argument later about using shorter descriptions, I can see your point here if they used shorter descriptions. 12 spells might only take 24 to 36 lines, but that is a significant portion of a column, and a wizard with that many spells might currently only take 4-6 lines for the spell names. Several spellcasters can easily add several pages in this scenario. Most of my thoughts on this are that the spell block needs to be in its entirety to be useful, and that would take up a page or two or more per wizard. Either of these scenarios would cut down on content because these books are bound in 32 page increments. So you either increase the book by 32 pages and increase the cost, or you cut pages of content to make room for the spell blocks.
3. The short description of a spell does really need to be more than a line to be useful. If all that is included is range, area, damage and saving throw, any spell that has other stuff is left out. A DM might forget that shocking grasp makes the target lose its reaction on a hit and attacks with advantage on metal armor. Or that beacon of hope can be used on any number of creatures and gives them advantage on wisdom saving throws and death saving throws and maximizes any healing they receive. Prismatic spray, as you point out later, would be a nightmare.
Weapons are simple and follow one of two formats: melee or ranged. The javelin shows how they both follow the same format. While they are simple, the text can be different for every NPC that uses them as the to hit and damage numbers can be different. As an aside, I mentioned that some (magic) weapons have unique abilities such as an extra die of damage or requiring a saving throw. The point was that this would be unique to that NPC (their magic item) and thus belonged with the creature. While weapons are simple, the corresponding action block is almost universally short, and each creature uses somewhere between 0 and 2 of these in there actions block. It does not take up a lot of space and includes information that can be different from one weapon to the other for the same NPC (different attack bonuses and damage bonuses for melee and ranged or magic weapons). It also fits into the 5e paradigm of writing the total modifier to a roll as one number in one place. This can be different from weapon to weapon for an NPC. So the weapon text provides a place to put those numbers.
While spells can have two types of attack mechanisms (spell attack or auto hit with DC), one of 6 different saving throws, different durations, bonus or regular or reaction actions, targets, shapes, etc. Each spell does not change. Magic Missile always has the same text. Beacon of hope always has the same text. Fireball always has the same text. Wish always has the same text. Because they take up significant space and never change, they are a prime candidate for inclusion by reference. This is what is done in the stat block for spellcasters right now. The attack roll modifier and DC are the same for a NPC across all of their spells. So these can be put in the NPC stat block instead of in the text for each spell.
The books have avoided shorthand except for the saving throws in the stat block. While you could do this, it requires the user to learn a shorthand and all writers to adhere to it. If someone changes their nomenclature or a mistake is made that passes the editors, that will throw some people off. These books and pdfs follow a two column format partially to avoid wasting space from short lines. After a 5 character indent to identify spell lines (or indicate a second line), there are about 60 characters available to the end of the line. At 116 characters, the fireball example might fit inside 2 lines, but at 217 characters, the shocking grasp example would take 4 lines. The examples above are highly compressed and already are taking up more than one line each. If page numbers were given for special effects, the DM is back to looking much of it up as many spells have a special effect. Abjuration spells are mostly special effects.
1. Already covered books being printed in 32 page increments. If you add even a few lines per spell in a stat block, you are talking about a couple of pages once you include all of the spellcasters. At that point you have to increase the page count by 32 or drop some other content to make room. WotC is concerned about page counts. When they announced they could not fit everything they wanted in the Monster Manual, they increased it by 32 pages. They made a business decision to include certain monsters they felt were necessary while taking a hit by not raising the price of the book. pdfs would not have this problem, but if there was a pdf available, there probably would be a pdf of the necessary spells available to search.
2. You are right that it looks like the general scheme is to have the creatures at the end of the book instead of inline. I think the starter set is the same way, and the recent encounters seasons have been that way. I have had my head in a 3.5 adventure path that has the monsters and traps in-line. While the new way of doing things would not interfere with the story, placing even abridged spell blocks in the stat blocks would still require a decision to make a longer book or cut other content.
3. I absolutely agree with this. As you pointed out, the creatures are in the back of the book and not inline to the story. The only items in the appendices are the backgrounds, creatures, NPCs and magic items that are unique to the story. They are part of the unique content of the story. Every other background, magic item and creature can be found elsewhere and are not in the book. While HotDQ has an online supplement, it looks like it contains stuff that was not necessarily in basic D&D at the time, and the MM and DMG were not available at the time of HotDQ's release. Future books might not have online supplements.
If a DM wants additional spell info with a creature's stat block, they can easily copy and paste from the basic pdf or type up what they want. If they keep a list of what they typed, they only need to type each entry once and only type them as they are needed (i.e. they probably do not need to type up Wish). I do this. I do not have the spells memorized, so I have a page (or 2 or 3) of spells for the NPC so that I can quickly scan what it does and make sure I do not miss anything.
Sorry, it was not a reading comprehension issue. I just missed the line where you said it might be int instead of dex. I comprehended it just fine when I checked it now.
I do not believe I was being defensive. I did specifically state that I was not attacking you but demonstrating how difficult it was to include everything for a spell in a couple of lines. I do value your opinion and the opinion of others who come down on both sides of an issue,. See the end of this post for evidence of that. Setting up a straw man is not going to help.
I am aware that there have been plenty of calls for more information in spellcasters stat blocks. Spells in a spellcaster's stat block have been lists of names for a long time (maybe not exclusively, but my limited experience of past editions has been that way), and I do not expect it to change. I do not enjoy looking up spells myself. I would venture that almost no DMs enjoy that. While some DMs have almost all of it memorized and others look it up, I copy and paste or type up the spells that a creature uses so that I have a copy of everything available for the creature. It takes a few minutes, but I am prepared at the table.
Mouseferatu
Hero
FWIW...
Just about every D&D book--in fact, just about every RPG book--is designed with an all-but-inviolate word count target. The book will not be permitted to go much over or under.
That the MM was expanded at the last minute with no price change is remarkable for many reasons, but one of them is just that such a thing happens so rarely.
So, yes. Anything added to an adventure's word count means something else removed.
Just about every D&D book--in fact, just about every RPG book--is designed with an all-but-inviolate word count target. The book will not be permitted to go much over or under.
That the MM was expanded at the last minute with no price change is remarkable for many reasons, but one of them is just that such a thing happens so rarely.
So, yes. Anything added to an adventure's word count means something else removed.
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
Put me in the camp of wanting spell information with stat blocks. I have not run 5E yet, but from when I've played it, monsters with spellcasting drag the game to a halt as the DM attempts to find the spell they want in the PHB. Ugh.
Now I don't want everything there, but certainly if a spell is likely to be used in a combat, yeah notes please! This can help to make sure the game runs faster and that the DM gets the spell right. I don't need to know what comprehend languages does, but combat spells? Yes please!
Now I don't want everything there, but certainly if a spell is likely to be used in a combat, yeah notes please! This can help to make sure the game runs faster and that the DM gets the spell right. I don't need to know what comprehend languages does, but combat spells? Yes please!
fanboy2000
Adventurer
So, I ran some Acolytes in a 5e homebrew I ran last week. They have spells. Looking-up the spell I want to cast in my PHB actually wasn't a problem. The spells are fairly clear and they only had a few spells relevant to a combat encounter, it was easy to pick one.
We'll see how I feel about this at higher levels.
We'll see how I feel about this at higher levels.
Uller
Adventurer
Mike Mearls already addressed this. Most spell casting monsters will cast very common spells that are used frequently. Would I prefer spell descriptions in the stat block ala 4e? Yes. But I understand why it isn't and as long as most spells are commonly used, I expect I'll live.
holyground
First Post
I just don't think it's warranted. And I really don't think you need the spells seperate from monsters themselves. I mean
Shocking Grasp Cantrip+int+pro 1action touch armor at adv 1d20+0 lightning 1d8+0 +1d8 at 5th.... (no reactions till start of next turn...etc)?
Shocking Grasp, +5, action, touch, (adv against armor) 1d8+3 (7) lighting.
how is that not one line?
I mean, if you're the DM, I'm going to have to say, I kind of expect you to understand the underlying mechanics of 5th edition. You should know that spell attacks are proficiency+spellcasting mod. You should know how damage is calculated, etc.
Shocking Grasp Cantrip+int+pro 1action touch armor at adv 1d20+0 lightning 1d8+0 +1d8 at 5th.... (no reactions till start of next turn...etc)?
Shocking Grasp, +5, action, touch, (adv against armor) 1d8+3 (7) lighting.
how is that not one line?
I mean, if you're the DM, I'm going to have to say, I kind of expect you to understand the underlying mechanics of 5th edition. You should know that spell attacks are proficiency+spellcasting mod. You should know how damage is calculated, etc.
Similar Threads
