D&D 5E Repeating information for easier reference VS Shared description to save space

[Dausuul]

Mixed bag. If a given ability is shared by two monsters in the entire Monster Manual, it's silly to turn it into a stand-alone ability. Just reprint it in each. Likewise, an ability which is widespread but can be explained in one line of a statblock might as well be reprinted. On the other hand, a spellcasting monster should not have every spell written out in full.

 

[Li Shenron]

Class spell lists belong with their classes.

I agree on this. Much better to have "Clerics spell list by level" in the Cleric chapter rather than clump all class spell lists in the Spells chapter.

Specialties were much better with their feats underneath. (Of course that requires that all feats only belong to one speciality.)

Well this is an example that proves it isn't an easy choice... Those groups who use feats but not specialties would have to remember where to find each feat. However this is PC's material so each player only has a few things to remember, and they are going to be written on the character sheet.

Even if all Yuan-ti do constrict, "Yuan-ti traits" is not enough.

If the game is going to be stable for at least several years before getting a revision, then they can drop the "monsters type traits", because those are mostly useful in a game is revised continuously, so that they can update the traits of all creatures in one go.

Otherwise I think it's actually better to have no common "traits" that work as absolute bounds i.e. apply to really all creatures of the same type. For example, do we really need all undead to have darkvision? To be immune to criticals? Maybe a very few traits can be common, but then if they are really few, reprinting them is not a big deal.

I would still like to see a MM divided into chapters by creature type, but then the common text can be more about the common story* rather than the common mechanics - and for instance, certainly the idea that all creatures of the same type must share hit dice, skill points, saving throws and attack bonuses is going away!

* such as "what is an undead? what kinds of undead exist?", "what does it mean for an elemental to be alive?" or "where do feys come from, why such different creatures are all called fey?"

 

[Nytmare]

I'm generally a mixed bag as well, which is why I coded my combat tracking program to load a monster's entire combat block into a mouseover.

If it's a book with a list of information, I prefer shared info. If it's a chunk of information that I'm trying to use as reference material, I want all the information in one spot.

 

[Jester David]

Mixture.

Classes should contain all their information even if it repeated the are information again and again.
Monsters powers and abilities should contain all the usable information.

But things like monster type or certain keywords are the exception because they're so finite. Although any immunities and resistances should be repeated as single words in an immunity line.
It's a pain in the ass the first time but saves time and space in the long run.

 

[DEFCON 1]

When it comes to monster stat blocks... I want everything needed to run the monster right there in the block... including applicable spell descriptions.

I ran a half-dozen D&DN games at PAX East two weekends ago... and I did not have any descriptions for the spells that the evil clerics or wizards had. Part of that was my fault for not printing the Spells chapter of the playtest packet at home... but in actuality... I don't think I should have needed to. If an evil cleric has Command, Cure Wounds and Inflict Wounds in its stat block... I want a condensed description of all three spells right there so I know exactly how it plays.

Which also goes along with my feeling that 4E monster design is preferable to 3E design, in that you only list the two or three most important spells that monster might actually use for a particular combat (with their condensed descriptions), rather than a full-on list of every spell the monster would actually probably know. It's having a 12 level Evil Cleric with a list of 12 different spells that he has prepared that I think is a waste of space, considering he's going to get off at most like three of them before he's dead.

 

[Dausuul]

When it comes to monster stat blocks... I want everything needed to run the monster right there in the block... including applicable spell descriptions.

I ran a half-dozen D&DN games at PAX East two weekends ago... and I did not have any descriptions for the spells that the evil clerics or wizards had. Part of that was my fault for not printing the Spells chapter of the playtest packet at home... but in actuality... I don't think I should have needed to. If an evil cleric has Command, Cure Wounds and Inflict Wounds in its stat block... I want a condensed description of all three spells right there so I know exactly how it plays.

Which also goes along with my feeling that 4E monster design is preferable to 3E design, in that you only list the two or three most important spells that monster might actually use for a particular combat (with their condensed descriptions), rather than a full-on list of every spell the monster would actually probably know. It's having a 12 level Evil Cleric with a list of 12 different spells that he has prepared that I think is a waste of space, considering he's going to get off at most like three of them before he's dead.

I disagree. The evil cleric may only have a chance to cast three spells, but how do you know in advance which spells he's going to cast? For that matter, how do you know the players are going to fight him? They might decide to negotiate. They might hit him with charm person and have him roll a 1 on his save. They might beat the crap out of him, then offer to let him live if he'll cast raise dead on a PC who died earlier in the adventure. Having a full list of the cleric's spells allows the DM to handle situations other than a simple fight. It also enhances player understanding of the game world (if he casts harm on you, that means he's got access to 6th-level cleric spells, which means he can probably also cast raise dead and you might be able to browbeat him into doing it on your behalf).

This is one of my beefs with 4E--the assumption that monster statblocks only need enough material for the situation where the monsters fight the PCs, mano-a-mano, straight up, to the death. It's one of the many ways in which 4E pushes the notion that combat should be a self-contained tactical wargame which is cordoned off from the rest of D&D.

Now, I do agree that spells should not be over-used in monster statblocks. The "spell-like ability" was one of the dumber ideas of the early editions, when it seemed like every other monster had an ability which mimicked a spell and required you to go look it up. Spell lists should be confined to honest-to-Demogorgon spellcasters; creatures which aren't spellcasters should have their abilities spelled (heh) out in the monster block. I expect to need the PHB spell section when I'm running a lich, but I shouldn't need it for a dragon.

 

[Stormonu]

For me, it depends on how I'll be using the book. If I'm using it when I'm designing stuff before the game or otherwise not in the middle of a game, I'd rather a consolidated index at the back of the book and short entries so more stuff can be fit in the book.

If it's expected I'll have the book open at the table (like a module or maybe the MM), then put it all in one place.

Y'know, what I'd really like to see is in the likes of the MM, lay it out without the duplication and put a scannable bar code by the monster. Scan the code with your smartphone/tablet and it gives you a version with all the details in one spot for at-table play.

 

[Ferghis]

There's a balance to be struck, and it's probably a bit different for each person. I like a lot of info in statblocks, to avoid as much page-flipping as possible. Obviously, there is a limit. I thought the 4e statblocks were a fair balance. Some things could be improved: I don't need to be told in every minion's statblock that a miss does no damage to a minion.

I imagine there must be an introductory book, with the information organized propedeutically. The rest of the books, for my tastes, should be organized as a reference books: well indexed and cross referenced, with as little repetition as possible.

Electronically, a wiki format works best. Grant everyone access to the basic rules. Require subscription for the more advanced stuff. More importantly: make setting materials downloadable (after payment) as an editable wiki so you can tailor it to your campaign.

 

[Li Shenron]

For me, it depends on how I'll be using the book. If I'm using it when I'm designing stuff before the game or otherwise not in the middle of a game, I'd rather a consolidated index at the back of the book and short entries so more stuff can be fit in the book.

If it's expected I'll have the book open at the table (like a module or maybe the MM), then put it all in one place.

I think this it pretty much the crux of the matter...

Maybe WotC could publish "monsters game cards" for the purpose of using them during play, while keeping the info in MM shared (not repeated) and well organized.

But all in all, I'm starting to think that one-monster-per-page with full info* will be good enough for me, and I can resort to photocopies for the gaming table action.

*obviously some stuff will be enough repeated in name only

Y'know, what I'd really like to see is in the likes of the MM, lay it out without the duplication and put a scannable bar code by the monster. Scan the code with your smartphone/tablet and it gives you a version with all the details in one spot for at-table play.

That's some kind of innovation

 

[MarkB]

I went for "mixed bag" because I don't want every little bit of information to be duplicated, but I'd definitely like them to avoid needless cross-referencing, and especially to avoid problematic "variations on a theme" descriptions where you're never quite sure which aspects vary and which stay the same - I'm looking at you, 3.xe Polymorph spell family.