Something Awful leak.

[Gort]

And duration? If you get blinded for 5 turns, you take a Blidnded card and put a dice with 5 on it.

Being blinded for five turns sounds like the opposite of fun. At least if it's blinded (save ends) then you've a CHANCE of being effective in the near future. Being blinded for five turns means you might as well go home, in character and out of character.

 

[Szatany]

The only monster I really, really want to have spellcasting is the lich. Other than that I'm pretty flexible.

...and just like that, I'm totally off topic.

I want spellcasting tyrannosaurus! Their little hands are perfect for casting while it bites you to pieces.

Being blinded for five turns sounds like the opposite of fun. At least if it's blinded (save ends) then you've a CHANCE of being effective in the near future. Being blinded for five turns means you might as well go home, in character and out of character.

The duration was just an example, not a reflection on what I want from the game.

 

[Szatany]

double post

 

[Hassassin]

I absolutely believe conditions, spell-like abilities etc. should be explained in the monster entry. That is one thing 4e improved a lot, but didn't perfect.

However, that doesn't mean there shouldn't also be a list of conditions that are used consistently and a list of spells that most spell-like abilities are based on.

You can have a one-line definition of the effect in the monster's stat block that covers 95% of the issues likely to come up, and explain the rest in the more detailed condition/spell description. For bonus points, tell me where to find the long description with a page reference so I don't have to search through indices.

For example: fireball (5d6 fire, 20' spread in 400'; Dex 13 halves; PHB 232), or blinded (-2 and no Dex to AC, 50% miss chance, half-speed; PHB 306).

 

[Hassassin]

Being blinded for five turns sounds like the opposite of fun. At least if it's blinded (save ends) then you've a CHANCE of being effective in the near future. Being blinded for five turns means you might as well go home, in character and out of character.

Oh, come on. Even if blinded makes you only 50% as effective as otherwise, that is an exaggeration. It's not like there aren't situations where you completely lose your actions for an encounter - like dying or not being a part of it to start with. "Everyone should have something to do each round" is a good starting point, but it shouldn't be considered an absolute rule that everything must adhere to.

(And "everyone should be as effective every round" is not even a good starting point, IMO.)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

For example: fireball (5d6 fire, 20' spread in 400'; Dex 13 halves; PHB 232), or blinded (-2 and no Dex to AC, 50% miss chance, half-speed; PHB 306).

That would work fine...IF they keep spells simple. But with all the talk of making the game more like 1e-3e, none of those editions have ever kept spells simple.

A spell that simply does damage or applies a really easy to understand effect is easy to summarize in a stat block.

Try summarizing: Force Cage, Death Ward, Polymorph, Teleport(the version with the percentage chances of succeeding), Freedom of Movement...and probably any number of others.

These spells are filled with non-standard effects that require reading 2 or 3 paragraphs to understand the complete rules to. If a monster has 4 or 5 of these types of spells and there are 4 or 5 monsters in a combat, it can take forever to prepare an encounter.

Also, I'm a little more worried that they'll switch back to using really ambiguous wording given the number of times they've said they want 5e to empower DMs and rely on there being a DM. The last thing I want is a spell like Freedom of Movement spell that says "The target cannot be hindered in any way". Leaving each group to wonder "Does that mean that trees and buildings just move aside as they can't hinder him from walking forward? Does it apply to spells that put you to sleep? What about someone just grabbing you? Do they even fail to put their hands on you?" And each DM will rule differently and it'll either be the worst spell in the game or the best depending on your DM.

Especially if they do as described above and write: Freedom of Movement: Target cannot be hindered.

 

[Hassassin]

Try summarizing: Force Cage, Death Ward, Polymorph, Teleport(the version with the percentage chances of succeeding), Freedom of Movement...and probably any number of others.

These spells are filled with non-standard effects that require reading 2 or 3 paragraphs to understand the complete rules to. If a monster has 4 or 5 of these types of spells and there are 4 or 5 monsters in a combat, it can take forever to prepare an encounter.

But the same is true for non-standard monster abilities. Make it too complex and you will need a lot of space to explain it.

For the spells you mention, most monsters might only have one and that in a limited manner. For example, teleport (to lair only, no failure chance; PHB XXX), or polymorph (to human only, statistics below; PHB YYY).

Also, I'm a little more worried that they'll switch back to using really ambiguous wording given the number of times they've said they want 5e to empower DMs and rely on there being a DM.

That's a bit orthogonal to what I proposed, but having a more ambiguous description in the monster and a detailed one in the spell description is fine, IMO: freedom of movement (moves normally despite impediments; PHB ZZZ), with the PHB entry explaining what that actually means.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Pax East is a couple weeks away. While this leak is unappealing to my gaming style (real or not), I'm not going to get worked up about it until the reports from Pax either confirm or deny the data listed in the leak.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But the same is true for non-standard monster abilities. Make it too complex and you will need a lot of space to explain it.

Agreed. Which leaves you with a couple of choices:
-Don't use complex abilities on any monsters ever
-Use complex abilities on monsters but explain it in full detail on the monster and allow that much space in the stat block to give that information
-Use complex abilities, summarize them on the monster and refer to a spell list or other reference to explain the details.
For the spells you mention, most monsters might only have one and that in a limited manner. For example, teleport (to lair only, no failure chance; PHB XXX), or polymorph (to human only, statistics below; PHB YYY).[/QUOTE]
I'd be perfectly ok with that. But it doesn't have to be based off a spell list to do that. Without any real reference elsewhere, you can use those abilities. Teleport is a word everyone can understand. Change shape might be a better word than Polymorph. But they don't have to reference spells if they aren't complicated.

And periodically if you wanted a complex monster, there should be an optional rule that says "You can add spells to a monster if you want, but it counts as being X levels higher" or whatever.

I just don't want to go back to having to look up spells every combat.

That's a bit orthogonal to what I proposed, but having a more ambiguous description in the monster and a detailed one in the spell description is fine, IMO: freedom of movement (moves normally despite impediments; PHB ZZZ), with the PHB entry explaining what that actually means.

That part of my post was less directed at you and more a comment on the information we have on 5e. I'm afraid that they may just go with ambiguous descriptions inside the PHB itself.

However, having a ambiguous description in the monster's description is probably just as bad as having no description. If I want to know if Freedom of Movement can stop Entangle, I'm still going to look up the full description of the spell anyways since "impediments" can mean a lot of things.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Pax East is a couple weeks away. While this leak is unappealing to my gaming style (real or not), I'm not going to get worked up about it until the reports from Pax either confirm or deny the data listed in the leak.

The playtest at Pax East is NDAed. Also, it's likely that anyone who plays the game won't actually know enough about the game to confirm or deny most of this.

I saw another post that I believe was a real leak with someone sharing their DDXP experiences. Basically, he said "I don't know much, the DM wouldn't answer almost any rules questions and the character sheets didn't explain where any of the bonuses came from or even what half of my abilities did except in the most vague terms. We told the DM what we wanted to do, he told us what happened."

But the couple of things he did know match up with this leak perfectly. I'm convinced it's real. But I suspect that 5e as it exists right now is piecemeal with nothing in stone at all. So it could all change.