D&D 5E Spells in Stat Blocks are Terrible

[Tony Vargas]

I am bemused by the all the responses along the lines of "I have been playing for a billion years and do not need to look up spells" responses.

That's GREAT for you. But isn't this edition supposed to be especially friendly to new players??

I really don't think that's among its (many) goals. Being "D&D for everyone who's every loved D&D" is daunting enough without also trying to be D&D for everyone who's barely heard of D&D. The only time you ever heard Mr. Mearls bring up new players in L&L, it was in reference to making the game 'simple' in the way it was when us old-timers first picked up a Basic Set or Red Box. It's an easy mistake to make, assuming that what was good for us as new playesr picking up the first RPG ever, will still be good 40 yrs later for a new player who's played CRPGs and MMOs and perhaps even a cooperative board game (since board games have really been taking off lately, and cooperative ones like Pandemic are among them) for whom the concept of RP and cooperating rather than competing to win a TT game is not so revelatory.

 

[ccooke]

This x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Okay. Whether we agree or not, I think you win the hyperbole award for this thread.
That means everyone else has to stop - any attempts to beat this amazing award will be derivative and boring, now.

So... Some people feel strongly that spells should be all spelled out. Some people feel strongly that they should be left as brief references.

The issue here is that people are making absolute statements about a matter of taste. There don't need to be any "excuses" for the layout that WotC used in the starter set - it's a perfectly valid way to lay out the information. Some people prefer it this way. Some people do not.

Conversely, the people saying this matters to them also have a point - just because it's a valid way to express the information doesn't mean that everyone has to like it.

So let's actually have a debate about the interesting point, here:

WotC have chosen a surprisingly low price point for the Starter Set - half the cost, allowing for inflation, of the original basic set. They've done this because they want to appeal to a wider playerbase than any edition of D&D has targetted in the last few decades. A lot of design of the starter set is informed by this choice - the size of the box, its durability, the structure of the adventure... and how many pages of printed material they could afford to add to the set. Even one additional page to either of the books would have added significant cost - it's no coincidence that all the booklets and books that WotC have talked about have a page count that's a multiple of 32. So, there must have been a significant amount of culling and condensing of information to fit into the 64/96 page booklets in the starter set - we can be certain that they started out with more material and then condensed and reformatted until it fit within the limits.

That puts this formatting of monster statblocks into a useful context: Was it, objectively, too condensed? Given the format, WotC must have accepted that there must be some annoyances in the reduced and compressed ruleset, because they don't have space to expand them. So, was this a step too far? If they added spells to monster stat blocks, they would have needed to cull some other information - what could have gone, instead, to pay for the extra space?

For all I prefer spells to be referenced only, I can see that having them expanded in the starter set would make sense. I'm just not sure it's important enough compared to the other things it would have cost.

(It should also be noted that the MM is not in the printers yet - given they just made a decision to add more pages, maybe they could be convinced to add expanded spells if they haven't already?)

 

[Umbran]

If you can't handle being quoted, may I suggest lurking?

Dude, a bit less snark, please. The ego contest you're starting isn't a good idea.

What you posted was a variant on "Fixed it for you," which is generally recognized as kind of rude. If you want to state a dissenting opinion, we usually suggest you use your own voice, rather than co-opt someone else's.

 

[Uller]

Okay. Whether we agree or not, I think you win the hyperbole award for this thread.
That means everyone else has to stop - any attempts to beat this amazing award will be derivative and boring, now.

So... Some people feel strongly that spells should be all spelled out. Some people feel strongly that they should be left as brief references.

This.

I really dont care one way or the other. If I see something I dont like I assume the designers, editors, etc have reasons for their decisions and I may not have all the information. It's very helpful for peoplr to point out weaknesses and other ways it could have been done and for others to point out work arounds. But when folks take the stance that something like this is the worst thing ever and completely breaks the game, I'm inclined to take the exact opposite position. For the record I hope most monsters and npcs are statted with fully described spell-like abilities but if true caster npcs have spell lists to save room that's fine.

IMXP, gamers are creative and flexible people. If it is really a problem find a solution people (a great solution is a one or two page spell summary cheat sheet...)

 

[Tormyr]

As a DM, I screw up a lot on spells and take time looking things up (especially with the changes from the playtest). I would have really liked a brief listing of the important details for each spell. Having said that, I prefer that it is not in the Monster Manual because that takes up space. I would prefer that space be used for more monsters. It is easier to copy over the details for a spell list than roll up new monsters.

 

[hayek]

Okay. Whether we agree or not, I think you win the hyperbole award for this thread.
That means everyone else has to stop - any attempts to beat this amazing award will be derivative and boring, now.

Yes!! I go for this award in every thread I'm in. I'm glad somebody appreciates all my hard work

On a more serious note, the reason I wanted to so desperately over-emphasize that point is because I think a lot of people view this thread as you have summed up here:

So... Some people feel strongly that spells should be all spelled out. Some people feel strongly that they should be left as brief references.

The issue here is that people are making absolute statements about a matter of taste.

I don't think that's the right way to view this argument. Of course, it is clear that people have different opinions, and you can't "prove" to someone that their opinion is wrong. However, there is an objective angle that can be argued, and I think it's the more important one:

1) The Starter Set/D&D Basic/PHB/MM are trying to offer a simpler/classic version of d&d where the rules don't get in the way of play. You can sit down and quickly get into an exciting story and not have to spend time referencing rules to resolve every little bit of action - in fact the goal is to have to stop play to reference rules as little as possible while still providing an enjoyable play experience. This is both to attract new players, and to offer older/lapsed players a way to get back into the hobby without feeling overwhelmed by the amount of rules (the issue of "15 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours").

2) Spell lists in stat blocks that do not handily provide all the needed information to play a monster contradict point #1 by either:
a) requiring stopping play to look up spell rules
b) requiring extensive rules/system mastery on the part of the DM
c) requiring lots of pre-session prepwork just spent transcribing/summarizing spell rules
All of these items are not amenable to the "quickly pick up and play" experience, and reinforce the feeling of the play being the product of the rules, rather than the fun being the product of the play and the rules just trying to stay out of the way

3) Of course, some people want a more involved form of play, which is perfectly understandable. More involved forms of play will be offered in modules, and monsters with detail-less spell lists should be just such a form of 'advanced' module for those who want it.

I agree with the OP that detail-less spell lists in stat blocks are terrible, not because in my one random opinion they're terrible, or even because I believe a random sampling of people posting on this forum believes that. I think they're terrible because of the provable arguments outlined above. Now, you can certainly disagree with the points outlined above, as they are arguable, but I think the thread discussion should be focused on whether, and if so why, those arguments are wrong, rather than just saying "I like spell lists in stat blocks, so I don't see what the problem is" or "I don't like spell lists either, that's at least 2 of us, so we're right".

 

[ccooke]

I agree with the OP that detail-less spell lists in stat blocks are terrible, not because in my one random opinion they're terrible, or even because I believe a random sampling of people posting on this forum believes that. I think they're terrible because of the provable arguments outlined above. Now, you can certainly disagree with the points outlined above, as they are arguable, but I think the thread discussion should be focused on whether, and if so why, those arguments are wrong, rather than just saying "I like spell lists in stat blocks, so I don't see what the problem is" or "I don't like spell lists either, that's at least 2 of us, so we're right".

Sure. But I didn't just say that...
The post you quoted tries to put the above in context of the decisions that were made for the starter set - and do you have a question for what you'd cut out of the starter set that's there now, to pay for the space expanded spells would use?

Note that I agree with your points that expanded spells are objectively better in the specific case of the starter set. I'm just saying that it's a lot more complex than just whether they're better or not, and I certainly don't know the answer.

What's more, since I won't get a copy of the starter set this month, I can't really have much of an opinion on what could be removed instead

 

[hayek]

and do you have a question for what you'd cut out of the starter set that's there now, to pay for the space expanded spells would use?

Note that I agree with your points that expanded spells are objectively better in the specific case of the starter set. I'm just saying that it's a lot more complex than just whether they're better or not, and I certainly don't know the answer.

What's more, since I won't get a copy of the starter set this month, I can't really have much of an opinion on what could be removed instead

I'm in the same boat - no Starter Set, so not certain what could've been cut. In general, my hunch would be that they could have cut down on the number of monsters with spells - I know people have said there's only 2-3, but I don't see why there needs to be any in the introductory product. People have mentioned Flaming Skulls, this looks like the perfect opportunity to just give a creature the 'Shoot Fire Out of Your Eyes' power, with 1 line of text for the effect rather than a list of spells that need referencing.

Nonetheless, I'll concede it's possible that for space needs this just had to be done in the Starter Set. My bigger concern is the Monster Manual and D&D Basic (when they get around to updating with monsters). The Monster Manual is by all reports enormous - I would certainly rather see some Monsters moved into Monster Manual 2 to make room for fully-contained stat blocks to help ease of play there. As for D&D Basic - since it's an electronic product with no space constraints there's really no excuse for not adding at least a summary of any spells listed there.

 

[ccooke]

As for D&D Basic - since it's an electronic product with no space constraints there's really no excuse for not adding at least a summary of any spells listed there.

There's that word again.

There doesn't need to be an excuse - it's an entirely valid way for the monster stat block to be structured.
I'll happily concede that the Starter Set has a case for expanded spell blocks if the space had fit, but I have a definite preference for non-expanded monster stats.

But again, the MM isn't locked in yet, so maybe you can convince the devs to adopt your preferred style. It's probably not too late, as yet... just please don't declare that other preferences have no validity at all. It's just as bad as the mocking the OP and others for caring about this issue.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Clearly they should print the books such that, when you touch a spell in a monster description, it expands the text to the full description.