D&D 5E Spells in Stat Blocks are Terrible

[wedgeski]

Flameskulls are supposed to be made from skulls of spellcasters (or at least they used to be), so that makes some sense.

It is described thus in the Lost Mines monster appendix, so that lore is intact.

 

[wedgeski]

I can live with this. I loved 4E's stat-blocks, but for complex high-level opponents, as monster design matured and started to really work the system, they often got as large and unwieldy as 3E stat-blocks anyway. For low-to-mid opponents, they were second-to-none and very easy to use. At least in 5E the spell attack bonus and save DC's are consistent across all spells, so that's something you don't need to look up on a per-spell basis.

 

[Morrus]

I don't mind it. I'd find that bad guys only having abilities that fit in a tiny box on a stat block to be limiting. Sure, the 2-page spell lists of the past are kinda daft, but we're talking two extremes.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Yeah I like it, or am OK with it. 4E spell casters always seemed to boring for me to play as a DM. Very limited in their options. I have no probs printing out all the spells I don't know 100%

 

[Psikerlord#]

I greatly prefer spell lists. otherwise spells have to be too simple. im really glad its this way, and find the OP quite hilarious. deal breaker, hahahahahah! of all the things you could choose?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I greatly prefer spell lists. otherwise spells have to be too simple. im really glad its this way, and find the OP quite hilarious. deal breaker, hahahahahah! of all the things you could choose?

What?!

It's a very reasonable objection to something that was a real and serious problem in 2E and 3E. "Hilarious" strikes me as a totally bizarre reaction. It's a much bigger issue, in PRACTICAL, REAL GAMEPLAY terms than, say, whether Paladins are LG-only.

For all the people saying it's "okay" - there's absolutely no excuse for not including very short write-ups of spells where possible. None. Sure, some complex spells can't have them, but many spells could, and they absolutely should. To not have that is lazy and retrograde. I'm particularly concerned when people who write 3PP stuff think this is fine.

Range, area, damage, what save (and what saving does), V/S/M and whether it's concentration should all be on there for combat spells.

MM spellcasters better have default "spells known" lists, too.

 

[Dausuul]

Count me in favor of having "capsule summaries" of the spells. Yes, it will bulk up the statblocks a bit, but it's not as if this will be necessary for every monster; only those which are true spellcasters. I approve of having spellcasting monsters (and only spellcasters) use actual spells, but it would be nice to have some reminder text for the details.

 

[Pickles JG]

I would rather have capsules but if the spell lists are not too long (3-4 spells) or obscure I can probably cope.

4e had every monster set to complexity 3 with elites at 4 & solos at 5. 5e has a lot of complexity 1 moststers so some more complex "leaders" is relatively tolerable.

It's a shame the spellcasters get to have all of the cool things to do though.

I expect there wil be more & more "casters" with ever longer spell lists though (despite the casting level scalingeffect of 5e making this less needed)

 

[Crothian]

I like the spell lists. Sure more information is nice but not needed. Many times I swap out spells on a spell list anyway. It is a minor thing to look up a spell and I can have that prepared ahead of time because as DM I know what encounters and monsters the PCs will face.

 

[Obryn]

I greatly prefer spell lists. otherwise spells have to be too simple. im really glad its this way, and find the OP quite hilarious. deal breaker, hahahahahah! of all the things you could choose?

Oh, well, next time rather than an actual gameplay concern about paging through books at the table, I'll pick some vague philosophical reason like "Hit Points: How Do They Work?"