D&D 5E Spells in Stat Blocks are Terrible

[Obryn]

So I got my Starter Kit in the mail today, and after a quick review, flipped to the monsters. I noticed that out of 15-20 adversaries, 3 had lists of spells. Two were "NPCs" and the third was a monster - a Flameskull.

Now, I'm going to try and focus on gameplay stuff, not the weird navel-gazing gaming philosophy that so often embroils discussions like this. With that in mind, this is pretty much a dealbreaker for me if this is prevalent in the Monster Manual and future adventures.

First, I don't really think that monsters or NPCs need to use actual spells. But I know that's fairly controversial, so I'll accept this is just a personal taste issue, and that for me the extra usability of having a self-contained stat block (like in both 4e and 13th Age) is worth whatever tradeoffs this require. So, even if we can agree to disagree on this, there's my...

Second point. Even if we all agree that it's dandy for NPCs and some monsters to use actual spells from the PHB, the lack of any kind of capsule description to accompany them is awful. Even with a few bare notes about the save needed, damage/effects, area, and/or targets, the utility of the stat block increases and my need to open up a PHB decreases dramatically. So, if the monster has Burning Hands, tell me the basics up front - 3d6 damage, dex save for half, etc. - so us DMs don't need to borrow the PHB to run the bad guys.

This, in a game made in 2014, is pretty darn close to a deal-breaker for me on its own, and combined with everything else I'm iffy on, my desire to run Phandelver as an interlude for my group is pretty well plummeting. I've seen how 13A and 4e work with self-contained stat blocks and I just don't want to go back.

(I also have some generalized concerns about monster building from looking at the stat blocks, but I'll wait until I know more, there.)

 

[fba827]

While I won't call it a deal break in of itself, I have to admit that stat blocks not being self contained ( or summarized pertinent s) is a considerably big deal to me.
The less flipping while dming the better.

I don't often use pre-made adventures so it's less about adventure design. But it does mean I'll end up using certain minsters over others in hopes of getting self contained stat blocks more often than not.

It's a matter of personal taste and choice, I accept that. Just sharing an 'I agree' with your overall sentiment

 

[ccooke]

It's a taste thing.

If this is not to your taste, then run something that is. It might be disappointing, but it's better for everyone if we all have fun, right?
I personally prefer to have spells - when they're spells - not expanded, because I find it makes the stat block less pleasant for me to use (I can say things like "cluttered" or "unwieldy", but those are taste words - someone who prefers having all the options laid out might think just spell names is clutter).

Stuff like this is just going to come down to whether WotC made the right trade-offs to make a popular edition. Things look very promising for that, so far.

 

[Tush Hog]

It's just fine for my tastes. It has what I need. Spell save DC and Spell Attack bonus.

I don't want them to reprint spells I already know or can refresh my memory of before hand. That would make for huge stat blocks wasted on reprinting stuff from the PHB.

 

[Obryn]

I don't want them to reprint spells I already know or can refresh my memory of before hand. That would make for huge stat blocks wasted on reprinting stuff from the PHB.

You see, I don't think adding details to increase usability and reduce the need for memorization and overhead is a waste of space.

If it comes down to "Gosh, this guy's stat block is now 2 double-sided pages because we added the details for all those spells he has!" then I would humbly suggest he's got too much going on. And I'd recommend reducing the number of spells/abilities so it fits on one side of a page at most.

 

[AstroCat]

Yeah, I too would prefer some kind of scaled back spell stat block for the monsters. If they are just listed that means I have to before the game copy and paste all the monster spells into some kind of doc to have ready. It's a pain in the butt but not the ultimate deal killer, I really like 5e. I'm not sure what their reasoning behind this was? Why is it better not to include the spell stats, even in a scaled down way?

 

[ccooke]

You see, I don't think adding details to increase usability and reduce the need for memorization and overhead is a waste of space.

If it comes down to "Gosh, this guy's stat block is now 2 double-sided pages because we added the details for all those spells he has!" then I would humbly suggest he's got too much going on. And I'd recommend reducing the number of spells/abilities so it fits on one side of a page at most.

In the specific example of the starter set, where they're severely space constrained and have made several posts about how they had to repeatedly condense material to fit the budget... then yes, it is a waste of space

That won't hold so much for the monster manual, of course... there it really is just a matter of taste and style.

 

[Obryn]

In the specific example of the starter set, where they're severely space constrained and have made several posts about how they had to repeatedly condense material to fit the budget... then yes, it is a waste of space

That's fair enough, but my counter-argument is that a set for brand new players who certainly won't have the spells memorized yet, and thus it's definitely worth the space.

As for the MM - if they're spelled out better, than that's cool. Someone want to tweet [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] or something?

 

[MerricB]

After playing a lot of 4E, I'm quite ready to go back to spells in stat blocks. There are some major advantages with the system, of which the main one is that it gives the creature versatility.

One of the problems I had with 4E was that monsters were very limited in what they could do. Typically they had one main attack and one special attack. The trouble came when the players did something to negate the special attack - at that point, they lost most of their effectiveness. Having a list of spells allows monsters more versatility depending on the situation. A monster that can cast thunderwave, web and fireball is more interesting than one that only thunderwaves.

Of course, I also detest having to memorize hundreds of spells to use them with monsters... but, with any luck, most monsters will stick to a relatively small list of spells which we'll memorize easily because they're used so much.

The things I really wanted eliminated from monster stat blocks - and doesn't appear in 4E or 5E - were feats. Feats are tremendously more obscure than spells, and are a major pain in running 3E and PF.

One minor benefit of having monsters use spells is that, as the DM, I get to read spell descriptions rather than just taking my players' word for what spells do...

Cheers!

 

[fjw70]

After playing a lot of 4E, I'm quite ready to go back to spells in stat blocks. There are some major advantages with the system, of which the main one is that it gives the creature versatility.

One of the problems I had with 4E was that monsters were very limited in what they could do. Typically they had one main attack and one special attack. The trouble came when the players did something to negate the special attack - at that point, they lost most of their effectiveness. Having a list of spells allows monsters more versatility depending on the situation. A monster that can cast thunderwave, web and fireball is more interesting than one that only thunderwaves.

Of course, I also detest having to memorize hundreds of spells to use them with monsters... but, with any luck, most monsters will stick to a relatively small list of spells which we'll memorize easily because they're used so much.

The things I really wanted eliminated from monster stat blocks - and doesn't appear in 4E or 5E - were feats. Feats are tremendously more obscure than spells, and are a major pain in running 3E and PF.

One minor benefit of having monsters use spells is that, as the DM, I get to read spell descriptions rather than just taking my players' word for what spells do...

Cheers!

I agree with a lot of that. I love 4e but don't mind 5e using spells.