D&D 5E Spells in Stat Blocks are Terrible

[Obryn]

As previously noted they've added 32 pages to the MM just to include all the monsters they've designed. By not raising the price WotC is already reducing their profit margin.

If you then add spell descriptions you're expanding the page count even more! Understand that the cost of paper is the single biggest expense in production.

I agree that it would be more convenient to have a short description listed with each spell in each monsters stat block. I'm absolutely sure I'd not be willing to pay 20 or 30 dollars more for a book that's already 50 dollars for such a minor convenience.

First off, if there's THAT many monsters with spells, that it would cost $20-$30 more to print a book with some capsule summaries, then ... wow. That would mean two things: (1) you're darn right I want those capsule descriptions right there if that's what you're going to be using for that many monsters, and (2) they should really seriously cut down on the number of spells per monster, because that's a lot of avoidable overhead and complexity. Oh, and I guess three things - (3) holy cow am I not running 5e without capsule summaries if there's that many monsters with spells!

Second, assuming there's some semblance of a reasonable amount of monsters with actual spells, I'd be perfectly happy either paying $5 extra or taking 10% fewer monsters. At-table usability and reference minimization are seriously that important to me.

 

[steeldragons]

That one and--I forget the name, but you played an elf with a talking amulet, exploring your family's old ancestral castle--always struck me as being the most "feels like an actual D&D experience to me" entries in the series.

"Return to Brookmere."

Just saying. Carry on.

 

[Sammael]

I agree with the OP. Merely referencing spells in stat blocks are a bad idea, when I run a creature I want its stat block to be self-contained. I'd gladly lose a few monsters from the MM if it meant the ones that are there are easier to run (with at least capsule descriptions of all their special abilities).

 

[YRUSirius]

Take a post-it. Write short spell summaries on it. Post it on the monster entry. Done.

For the Starter Set adventure you will need 3 post-its.

Let's hope monsters with spells will be few in the Monster Manual, so you'll only need 20-30 post-its. I'm sure after 10 post-its you might remember those few spells anyway.

And if you don't want to buy post-its, just make notes with a pencil beside the spell lists.

-YRUSirius

 

[Stormonu]

My guess is that somewhere around 80% or more of the monsters we find in the MM won't have spells - for 10th level or lower, at least.

However, I agree that in those cases where we do get spell-using opponents, I'd prefer a quick spell summary so I don't have to spend time memorizing it ahead of time or waste time looking it up in the middle of the game. Say, something like (not up on the 5E stats, just making it up).

Sleep; Range 30 ft.; 4HD put to sleep (Wis DC 12 negate); Duration 1 minute
Magic Missile; Range 400 ft.; Auto-hit; 1d4+1 force damage
Silence; Range 30 ft.; 20-ft. radius area of silence; Static area or Wis DC 13 negate); Duration 5 minutes
Fireball; Range 400 ft; 30-ft radius area; 6d6 (Dex DC 14 half)

If the corner cases come up, then you can go look up the spell details.

 

[Agamon]

Morningstar will help in this department, I bet. I know, I know, not everyone uses a PC or tablet or phone or calculator or abacus at the table. It'll help me, anyway.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I get where Obryn is coming from. There's a rational there. Personally, I don't mind, and even like that it's just a limited list of spells. But, I tend to play casters, so I look at a spell list and, more often than not, know how each spell works.

They've already taken the step of limiting spells to actual spellcasters, and even then the spell lists in the Starter Set are short.

 

[Obryn]

They've already taken the step of limiting spells to actual spellcasters, and even then the spell lists in the Starter Set are short.

Have they, though, with the Flameskull? Why should that be a spellcaster? That's one of the things giving me pause, here.

 

[Sammael]

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

 

[Stormonu]

Have they, though, with the Flameskull? Why should that be a spellcaster? That's one of the things giving me pause, here.

I believe in the original lore, they were wizards who made the foolish mistake of casting fire spells in the (Spelljammer) Phologiston. Sort of like a flaming (demi-)lich.

<EDIT> Oops - apparently I'm thinking of a Firelich. Now I'm wondering where they first appeared (I'm thinking something FR), as I have them in my compiled (photocopy) Monstrous Compendiums, but I don't know where they originally appeared.