D&D 5E Spells in Stat Blocks are Terrible

[Voadam]

I much prefer 4e style monster statblocks for actual use at the table.

I'm running a pathfinder adventure path right now and the monsters in the modules and bestiaries use spell lists references too.

If I have time before games I copy and print out the expected monsters to be encountered that night with their full spell like ability descriptions for use at the table. Same thing with uncommon Feats or writing down the math of things like power attack that change combat stats. This makes it like a 4e statblock and convenient for use at the table. Things I'm intimately familiar with I don't copy over though and just rely on the lists.

Sometimes I have to look in multiple sourcebooks from the srd to get all the sources I'm unfamiliar with. I'm familiar with the majority of the core spells but not the ones from the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic or Ultimate Combat, so if I don't have time before hand those noncore powers do not get used. I do not know if I ran the three alchemist NPC stat blocks correctly on last Friday's game as it is an APG class I'm not intimately familiar with that has lots of spells and little powers that might or might not be reflected in the combat statblock.

 

[CM]

Although I am a big fan of self-contained stat blocks, I don't mind looking up a few spells if they're kept to a minimum. [MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION]'s (who I can't XP yet) one-liners would be great. You'd also have to include the at higher levels augmentations, though, or you'd be doing the monster a disservice.

 

[Sammael]

Do monsters have actual higher-level slots to use, though?

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

That strikes me as the most sensible way of handling monsters/NPCs with spells. I know that when I do run 5e I will be creating such "quick lists" for my own convenience.

Hopefully there won't be many monsters with spells, but the current "spell list" method requires DMs to do one of the following things:

1. Have mastery knowledge of the spells
2. Slow play down to look up the spells
3. Make an ad hoc ruling based on their own opinion or what they remember from a previous edition's spells

Personally, I can see a lot of situations where I as DM would do #3 and a player with greater spell mastery (#1) might correct me, only for us to resort to looking up the spell and realizing that we were both a little right and a lot wrong (ending up doing #2).

 

[CM]

Do monsters have actual higher-level slots to use, though?

Flame Skull and the one enemy spellcaster I looked at have both slots and prepared spells listed, so presumably. The monster guide doesn't have any explicit rules on spellcasting monsters. The monster stat blocks simply state that they cast spells as a level x wizard, with these slots and prepared spells available.

 

[fanboy2000]

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

Well, they're treating them like full spell casters. I mean, I don't know why Flameskulls get spells (other then the lore provided, I'm saying I don't understand the game design reasons) but he's treated as a spell caster.

They're not saying "treat X spell as a special ability (sp, su, or ex) we're not going to bother detailing."

Sorry, I really, really hated that.

 

[Scorpio616]

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.

If by "capsule description", you mean the

Ray of Enfeeblement: Ray deals 1d6 +1 per two levels Str damage.
Touch of Idiocy: Subject takes 1d6 points of Int, Wis, and Cha damage.

type descriptions, then I have to strongly disagree. Even when they weren't utterly incorrect, those capsule descriptions too often trapped folks into picking spells without knowing exactly what the spell could do. Far better for a player to have to read the full spell to understand what it does.

 

[jadrax]

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.

Dragon #197 apparently, reprinted in Monstrous Compendium Annual Volume One (1994).

 

[fanboy2000]

If by "capsule description", you mean the
type descriptions, then I have to strongly disagree. Even when they weren't utterly incorrect, those capsule descriptions too often trapped folks into picking spells without knowing exactly what the spell could do. Far better for a player to have to read the full spell to understand what it does.

The capsule descriptions aren't for players, they're for DMs running monsters/NPCs. For a DM, such descriptions in published sources are quite valuable because they reduce the amount of looking-up that needs to be done for prep or running.

 

[MerricB]

<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.

According to wikipedia, they first appeared in Dragon #197 (September 1993) before they appeared in Monstrous Compendium Annual Volume One (1994).

In their first appearance, they could shoot gouts of flame, and cast spells every other round - most flameskulls only knew 3 spells.

Cheers!