D&D 5E Spells in Stat Blocks are Terrible

[TwoSix]

See, personally, i have no problems with this whatsoever. It just doesn't bother me having to reference, sometimes, probably even RARELY, a spell in another book. Most of the common ones would all get memorized anyway.

Just do what I do with Pathfinder spellcasters. The only spells they have memorized are magic missile, fireball, and web, and all the rest are non-combat.

 

[Thaumaturge]

The only one I've seen is "space", which is extremely poorly argued and doesn't make much sense. What others have I missed?

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

It's a taste thing.

Taste is an excuse. You don't like it. You have a different taste. That's fine.

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...

As previously noted they've added 32 pages to the MM just to include all the monsters they've designed.

I stopped after a couple of pages. You don't have to agree with them. I'm not saying I do. I'm saying these people have a preference or an excuse for not putting spell descriptions, even short ones, in the MM.

This is a real problem that really hurts at the actual table.

Hmmm. The MM isn't out yet, so it isn't a real problem until we see the final stat blocks, how many monsters use spells, and how unwieldy that is. I don't dispute that you think it's a problem, or that it is a problem in your experience. I don't dispute that you dislike the choice they made or that it'll negatively impact your experience. I don't dispute that it is likely the setup in the MM will be a real problem for you once it is out.

All I disputed was the, in my opinion, hyperbolic stance that there is "no excuse" for the lack of inclusion.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Taste is an excuse. You don't like it. You have a different taste. That's fine.

No, it isn't, not when it comes to things which impact actual gameplay. IMO, of course.

I stopped after a couple of pages. You don't have to agree with them. I'm not saying I do. I'm saying these people have a preference or an excuse for not putting spell descriptions, even short ones, in the MM.

Preferences are not excuses.

Hmmm. The MM isn't out yet, so it isn't a real problem until we see the final stat blocks, how many monsters use spells, and how unwieldy that is. I don't dispute that you think it's a problem, or that it is a problem in your experience. I don't dispute that you dislike the choice they made or that it'll negatively impact your experience. I don't dispute that it is likely the setup in the MM will be a real problem for you once it is out.

All I disputed was the, in my opinion, hyperbolic stance that there is "no excuse" for the lack of inclusion.

Thaumaturge.

Hyperbole, on THE INTERNET?!

Most of the posts in this thread include a good deal of hyberbole, even, so really, pull the other one.

This genuinely angers me. I don't think anything else about 5E actually has made me, IRL, angry, rather than pretend-internet-angry. This is the sort of crappy lazy "Oh screw people who want convenience or the game to work well or fast, those guys they can print a word doc or just eat it..." attitude that pervaded a lot of the absolute worst 3.XE designs, and an awful harbinger for 5E, frankly. It's so easy to do. It eats so little space (less than a paragraph, most likely), and it has huge convenience (in the way a generic cheat-sheet which has to include ALL of the spells, or be re-written for every adventure, does not).

It's a huge asset to new DMs, too.

 

[Thaumaturge]

No, it isn't, not when it comes to things which impact actual gameplay. IMO, of course.
<snip>
Preferences are not excuses.

I think we are using different definitions of "excuse", which probably explains our disagreement.

Hyperbole, on THE INTERNET?!

Most of the posts in this thread include a good deal of hyberbole, even, so really, pull the other one.

Ah, I hadn't realized "because, internet". My apologies.

This genuinely angers me.

You probably won't believe me for "because, internet" reasons, but I'm genuinely sorry they've made choices that anger you and lessen your gaming experience. We can both hope the final product is better for you. If they've fit the added 32 pages of monsters, lairs, and ecology stuff in as well as the shortened spell descriptions you'd like, that'll be nice.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think we are using different definitions of "excuse", which probably explains our disagreement.

Indeed.

Ah, I hadn't realized "because, internet". My apologies.

People blow of my accusations off hyperbole (even when it's really wild!) every time as "reasonable exaggeration for effect", and loads of people here are doing it, so, yeah...

You probably won't believe me for "because, internet" reasons, but I'm genuinely sorry they've made choices that anger you and lessen your gaming experience. We can both hope the final product is better for you. If they've fit the added 32 pages of monsters, lairs, and ecology stuff in as well as the shortened spell descriptions you'd like, that'll be nice.

Thaumaturge.

No, I believe you, but this is not some piddling little thing, some minor issue. It's real one, and a lot of people in this thread (not you) are trying to say it isn't.

 

[Emerikol]

Hot irons to the bottom of their feet? That would teach those pesky players to be prepared.

That is just for the first offense.

No seriously, I might say that your preparation of this spell was faulty so it doesn't go off. Pretty much exactly what happened.

 

[Thaumaturge]

No, I believe you, but this is not some piddling little thing, some minor issue. It's real one, and a lot of people in this thread (not you) are trying to say it isn't.

My only quibble at this would be that we won't know the size of the issue until we know the number of creatures in the MM it affects.

So lets brainstorm to get an idea. I'm guessing dragons won't have spells. Mearls (or someone) mentioned beholders don't have spells for their eyes.

MM creatures likely to have spells in their stat-block.

1. Lich
2. Demons?
3. Devils?
4. Celestials?
5. Hags
6. Human Cultist/Acolyte/Shaman
7. Goblin Shaman
8. Kobold Sorcerer

I'm guessing some of those will be in the MM at all. What else?

Thaumaturge.

 

[Tormyr]

I am making my own spell book. Each spell gets one line with different columns for range, concentration damage type, VSM, attack roll, type of save, etc. and a very short description. Printed double side, that is only a couple of pages and should not take too long to look up.

 

[Cyberen]

So much "irl anger" for so minor things.
1. I don't think the Starter set is any indication of the standard adventure presentation.
2. I am quite sure this question was in some Tuesday poll along the way, and that WotC made decisions accordingly. So much for "excuses"
3. Personnally, i hate the double page standard for encounters in 4e. I want my spell casters open ended. Thanks.
4. I feel the OP concern for smooth table play. I genuinely expect WotC sanctionned adventure to make use of Basic spells (eventually expanding Basic to account for this need). So you don't have to borrow a PHB to run spellcasters. Even if I love Cortex plus game where NPC are statted on an index card, D&D has a legacy of a bit more of system mastery in its gene. The DM is expected to be able to handle spellcasters with a dozen Basic spells on its spell list (or doing without those monsters, or winging it up, or doing some prep, etc.). Even if it is not as user friendly as it could be, it could be expected.
5. Some one liners describing some spells in this thread are 100% wrong technically. I don't think it is that easy to sum up a spell in one line, and once printed, it is impossible to update when errata come.
Of course, YMMV.

 

[Thaumaturge]

So much "irl anger" for so minor things.

What is minor to one can be major to another. That implies nothing more about the former than about the latter. Dismissing another's opinions and experiences rarely leads to fruitful discussion.

Thaumaturge.