Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hayek" data-source="post: 6336747" data-attributes="member: 53760">I can't emphasize enough, I have no problem with this. I'll be just fine using spellcasting monsters (even if it's not my preference that they have spell lists). My argument has always been that my personal preference (and the personal preferences of others on this forum) is irrelevant to the argument that spell lists in stat blocks are a bad thing.The reason they are bad is that 5E is trying to offer a new kind of d&amp;d that has a base version that is not rules intensive and does not take up table time with rules referencing (with add-on module options that give you all the rules you want). Yes, I understand this will not be an issue in every combat, I'm not saying it's ruining the game. I'm saying that given the choice between a summary of spell effects and no summary, 5E should provide a summary since it is immensely helpful in the game achieving its stated aims.I agree with this completely.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hayek, post: 6336747, member: 53760"] I can't emphasize enough,[B] [U]I[/U][/B] have no problem with this. I'll be just fine using spellcasting monsters (even if it's not my preference that they have spell lists). My argument has always been that my personal preference (and the personal preferences of others on this forum) is irrelevant to the argument that spell lists in stat blocks are a bad thing. The reason they are bad is that 5E is trying to offer a new kind of d&d that has a base version that is not rules intensive and does not take up table time with rules referencing (with add-on module options that give you all the rules you want). Yes, I understand this will not be an issue in every combat, I'm not saying it's ruining the game. I'm saying that given the choice between a summary of spell effects and no summary, 5E should provide a summary since it is immensely helpful in the game achieving its stated aims. I agree with this completely. [/QUOTE]

Verification