D&D (2024) Wizards have a problem with Spellcasting stat blocks

[EzekielRaiden]

D&D Next? Since 3e.

I was giving 3e a pass for being the company's first attempt.

 

[Azzy]

I was giving 3e a pass for being the company's first attempt.

Fair enough.

 

[Faolyn]

So, you are saying you think the monster manual should reprint the full text for every spell a monster can cast.

That would be like complaining that they write out the full text of every mundane attack a monster can make instead of just writing "longsword" and having the GM look up the damage type (which not everyone has memorized) and figure out the attack bonus based on the rest of the creature's stats.

"Guiding Bolt: Attack +6, Damage 4d6 radiant, next attack made against the target is made with advantage" is not reprinting the full text.

 

[UnplayedRanger]

edit

 

[pukunui]

"Guiding Bolt: Attack +6, Damage 4d6 radiant, next attack made against the target is made with advantage" is not reprinting the full text.

This one, from Descent into Avernus, is a bit closer to the full text but is my preference:

Guiding Bolt (1st-Level Spell; Requires a Spell Slot). Ranged Spell Attack: +7 to hit, range 120 ft., one creature. Hit: 14 (4d6) radiant damage, and the next attack roll made against the target before the end of the black gauntlet's next turn has advantage. If the black gauntlet casts this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 1st.

 

[MichaelSomething]

This is why I think the playtests, such that they were, were a mistake. They obviously had ideas on how to make the game better. they should have just designed and implemented them and given us a good game.

Last time they tried that, we got 4th Edition.

 

[Reynard]

Last time they tried that, we got 4th Edition.

At least 4E was innovative and we can see now in retrospect that it had a ton of really great ideas that lots of us (myself included) just weren't ready for.

 

[Shardstone]

I have long, long contended that ALL SPELLS should be written with a very brief, mostly mechanical, description of what it does, followed (or preceded) by a longer-form version that goes over both a flowery description, and deals with reminders of corner-cases, exceptions, and delves into more specifics.

Written by the designers, at the same time as they write the spells.

THEN, both Monsters and PC Character Sheets can use the brief descriptor, and everyone can look up the long-form only in cases of conflict or questions.

Mearls is doing this for spells now. It's great.

 

[mamba]

Mearls is doing this for spells now. It's great.

I like what he is doing a lot better than 2024, at least in direction, still have to see the actual work eventually

 

[Chaltab]

Last time they tried that, we got 4th Edition.

Yeah but then people complained for four years straight so they walked all their good decisions back.