I have a concern. I've been informed that monsters in the starter set don't have any descriptions for spells they posess meaning you effectively will have to reference the PHB during play in order to use their abilities. I'd like to hear from other people who have access to the starter set about this issue and if it's a concern for them as well.
I was under the impression that the vast majority of playtesters had requested that there be some sort of succinct usage statistics in the monster descriptions themselves. My hope is that this is just a Starter Set cost-saving, page-count conservation issue and will not be present in other products because if it's a trend, then I'm going to be more than a little pissed off.
Unfortunately, what you see in the Starter Set in terms of the monster statblocks is what you're going to get in the Monster Manual as well. The return to 3e-style caster statblocks is my one gripe with the system (so far) myself. I have expressed my concerns in my alpha feedback about how much more time-consuming it's going to be to use creatures like liches and archmages using this format. That being said, I don't want statblocks that run across multiple pages either. There's got to be some kind of happy medium somewhere. I suggested that they give us free web enhancements with detailed spell sheets for each caster monster in the MM but I doubt that's going to happen. Most likely, we'll have to do it ourselves. Hopefully they'll release the PHB in pdf format so we can just cut and paste.
pukunui wrote:
Unfortunately I don't have a reference, but I remember reading that the intent was to meet somewhere in the middle. Provide a short discription of a caster monster's most common spells/spell-like abilities, and also a longer list of potential spells know. I think that was the plan.
That is more or less what they said, but I think the meaning has been misinterpreted. A monster's unique magical abilities will be spelled out in full in the statblock, but any actual spells they know will just be listed in the statblock. In order to run a creature like a lich, a DM will either have to take the time to copy out all the lich's spells in full into a separate document or have a copy of the PHB handy to flip through during play.
This is a completely bass ackwards move on their part.
Not happy about this either. One of the handfull of reasons that I won't DM 3.5/Pathfinder. In fact, I'd give up those extra 32 pages of critters to get brief spell descriptions added in.
mboss77 wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
I prefer it this way, otherwise spells have to be too simple
Psikerlord wrote:
I just flipped through my starter set books, and noticed one spellcaster that I read a little bit more of. It had a few spells where you need the rules, but there was also a cantrip style ability fully detailed in the stat block (seemed like a "Fire bolt" by another name). So it seems like a mix, but it will probably be required to read the full spell and write down notes before running the monster.
Something I find annoying is that for some monster's weapon attacks it lists "one creature", and "one target" for some others.
"reach 5ft, one creature"
"reach 5ft. one target"
Well, which is it?
I recall them (Mearles?) mentioning that they had to keep trimming the spell and monster stat blocks in the starter set so they could get it all in there (fixed page count) so I don't think the "what you see in the starter set is how it is in the MM" is actually correct. How different they will actually be is open to question. I can see including a short description for fireball (3/4 lines in the stat block) for some monster but telling you to go the the PHB/Basic PDF for details on a more complicated spell (teleport - not that you need that one in the stat block where it is a non-combat slell but it is the only complicated one I can think of at the moment).
Brock_Landers wrote:
pukunui wrote:
I like the differentiation between monsters with special abilities and monsters who are spellcasters in the same form as Wizards/Clerics. It's a small bit of simulationist. Also, most spellcasting monsters tend to be higher level. The basic assumption is that newer DMs will start campaigns at lower levels (where complexity is minimal) and by the time they reach that level, they will be experienced enough to run the monster. I honestly don't see an issue with looking up spells. I'd just put a "tip" in the Monster Manual about writing down big monster spells that aren't obvious on Index Cards/in a notebook so you know what they do. I figure most spells like Fireball/Magic Missile etc will be known by that point because their players will be using those spells.
pukunui wrote:
Perhaps an implication to distinguish between ally and enemy and a strict (even if implied) adherence to one or the other?
Edit
--
Didn't get any 'one target' references. ~shrugs~
Anyways, I understand this is about attacks but some games (TTRPG to Video Games) use these descriptors to denote whether the target of an effect/action can be applied to an enemy only (creature) or to entity amiable or hostile (target). This is probably not the case and just something that needs editing.
Brock_Landers wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I suggested in the old forums that things like liches and larval mages should have a page of "you got to be undead to cast these" nasty spells in the MM. That doesn't prevent the lich from having a full spell book of spells that are beneath him (but that the wizard could get his/her hands on if they beat the lich). While I would prefer outsiders to have SLA instead of spells for the most part, I could also see a couple "you must be this (un)holy to cast this spell" pages in MM for them as well.
LFK wrote:
The lich actually has more than 16 spells. I think it's more like 26, although I don't remember the exact number. However many Szass Tam has in Dead in Thay.
Also, I'm an experienced DM, and I still don't like the idea of running a monster with that many spells that I'll either have to look up in play or spend a good amount of time writing out ahead of time.
pukunui wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
spelley wrote:
I recall it being a bother when I was DMing 3.5. I'm not looking forward to the bother it is going to be in 5e.
ugh. At least they could include, between brackets, the range/area and dice of damage of each spell. Like, "burning hands (Dex DC 14 half, 3d6 fire, 15 ft cone)"
That would be wonderful. I wish they would.
spelley wrote:
Finally something on which you and I agree, LFK. I'm not a teenager anymore. Even though I work from home, I don't have the amount of free time I used to have to spend memorizing hundreds of pages of game material. As a time-poor parent, I crave efficiency in my game material. While I can understand the efficiency of not repeating information in multiple places in order to save space, it nevertheless can make for a frustratingly inefficient way to use the bloody things at the table, what with all the page-flipping and advanced prep time required. One of the few things I felt they got right with 4e was the ease of use of monster statblocks. I'm disappointed to see that they've decided to abandon that in favor of the much less user-friendly 3e-style statblocks.
Does anyone remember the Spell Cards from 2e? They were, as it says on the tin, cards that each had a spell entry on it. While I don't think they caught on too well back in the day, they were handy for a DM in this exact sort of situation—if you had a spell-using monster or NPC, choose the cards of those spells and use them as an instant reference during play.
It'll be interesting to see in they release spell decks or if the new version of the OGL (whatever it may be) will permit creating a deck oneself and sharing it online.
Yes, some spell cards would be awesome. They made Force power cards for SWSE that you could download and print out yourself. There's no reason they couldn't do the same for D&D.
By the way, I never had the spell cards, but I did have the 2e magic item card set that was in a cardboard container that looked like a treasure box. Anyone else remember that one?
I vaguely remember it, but I never had it. I wish I had bought everything back then—I would love to have a complete D&D archive. 
Azzy1974 wrote:
I like spell caster monsters because they have lots of options while not bloating up the stat block with tons of discriptions. All I should say is that there should not be too many of them. Lich's are also I would say the best for having all of these options because their the type of monster that can be fought over and over again given how hard it is to take them down for good.
There is an old edition of D&D that had all the necessary information about the spells abilities in the stat block of the opponent. So the DM does not have to look anything up but can work with the stat block as is in an easy way. It makes DMing easier and less time consuming.
Also: why the need to stat an opponent with 16 different spells? As far as I have heard, combat in Next does not take longer than combat in older editions, so about 5 to 6 rounds, tops. How many spells can one use in that time? 6 or 7 spells? Wouldn't that be enough? Why not concentrate on the spells an opponent is most likely to use and that give that opponent a very distinguished "feel"? 16 spells feels like a bloat to me. It also is a lot of DM work having to read through every spell description in a different (part of a) book. One older edition of the game (the edition best not mentioned here anymore) made it easy for the DM. Was there a lesson to be learned?
Snot-Elemental wrote:
LFK wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
Hopefully morning star will have the ability to click on a spell in your spellbook and instantly get the full description after all... I got this from them thismorning
https://twitter.com/DnDMorningstar/status/490167112090918915
This could be a huge problem, IMO. I hated having to run a fight with a few open books, and use tons of post-it notes to mark spells and pages.
I guess I'll have to wait and see.
That particular edition most of you still bad-mouth evidently did at least one thing right, lol.
I don't want a huge stat block with 16 spell descriptions for things that will probably never come up in combat. Just because they have a list of spells they know doesn't mean the DM has to choose to have all of them prepared by the NPC/monster. It just means these are the DM's options. A good DM does find time to prepare monsters ahead of time as it makes the combat flow easier.
Most people don't have photographic memories so will need to look up some information no matter what. Since all the spells are in the PHB you can get the ruling on a spell with the help of the players at the time you use it if absolutely needed.
Spellcasting monsters (like liches and NPC wizards) were ALWAYS a concern and something that needed extra prep and attention because they have more flexibility than other types of encounters. The DM does have the burden of deciding which spells the enemy (or a friendly NPC) will have prepared and which they use during combat. It's not that much extra work to make an index card of the creature with short notes for the spells you choose to have readied for them to use, as well as the other stats for the creature (this also saves you flipping through the book to read the monster block then back to the encounter).
The Morningstar tools should be able to help with this and may have a built-in method to show short (or full) spell descriptions on monster stat blocks. They have said that all the published adventures will be available in the toolset via some sort of method (possibly an unlock single-use code tied to the purchase of the physical product or subscription to the toolset).
The stat blocks have to be balanced and should only include the always needed information for a monster. Yes this means some extra lookup may be needed for some monsters, whether it's a spell description or looking up the rules of what entangled or petrification does in combat to various stats of the monster and the PCs. This isn't just about space, it's about the relevance and how much repitition of data is needed to run a monster. I'm pretty sure the DMG will have something to say about spellcaster NPCs/monsters and the fact that they require extra work to run.
As for the size of the MM and the possibility of longer blocks than we see in the starter set; there was a recent announcement made that the MM is getting 32 more pages than planned without increasing the cost because they needed more space in it for all the monsters they felt were needed in the core ruleset. Some of this may have been because they felt they couldn't sacrifice some stat block space and didn't want to cut out monsters to balance out the bigger stat blocks. Since they have more flexibility with the MM than with the starter set or adventure modules it's very possible we'll see more involved stat blocks in the MM than in adventures (as was the way in the original AD&D days where modules had very very basic monster info and a spell-list while the MMs and more details but again only spell-lists and the DM had to look up spells in the PHB).
LFK wrote: