Something Awful leak.

[Hassassin]

I'd be perfectly ok with that. But it doesn't have to be based off a spell list to do that. Without any real reference elsewhere, you can use those abilities. Teleport is a word everyone can understand. Change shape might be a better word than Polymorph. But they don't have to reference spells if they aren't complicated.

Yes, but if you do base it on a spell you can ignore rare issues in the monster entry and still have the rules explain them in the spell entry. If the monster ability uses the teleport spell you know it's an extradimensional ability that is barred by dimensional anchor and only works within one plane, you know how much stuff the moster can carry with it, etc.

However, having a ambiguous description in the monster's description is probably just as bad as having no description. If I want to know if Freedom of Movement can stop Entangle, I'm still going to look up the full description of the spell anyways since "impediments" can mean a lot of things.

You can still either ignore the spell entry and just make a ruling or, if you do care about RAW, look up the details. Most of the time the effect will be obvious, for spells like slow or hold person, if the ability comes into play at all.

Of course, most spells should be simple to summarize accurately, but some complex spells are bound to appear and being able to go into less detail in the moster entry seems like an obvious win to me.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Being blinded for five turns sounds like the opposite of fun. At least if it's blinded (save ends) then you've a CHANCE of being effective in the near future. Being blinded for five turns means you might as well go home, in character and out of character.

If 5 turns doesn't take an hour or longer to resolve in real time its not a huge issue.

 

[Gort]

If 5 turns doesn't take an hour or longer to resolve in real time its not a huge issue.

That'd suck in Monopoly, let alone D&D.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I recall reading that too, and cringing. I'll be utterly shocked if they abandon the wonderful modern design paradigm of creating a term dictionary in a base rulebook (PHB), and in the case of 4e/5e defining a list of conditions instead of describing/defining unique states in power/monster/spell/magicitem descriptions.

The few benefits in the old and archaic method don't come close to the benefits of a defining terms in one place.

Who wants to go back to the horrid:

• roaming through countless books to find out how a condition work?
• having 30 different ways to explain and run a "stun" like condition, each slightly different for Power Word Stun, a Dwarven Shield Bash, a Giant Pummel?
• reading over two pages of a monster description just to find out what it's "daze" does?

Good gravy man, leave bad 70s design behind, it's 2012. I really fear they will be bringing back REALLY poor design just so they can appease some nebulous grognard group that barely exists.

Ironically, I found 4e to be a throwback to 70's design in this respect - because the implementation of 'exception based design' which was used meant that every monster could do something different. The troglodyte would pin you one way, the devil would pin you another way, a third creature had yet another way of pinning you - all slightly different in their implementation. Maybe every creature had its information in its statblock, but in 3e you just needed to know how stun (or petrification) or something worked once and it always worked that way.

This move away from standardisation of attacks was one of the things I personally found difficult in 4e.

Cheers

 

[Hussar]

If 5 turns doesn't take an hour or longer to resolve in real time its not a huge issue.

Just out of curiousity EW, what would you consider a good (for a given value of good) pace of a round? Presume 5 players and a DM, low to mid-low level and no really funky stuff going on. How long should a round take and how long should a given player take to resolve his turn?

 

[Plane Sailing]

And demons/devils had enormous spell lists with many spells that were simply never used because the creature's time in the "spotlight" is very limited.

I heard the designers use this argument too, and I think they missed a point which is very important to me.

I want demons/devils who can use a certain proportion of their spells in *this fight* and in the next time they are encountered use *a slightly different subset of spells*. In the third encounter there is another one of their spells which isn't of much use in combat but actually sets up the whole foundation for the encounter (e.g. the 3.0 devil 'animate dead' power).

Trimmed down power lists means every time you fight the same devil it is always the same, because it can only spam the same 3 kinds of attack.

Spell lists for those creatures is not about the encounter viability of the creature, it is about the campaign viability of the encounter. The focus purely on encounter design in 4e missed that important point to my mind.

This is why I hope that 5e does have a wider range of spells and/or powers for higher level creatures - give them more versatility, so that there are more options for the campaign.

Cheers

 

[aurance]

Hate it if true.

 

[KarinsDad]

If there are only 20 or less status effects, why not have them on cards? That'd be super-useful.
You don't have to bloat MM with them.
You don't need to flip a book to recall them.
You don't even need to write them somewhere or remember that your character is under the effect. You just take a card. And duration? If you get blinded for 5 turns, you take a Blidnded card and put a dice with 5 on it.

DM: "Hey guys! Where are the Blinded cards?"
Player 1: "Well, they should be here with the Stunned cards? You know we have 6 of each of these card, one for each condition. There's only 120 cards. Where could have those gotten to? Darn."

 

[Klaus]

I heard the designers use this argument too, and I think they missed a point which is very important to me.

I want demons/devils who can use a certain proportion of their spells in *this fight* and in the next time they are encountered use *a slightly different subset of spells*. In the third encounter there is another one of their spells which isn't of much use in combat but actually sets up the whole foundation for the encounter (e.g. the 3.0 devil 'animate dead' power).

Trimmed down power lists means every time you fight the same devil it is always the same, because it can only spam the same 3 kinds of attack.

Spell lists for those creatures is not about the encounter viability of the creature, it is about the campaign viability of the encounter. The focus purely on encounter design in 4e missed that important point to my mind.

This is why I hope that 5e does have a wider range of spells and/or powers for higher level creatures - give them more versatility, so that there are more options for the campaign.

Cheers

For the non-combat abilities, you do what I mentioned before for dragons: slap on training in Arcana and give the creature any rituals you like.

For combat abilities, choose three or four "spells" you want it to use and just give it to them. You don't have to justify caster level, supernatural abilities, which ability score to use, etc.

Want your marilith to be able to raise skeletons to fight for her? Just say "Minor action: four [insert skeleton name here] appear in unnocupied squares within 5 squares of the marilith". You don't need to follow the rules for animate dead, you just give her the ability to create whatever you need, be it skeletons, ju-ju zombies or jujubees.

 

[Klaus]

Ironically, I found 4e to be a throwback to 70's design in this respect - because the implementation of 'exception based design' which was used meant that every monster could do something different. The troglodyte would pin you one way, the devil would pin you another way, a third creature had yet another way of pinning you - all slightly different in their implementation. Maybe every creature had its information in its statblock, but in 3e you just needed to know how stun (or petrification) or something worked once and it always worked that way.

This move away from standardisation of attacks was one of the things I personally found difficult in 4e.

Cheers

Conditions are standardized. One monster might make you "stunned (save ends)", while another makes you "stunned until the end of its next turn", but stun workes the same.