D&D 5E Changes to D&D's Spellcasting Monsters: Streamlining Your Way To Bliss

WotC's Jeremy Crawford talks about the way they are changing spellcasting monsters in D&D.

• Making the game more fun, easier to learn, shorting "the pathway to getting to your bliss".
• Making monsters easier to run.
• "Rumors of the death of spellcasting [in monsters] are not true". Innate spellcasting has been streamlined with spellcasting into a single trait.
• Spellcasting options are consolidated whenever possible.
• Removing options that a DM is unlikely ever to use.
• In some cases, new magical abilities in the monster statblock which exist alongside a list of spells they can cast.
• For example, the mind flayer's mind blast is not a spell, and other abilities are magical but not spells and aren't as easy to interact with with things like counterspell.
• Things which make archmages say "How is this functioning, and why can't I stop it?"

 

[Azzy]

I’m not completely on board with some of the changes but I get it. And I can always make my own or use third party.

However some of the actions are very cool.

I'm in the same boat, my dude.

 

[AtomicPope]

I'm already starting to feel like a 5e Grognard. Thanks WotC!

 

[Joshua Randall]

So basically, the way 4e did it? Kinda.

Everything old is new again.

 

[Shiroiken]

I think the thing that bugs me most about this is how simple it would be to make everyone happy. First, add a line that says "X is an Nth level caster that uses Y for its casting ability." This would allow DMs to reverse engineer the NPCs to tweak them for individual encounters (I always swap out the spells, because WotC does a terrible job of it). Second, simply note a spell level for the "actions" so that they can be countered and otherwise affected by PC abilities. These would allow DMs to have simple spellcasting NPCs, while also allowing DMs to modify it for greater complexity if desired. Instead WotC refuses to accept that the second option should exist.

You can still use the version prior to this book. They are not getting rid of that version. So there is that. In general I like the changes, but I do agree that spellcasting monsters/NPCs (ones that are based on a class) should use the standard PC mechanic. So anything that had innate casting before, I'm good with the change, but true spellcasters - I will use the old version I think. Which, thankfully, I still can as DnD Beyond will have separate entries for both.

The problem I foresee is that this implementation will affect all future NPC spellcasters they make. While I can look up the old Mage in the MM, I can't lookup an older version of new ones they create.

 

[pukunui]

You can still use the version prior to this book. They are not getting rid of that version. So there is that. In general I like the changes, but I do agree that spellcasting monsters/NPCs (ones that are based on a class) should use the standard PC mechanic. So anything that had innate casting before, I'm good with the change, but true spellcasters - I will use the old version I think. Which, thankfully, I still can as DnD Beyond will have separate entries for both.

This is true for the casters in Monsters of the Multiverse, since they're all revised versions of existing NPCs, but it won't be the case for new spellcasters going forward (e.g. Kelek and Iggwilv/Tasha from The Wild Beyond the Witchlight).

I'm already starting to feel like a 5e Grognard. Thanks WotC!

I've been feeling that way ever since livestreaming D&D games became popular.

I think the thing that bugs me most about this is how simple it would be to make everyone happy. First, add a line that says "X is an Nth level caster that uses Y for its casting ability." This would allow DMs to reverse engineer the NPCs to tweak them for individual encounters (I always swap out the spells, because WotC does a terrible job of it). Second, simply note a spell level for the "actions" so that they can be countered and otherwise affected by PC abilities. These would allow DMs to have simple spellcasting NPCs, while also allowing DMs to modify it for greater complexity if desired. Instead WotC refuses to accept that the second option should exist.

They did actually experiment with that a bit. I forget which adventure it was, but there was a brief moment where they were writing out spells in full in caster statblocks and labeling them like "Fireball (3rd-Level Spell) ..."

I thought that was a good solution and was something I'd been doing in my own customized statblocks for ages.

The problem I foresee is that this implementation will affect all future NPC spellcasters they make. While I can look up the old Mage in the MM, I can't lookup an older version of new ones they create.

Exactly!

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Actually D&D had this back in 2008 with 4e. Not sure how that relates to other systems, but it has been a D&D thing for about 14 years.

I try to purge from my mind the memory of that edition ever existing. It's existence made me one of the many who switched to Pathfinder.

 

[Azzy]

I think the thing that bugs me most about this is how simple it would be to make everyone happy. First, add a line that says "X is an Nth level caster that uses Y for its casting ability." This would allow DMs to reverse engineer the NPCs to tweak them for individual encounters (I always swap out the spells, because WotC does a terrible job of it). Second, simply note a spell level for the "actions" so that they can be countered and otherwise affected by PC abilities. These would allow DMs to have simple spellcasting NPCs, while also allowing DMs to modify it for greater complexity if desired. Instead WotC refuses to accept that the second option should exist.

The problem I foresee is that this implementation will affect all future NPC spellcasters they make. While I can look up the old Mage in the MM, I can't lookup an older version of new ones they create.

All we can do is provide feedback to encourage that soirt of compromise. It's obviously too late for Mordy Presents, but maybe that will be comething considered for the 50Ae.

 

[MGibster]

Also also, these changes are going to make the "old school" voices even louder and crankier as they hobble on their walkers into the sunset.

Stay off my lawn!

 

[Blue]

I haven't the time to watch now, I've got dinner cooking and I'm gaming tonight. As long as things that should be spells still are spells we're good. So even if they have moved some spells to action blocks, as long as they are acknowledged as spells and have spell levels assigned for effects like globe of invulnerability or counterspell, then it sounds like a great product.

However, if they have not repented and redesigned from the changes they made in Witchlight and made many actually spells as non-spell action blocks then there's grave concerns. I worry that given how long ahead they need to send these to print that they would not have had time realize the need for, much less implement those changes, creating a deeply flawed product.

If that's the case it's a showstopper on my purchase of the book.

 

[pukunui]

I haven't the time to watch now, I've got dinner cooking and I'm gaming tonight. As long as things that should be spells still are spells we're good. So even if they have moved some spells to action blocks, as long as they are acknowledged as spells and have spell levels assigned for effects like globe of invulnerability or counterspell, then it sounds like a great product.

However, if they have not repented and redesigned from the changes they made in Witchlight and made many actually spells as non-spell action blocks then there's grave concerns. I worry that given how long ahead they need to send these to print that they would not have had time realize the need for, much less implement those changes, creating a deeply flawed product.

If that's the case it's a showstopper on my purchase of the book.

I’m pretty sure Jeremy said in one of the other videos that they developed MotM before Witchlight, so based on your stated criteria, I don’t think you will want to get this book.