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?"

 

[Weiley31]

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.

It's a bit of a mix of both. Monsters like the Blue Abishai, have a Lightning Strike action that is specifically listed by the book as a Ranged Spell Attack.

But a number, mostly, of the Actions that require a Recharge dice roll from the DM are not listed as either as a Melee Spell Attack or as a Ranged Spell Attack. Yet they seem to be something of a Spell-Like attack. So, a Spellcaster wouldn't be able to use a Counter Spell against an Alhoon's Mind Blast because well, that's something a Mind Flayer is capable of doing with its mind. Likewise, the Drow Matron's Divine Flame isn't listed as being "magic."

Although things get even more confusing because both the Alhoon and Gauth spell like Actions,(*Mind Blast and Eye Ray in the description and not typing, lists it as Magical: So then how does Counter Spell work against those? Unless you have it contest against the DC required to save against the listed abilities.

 

[Weiley31]

I treat NPC exactly like PC with all the advantages they have.

Players: we got him surrounded his minions dead and he is stuck in the anti-aging cone of the beholder we bribed.

Me as DM: he doesn't appear to be reacting on his initiative. Hold on.

Players: he is scared

Me as DM: hey sorry guys looks like Rexnar Shadowlord's kid fell of his bike and he needs to deal with it.

Player: huh?

Me: yeah kids not hurt just having a melt down. So he's out the rest of the session.

Players: what the F man?

Me: well last week Steve had that family, just after he got knocked down to one hit point.....so fair is fair. Rexnar will just pop back next week with no consequences. Anyway we got three more hours what do you want to do.

Sounds legit to me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Interesting. And what most of us thought. I am not opposed to it, but I'm not sure I love it for, say, wizards. Unless we get some kind of ability to use powers that aren't spells (not that I need NPCs and PCs to play by the same rules.....certainly not monsters....but a wizard casts spells, imo).

I get your point, but DMs who know what they are doing are also free to create NPCs using PC rules.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I get your point, but DMs who know what they are doing are also free to create NPCs using PC rules.

But most won't because that's fiddly and annoying.

 

[billd91]

How many people here have written up high level enemy Spellcasters?

Yes, in all editions that I have run. It's not difficult in 5e. I may take a bit of time mulling over spells, but it's really not that hard. I've also got spell cards to make it easier for me to manage.
If I'm going to be honest, I've never found creating NPCs, even with PC rules, all that hard in any edition.

 

[the Jester]

How many people here have written up high level enemy Spellcasters?

I have, including a gold dracolich with 20th level wizard spellcasting ability.

 

[the Jester]

It's a bit of a mix of both. Monsters like the Blue Abishai, have a Lightning Strike action that is specifically listed by the book as a Ranged Spell Attack.

But a number, mostly, of the Actions that require a Recharge dice roll from the DM are not listed as either as a Melee Spell Attack or as a Ranged Spell Attack. Yet they seem to be something of a Spell-Like attack. So, a Spellcaster wouldn't be able to use a Counter Spell against an Alhoon's Mind Blast because well, that's something a Mind Flayer is capable of doing with its mind. Likewise, the Drow Matron's Divine Flame isn't listed as being "magic."

Although things get even more confusing because both the Alhoon and Gauth spell like Actions,(*Mind Blast and Eye Ray in the description and not typing, lists it as Magical: So then how does Counter Spell work against those? Unless you have it contest against the DC required to save against the listed abilities.

Counterspell only affects spells. So it doesn't even trigger and you can't even cast it when dealing with a mind blast or eye ray.

Also, just because it has a spell attack roll doesn't mean it's actually a spell.

 

[HammerMan]

"Rumors of the death of spellcasting [in monsters] are not true".

I feel this is somewhat disingenuous of Jeremy.

yup... change some but keep some and try to pretend it isn't a big change...

standing in the middle of the road and getting hit by cars going both ways

 

[HammerMan]

DELETE COUNTERSPELL YOU COWARDS!!!

That's really my main input here.

maybe in 2024

 

[pauldanieljohnson]

Question for the thread: I notice in the new MotM book some of the entries have a class listed next to the creature type. The Nagpa, for example, is listed as Monstrosity (Wizard). Does anyone know what the reason is? I notice that the obvious class-related entries, like Bard, don't have that. So a Nagpa is a Monstrosity (Wizard) while a Bard is just a Humanoid. I can't quite figure out the logic there or what that extra keyword actually does. I do notice that the only classes listed as keywords seem to be spellcasters -- I've not yet noticed a Giant (Fighter) or anything of that nature.