D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[Greg Benage]

And that's the fun thing about this stat block. I can more easily mod it.

If you're ready to do that, I'm completely unsure why you wouldn't just write up some notes on "Vecna's tactics" when running a 5e encounter. Like...you don't actually have to be flipping pages and reading spells at the table, right? I mean, it sounds like that's what you're going to be doing anyway. I'm really confused.

 

[Greg Benage]

No. I was saying the idea of "caster level," as in the technical term used in prior editions of D&D, doesn't exist.

The poster is hereby found guilty by reason of technicality. Well done, sir.

 

[Shardstone]

If you're ready to do that, I'm completely unsure why you wouldn't just write up some notes on "Vecna's tactics" when running a 5e encounter. Like...you don't actually have to be flipping pages and reading spells at the table, right? I mean, it sounds like that's what you're going to be doing anyway. I'm really confused.

Writing tactics for 3-6 spells is a lot easier then writing tactics for 25+ spells.

 

[Greg Benage]

Writing tactics for 3-6 spells is a lot easier then writing tactics for 25+ spells.

Why would you ever write tactics for 25 spells? You might consider 25 spells in writing his tactics, but you don't have to write tactics for all them. Just as you are considering unlisted spells when working up your tactics for this Vecna...

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Because they are awesome I would guess?! That and this is the type of design people have been asking for. You just have to accept that your viewpoint is outdated

 

[Shardstone]

Why would you ever write tactics for 25 spells? You might consider 25 spells in writing his tactics, but you don't have to write tactics for all them. Just as you are considering unlisted spells when working up your tactics for this Vecna...

Then why are would I want 25 spells on the character sheet?

I don't need 4 example Vecna spells from 1st-5th level, or 3 spells per level for 6th-9th. That's what old casters used to have, roughly. I just went and counted the lich's spells, and it has 24 spells, 27 with cantrips. I have never ran a typical lich in 5E for this reason. When I play the lich, I have to think about all 24 spells, what they could be like when upcast, how they might change the encounter in response to the PC's tactics.

But now I can just blissfully be like "Damn here's a handful of cool spells I want to use" and slap them onto the modern Vecna. Instead of having 24-27 spells given to me and being told "Figure out how to use these to challenge the players," I'm handed about 12 spells and told "Change these or add a couple, have fun!"

Its night and day difference.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The poster is hereby found guilty by reason of technicality. Well done, sir.

My point was to challenge their perspective about it. Hence why, in the parenthetical you deleted, I specifically said "good riddance to bad rubbish," because the whole idea of "caster level" is bad design.

It is significantly better to just think about...what kinds of spells should this specific creature cast? What makes sense for it? Why SHOULD a literal godlike lich follow anything like the rules of magic learned by ordinary wizards?

People made such a big deal about 5e being "do what you want," about how 4e had been so stifling and limiting. Why should you care what "caster level" the creature has? It's not like 5e is sufficiently balanced for it to matter whether you give a creature a spell that is a level too high or too low!

 

[Greg Benage]

Then why are would I want 25 spells on the character sheet?

Because it's easier to consider 25 spells than 500 when working up his tactics? And because a listing of spells is an easy way for the designers to add a little depth and flavor to the character, rather than saying "You can give him whatever spells you want."

I mean, you can always discard what's listed in the stat block and replace it with something that better suits your needs. That's true of every monster book. I'm not tracking how that's more or less a feature of this new format.

 

[Greg Benage]

It is significantly better to just think about...what kinds of spells should this specific creature cast? What makes sense for it? Why SHOULD a literal godlike lich follow anything like the rules of magic learned by ordinary wizards?

I'm sympathetic to that, actually, but some guidance on how many spells they can prepare (can they? do they? do they have a spellbook?) and such might be useful. Using the notation DMs already know (because it's used for PCs) seems like a reasonable, economical way to provide that guidance.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Thank god we know Vecna can cast prestidigitation.

Important combat information.

this is what I don't understand... why keep weirdness like this but cut combat spells?

I mean you could JUST list combat stuff in the stat block and include (Spellcasting... outside of combat for prep and flavor vecna is also a 17th level wizard)