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

[billd91]

Spellcasting. Vecna casts one of the following spells, requiring no material components and using Intelligence as the spellcasting ability (spell save DC 22):
At will: animate dead (as an action), detect magic, dispel magic, fly, lightning bolt, mage hand, prestidigitation
2/day each: dimension door, invisibility, scrying (as an action)
1/day each: dominate monster, globe of invulnerability, plane shift (self only).
Bonus Actions

Why wouldn't these spells be considered spells subject to counterspell, dispel magic, or globes of invulnerability and such?

Theoretically, they would be... provided we make the assumption they're all cast as if they had been cast from their default spell slot and not upcast in a higher slot. Maybe the introductions to the newer books would have some clarification to that effect?

 

[Reynard]

I don't have a problem with trimming spells lists for combat encounters, but I really wish they wouldn't keep asking me to have 4 books open. Just put the pertinent information the stat block. Give me range, save and damage/condition. It can't be that hard or take up that mush space.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't have a problem with trimming spells lists for combat encounters, but I really wish they wouldn't keep asking me to have 4 books open. Just put the pertinent information the stat block. Give me range, save and damage/condition. It can't be that hard or take up that mush space.

100%
lightning bolt 29(8d6) lightning rage 100ft dex save DC22 half

but again compare this to teh "or this" of The target must make a DC 22 Constitution saving throw, taking 96 (8d8 + 60) necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A Humanoid killed by this magic rises as a undead

how odd a situation where 30ish points of lightning damage in 100ft line is better then 90iss necrotic...

 

[Stoutstien]

I don't have a problem with trimming spells lists for combat encounters, but I really wish they wouldn't keep asking me to have 4 books open. Just put the pertinent information the stat block. Give me range, save and damage/condition. It can't be that hard or take up that mush space.

Aye. I have a 3x5 card rule. If it doesn't fit on that it's too much. Helps I wrote it in steno so doubles as code for nosey players.

 

[Gadget]

I for one welcome our new, more 4e like stat blocks. Even if they do need some rounding out. I've long espoused the more 4e way not making monsters/NPCs not follow the exact formula of PCs, and wish 5e had been more up front about that from the start. But I suppose the desperate need to be "not 4e" kept that tamped down.

That's not to say that this stat block is perfect, perhaps it could use a few better abilities.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This depends heavily on playstyle. At some tables, including mine, enemy spellcasters rarely start with all their spell slots available unless they're encountered immediately after they took a long rest. Even at tables where that is not the default, I'd like to think that if players deliberately engineer a situation where the NPC has a reason to cast a bunch of spells prior to the combat encounter with the PCs, that the DM will honor the players' agency and have those spell slots remain expended when the fight begins.

As written, because the new-style statblocks have uses per day for each spell rather than spell slots, strategically attacking a spellcaster when they are low on slots isn't feasible mechanically (you'd have to deplete their uses per day spell by spell, and they'd still have a massively powerful primary attack usable at-will). As a DM, I either need to not use new-style statblocks or else rewrite my campaign setting so that the inhabitants understand IC that the primary strategy for dealing with spellcasters--attack them when they're low on slots--isn't reliable any more. Sure, I could rewrite the new-style stat blocks to rely on depletable spell slots, but then I wouldn't be using the new stat blocks, would I?

So while I appreciate that some DMs preventing PCs from using attrition tactics (or just attacking late in the day) by always running NPC spellcasters with full slots may have been a problem, the new-style statblocks "fix" that problem by preventing any PCs from using attrition tactics against them. I have a hard time seeing that as "pro" of the new statblocks.

(To reiterate, I understand that the new-style stat blocks are not unprecedented in 5e. But their increasing usage in newer books makes the problem described above more acute.)

That quote was taken a bit out of context, so I reiterate: if you look at it from a simulationist approach, of course the old block was better. If you just want to open the book and play the caster without thinking about what spells are depleted etc, then the new block is better (though not optimal in my opinion).
I think that if you take the time to think about which spells are depleted and which are not, you can as well just create an nPC (as in a normal player character).

And just to iterate what I wish:
A casting system that will serve for PCs as well as NPCs by limiting the noca capabilities or repetition of the same powerful spell round after round.

 

[Undrave]

Oh man. That Invulnerability feature with the dispel magic clause is great design! Thanks!

No it's not, it's terrible design! It forces players to have a specific spell handy or LOSE. That's WAY too limiting and railroads the players.

 

[Shardstone]

No it's not, it's terrible design! It forces players to have a specific spell handy or LOSE. That's WAY too limiting and railroads the players.

Ya, I'd make it a lair action so it can't be done back to back. He may be invulnerable, but he isn't immune to CC etc. That's a good turn to burn through all of his legendary resistances.

 

[Reynard]

No it's not, it's terrible design! It forces players to have a specific spell handy or LOSE. That's WAY too limiting and railroads the players.

That's not what railroading means.

 

[Undrave]

That's not what railroading means.

Maybe not in the traditional sense, but is there much of a difference here? It forces the party to have at least 1 character with access to Dispel Magic and that at least 1 of them has it available AND the spell slot(s) to go with it. Doesn't seem to give the players much choice.